Talk:2004 Summer Olympics medal table

After Day 5:
COUNTRY       GOLD    SILVER  BRONZE  FOURTH  FIFTH   SIXTH   SEVENTH EIGHT   TOTAL USA		10	10	10	8	2	3	5	5	53 Germany	2	2	5	2	8	11	5	5	40 China PR	11	7	4	5	1	3	3	4	38 Australia	6	4	6	6	4	3	5	4	38 Russia		3	6	6	3	4	4	4	2	32 France		4	2	4	2	6	1	9	1	29 Japan		8	3	2	1	2	2	1	3	22 Great Britain	0	2	2	4	5	2	4	3	22 Italy		3	4	2	2	4	0	3	2	20 Korea		1	4	3	2	3	1	5	1	20 Roumania	2	0	1	3	4	1	2	2	15 Greece		2	0	1	0	1	1	3	6	14 Spain		0	1	0	1	6	1	4	1	14 Ukraine	5	1	1	2	1	0	2	1	13 Hungary	1	2	1	4	0	2	1	1	12 Belarus	0	1	1	2	2	4	1	0	11 Netherlands	2	3	4	0	0	1	0	0	10 Poland		1	2	1	2	2	0	2	0	10 Korea DPR	0	2	1	0	0	2	2	1	8 Canada		0	0	1	0	3	3	1	0	8 Cuba		0	1	4	1	0	0	0	1	7 Bulgaria	1	0	2	1	0	1	1	0	6 India		0	1	0	1	1	0	1	2	6 Slovakia	1	2	1	0	0	1	0	0	5 Georgia	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	5 Czech Rep.	0	1	1	0	3	0	0	0	5 Azerbaijan	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	5 Turkey		2	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	4 Switzerland	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	4 Portugal	0	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	4 Indonesia	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	2	4 Brazil		0	0	2	0	1	0	1	0	4 Argentina	0	0	1	0	1	0	2	0	4 Denmark	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	4 Kazakhstan	0	0	0	0	2	2	0	0	4 Sweden	       0	0	0	0	1	0	1	2	4 South Africa	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	3 Thailand	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	3 Belgium	0	0	2	0	1	0	0	0	3 Slovenia	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	3 Colombia	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	3 Armenia	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	3 Algeria	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	3 New Zealand	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	3 UAE		1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2 Austria	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	2 Zimbabwe	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2 Croatia	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	2 Mongolia	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	2 Tunisia	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	2 Venezuela	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	2 Mexico	       0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	2 Kuwait		0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	2 Chinese Tpe. 0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2 Serbia-Mont. 0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 Myanmar	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1 Cameroon	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1 Iran IR	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1 Moldova Rep.	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1 Luxembourg	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1 Vietnam	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1 Papua NG	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1 Ecuador	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1 San Marino	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1 Nauru		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1 Nigeria	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1 Turkmenistan	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1 TOTALS	       70	70	80	60	80	60	80	60	560 I'm having troubles keeping this table consistent with the official restults, and It's very difficult to find out where my errors are, so instead I will do a chart like this for each sport, and then make totals afterwards. Earl Andrew 03:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Result of Concensus Vote (see below for details) It appears that although few of us here, 'Style B is the preferred option. I would suggest that as we work on a page we amend the medal table thus. I will amend the 2004 Summer Olympics medal count and mention this result. Many thanks for your help in this. Scraggy4 23:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting the discussion up. May I suggest that people do *not* update from individual events, but always use published medal tables to source the WP one; in that way it will be clear whether there is a change ro not as numbers will always go upwards and over-lapping results won't be an issue. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 23:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

discussion was:

After discussions with a few of you I think that we require a vote of the style to adopt for medal tables.

I would suggest that we keep this vote open until 23:30 UTC to enable people to examine the styles and comprehend the pro's and con's.

Please note that the style difference referred to in this discussion is the SORT ORDER ONLY and not the use of flags, etc. which will continue to be used

The current different style/s will cause confusion so we have a choice between: Style A This appears to be the preferred American style???

Style B As used on all other Wiki Summer Olympic Games and IAAF World Championships in Athletics pages as well as by the IOC, IAAF and BBC.

or

Style C this could be used to give points to each placing ie; 8 points for 1st down to 1 point for 8th. This could cause problems in events where eighth place is not clearly defined.

If two tables would be desirable they a second could be used as an additional table at the bottom of each events individual page.

Please Vote Here
by adding your user signature under support

The vote is over, Style B was chosen.

Style A
 * support
 * support, with population and possibly the number of athletes in columns to the right. Other than that, it's pretty much the same as style B, but with more color and a cleaner appearance. [[User:supadawg|supadawg - talk - contribs]] 22:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * FYI they aren't the same: the sort order is entirely different! [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]]

Style B
 * support
 * follows IOC and most reporting standards [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 22:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Scraggy4 22:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) as Willow says
 * Earl Andrew 23:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) Although I want to see style C on the actual sports pages. We can have just a 4th place and a "5-8" column for sports like Fencing who dont have matches to determine the 5th through 8th spots.
 * Definitely the international norm. Moriori 23:23, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * My vote is B. Zfr 23:59, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * B. Golbez 08:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * B. I've been inadvertently using this style when updating medal tables from 1948-1960 and beyond Chuq 23:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Style C support

Two Separate Styles pleas give 2 preferences A & B, C & A etc.
 * support

Scraggy4 22:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I cannot see why the medal table is being ranked by the number of medals unless this is just an american thing as the IOC, IAAF and the british always rank by the number of golds then silvers then bronzes. It seems that it has just been done to make the USA appear on top??? anybody have any other reasons for it being this way?? Scraggy4 18:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, actually there are several. First, to correct a common assumption: the "rank by medals" format is not unique to Americans. Although the format is commonplace in most American media outlets (such as Yahoo!, and NBC, which broadcasts the Olympic games in the United States), the Canadian media also use the rank by medals system and the IOC has compromised by including BOTH listings on their official results page (see athens2004.com: ).


 * Let's take the Americans out of the equation for a moment, since they are often only too controversial. Suppose Russia had 0 gold, 0 silver, and 20 bronze, and Spain had 1 gold, 0 silver, and 0 bronze. In the "rank by gold" method, Spain would be ranked above Russia. But is that really fair? In this situation, which country has the better athletes? You can see the downside of ranking by gold---twenty quality athletes in twenty different events is overshadowed by one athlete who ranked highest in one event. The system misleads.


 * But this anomaly works both ways. Let's change our hypothetical situation a bit---Russia still has 0 gold, 0 silver, and 20 bronze. But Spain has 19 gold, 0 silver, and 0 bronze. If we were to use the "rank by total" method, Russia would be on top---but is THAT fair? All good athletes, but one bronze winner in a set of twenty others overshadowed 19 highest-ranking gold medalists. Clearly, Spain has the better athletes in this situation but this system also misleads.


 * So the compromise is, (a) mimicing the IOC and using BOTH rankings, OR (my preference) (b) assigning point values to the medals and calculating a composite value for rank purposes. Each gold medal would be worth 3 points, silver 2 points, and bronze 1. Using this method, in our first hypothetical situation Russia would have 20 points and Spain 3 points---giving Russia the rightfully higher rank. And in our second hypothetical situation whereas Russia would have 20 points---Spain would have 57; giving Spain the rightfully higher rank.


 * Ultimately, the rank by points system is fairer, but if I had to pick between rank by gold or rank by total I would go with rank by total because it takes into account all three medals (gold, silver, bronze) whereas the rank by gold system takes ONLY gold medals into account. And why give silver and bronze medals out if it doesn't count towards your country's ranking? Just my two cents.--Allfacts 01:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ledger
We can't possibly keep this thing straight without an accounting of what each medal is for (perhaps right here on the talk page. For example, I just saw women's synchronized diving on NBC, doubtless much delayed (and I delayed it a little more), where Australia came away with a bronze (which isn't counted yet).  China got gold and Russia got silver, but I can't tell if those have already been counted.  -- ke4roh 19:21, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is quite difficult, agree. One solution would be to warn on top of the page that each time somebody up-dates the table, he/she has to include the sport and discipline in the comment box, so it is clearly visible in the history.
 * The other option is to refer to an outside source. I have experienced that Yahoo! is fairly quick in up-dating their medal count. A user should check the table at the end of each day and compare. Looks like Scraggy4 allready volunteered for it :). But maybe a US user could take care of that as well, since it would be easier accross the time zones. Yardcock 20:20, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I will just check it at the end of everyday and fill in / correct anything that is missing. The only other way would be for the page tp be protected by an admin and let them only update it??? Still really confused as to why the table is being ranked the way it is. There is no sense i it at all unless we are to have 2 tables one done correctly and one done the way it is now.Scraggy4 19:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain it a bit on the main page. Not sure why Americans do it this way, had me confused for the longest time, until I just simply accepted it. We could tally twice, or just rely on our German friends. Looks like they are updating it quite frequently as well. Yardcock 20:20, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what the American standard is as I thought that Wiki tried to use international standards where possible. As the IOC and IAAF use the gold medal system surely this can be classed as the international standard. If they would like to put their side of the argument perhaps we could come to some concensus. As it is they won't discuss the matter so the only choic left would is to revert to the IOC / IAAF standard at the end of the day when play for the day has finished.Scraggy4 20:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * On the official site you can see in which disciplines a country won its medals. That might be useful, maybe even something to add here (lot of work though) David Sneek 11:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, this would be very usefull. Just very tedious as long as the games are in process. Should be added after the games are over. Yardcock 16:14, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you lot mean by "international standard", as there isn't one. The official Athens 2004 site uses both counts: http://www.athens2004.com/en/OlympicMedals/medals --Delirium 16:10, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well it appears that the table is ordered by Gold/Silver/Bronze count and the total medals count ranking is just there for illustrative purposes. Perhaps this is what we should be doing also. Mintguy (T)

copied from User talk:Scraggy4 & User talk:Earl Andrew
Hi Andrew,

I see that you are also using the medal tables ranking by number of medals. I have mentioned my thoughts on this at Talk:2004 Summer Olympics medal count. In nearly all other cases wiki goes by set international standards and as both the IOC and IAAF use the number of gold medals as their ranking why on earth are we doing different. Nearly all the wiki standards use internationally used standards and I would presume the IOC and IAAF standards would be classed as international. All of the other Olympic medal tables go by this guide so we would need to amend them all if this (silly) ranking system that we are using continues. As you are one of the main contributers to the olympic pages I thought I would try and bring you onto my point of view.Scraggy4 20:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept the usage of the medal rankings for gold medals as being the order for the official medal table. BUT, for specific events I plan to include results gold to 8th place, and i feel that we might get a better idea of what nations are good at that sport by having it go by order of how many top 8 performances that country has. However, if this is totally unacceptable, than I will concede. However, please let me know your decision soon or i will continue to keep on doing it. Earl Andrew 21:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply Andrew, I did notice on the athletics for example that space had been made for upto eigth place. I don't think that this will harm the medal tables reverting to the standard usage as these extra places would not be taken into consideration in the ranking normally. I think that the best idea would be to revert to IOC standards at the end of today when all results have been completed and checked, then possibly create a separate page(linked from the main medal table) rating all countries by the top eight finishes as I agree this would make interesting details. I presume you will rank upto eigth place using the system that the IAAF use in the World and continental cups ie; 8 points for 1st down to 1 point for eigth. I had already decided, as there was lack of suggestions as to why the currebt system is as is, to revert all the tables at the end of the today. If you feel like helping I am more than willing to split the sports up between us for speed, but I'll probably be awake most of the night to do it, as I have broken my ankle and am finding it hard to sleep at the moment.Scraggy4 21:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's the deal. Show me an example of what you think the medal tables on each sport page should look like, and I will use that. It's best we have a standard for these things. I updated the diving medals, so we have one option (what I did for the shooting events) or the other option (what I did for the diving) and another option using the points method. At the end of the games we could add a 4th-8th place columns which would be interesting! Dividing up the sports might be a good idea, I think other people might be interested as well, there are just too many sports and events for just one person to do! Earl Andrew 21:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that the standard ones should look like Cycling at the 2004 Summer Olympics and then either create one page for each sport showing the alternative as you did on the Shooting at the 2004 Summer Olympics before somebody changed it, or one overall page in that style linked from the 2004 Summer Olympics page.Scraggy4 22:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Note, I've already changed the Cycling page. Earl Andrew 22:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistent medal count tables (copied from Talk:2004 Summer Olympics
Several pages have a table of medal counts. However, there are at least two different sort orders being used: sort by gold medals as in 2002 Winter Olympics, and sort by total medals as in this article. Of those two methods, I would have thought that sort by total medals is better for a table that lists all medals. You might even argue that total performance requires some form of weighting by points with 3 points for a gold, 2 for a silver and 1 for a bronze.

Finally, any ranking that does not account for population size is not very meaningful. It is misleading as a measure of national success, except to send out the message that countries with large populations are better than countries with small populations. Switzerland and Finland have few people, so will always be low on a medal total or gold total list. But they rank very highly on a population/medal table. It would be difficult to have accurate measures of population for countries all the way back to 1908. If the table cannot be sorted by population/medal, then perhaps it should simply be alphabetical.

Whilst people are debating that issue, I propose that the two current sort orders are reduced to one. I recommend that tables that are sorted by gold medals should be resorted by total medals. Bobblewik 19:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See also Talk:2004 Summer Olympics medal count. -- ke4roh 19:52, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Would it be better if the country's population (and possibly number of athletes) was included in another column of the table? Kind of like this:

Just say yes and I'd be happy to do it. [[User:supadawg|supadawg - talk - contribs]] 21:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to have the number of athletes participating listed in the table. As far as sorting, I think sorting by total medals, using whoever has the most golds to break a tie, and alphabetical listing where that still results in a tie works fine. Kairos 22:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is an international wiki, just like the games themselves, and the widest table useage is for golds then silvers then bronzes. Whilst it may be nice to have full results for a given sport it isn't the reason for having a table and shouldn't (imho) override the need for clarity. So far as Switzerland and Finland have few people, so will always be low on a medal total or gold total list. is concerned, look at the number of people in Australia! Population size is not what the Olympics are about, nor should the tables be. More to the point, it is the reason for sorting on golds first - it doesn't matter where the best comes from when they are the best. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 22:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * VampWillow, wouldn't it be clearer if the table included the number of athletes? Population size definitely isn't what the Olympics are about, but it would present a clearer picture if the number of medalists could be compared to the number of athletes.  Bobblewik's above post explains it better.  Best, [[User:supadawg|supadawg - talk - contribs]] 23:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that you are correct in saying that the number of athletes attending the games, and maybe population too, are useful reference information to tabulate alongside the medals table. I do feel though that to mix the two things -- one of which will change through each day -- will complicate the updating of the table and lead to errors. A second table will be more useful in that respect. FYI I was using the BBC's table here as my source for the medal count. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 23:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I was glad to be told that a discussion is going on here. Between the two options of sort by gold and sort by number of all medals medals, I suggested sort by number of all medals but if the IOC uses sort by gold then that is an interesting counter argument. I am happy to accept whatever is the consensus.


 * Population size is relevant to national achievement. Here is an interesting quote:
 * http://sport.guardian.co.uk/olympics2004/story/0,14912,1280609,00.html
 * Scandinavians stand the best chance of securing Olympic glory but if you happen to be from America, Turkey or Portugal then brace yourself for disappointment. With two days before the start of the Athens Olympic games, athletes have been told that the size of their country's population could have a massive impact on their chances of winning a medal.


 * A survey carried out by a credit card company examining the number of Olympic medals won by each country and the size of its population has found that Finland is the world's most successful Olympic nation with 14,976 people for each medal won. The Finns are followed by Sweden, with 16,411 people for each medal won and Norway with 29,414 people for each medal. Greece ranked 10th in the survey registering 212,326 people for each medal won.


 * The survey by Visa Europe looked at the performance of 12 countries in every Olympic games since 1908, linking its medals count to the average size of its population. Britain came seventh overall in the survey with 87,979 people to a medal meaning that those born in Finland are five times more likely to win either gold, silver or bronze. America finished ninth with 110,524 people for each medal . Portugal was 11th at 484,543 people per medal and Turkeyranked last at 588,936 citizens per medal.


 * If anyone has access to that survey, please post it here.


 * Yes, I certainly think it is a good idea to list population in the table as shown in the example table above. I might even be willing to provide a second table sorted by population/medal.


 * However, I would not vote for the standard table having the number of athletes. But if somebody wants to provide such data, I would not object. I think such information is less meaningful than it might appear. I would rather use the extra column to show population/medal.
 * Bobblewik 14:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * By way of support for the idea of listing population, the 2000 Summer Olympics page has a "people/medal" column which illustrates the population, although this may be cumbersome to calculate until the games are completed. Kjd 12:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. As you say, it makes sense to calculate people/medal when medal values have stopped changing. However, population figures could be added at any time.
 * Bobblewik 11:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There are a variety of data sources for population. The UN provides data for member states from 1950 onwards in 5 year intervals. It is available at:
 * http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1
 * For simplicity, it might make sense to use the population value equal to, or preceding, the year of the games. Thus the 1950 value for the 1952 games, and the 2000 value for the 2000 games. Has anyone got any other good sources?
 * Bobblewik 15:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You will see that I have started adding population values from http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1
 * Bobblewik 11:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

updating of main medal table
As Willow and others suggested it would be a good idea to only update the main medal table from an outside source. I believe this would be a good solution as it will become increasingly more difficult as the games progress. Personally I would suggest the BBC site as I feel the majority of people would class this as a reliable source. I have noticed today that they keep their results up to date much quicker than the official Athens 2004 website. Would people be happy for me to enter this as an instruction on the medal page?? Scraggy4 00:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Could the equals signs be taken off, please? For no other reason than it looks ugly and unprofessional.  Thanks.  [[User:supadawg|supadawg - [[Image:Bulldog.jpg|30px]] - contribs]] 00:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree with you about the "=" not being needed (so long as people get the sequence right -- had to correct it earlier! -- and as that is the same source I referred to above would agree with its use. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 00:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. By the way, now that I'm rereading this whole page, I realize that the BBC version probably is better for our purposes.  I seem to have been making a lot of stupid mistakes the past few days.  Oh well.  [[User:supadawg|supadawg - [[Image:Bulldog.jpg|30px]] - contribs]] 00:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Since it is Wikipedia convention not to have editing instructions publicly visible on the main article page, I used "" codes so that they are only visible to those actually editing the page. Davodd 10:52, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Korea
I was just browsing the table, and notice that you have an entry and flag for Korea, Democratic People's Republic of, i.e. North Korea. This is incorrect -- there is a single team representing both the North and the South, though I don't suppose Wikipedia will have a graphic of the appropriate flag (white, with a map of all Korea in blue)! -- Arwel 11:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Although they marched under one flag it appears that they are competing as separate countries. If you look at any of the events on the Official Athens 2004 website they are listed separately as PRK or KOR with the appropriate national flag of either north or south korea next to them. The BBC Medal Table also gives them as competing separately.Scraggy4 11:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * We do have the flag, or at least a variation thereof: Unification Flag. -- Kaihsu 09:01, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)


 * Which is good news, but there's no need to add it anywhere on this article (although perhaps linking to it from articles which make reference to "Both Koreas entered the stadium under the one flag..." would be a good idea) since the People's Republic of Korea and the ordinary Republic of Korea are competing separately. BigHaz 09:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That's the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, if you will! -- Arwel 10:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * DPRK and ROK athletes compete separately and thus effectively count as 2 teams except for the purpose of the opening ceremony.  However, which flag is raised when someone from one of the teams wins a gold medal?  Is it the Unification Flag or the state flag?  I suspect it is the latter, but if it is the former, we should change the flags here too.  -- Kaihsu 10:55, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)


 * The appropriate state flag is raised. Austin Hair 11:10, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

China (PRC)
Does anyone else reckon they are getting two bites of the cherry by having Hong Kong (Special Administrative Regions) competing alonside the rest of the PRC despite their now being the single country? --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 18:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You're quite right Willow, Great Britain has the same kind of problem in that we cannot enter a football team for the Olympics as the football associations will not make a Great Britain team in case this leads to FIFA amalgamating the Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England teams for all tournaments.Scraggy4 21:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with having a UK football team? It would be better than any of the current teams.
 * Bobblewik 22:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * a) the Eng, Scot, Wal, and (N) Irish FAs pre-date FIFA, being the first four ever created, therefore they have grandfather rights, particularly as in the International FA Board which controls the Laws of the Game they collectively equal the entire rest of the world in voting rights.
 * b) an all-UK team would inevitably be almost entirely England writ large, and the rest of us wouldn't stand for it! -- Arwel 23:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An interesting note, during the opening ceremonies, Hong Kong (last to enter before Greece), was officially announced as Hong Kong, China. This is the unique case of announcements, seeing we did not hear any other dependencies or self-governing territories associated with their country's name. Is there any significance or explanation to this? Another interesting thing: During the 2002 Jeux de la Francaphone, Canada had three separate teams: Canada, Quebec and New Brunswick. [[User:Colipon|Colipon -- (Talk)]] 03:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no official source for this, but I assume that this must be a consequence of the agreement signed between China and the United Kingdom for the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. Under the terms of that treaty, China agreed to preserve a number of aspects of that territory's autonomy for a period of 50 years.  I gather that autonomous participation in major sporting events such as the Olympic Games fall under the terms of that treaty.  Since Hong Kong is, however, a part of China, it was probably mandatory that it was officially called "Hong Kong, China".  As a matter of fact, it is possible that the only reason we did not see it happen in Sydney is that no athlete from Hong Kong qualified to compete there. Redux 22:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "Hong Kong, China" has been the name used for many purposes since 1997 - the postal service uses it on stamps, the World Meteorological Organisation, and others... -- Arwel 21:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Population values
We discussed columns population values and people/medal (see elsewhere on this page, see the previous edit, and see 2000 Summer Olympics). In the spirit of be bold with your edits, I added these two columns and provided some of the data. They were removed and I see that things are bit more formal here so I am not too worried about that. I am hereby requesting that these two columns may remain in the table. Bobblewik 13:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it may be interesting to see the number of athletes participating per country, and, once the event is over, the number of people or even athletes/medal. -- User:Docu
 * Atheletes per participant country has a great deal more merit than population of the countries Mintguy (T)


 * I think this pseudo-statistical information is utterly meaningless. It is always going to be inaccurate, incomplete and entrely irrelevant. It has no place in this encyclopaedia. Mintguy (T) 12:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, see Talk:2000 Summer Olympics Mintguy (T)


 * The inclusion of this type of information is interesting but incomplete. Does it reflect athlete primary nationality? (for example, many U.S.-born or naturalized U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents were athletes for other countries this year. Do they count as U.S. winners or not?) Does it include domestic annual budget of individual countries Olympic committees? Also - the total U.S. population used in the census includes possessions - which compete as individual countries in the Olympics. Is that reflected? If not, there should be a major disclaimer stating such. Davodd 01:24, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Athlete count
Being that the scope of the article is very limited to a list of medals only, I removed the few athletes listed in the main article. Maybe such informatiooon belongs in its own article, perhaps 2004 Summer Olympics participation count. - Davodd 00:32, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * As it's work in progress, the sole fact that it's incomplete, doesn't justify its removal. Ideally the column would follow the name of the NOC though.
 * It's always good to supply context. In this table, we already included a flag and we don't really lack space. If later we'd want to split off the column to a separate table as well, this shouldn't be a problem. -- User:Docu
 * Why not start a split off now? Davodd 19:50, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

NOC names link to entry from List of countries instead of Category:Nations at the 2004 Summer Olympics
Eventually the links should be updated to link to later. -- User:Docu

alternative statistics
I wonder how the rankings would change if we do: etc. -- Kaihsu 08:58, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
 * 1) medal/population (medals per capita)
 * 2) medal/GDP or medal/GNP
 * 3) medal/kJ consumed as food per day
 * 4) medal/(kJ per capita consumed as food per day)
 * 5) medal/kJ consumed as fuel per year
 * 6) medal/(kJ per capita consumed as fuel per year)
 * http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html has some of these. -- Chuq 11:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * For the first in your list, see 1996 Summer Olympics medal productivity and 2000 Summer Olympics medal productivity.
 * Bobblewik (talk) 17:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Male/Female
I suggest include statistics about male and female competition medals by nation too.

Greece in bold
Hi. I was wondering why is Greece in bold on the board. I don't know if being the host nation warrants any sort of distinction on the medal board (that can only come from performance, not geography). Could that be yet another case of vanity? Redux 16:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about the same thing. It is indeed the host of the games, but I don't see any reasons to highlight it from the rest. For award matters, Greece is in the same position as any other country. Shouldn't be treated differently. – Mackeriv 20:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't bold it originally on this page, but I have on a few others. If you don't want it bolded, fair enough, but change it on all other olympics pages as well.  Otherwise, for consistency, I'll re-bold it on this one. -- Chuq 23:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Or, as an alternative, why don't you remove it from bold on the pages you have bolded it?
 * Because ... I'm not the one who wants it removed Chuq 14:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I imagine it would be a lot faster than have others search through so many articles to do it. Unless you believe it's correct to have it bolded.  If so, we will gladly listen to your POV on this, but to keep something wrong just because it's wrong in other articles is not the way to go.  Two wrongs don't make a right, and certainly don't represent "consistency". Redux 02:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's just easier to change this page, to conform with all the other medal count pages. I think the country that is bolded instantly gives you the idea that it is the host nation, the country that has poured millions of dollars (or pounds, euros, etc) into hosting the games to make them as enjoyable as possible, so they deserve some extra recognition. Therefore I've changed it back.  -- 203.220.171.160 13:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) "Two wrongs don't make a right", what is this rubbish?  And remember nothing is ever settled.
 * I'm a bit delayed in responding to Redux's last comment - I wasn't clear before, what I meant was that other users had bolded host nations on several other Olympics pages, and as a result I had bolded a few of them myself - to keep up to (what I presumed was) the standard. This is why I suggested if you really feel they shouldn't be bolded, undo all of them, not just a couple. -- Chuq 14:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When to update the board
What is the policy in use for updating the medal board? I mean, in some sports, such as Sailing, it is possible for an athlete or a team to secure a medal before the competition is over. In that case, should that medal be added to the board right away or should we wait until it's all over and the medal ceremony has passed? Redux 16:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There's a comment that say "Please only update to match the BBC medal count:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics_2004/medals_table/ OR http://www.athens2004.com/en/OlympicMedals/medals (official Athens 2004 count)" on the edit page, So I guess that when these page are updated, you can update the medal board --WysG 21:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The medal count for Australia is wrong. There should be an extra bronze medal added (with a resultant increase in the total number), which was awarded some time after the end of the 2004 Olympics due to a drugs charge for the original bronze medallists (it was a team rowing event). The two linked webpages above were published upon conclusion of the Games and was not updated for any changes much later. The country that lost the bronze medal probably has an extra medal that shouldn't be there. I'm not sure if there are any more discrepancies, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were. It is unfortunate that even the official Olympics webpage has not updated correctly http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/index_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=2004 (click on "Medals by country" link on right-side menu). Should Wikipedia update according to what official sites have, even if it's wrong, or should the up to date information be presented?   12:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Countries with one bronze only
Shouldn't Eritrea, Mongolia, Syria and Trinidad and Tobago be equal 71st, not equal 70th? Andjam 14:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. See also below Matthewmayer 22:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why this table differs from the IOC one
I compared this medal table to the one on the official website. Hope the information below helps editors in the future!
 * In Equestrian at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Individual jumping, Cian O'Connor of Ireland riding Waterford Crystal was disqualified after the publication of the final medal table. Therefore Ireland's sole gold medal was removed, Brazil got a gold instead of a silver, USA got a silver instead of a bronze, Germany got an extra bronze.
 * In Cycling at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Points Race Women, María Luisa Calle of Colombia was disqualified before the publication of the final medal table and the bronze awarded to fourth placed Erin Mirabella of the United States. This decision was reversed in October 2005 so USA lost a bronze and Colombia gained a bronze.
 * -- Above very useful information added by 22:56, 27 November 2005

Found the following additional item:
 * Also in Equestrian at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Individual jumpingEquestrian at the 2004 Summer Olympics, the German horse Goldfever, who was ridden by Ludger Beerbaum. was disqualified. Germany’s team gold medal was then given to the Americans, and the silver to the Swedish show jumping team. The Germans, however, were still able to take the bronze medal, even without Goldfever’s results. (See Equestrian at the 2004 Summer Olympics.)

The net result of the above three adjustments (when compared with previously published IOC results):
 * United States: +1 Gold, net 0 Silver, -2 Bronze
 * Germany: -1 Gold, +2 Bronze
 * Brazil: +1 Gold, -1 Silver
 * Sweden: +1 Silver, -1 Bronze
 * Ireland: -1 Gold
 * Columbia: +1 Bronze

-- Tcncv (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC) -- (edited) Tcncv (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

EU
i added the EU as that seems to be the fashionable thing to do nowadays. just thought it woud be useful for curious reference... Pratj 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The EU currently sends more teams than a unified EU would send. This increases the chances that some second rate EU team wins gold just by accident. How often does this happen?

To summarize, it is not quite clear to which extent the above EU gold count (which simply sums up those of individual EU states) overestimates or underestimates the hypothetical gold count of a unified EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.223.244.242 (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And I removed it because we've had this discussion before, and consensus is that we only tabulate by the National Olympic Committees for each Games. The EU does not have a distinct NOC that competes at any Games.  The most obvious reason why this is a problematic comparison is that most events have a per-nation quota on number of athletes or teams, and a fabricated multi-national total would not have this restriction.  Look at the medal summary of Sailing at the 2004 Summer Olympics, for example.  Many events have at least 2 medalists from EU nations, but this sport limits each event to 1 boat per nation.  Therefore, you cannot create a true apples-to-apples comparison.   I'm not sure where the "fashionable thing to do nowadays", comment comes from, because we certainly avoid that can of worms on these Wikipedia Olympic pages.  Andrwsc 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Russia Gold Medal
I update gold medal for Russia. They only won 27 gold after the gold medalist in woman shot put was disqualified. Though they theoretically should get gold medal in 4x400m women relay in athletic and Cycling men's road time trial (after Tyler Hamilton returned the gold medal), no further action has been taken by IOC up to today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.35.138.164 (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2004 Summer Olympics medal table. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080930223430/http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/track/2004-08-23-shotput-stripped_x.htm to https://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/track/2004-08-23-shotput-stripped_x.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)