Talk:2008 Summer Olympics medal table/Archive 1

how 20?
how it is possibe 20 medals?maybe 21?? there alwayes should be 3 medals no?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.106.115 (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In some events four medals are awarded, two of them bronze, where losing semi-finalists do not play each other for 3rd and 4th places. Strayan (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First gold
On the Current Events section of Wikipedia, there are two news items, each claiming that said event was the first gold of the Games. Perhaps someone here can fix the issue and allow more clarity. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)/
 * I have a feeling it was the Womens 10m air rifle shooting where the Czech Repulic won that gold 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue Background
I am very much an advocate of the overall medal count determining the leader, but when users edit the page, it is crucial that China always be highlighted in Blue (or whatever color you like), as the home country._-Z-_ (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It does. -- Scorpion0422 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Source?
The table currently says the US has 10 medals, while the official Olympics website lists 8. Either the table is wrong or people are getting information from some more rapidly updated source. If there is a more current source can people say what it is? Dragons flight (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The US won two medals in the Men's swimming final at around 22:15 local time (GMT - 08:00)--there is live news coverage of the event here. Dirc (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean Phelps and Locte? That happened 3 hours ago.  The "live" coverage being fed to the West coast of the US is actually a tape of the live coverage that was shown on the East Coast.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like there's some double-counting from redundant sources, then. Hopefully the problem will be fixed before the error propagates too far :-/ Dirc (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, as of right now the list matches the official Olympic list. Dragons flight (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Official Medal Count on the Beijing 2008 Olympics Website does not reflect that the US has additional medals. Also, no additional players are listed on the United States for these medals --Toolofthesystem (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Links in Table
The section links for each number will make it a lot harder to update the table. I propose that the country name links to the relevant "Medallists" section, and that the numbers be de-linked.  Balkan Fever  05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently, the Gold, Silver, and bronze medals are linked to the corresponding *subsection* of the nations page. Some readers find this more convenient than just linking the flag to the nations page (but not the medalist subsection). Others seem to find it unnecessary, since all it saves the reader is a scroll down the nations page, and is inconvenient to the editors. Since there has been some editing going on back and fourth, let's try to agree on how we should link to the medal list. I propose convenienve of the reader before inconenience of the editors. Esprungo 05:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They look like shit...and they make it harder to update. Plus the country link goes to that article anyway. --  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  06:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The existing precedent in all the other medal count articles work best.  The "Medallists" section is at the top of each linked country article, so the additional internal links are redundant.  See "Wikipedia is not mere collections of internal links" --Madchester (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody please do it then. Too hard for me ;)  Balkan Fever  06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Unless someone can explain why we need to have 4 internal links to the same article (and thus violate NOTLINK) I think we'll stick to the precedent established by past articles. --Madchester (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Obviously there's some disagreement about whether an image is needed or wanted here or not - I leave it to others to grapple over that. But if an image is indeed desired, why not have the one of the medals themselves?  chic geek  talk 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It can't be used because it's a non free image and those are strongly discouraged on list pages like this. I have no problem with using the current image for the time being. Eventually, an image of the medals or medals being awarded will become available, and we can switch to that. -- Scorpion0422 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Okay. I know this is a wiki. However, given the events of last night, in which everyone was adding and subtracting medals due to mass confusion, perhaps we should ask the admins to create designated editors to update the medal count and put the page on full protect. Rationale:
 * This page should only be updated a few times each day. There are 13 medal events on Day 3 of the Games; therefore, there should be 13 edits. Any other edits are not constructive and, depending on the severity, could be considered vandalism. (Obviously, page formatting and stuff would be different; however, that stuff should be discussed on the talk page anyway.)
 * The need to reliably disseminate accurate information is more important than letting any user edit in what they think is correct based on tape-delayed coverage, late reports, etc.

Feel free to disregard me, attack me, draw-and-quarter me as necessary. Kingnavland (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but it won't happen. You could try taking the case to WP:RFP, but I can guarantee you it won't be protected. The solution is simple, people need to stop the impulse editing and check to make sure the medal hasn't already been added to the total. One user tried listing all of the days events in hidden text and having people remove them once they updated the page, but it didn't work so well. -- Scorpion0422 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Scorpion, thanks for the input. I rather liked the hidden text, as I couldn't find an article anywhere that listed the medal events by day in text form rather than that chart. I will take it to WP:RFP. Kingnavland (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

-after protection denied- What a buffoon. Same administrator semi-protected this page for 3 days - as though the problem will disappear in 3 days. Kingnavland (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's not as if there won't be any new editors during the remaining days. I don't think long-term semi/full protection will happen, which is a pity; I believe this might be a result of there not being enough admins. --92.104.153.110 (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record and to his credit, same admin extended the semiprotection until the end of the Games. Kingnavland (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All-time Olympic Games individual medal count
We have All-time Olympic Games medal count. Given all the talk about Michael Phelps tying others in individual medal count, any chance in someone creating the article all-time Olympic Games individual medal count? Suntag (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See List of multiple Olympic gold medalists — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And, Olympic Games. Suntag (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

real rankings
how do they really determine who wins @ olympics? is it by point value 3-2-1 or total medals or total golds or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The medal count is just the IOC's way of sorting the relative position of each country's performance. The IOC strictly states that this in not a national ranking and thus there is no such thing as an "overall winner" of the Olympics.  For example, China won't get a special prize for winning the most golds, nor will the States win one for having the most medals.
 * For sorting purposes, the IOC places emphasis on gold medals, as described at the top of the article. --Madchester (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the IOC places emphasis on gold medals, but the official medal count ranks countries by the TOTAL medal count. This needs to be changed on the main page! Proof: http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdnomad (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That page is ranked by golds. Dragons flight (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

it's (outside the US) worldwide common practice to count the gold-winners first

Page move
Following the discussion here Talk:2008_Summer_Olympics_medal_count, I'm moving/re-naming all Olympic "medal count" articles to "medal table". --Madchester (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Transcluding table
I've put tags round the parts of the article which aren't the table, to allow the table part to be transcluded into user pages, if other users want to do this. It doesn't seem to cause any problems, but if it does, feel free to revert. See my user page for an example of it in use. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ESPN
Conspiracy theory: The reason why ESPN (and maybe Yahoo!) ranks by total medals instead of gold medals is to make it appear the U.S. is leading... – Howard  the   Duck  14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A little insecure in the Philipines, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Michael Phelps can mine more gold than an entire country in 200 years. – Howard  the   Duck  05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * *YAWN* News outlets in the US have ranked by total medal count for as long as I can remember (at least since the 1992 Olympics, probably before). Seancp (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right - http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/fanguide/history?year=2004&type=medals 85.222.54.163 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, and I guess this falls under the category of "original research", but I remember someone raising exactly this objection about the United States during a previous Olympics. He eventually proved to me that the "Gold Centric" method is indeed the IOC and world standard, but all the American outlets I could find on Games prior to that one did show that American media ranking by total medals had been going on for quite some time.  Obviously I don't have the links available to me, but this is hardly a new phenomenon.Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Repechage
can someone make the following edit to this sentence: --> old: "In boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class." --> new: "In boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class under the repechage system." -- i think it helps clarify why multiple bronze medals are being awarding in these events. 220.76.15.213 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that this is helpful. Repechage also exists in the rowing events but ultimately they have only a single bronze, hence repechage per se does not require two bronzes.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no repechages in boxing - bronze medals are awarded to both losing semifinallists. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal winner images
Using images of medal winners on this page isn't unreasonable (provided they are free content), but I do think it is rather biased to have three of the four winners shown be from the United States and all of them be men. Some diversity would be a good thing. Dragons flight (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was having trouble finding pictures over medal winners from other countries. Some help would be good. -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   18:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed with others, there are simply no other pictures at the moment. Even a search of the Creative Commons sections of Flickr has not provided us with any photos which we can use. The359 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Picture of an athlete from the host country should definitely be included. I guess we'll have to wait until the Games end to see how the medal count plays out. 70.24.139.57 (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the point of them all being male - I think we'll have difficulty getting pictures with both men and women as the only sport where they compete alongside is the equestrian. Otherwise there might be some "group shot" at the end of the games which would be good IMO. Witty Lama 02:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is Mixed Doubles in Badminton, not that we'd likely find a picture for the award ceremonies for that. The359 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is also permissible to use free use images of athletes outside of the Beijing Games. --Madchester (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ERROR - Can't find it.
According to the Official Beijing 2008 medal table, there have been 89 bronze medals handed out and 235 overall. We have 88 handed out and 234 overall. So I went through and compared each country's individual count and I couldn't find the discrepancy. Assistance would be appreciated. Kingnavland (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) TIMELOOP: Now it's a question: does the total row not update automatically? Because the 4x200 women's free was included, and the totals didn't update. I changed it to reflect the official count from the Beijing 2008 medal table. Kingnavland (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Table Width
I can't figure out how to change it, but I think it would look a lot better if the Nation column were widened such that each flag, country name, and IOC code would fit on a single line. China, being on one line, looks good. United States and South Korea, being split between two lines, looks worse. Germany and Australia, with the flag on one line and the name below it, looks worse yet. There's certainly plenty of room on the page to make it possible. Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The table's width of each colums automatically adjusts to the width of the longest item in it. If this is not the case for you, it is most probably because your browser window is not wide enough. It doesn't help that at the moment (at least for my screen layout), the top of the table is above the bottom of the 2008 Summer Olympics Info-Box, which encroaches on the maximum available width for the table in a browser window. This is very likely to change in due time, though, as more text is added. --Flosch (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gold Medal Count as of end of Aug 14
Just noticed that 85 gold medals have been awarded per country chart, yet medals to be awarded per your events chart shows that 87 medals should be awarded by the end of August 14. Juve2000 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. Due to bad weather, some rowing and canoeing events had to be rescheduled to day 7, including both finals in canoeing. I changed it in the main event table. (On a side note, to the other editors of this page, this also explains why those two events were listed by me, and then just rotted there. So it wasn't me mixing it up, since they were still scheduled last night. I thought I was getting old.) --Flosch (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Template for Olympic Medal count
hi, I made a template for Olympic Medal count. So, I think it's useful and easy to use. This is a preview:




 * Any suggestion to improve.--KSA13 07:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, can you make it Olympic Medal ;)  Balkan Fever  07:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done :):)--KSA13 09:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The template looks great, but I think it can do without the additional internal links for each medal column. In the example above, there would be 5 internal links leading to the same "China at the 2008 Olympics" page and that would violate WP:NOTLINK. (On the other hand, Roger_Federer has a table containing many internal links, but they all lead to different event articles so it doesn't violate WP:NOTLINK.) --Madchester (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ internal links removed.--KSA13 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks okay but I'm not sure what the point is. The point of a template is to save space, and using that would just make things even longer. As well, I don't think we would need to link to "____ at the Summer Olympics" five consecutive times. -- Scorpion0422 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Those templates work good for football, but I don't think they work here. Its actually simpler to see the order and number of medals in the table format when editing. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really needed to sort the first column (rank)? Maxime.Debosschere (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, cause it's international standart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.194 (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

308 events? 308 gold medals? 924 total? +- a few extra for ties?
How many medals currently have been won out of how many? This may be useful/interesting to have on the article. Thanks. Emesee (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To this point 225 medals have been awarded. Link  Black  ngold29   20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the event calendar on the main page for 2008 Summer Olympics, there will be 302 gold medals awarded. Kingnavland (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

maybe it should be noted as a minimum of 302 gold medals because ties could result in additional medals although unlikely Weather130 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Judo and wrestling give 2 bronze —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.194 (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not linking to "(Country)_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics"
In the first paragraph, The Marshall Islands, Montenegro and Tuvalu are linked to their country pages, not their respective 2008 Summer Olympics pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.4.56 (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Kingnavland (talk · contribs). ([ diff]) Jeremyb (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Doping
A new section and update on medal counts with this story on doping stripping the PRK medal? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/15/2336655.htm?site=olympics/2008

No update on the athelete's profile, medal standing, and official results on the Beijing 2008 site yet. --Kvasir (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have put in a paragraph, but not updated the medal standings yet. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked again. No update on the official Beijing 2008 site yet. Not even in the news section. I suggest not to update the table until it is done so on the website. --Kvasir (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the "Changes in medal standings" section be moved closer to the top so it will match medal table articles from past Olympics? -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   18:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the article is ever-changing, so we shouldn't be too concerned with matching the stylr of the other articles until after the games are finished. -- Scorpion0422 18:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

External Link
I was wondering why the external links were revised. The revisor gave no reason for this edit and the information was not redundant. I placed the United States NBC and the Great Britain's BBC medal count into external links in answer to concerns that the wikipedia page did not contain break downs for the medals. BBC gives a good list for specific events that the medals were in. NBC gives a good list of individuals who recieved medals.Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have a link to the official medal count, so why do we need links to various other sources? Per WP:EL, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum" and you don't need for or five when one will suffice. -- Scorpion0422 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of tied countries
There seems to be at least some edit warring going on regarding the ordering of tied countries in the list. I'd propose a well-defined policy of what the ordering should be - either alphabetical by country name or country code would make the most sense to me. I just think that this needs to be stated somewhere. --Mbell (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Country code is probably the better choice. JPG-GR (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Searching for precedent at the moment - the 2000 list seems to prefer by country name... but also contradicts itself within itself... JPG-GR (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1996 prefers country name, so does 1992 and 1988. JPG-GR (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Going by the official Beijing 2008 medal standings the IOC is using the country codes for the rankings. Since country names can be spelled differently in the two main IOC languages (English and French), I believe the organization uses the country codes for sorting purposes.  For example, we don't have one English ranking using "Spain" and one French ranking using "Espagne". --Madchester (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The IOC itself seems to sort by country name in whatever the language is - see the English and French rankings from 2000. I agree with JPG-GR and Madchester that country code is probably the better choice, though. --Mbell (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't realize the IOC had separate publications for each language.
 * On that note, I noticed in the 2000 rankings that both Chinese Taipei (TPE) and Morocco (MAR) are ranked 58th overall. However, instead of following the IOC code, it seems to be going by English spelling, thus Chinese Taipei is listed "before" Morocco.
 * I think there needs to be more investigation (and discussion) to resolve this matter. --Madchester (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this only after using silver and bronze medals as second and third tiebreakers? --    Me   Holla! 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're just figuring out what to do if two (or more) countries have the same distribution of medals.
 * For example, if you review the 2000 English and French standings, the 61st ranked nations are listed differently depending on the language used. I'm leaning towards using the IOC's English table (and sorting method) as our main reference, since this is English Wikipedia. IMHO, the IOC should have simply used the country codes to standardized the listing procedure for tied countries. --Madchester (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We should use either the English names or the country codes. Considering official rankings are put by name, that would be more correct, I guess. I think we all agree that using country codes is better, but alas, it's only our opinion.  Balkan Fever  03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To keep it chinese (as the olympics are in beijing), why not put it in stroke order refering to the opening ceromany order. I know its a bit strenuous but it does keep within the host nation 86.132.88.42 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, all someone would need to do to maintain the Chinese order would be to refer to 2008_Summer_Olympics_national_flag_bearers. It should become less and less relevant as the Olympics continues. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Image is biased towards the Americans"
Like it or not, it is the only free image available that shows all three medal recipients, so it is the most appropriate for the page. And please note that the image of the medals is fair use, so its use should be minimalized to one or two articles. Besides, the current one does show a Hungarian, so is it biased towards them too? I'm curious, if we had an image that had two Brits or two Canadians, would people be so concerned about potential bias? -- Scorpion0422 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it just so happens that the image contains two Americans coming in 1st and 2nd place, and I bet money that it was an American that put it there. To me that is telling me that the Americans are the most successful team, which they are not. I think the photo should be taken off the article. I am British and if a saw to British people in that photo I would have the same views. In23065 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you owe me money because I added it and I'm a Canadian. You're reading too much into the image, it just shows a group of medalists. If a better one comes along, we'll add it to the page too. How about this, since you're so upset about showing two Americans, why not switch it to the cropped version that just shows Michael Phelps? Then that will just be one American. -- Scorpion0422 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Canadian, American, more or less the same thing. In23065 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You do remember that both countries submit their own athletes, right? In the context of the olympics (all other contexts omitted) they are NOT the same thing--Matt D (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Until a couple of hours ago, we could have emphasised the distinction by saying that American athletes win medals. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An image with Michael Phelps is entirely appropriate for this article, no matter what nationalistic POV you favor. (And I'm not American either.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If we have to use an image that involves nations, I think we should use the 100 metres podium image, when it happens, as that is the most iconic event out of all of the events and therefore makes sense. In23065 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if Tyson Gay wins that, you won't cry foul? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that and say that the marathon is the most iconic event. ;) And no, I will not argue about this minor point and open another can of worms. In my opinion, the preference for an image on the page is like this:
 * 1) A picture of the medals in close-up.
 * 2) A picture from a mixed event (e.g. mixed doubles in Badminton, or equestrian teams), with the medals clearly visible. Badminton has the advantage of having a high chance of winners from different continents on the podium.
 * 3) A picture of any random event, with the medals clearly visible.
 * Of course, the licence of the image is important, which means that the currently available medal-only image is not a very good choice. --Flosch (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, give it some time (probably until after the games) and a close-up of the medals might become available. -- Scorpion0422 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When a better picture is available (preferably something showing athletes on the actual podium), it will be placed here. It is not biased if it is the only picture we have available.  A picture is something this article should have, and we're using what we have. The359 (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GB medals
Could someone update the GB tally to 17 with 7 golds, 3 silver and 7 bronze and move it up to 6th? Official table. 90.194.244.14 (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal Ranking - Everytime the same confusion in the US....
I'm really surprised here. Why are US-Americans everytime confused about the common medal rank (by gold)? Everytime they have to discover that the whole world is counting by gold medals, counting by olympic champions and not by non-champions. the whole world including the IOC is doing this, and it makes sense. Here in the discussion i can read americans posting "It is common sense ranking by total medals". Even after those posters get the information that the USA is the only country in the world counting by totals, they still believe (and post) that total medal count is "common sense". Uhm ?!? Why do they think that their American TV Stations define the "common sense" for the worldwide wikipedia medal table, and why do they believe this again and again? Do they forget it after 4 years and are surprised again or how can this be explained? 11:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I understand your concern, that conversation has been resolved and further discussion (especially in a rant-against-Americans format that isn't advocating any change of the current page, since your desired display is what is currently featured on the page) is highly uncalled for. This isn't a message board, it's a Talk page for discussion about edits. Scm621 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Thats exactly my point. The matter is resolved (long time ago), but every 4 years americans are confused again and start with this matter. Thats what can not be easily understood. 16:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.81.216 (talk)
 * Maybe because each time it's different Americans entering the debate each time? You convince individuals, not a whole country.Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen some news reports use the total medal ranking (ESPN for example), so that may contribute to it. But as far as WP goes there is no need to continue this discussion further, it has already been resolved.  Black  ngold29   16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Summing the medal as if they had equal value is so blatantly wrong and disrespectful to the (gold) winners. --212.30.195.50 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What could be done as an additional indicator of the olympic performance of a country is give a different weight to the medals and sum them up. For instance: Gold = 3, Silver = 2 and Bronze = 1 (in that case China would currently have 69+18+5=92 and the US would have 42+24+18=84) OR Gold = 5, Silver = 3 and Bronze = 1. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The last thing these medal table articles need is some WP:Original research. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 09:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gold=100|Silver=10|Bronzw=1 it matches the best with the official count —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.194 (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

China, gold25 silver9 bronze6 =2596 United States, gold14 silver12 bronze18 =1538 Germany, gold8 silver2 bronze4 =824 South Korea, gold6 silver8 bronze3 =683

actually the most common "Points" based allocation is (3pts for Gold, 2pts for silver, 1pt for Bronze). Many accredited Sports Almanacs uses this system. In this rule China would still be on top.68.127.183.136 (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

An Olympic champion is an Olympic champion is an Olympic champion. The old Greeks didn't even awarded a medal to the first loser. In fact, the first loser bore the greatest shame. I won't say that losing gold is a shame, but you're still no champion. Should at the end the table be led by a country which has not even a single champion within its ranks?--Bluerisk (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.211.178 (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hidden message
Who added that hidden message and what is the purpose? The "This list was last updated..." is completely unencyclopedic, and I feel as if that hidden note is preemptive. This chart is copied completely from the only reference and I think the only note that needs to be there is "Please do not add medals if it conflicts with the reference" or something like that.

I'll be bold and remove it, but feel free to add it if there is a legit reason for its placement there. --haha169 (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is. Without it, even more people would just keep adding the same results without cross checking and it would become a huge mess. I agree that it's not very encyclopedic, but it's only temporary. I readded it, because it has made a huge difference from the first few days. -- Scorpion0422 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The first nights of the Games, we were reverting tons of good-faith edits because people were impulse-editing in the same medals 5 or 6 times, and there was mass confusion and hysteria. There hasn't been that since the message was there. It's very useful for those of us editors who have been consistently editing this page. Kingnavland (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All right then. --haha169 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit the table until medals are awarded (announcement in official site)
For example, someone adds the bronze medal before the event final is held. -Ngckmax (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

2 Silver medals for Jamaica (Women's 100m)
I think someone should update the "Changes in medal standings" section and add some sort of explanation there why Jamaica has 2 silvers. Alpha-Toxic (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this notable? There have been many ties before. 76.71.50.13 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now all cases of double-medals are noted right above the medal table (right after the boxing/judo/etc exception), I'm perfectly happy with that. I did not see it there before I posted the above suggestion. In other words "case closed" Alpha-Toxic (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Gold Medal Total at end of Sunday the 17th
Is there one more event to be posted on the medal standings? Total gold medals awarded is 166 while the events chart shows total should be 167 by the end of the day. Juve2000 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal count incorrect
The medal count has an extra gold, silver, and bronze medal added to the US' count and an extra gold added to South Korea's count. This is blatant US-centrism editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.156.172 (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See above section: editor error and assume good faith. And sign with the tildes. Kingnavland (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the policy to only edit the table when the official page is edited? I just had my edit reverted; it was based on what I saw on the US medal count page. If that's the case, that page needs to be reverted too. Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure why the only acceptable source is the official Beijing 2008 page. bluemonq (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An error was made on this page. Someone copied that error to the US page.  You then copied it back.  Not your fault, but something that needed sorting out.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are there (as of this post) 14 bronze medals but only 12 gold and 12 silver? I thought for each event, equal numbers of medals were awarded. This is not a mistake in this article, as I see it is in the source, but an explanation might be useful.- gadfium 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See a previous section (by which I mean scroll back up). Apparently there are some sports where semi-finalists don't contest for a single bronze? bluemonq (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see in 2004 Summer Olympics medal count there is an explanation: two bronze medals were awarded per event in boxing and judo. An equivalent explanation would be nice in this article.- gadfium 05:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And it's also possible when two swimmer finishes the same time in the final. In this case two medals of the same color will be awarded with no next medal (for example 2 gold medals, 0 silver, 1 bronze). It happened maybe 2000 (or 2004) in the men's 50m freestyle. (sorry for poor english :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.30.127 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to indicate that, there is an offset of 1 extra Silver medal or perhaps 1 less gold, anyway basing on what you said maybe it's good to form a new section or maybe a new page where we indicated where 2 medals of the same color were given in cases of a tie.z nihilist (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The twin bronzes for swimming ties happened again this Olympics, twice so far. The judo/taekwando/wrestling explanation seems to already have been well handled in the introduction. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone edit Medal Table Commentary that Jamaica won twin silvers in the women's 100 (Athletics)? [edit - never mind, someone got to it.] - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.10 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

titles
the USA should be referred to as "USA" or "United States of America" that's the official title, the rest of the official titles are used, so "United States" just won't cut it...

I also recommend changing "China" to People's Republic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's convention is to use common names rather than unnecessarily long formal versions. Hence we prefer "United States" to "United States of America", etc.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And plus you forgot "South Korea" to Republic of Korea, "Norht Korea" to Democratic People's Republic of Korea, "Russia" to Russian Fredration, etc. I think it is better to be left alone as Dragons flight had said. — ■ ~∀SÐFﾑｻ~ ■ =]  Babashi? antenna? 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And my favorite, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. - CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's funny. Didn't know about that full title. That said, regardless of character count, it's unlikely anyone will mistake the "United States" for another country. --92.104.153.110 (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He has a point, at least change the China one... That can get confusing.  I also say change US to USA.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.25.186 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the previous games it has the same names for many years, it did not had a problem for the past 28 games. — ■ ~∀SÐFﾑｻ~ ■ =]  Babashi? antenna? 08:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * New countries, new diplomatic issues. Easily 10% of countries did not exist, 28 Olympics ago or even three summer Olympics ago. Do you call it FYR Macedonia or just plain Macedonia? Do you call it Hong Kong or Chinese Hong Kong, Taiwan or (per the treaty) Chinese Taipei? Do you piss off the Greeks or the Slavic Macedonians, the Chinese or the Taiwanese? Don't ask what the objective, formal name is, because in these cases, there isn't one. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note/comment for all-time medal firsts per nation?
During the parade of nations, I recall the NBC commentators stating that certain countries (I don't remember which) have never won a single medal at all during any Olympic games. Have any won their first medal so far, and if so, can/should a note be made in this article? --92.104.153.110 (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Has any country won a first medal? I trierd to google for it but too many false positives came up ("first individual gold medal", "first medal of this games", etc.) Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cross-referencing with All-time Olympic Games medal count, it appears Tajikistan is the only country so far that is recieving a medal for the first time. This source  confirms that it is Tajikistan's first medal.  I'm not sure whether we would want to track this on an ongoing basis though.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Togo just got their first as well. Rmhermen (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These are also noted on their respective country pages. There are not that many countries in the world, should not be too hard to track those very few which have never before won a medal? After all, we are not likely to see another such a burst of new countries as that of the post-1990s for a very long time. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia won its first gold medal this year. Kingturtle (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Phelps' Ranking
Michael Phelps should be ranked, seeing as how if he were a country he would be in a tie for second with South Korea, behind only China. USA loses 5 golds due to Michael Phelps declaring independence, leaving them in fourth with only 4 gold medals. Phelps does indeed retain a tie for second, since the table sorts by gold medals, not total medals, and Michael comes before South in the alphabet. Bjquinn (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are kidding or not, but in the Olympics medals are only counted by country by the IOC. Mr.crabby   (Talk)   04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition, you break ties by looking at silvers, so Phelpsyvania is third. Dragons flight (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, that depends on whether you would rank the Dallas Cowboys who are 5-3 in the Super Bowl or the San Francisco 49ers, who are a perfect 5-0, higher. Phelpsyvania has a perfect record, so he remains second.  The per capita medal count is staggering. Bjquinn (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With the way that the IOC sorts (by gold, then silver to tie-break, then bronze), Phelps would be third. bluemonq (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but Phelpsyvania can't be considered perfect. They didn't even qualify for most of the events.  They can't get credit for failing to compete in gymnastics, judo, and weight lifting, etc.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Although still very impressive, Phelps would only be ranked 5th in the medal tally not 3rd. Plus, the relay medals he won could not be considered to be solely his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.139.57 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure... just get him to start his own country and he can have his own chart. (124.197.36.236 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

I have to ask - how does the Phelps nation win a relay medal with only one swimmer?86.13.148.178 (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If anything it could be noted under the graph, but obviously not on the graph because Phelpsyvania isnt independent (not to mention the confusion it would make).  Royal  Mate1  02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Phelpsyvania isn't an independent country???!!! What a shocker! Does this mean we have to restore his gold medals back to the count of the USA-centric entity?JGC1010 (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Refused medal
Swedish wrestler Ara Abrahamian rejected his bronze medal in protest. He is also facing displinary charge, which could have an effect on medal count. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/wrestling/7563231.stm --Kvasir (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe "rejected" medals should be remove dfrom the chart, as they are still awarded and counted. No one takes his place in receiving the second bronze either.  Just because he rejected it, doesn't mean his country still didn't earn it. The359 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this will depend on what the displinary action is. May work like doping cases. We'll see in the next few days. --Kvasir (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Swedish television the medal is now officially revoked. --Aatox (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I think we should wait for official IOC confirmation before making any changes. -- Scorpion0422 10:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The official website has removed the medal now as well. The Le ft  orium  10:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just noticed that. I have added a paragraph to the changes in standings section. -- Scorpion0422 10:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be there but with a "de facto" after, since no one else got the medal afterwards. He did technicly win the medal, they just withdrew it from him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.241 (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It should still be counted, he still won the bronze. He didn't cheat, so it can be "revoked" all the IOC like but he DID win it, and fairly.  History is a fact and it cannot be changed.  Just because the "official" tally won't include the bronze, it doesn't mean Wikipedia- which yields to the whim of no single group- should change its records. Constan69 (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We follow the IOC tally conventions - i.e., we remove the medal. By keeping the medal in our article, we would be violating WP:NOR.  History tells us that the wrestler earned a bronze, gave up his medal, and the IOC removed his placing from the record books.  --Madchester (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if the IOC has revoked it, it's off the record books. It's no different from doping. --Kvasir (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." Meh, I'm not the only person who saw him get awarded the bronze, and it is hardly an original thought to say he got the bronze ***fairly*** too I may add. To say it's no different to doping isn't true.  It isn't doping, because it wasn't doping.  What I mean to say that is if somebody used performance enhancing drugs nobody would really say they should still be credited as having performed as they did, but actions that take place after an events completion clearly have no bearing on what happened before...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constan69 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The debate here is not whether or not it's the same as cheating. Medals can be revoked years after the fact as we have seen with Marion Jones. See all her Olympic medals have been removed from her wiki page. Whether or not the medal was put around the neck is irrelevant. Getting the medal is just a physical manifestation of winning a title. Without the title, the medal is meaningless. --Kvasir (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this is what parentheses and asterisks are for.72.192.189.232 (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Add to the note that was added that the IOC had the medal removed from the table, just to avoid further confusion (124.197.36.236 (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Abrahamian's medal is still on this daily result though. http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/92B/20080814.shtml i wonder if it's ever going to be removed. --Kvasir (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A vote here for use the IOC tally, add an asterisk and a footnote. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image for this article
I think the image of the swimmers there is not fair to the other athletes, and doesn't really convey the medals anyway. I'm not all that great with WP's rules on copyright for images and what not. Are there any images http://images.google.com/images?q=2008%20Beijing%20Olympic%20Medals&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi <--there that will fit that could be used? --   Me   Holla! 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I've said many times, it's a temporary image. Eventually, a free one of the medals will become available (most likely after the games finish) and then we can use it. And no, none of those images have a free license. -- Scorpion0422 03:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only free image that Google located using the search "2008 Beijing Olympics Medals" is . --haha169 (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Women's 100m
The women's silver medawas ruled a tie. I don't have time to find a source right now, but could someone please do so and post itJakeH07 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned, at the top of the medals section. -- Scorpion0422 03:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No sense
THIS MAKES NO SENSE! Constan69 (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've undone the edit that swapped the United States with China to once again rank in order of gold medals as specified. Darthveda (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could anybody answer why the US is on top of the ranking now both the US and China have 67 medals in total and china has much more golden medals? I don't think it's alphabetical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.25.181 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most medal tables are ranked according to the number of gold medals. Stop being sore losers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.144.44 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Event Medal Table
Can someone put the Individual Event table back up, as i found this really helpful earlier this morning 86.132.88.42 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful, but this is not the right place for it. I'll ask some users if there is precedent for creating an individual page for a list of medalists. -- Scorpion0422 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If we do create a new page, can we try and do this for other olympics i.e the 2000 and 2004 olympics 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the Individual Event list was very helpful and should be somewhere on Wikipedia, if not in this article. Seancp (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we can find the individual medals from any olympics in there indivuidal articals e.g the mens road race that was held this morning 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there are already pages that sort the medals by event (ie. Fencing at the 2008 Summer Olympics), there are already pages that sort medals by nation (ie. China at the 2008 Summer Olympics) and there is now a page that includes gold medalists (2008 Summer Olympics highlights) so having yet another page of medalists would be overkill. Would it really be that much more useful than the current pages that we have right now? -- Scorpion0422 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would. Just imagine if your doing a report on whos won what at the games and your internet is on a very slow dial-up connection. Imagine how much time it would take to load all 302 page up 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people doing such a report would not use wikipedia. You have to remember, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports site. -- Scorpion0422 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But an encyclopedia has to have everything covered inside out and back to front if you know what i mean 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia only gives broad coverage about a topic. For example, in film articles we don't describe the entire plot, only major plot details.  Please see WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is not. --Madchester (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think though that whoever thought of that table up this morning had a brilliant idea. All i get is someone on the tv saying that this country won gold. With the Table it breaks the medal count to an easy to read table, and i don't mind filling the table in for past olympics 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sure there is a site that lists the medal winners in a table such as is wanted somewhere elsewhere on the internet. (That being said, I haven't looked myself...) Why not just find it and include it in related links and/or references? I don't think it belongs in the wiki, but it's a useful resource for 'pic followers. chicgeek (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that having a table that lists the event winners is both useful and not overkill. It allows someone to access the information in one place, not try to figure it out when it is not clear what events have occured. Jvsett (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone can publish a new page, I can begin (with others) to fill in both Past Olympics and the 2008 Olympics 86.132.88.42 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Has someone done the Event Table Page? 86.132.88.42 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is someone going to start the Event table medal page? 86.137.11.52 (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a list of each event UK's BBC If you want the names for each person [USA's NBC] Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for whoever started it, and i'll help with past olympics 86.151.64.155 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Triathalon
I went ahead and added Men's triathlon, sorry I didn't read discussion first, but I double checked and it should be good. Basser g (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal ranking
Okay I've read with interest the debate above about how US publications rank the medal count differently from the rest of the world, and I thought I'd look into this to see how far this goes back. On Google News Archives I've found a report from the New York Times following the end of the 1912 Olympics see (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07EFDF1630E233A25755C1A9619C946396D6CF "America First As Olympics End"). Curiously the ranking used here appears to be based on a point system. Although the report says that it is the conclusion of the games it says the USA had 16 "firsts", the official table shows 25 US gold medals, so perhaps the report is a bit presumptuous. It's not made clear how these points are allocated, but assuming that they are missing a few medals it looks like they might be awarding 3 points for a Gold, 2 points for a Silver and one point for bronze. I've no idea if this was IOC practice at the time or whatever and I'm not making any suggestion that this system should be used anywhere. Jooler (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ESPN 1896 ESPN 2004 ESPN 2008 Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This lists both systems, Gold ranking and total ranking on the same page, on all but the 2008 table. Curious. Jooler (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical error
Could someone please change "and" to "or" in the following sentence: "Therefore, the total number of bronze medals is greater than the total number of gold and silver medals." i.e. "total number of gold or silver medals." or perhaps "total number of either gold or silver medals." Das nbs (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Scorpion0422 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

correction?
I have noticed that the table, to equal countries (e.e. having won the same amount of the same kinds of medals) are put as 69, 69, 69, 69, etc... Shouldnt we, for equal countries, have one 69, then = signs for the rest? This would show that they are equal. Cadan  ap   Tomos  17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The numbers are repeated because when sorting the table by that column, the ones with = or - would otherwise ended up grouped together either at the top or the bottom of the table. --Kvasir (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can use  for those situations, if desired. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we doing it then? Cadan  ap   Tomos  08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

some kind of column on table about # of events country entered (or # possible medals)?
i always look at these tables (here and other places) and am left scratching my head about those countries that win only a few medals...especially the ones with only 1 medal (be it any color). wanting some perspective, did the country enter athletes for every event? just a few? seems like a column could be added stating # events entered? or total medals possible (since in some events (e.g., swimming, gymnastics)it seems a country could sweep the event (i.e., win all three medals?) i think "total medals possible" would be a start.

i'm sure this could open yet another can of worms; i hope not.

regards.68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I have suggested above that we have something like in the 2006 Winter Olympics article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_winter_olympics#Results ) such as mention of medal sweep events, multiple medallists and medals in most disciplines. etc. --Kvasir (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it does open a can of worms. There always seems to be this perpetual debate about how medal rankings aren't "fair", and so there are always ideas of what should be the divisor in some normalizing equation, whether that is population, GDP, and now number of entries.  Well, that will never solve the problem, as there are also issues with the numerator.  All medals are not equal.  The most obvious example of this is team sports.  Which is more impressive–a gold medal victory in a team sport, or a gold+bronze by an individual athlete in two different events?  Even considering the number of entries is an issue.  Team sports have a quota on the number of slots in the Olympic tournament, and an extensive set of pre-Games qualifying tournaments are played to fill those spots.  It is a far more significant achievement, for example, for Mali's women's basketball team to have won the African FIBA tournament (and count as a single entry), than for the two swimmers from Mali who got to compete in the 50 m freestyle as "wildcard" (non-qualifying) entries.
 * I just don't understand why we can't accept the table for what it is—a simple tabulation. The List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners gives us the winners in the 302 events, and this table adds up the numbers by country.  There are two possible ways of sorting, and we choose to use the one that the IOC uses.  That's it.  It really is as simple as that, and any "controversy" about that seems to have originated on Wikipedia, in my opinion.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're the one opening up a can of worms here, Andrwsc. If I'm not mistaken, the original inquiry had nothing to do with the fairness of the rankings, but was just an observation that the table could have some more interesting and useful information. Some people might look at it and use it in their judgments of how well one country or another did, but this article does not have to address that in order to include an extra "# Events competed" or "# possible medals" column, either of which I think should actually be considered as they would contain useful information for an article such as this. Khalfani  Khaldun  17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This entire talk page is filled with discussion threads that ultimately boil down to the same thing. For some reason, people don't like seeing the large powerful countries at the top of the list, and smaller nations or nations with smaller delegations at the bottom, and want some extra information added to that table to explain this "problem".  I just don't see any need for anything other than the simple tabulation—the same tabulation (without extra details) that all of our WP:reliable sources for this article use. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A list of "swept" events belongs at the List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners, not here. This is a medal table, and should only include things that directly relate to the standings - changes, which nation won their first, etc. Medal sweep events, multiple medallists and medals in most disciplines are just trivial and relate to the athletes, which is why they should be in the medal winners article. -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry to have flamed the fire. my comment was very simple and had nothing to do with the "power" countries weighting the table. it was merely a wonderment of how many events a country entered and/or how many possible medals a country started the games. perhaps there is a wiki page where one of the adamant defenders of this page's status quo can direct me? meanwhile, i'll just continue to remain clueless about how many possible medals a country (say togo or china or usa) vied for and/or how many events in which a country participated.

i won't comment again.

regards. 68.173.2.68 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no, we're not trying to scare you off! The closest thing to the information you want is on the main article itself, where the number of competitors per nation is given in parentheses after the nation's name.  Also, every article's infobox ought to include the size of the delegation (e.g. "125 competitors in 12 sports").  Lastly, at the conclusion of the Games we'll probably try to finish a "Participating nations" section on each sport page, with the size of each team, and those pages also have per-sport medal tables.  For example, see Weightlifting at the 2004 Summer Olympics.  Keeping those two sets of numbers on the per-sport pages also provides better apples–apples comparisons.  Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are all kinds of interesting number-crunchings which can be done after every Olympics and world event. I always do a couple of them myself on my blog -- GDP and population -- and now via these discussions two more suggest themselves (including this one), which I will probably include this time around. This is not, however, raw data but data which I have processed against criteria I find relevant, making it interpretive, and thus original research. While I do find the results interesting and relevant, I look to Wikipedia only to provide the raw data for me to make my own manipulations. Raw data is the job of an encyclopaedia-style article. Manipulations are the job of the media, individual or mass, and of academia. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.148 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion at the Reference Desk may interest you (not that I'm suggesting such calculations should be part of this article's tables). --  JackofOz (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

European Union
It would be interesting to add the combined total of the European Union to the table.

This is what is would look like:

85.5.187.219 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This was suggested during the 2006 Olympics, but was met with a lot of opposition, and I think it's reasonable to conclude that since nations compete separately for themselves, there's no reason to conglomerate results for the purpose of making the region look better. Jared   (t)  &ensp; 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, the EU does not have its own National Olympics Committee. Each EU member countries have their own and compete amongst each other. Heilme (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, many sports only allow one or two teams to enter from each country. The EU would presumably have many fewer chances to medal if the entire EU were limited to only one or two teams per event, hence it is not an entirely fair comparison.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Still, it might be interesting to compile a table comparing the different continents. 85.5.187.219 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a rediculous idea because several competitors from the several European nations are competing at once in one event. For example, in an event where you are limited to a certain amount of competitors, China would be limited to 1 or 2 competitors, whereas France, Great Britain, and the rest of the European nations are allowed their 1 or 2 competitors. This represents an overwhelming overrepresentation. As whole Europe has a lot more chances to win if they're throwing more than a single country's fair share of competitors into the match. Imagine if the US team was limited to one competitor at any one event and they decided to bring 5 competitors for that same event. Obviously their chances at medals exceed much more than if they had just sent 1. Of course, this would be cheating and would never happen. Neither should the medals of all the EU or European countries be lumped together. It is "cheating" and quite honestly just childish. 69.111.17.49 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But you can also argue that, if Europe combines its strenght, it can compound united teams which are much stronger than ten or more seperated teams. It's like one US baseketball team vs ten basketball teams of ten diiferent US states (New York, California etc.). While the US team is the absolute favourite, a devided team would have almost no chance for gold. Germany might have a player like Nowitzki, but that is not enough. One Kobe Bryant would also be not enough.--91.36.211.178 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, that wouldn't be fair to the Antarcticans. :P Heilme (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. They only compete in the Winter Games.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Antartican beach-volleyball team is more competitive than the Jamaican bobsled team! 85.5.187.219 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Superpowers medal tally

 * Actually, here is a more accurate portrayal:

--Amazonien (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the UN. Heilme (talk)
 * And NATO. - CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming this was a joke. But for the record, no, this page isn't for alternate histories about the British Empire and Soviet Union being intact. ;) Thompsontough (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's amusing as a point of discussion (though it's probably completely out of place in the Wiki)... But are the British medals being counted twice, for both the EU list and the British Empire list? And shouldn't the British Empire be taking credit for all of the medals won by their former colony in North America? 212.124.225.66 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But what if the athlete isn't from one of the original 13 colonies (states)? Do they still get credit for that? -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What is Russia doing there?

Unranked at bottom
Unranked at the bottom is the only possibility, but as other have mentioned having more teams than any single nation makes it kinda meaningless. Only slightly interesting to see. --85.197.248.132 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After all we have total medal count as it has some meaning. The medals are nowhere equal and can not be summed. It's just interesting like the total medal count, even though it has no real meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.248.132 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If the European Union going to be added on the end there should also be, Union of South American Nations, 22px Association of Southeast Asian Nations etc. added onto the chart without rank also.

— ■ ~∀SÐFﾑｻ~ ■ =]  Babashi? antenna? 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What about Commonwealth of Independent States? (Also, Georgia said they were leaving yesterday - possibly because of what's happening in South Ossetia - would they be included or not?) If someone wants to add them, be my guest. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read this before proposing another hypothetical way to include the EU
I believe the above posters covered most of this, but I'll throw in another take on it for anyone still reading this and thinking about it since there are obviously people who still don't understand why this is inherently flawed. Suppose every U.S. state was allowed to compete separately in the Olympics. People would cry foul about US-centrism, and rightly so, if Michael Phelps took the gold medal while competitors from the same country (as in one entry from California, one from Michigan, one from Maine, for example) took the silver and bronze. Giving a combined score for the EU here is the equivalent of doing just that, because every EU member competes as a separate entity. The EU idea would work if there was some equivalent of the Unified Team at the 1992 Summer Olympics whereby the EU members are collectively represented once in each competition - but I wouldn't hold my breath for that. Hopefully this helps put things into perspective. Thompsontough (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Thompsontough. Although in the spirit of cheeky fun, I will toss in yet another conglomerate - the former Yugoslavia (1G, 3S, 4B - and oddly enough, its final total in 1988 was 3G, 4S, 5B, so surprisingly close, there). And then again we could always go back to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to have an EU entry in political and econmic tables, the EU being a political and economic entitiy. Sport, well, that will take a number of years if ever. The UK has been a nation for 300 years and yet we still have England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales football times! 143.167.204.116 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, such a difference would only be relevent to the Americans, who care about the total medal count (see above, ad nauseum) rather than the rest of the world who care first and foremost about the number of gold medals an only use the silver and bronze medals as a tie breaker. So once Phelps has won, who cares who gets the silver and bronze? Once you've got the best swimmer in the pool, who cares whether you're allowed to have another one in there with him?212.124.225.66 (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that was trolling or missing the point (probably a little of both). Use a different analogy if you'd like - mine was under the assumption that said medals were being combined into an overall US score, rather than listed separately as Hong Kong is - but the part about combining scores and the Unified Team still stands at any rate. Entities that compete separately should be listed separately (I think we can all agree on this now). Thompsontough (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Special stats
I particularly like what we have in the 2006 Winter Olympics article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_winter_olympics#Results ) where we have stats for multiple medallists and medal sweep events. I'd like to see it as a separate section after the Medal Table. --Kvasir (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. If someone's prepared to provide those same stats (particularly the one about the different number of sports) then they'd look good on this page.212.124.225.66 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan should be 36th, not tied at 35th. This will cascade changes down the list. 204.54.36.245 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Kugo

Interesting article
This might be a useful article to add to the article somehow, assuming it's not perceived as non-neutral POV or something: If not, it's at least interesting reading for the folks debating about medal counts on this talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction
Belarus is 15th now. And Kenya is 16th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimon.by (talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably Splitting Hairs
When I was younger I would always get confused when team event winners would get multiple medals but only one would be listed on any medal chart.

The opening paragraphs state

"The 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is a list of National Olympic Committees ranked by the number of medals won by their athletes during the 2008 Summer Olympics" "The ranking sorts by the number of gold medals the athletes from a country have earned"

This is not really correct as the medal table is a ranking of the top three finishers for each event. Whoever wins men's soccer(football) is not going to get 20+ golds in the medal table. Should this be explained somewhere on this page? Or did I miss it? Or is it not needed?72.209.246.97 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In a team event, each person, including alternates, gets a medal, but only a single event medal is counted in the rankings. For an alternate proposal re wording of the medal sort, see mine a couple of sections above. If felt necessary, the first line of this comment could be added. - Tenebris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.43 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think something stating that teams are recorded as a single medal in the table would be good. Individuals who are not familiar with the Olympics might be confused if they see multiple medals awarded to a team of athletes during a broadcast while only one medal is shown on the table.72.209.246.97 (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, the Chinese athletes have been awarded 69 total gold medals, and US athletes have been awarded 80. Just wanna put that out there. D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 03:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia????
I noticed the article states Serbia won it's first Olympic medal. This is technically incorrect, as they are considered to be the same NOC as Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. So, I have added a note saying this. Or should we take the bit about Serbia out alltogether? For now though, it will stay with a note.
 * I changed it to say that it was the first medal won by Serbia as an independant nation. -- Scorpion0422 18:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, the Serbian flagbearer is a five-time Olympic medalist. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.198 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

IOC's medal table ranking system
Can someone kindly tell me the IOC's official table medal count? Is it based on the total number of medals won or the total number of gold medals. Here in Canada, the CTV news network places the US on top with more medals than China as does my local Vancouver Sun newspaper. But in Wikipedia's Olympic table, China is first because it has more gold medals than the US even though it has a less overall medal count (gold, silver, bronze) compared to the US. So, I wonder how does IOC resolve this problem? If 2 states had a total of 16 medals and country A has 4 gold compared to country B with 3 gold, certainly country A is placed higher on the medal count. But when the US has more total medals than China but less gold medals than China, I don't know who places first. What does the IOC say? Thank You Leoboudv (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the text in the article doesn't explain this clearly enough, it ought to be improved. To answer your question, imagine an Excel spreadsheet.  You sort by the #gold column in descending order first, then the #silver column in descending order, then the #bronze in descending order.  Really quite simple.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting to note, Canadian media usually give the ranking by total medals to put Canada higher on the table. I think the current paragraph on the IOC ranking is good enough. --Kvasir (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Canada has no singular medal sorting scheme. The CBC and Canadian Press follow IOC conventions, while others follow the US method.  Other media outlets use their own discretion to present he table.  Last week the Toronto Star had the CP's medal table, but re-sorted it to follow the US total medal count style.  This week, it's simply presenting the CP medal table as it is; under the IOC sorting method. --Madchester (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because United States airwaves reach Canada and United States newspapers are sold in Canada, there tends to be strong consumer pressure in Canada to follow United States conventions in order to compete. There are not too many media organisations with the power or will to resist that pull, and many would argue that it should not be resisted. - Tenebris
 * Although the IOC does not officially endorse any ranking system, they order their tables by gold. See the medals table for the 2004 Athens Games at the IOC Web site. As you can see, China is ahead of Russia even though Russia has more total medals. Wikipedia uses the tables as provided by the IOC and does not change anything.


 * There is no official tally system for the medals that I'm aware of. However, for the sake of argument let's say that we arbitrarily assign 3 points for gold, 2 for silver, and 1 for bronze. If we calculate, the Chinese are STILL ahead of the U.S. despite the Americans having more medals (as of August 21). Would you rather have 3 bronze medals, 2 silvers or 1 gold? The point is, it's not about quantity but quality. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not gonna argue, I don't really care how it's ranked; but why is emphisis placed on quality over quantity? The points system does put China ahead by 3 pts., so if the "experts" are correct in their predictions the US will pass China up eventually. It seems the silver and bronze winners should get some props too.  Black  ngold29   00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quality over quantity would make sense if you wanted to prove that your athletes are the best. By winning more gold medals in the events you participate in you are showing that your athletes dominate that particular sport. The U.S. dominates swimming; in fact, something like half of the medals the U.S. won in 2004 came from swimming events. China dominates in more sports, and thus, has more gold. As China has won more gold this year, I don't think anyone is going to argue their athletes were not the most talented (ignoring the allegations of cheating).--71.112.145.102 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quantity over quality? Now there is an argument I never thought I would hear in the context of the Olympics. - Tenebris


 * Hello there, I think I get it now. The IOC places more weight on the number of gold medals (ie. quality) than the total number of medals. So China is first. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, does this make sense? The U.S. ranks #1 with 200 bronzes but China ranks #2 with 199 golds. - 12:40PM, 22 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.97.232 (talk)
 * Well, does this make sense? China rank #1 with 1 gold and the US ranks #2 with 199 silvers. This is subjective. There is no perfect system. Stop your damned whining. - Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.8.54 (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to the Olympics, you're going there to win. The reason why they rank golds first is that the players are encouraged to do their best, the spirit and goal of all sports. If they rank it by total medals, well, then who gives a shit about the golds; let's just farm the bronzes instead since it's easier, never mind the silvers. There is no point in winning anymore. Then, the gold medal value decreases since the demand for more medals is higher. Thus, the Olympics is just a race for medals. That makes no sense. Plus, the U.S. ranked the medals based on golds in the last Olympic game, but changed to total medals this year. Sounds like American propaganda to me; they just can't accept the fact that the Chinese is dominating them in sports this year. Gold first, end of story.

Why bother having Gold medal matches? If you just going to count every medal equal??? Why not just stop and give the Top 3 competitors each Gold?? You see-- counting the total medals is very flawed. Its easier to understand but flawed in the sense of degrading the worth of being a Gold medalist or the Olympic Champion. I think the "Points System" is the most accurate measurement of a country's performance. But I prefer the Gold Medal Tally than the Total Medal Tally (The most flawed of the three.) But regardless I agree with the IOC not recognizing these Medal Tally's. These Tallies are just for fun. There are too many factors to consider. The reason why US topping the medal table is because they have the money, source, training facilities etc etc to succeed in the Olympics. If all the countries have equal footings then Overall Medal should be awarded every closing ceremonies. Of course that would never happen, Maybe in the future when all countries is as rich as the US but as for now Medal Tallies are just for fun.68.127.152.38 (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I too have challenges understanding the flawed method of ranking and establishing supremacy based upon most gold or even most medals. Consider various scenarios as put forward on the following talk page. --HJKeats (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely flummoxed by people's inability to understand the conventional ranking system, what one might call "the gold standard". 11 bronzes cannot be worth more than 10 golds in this universe. Gold Medals are what it is all about. Gold is a win everything else is losing by a greater and greater degree. It just happens that you get a consolation prize for coming second and third, but there could just as easily be copper and tin medals for 4th and 5th. There is no exchange rate for gold medals. Any G=3, S=2, B=1 or G=10, S=3, B=1 or whatever other point system you come up with will be wrong because no athlete would swap their gold medal for a dozen or a hundred or a thousand bronzes. It seems so obvious to me, and yet apparently not so obvious to many others that I think there must be some sort of defensive groupthink going on here, where people are so used to the total medal system that they cannot conceive of it being illogical or wrong. Or maybe its me who is the victim of groupthink. Jooler (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What About France and Jamaica? As of now, Jamaica has 10 medals, 6 gold.  France has 34 medals, 5 gold.  Personally, I would argue that France has had the better Olympics.  I'm sorry, but top 3 in world 34 times is better than top 3 in the world 10 times.  I think that its debatable between the US and China.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.226.117 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You might argue that, but even the French accept the IOC system which puts them below Jamaica - see http://www.lemonde.fr/sport-jo-pekin/cache/page/standing.php. Te top three thing is as arbitrary as using top 5 or top 10. Jooler (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The top spot is just as arbitrary as the top 3, which is just as arbitrary as top 5 or top 10.  However, that doesn't make all methods equal.  Some arbitrary cutoffs wouldn't capture enough to include all good performances and some arbitrary cutoffs would be so inclusive that they capture too many poorer performances to be useful.  I think that's the point of what's being discussed here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.226.117 (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * End the discussion: Jooler is flummoxed. Bottom line: Obviously, he is wrong, and a weighted system is the most effective mechanism for comparing overall performance of nations...but the precise weighting is subjective. That means there is no right answer! So: Use your imagination; find one that fits your world view; you've succeeded! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.8.54 (talk)

Here's an LA Times article: Weighing Olympic gold - Los Angeles Times... AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal table text wording
I think "The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)" should be changed to "information from the IOC" or "information from the IOC website"---there's noone at the IOC doing work to send Wikipedia the information (i.e. the IOC's not "providing"), but its just Wikipedia people going to the website and copying it... 118.90.66.84 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The IOC provides a medals list (and other information) to all media, both in print form and on its website. Wikipedia confirms its information based on its website. The information is still provided for precisely such distribution as this, not stolen or otherwise taken. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.198 (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Two tables?
I noticed that the text says the table will organize first by gold, then by silver, then by bronze. I think it would be better to have two tables, one that organizes by gold through bronze, and one that does it on total medal count (unless subst:RankedMedalTable/sandbox has a sortable option I've never noticed). Kolindigo (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The default is gold, but the table will be sortable, so people will be able to arrange the table to sort by gold, total, silver, bronze or nation. Like this one. -- Scorpion0422 02:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, it is sortable. *laughs* Thanks, now I feel like an idiot. Cool functionality! Kolindigo (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The table should default sort (and rank) based on total medal count, as that is how the IOC's table is sorted/will be sorted. --    Me   Holla! 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the IOC goes by gold medals, they do that with all of their other medal tables, such as this one -- Scorpion0422 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the whole world except USA goes by gold medals... So this is absolutely correct. Total medal count doesnt make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.113.248 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 We agree on the total count: I think that to some extent, the USA would find a way to sort the medal count by country name starting by "usa", in order to be first. The coverage of the games in the USA is also quite "American", but I'm sure that any country, starting by France, is showing their athletes first. Nevertheless, showing medals by total number is a brilliant find. GO TEAM AMERICA !!! (heard the other day for water polo). Peace brothers and sisters. PATtheFrog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.214.42 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You should create an American wikipedia where bronze is more important than gold, the Earth is flat as it is proved by the Bible and Tibet wasn't a part of China till 1950. You're so immature, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.90.154 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Being able to sort the medal table is a great feature, however China always has a rank of one, which gives the false suggestion that China won the Olympics. Countries do not win medals, athletes win medals, and the table is provided for informational purposes only. When a column is sorted, the rank should start at the top with the rank of 1. Is this a limitation of Wikipedia, or would it be possible to do this in wikipedia? Doing it any other way would suggest that one country is more superior than the other at the Olympics, which is against the principle of the IOC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.124.164 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That image...
I've put it at List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There should be a NPOV image on this article. I am replacing the image of the athletes with the image of the medals. Kingturtle (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find a free image that is NPOV, go ahead. In the meantime, this is the best free image we have available.  You cannot use your selected non-free image per Non-free content criteria.  Please respect this policy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * er...then why is the image being used in a different article? Kingturtle (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An image of Olympic athletes holding their medals is NPOV how? Because they are from a certain country?  What point of view is being forwarded here, exactly?  That Olympians receive medals?  The359 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The countries represented show a POV. Whenever possible, NPOV should be found. Kingturtle (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Showing countries that participated in the Olympics is a POV how? By that logic, we couldn't allow pictures of ANY athletes on any Olympic articles. The359 (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's that type of logic that leads to these endless debates of re-sorting the medal table for NPOV purposes. --Madchester (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of bold type on medal table
Seems we have a minor edit war going over the use of boldface to highlight the winners of the most medals in each "category"; i.e. gold, silver, bronze, and total. I don't think it's necessary because it is possible to see which country is winning each "category" by simply sorting the tables. It just adds confusion, especially since it's not explained in the article what the significance of the bold face is. However, I still think it would be unnecessarily confusing even if an explanation was added. The other side of the argument is that this has been done for previous Olympic pages. Is the precedent relevant here if it's not making the table any easier to understand? Discuss. KiwiDave (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I don't think it's particularly notable which NOC has the most gold, silver, or bronze medals. Like you pointed out, the table is sortable so boldface is unnecessary. Nirvana888 (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We used to use bold on these articles before we sortable tables were created, but once we switched to sortable tables, the "need" for bolding went away. Also, there is nothing in WP:MOSBOLD that suggests it is appropriate here.  The MOS only allows table headers, and that is all we should have.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal of the boldface for the top counts in the medals table. First, WP:MOSBOLD appears to be written with normal text in mind to preserve readability.  Tables are whole different animal.  Table designers throughout Wikipedia use a variety of methods to highlight selected items including, yes, boldface.  As for sorting, why ask the user to sort, when the information can be shown up front.  I'd bet there are many users who don't even know what the sort icons mean.  Granted, for the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, bu this is not always the case.  For example, in 1998 Winter Olympics medal table and 2006 Winter Olympics medal table, the top bronze medal count is far down the list.  The bold has always been there.  Lets leave it there.  -- Tcncv (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think it is necessary to emphasize which country has the most of each type of medal (especially silver or bronze medals). Boldface is thus superfluous and the instructions added by you on how to sort a table already accomplishes this and more. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

highlighting the olympic host and with a color key?
This couldn't just be a sentence fragment in the article, if even that? Emesee (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems to be common to all WP Olympics articles though. I think just an asterisk would be enough to get the point across, but not stating would be ok given the utter obviousness of the situation.
 * It does remind me of how WP seems to inflate minor pieces of information and give greater attention than it really deserves. 118.90.66.84 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia's Rank
Mongolia has 2 gold medals, but for whatever reason is ranked 45th, behind nations with only one gold. what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.242.45 (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've corrected their position now. David Biddulph (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolding by columns
IMO the bolding of the top figures for each of G/S/B/T is unnecessary, becuase anyone who feels they need to know will click the sort buttons anyway. It seems to me that telling people beforehand is a bit like saying "here's the medal table, but the default sorting is misleading, so I'll tell you who got the best in each column."

The bolding should be removed and left as plain text (goes for the whole table). 118.90.66.84 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears from looking at all the other Summer Olympics medal table articles that this has been adopted as the standard approach so one can assume it has been concluded by consensus as the syyle to use. Suggest with the Olympics over for another four years its time to leave as is.Tmol42 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that then, I've now seen all the other tables and the precedent is there (back as 2006 ?! :p) 118.90.66.84 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF Mates?
Ok, why are there 302 golds and 303 silvers? Did the Gold Medalist shoot someone and was killed in the process? Seriously, that is like the oddest thing I've seen here. Fix it! 64.105.27.214 (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * C'mon, if you followed the Olympic Games you'd know that ties happen. Phizzy (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the article: "Additionally there was a tie for the silver medal in the women's 100 metres in athletics..." 90.240.209.118 (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles?
What silver medal did they win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinality of the Infinite (talk • contribs) 09:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They didn't. Their runner finished second in the men's 200m sprint but was later disqualified. &mdash;Raven42 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Two runners were disqualified for stepping on or across the lane lines in that race. The DQ was a delayed call after the films  tapes video was reviewed.  -- Tcncv (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Classification by points given for places 1-8
In Eastern Europe the Points Classification has been popular in the past. The points were calculated like that: 8 for a gold, 7 for a silver, 6 for a bronze, 5 for 4th place, 4 for 5th place, 3 for 6th place, 2 for 7th place and 1 for 8th place. It was officialy showed in tv and newspapers. For Beijing 2008 I haven't noticed it being calculated officialy, but I have calculated it for myself. I have a question: Has anyone noticed such calculation being made ever in Western European countries, or in USA, or anywhere else? --Jakas1 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Something similar was used in Sweden, but I think top 6 was used instead. Haven't seen it for years now though. -- Jao (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it is officialy calculated for the Beijing Olympics, but only for the athletics: http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/AT/C96/AT0000000.shtml#ATM099101 Does someone have a source of such placing table for more sports, or for whole olympics games in Beijing, or any other olympic games? --Jakas1 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Medal Points'
The Guardian showed the rankings if one gave three points for a gold, two for a silver and one for bronze. Just now that would give:

China		47	17	25	200

USA		31	36	35	200

Britain		18	13	13	93

Russia		17	18	22	109

Germany		14	9	13	73

Australia	12	14	16	80

S. Korea	11	10	7	60

It is maybe a better reflection of achievement. --GwydionM (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The current ranking method still seems to be kept for certain period of time. And I hope wikipedians to realize that: Do not think you can change the world by changing the wikipedia; But you can change the wikipedia by changing the world FIRST. 59.149.32.77 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Faircompare (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with that gold=3, silver=2, bronze=1 reflects the achievement better. If a medal count and ranking table is made, then they have to account numerically for the different medals. That is a natural consequence - the IOC just has not got it yet. Sooner or later they will learn it, though. After all, putting the gold medals as the only significant ones in order to push China before the USA in the medal count list means nothing but not counting the silver and the bronze medals (gold =1, silver =0, bronze=0). So, do silver and bronze count, or not ? What is the IOC stand on that?

Whereas I think it is balooney to count the E.U. as a block, I do believe it makes sense to compare nations in terms of olympic efficiency, and thus look at the medal count after dividing by population or per capita.

The Gold Medal method does take Silvers and Bronze into consideration. they use it to break ties with countries with the same amount of Gold. If the Countries still have the same amount of Gold and Silver then they will the Bronzes as the tie breaker. If Everything else is the same then those countries would have the same Rankings.68.127.148.83 (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And I disagree with the comment from wiki that the world would change wiki, but wiki could not change the world.

Missing fair use rationale for Image:Beijingolympicsmedals.jpg
Image:Beijingolympicsmedals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.--130.225.204.130 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhhh... no it isn't being used on this article... thanks for playing, though... Kingnavland (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was, and has since been removed, because the image only has a fair use rationale for 2008 Summer Olympics. Fair use images cannot be used on other articles unless they have a fair use rationale for that specific article. The359 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Future Perfect at Sunrise, a member of Wikipedia fair use image task force, Image:Beijingolympicsmedals.jpg would be purely decorative and "The purpose of the article is not to discuss the artistic design of the medals, so it is not really important for understanding it to have a visual representation of them. Hence, that image would fail WP:NFCC#8 (doesn't make a crucial contribution to understanding the article)." However he also believes that Image:Michael Phelps Ryan Lochte Laszlo Cseh medals 2008 Olympics.jpg with an all-American winner image would be POV and unnecessary to illustrate this data table. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, are people actually looking at the image? It isn't an "all-American winner image", László Cseh is Hungarian and he is clearly wearing a different uniform than Phelps and Lochte. -- Scorpion0422 19:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he's not a member of "Wikipedia free image task force" so the last part is more or less his private opinion. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Country name sorting
I should add that I think the countries should be sorted by their three letter code when sorting by ABC --- the IOC site states the three letter code first, then the English. The codes are unique so they shouldn't be a problem. Help:Sorting has info on hidden sortkeys, since the article is locked I can't do it myself. 118.90.66.84 (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is a matter of consistency. Someone has just pu the US first, probably because they are first in totla medal count! But the rest of the countries are sourted by the number of gold, silver and bronze medals. --Chief White Halfoat (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that. What I meant was that the country codes should be used as the Country column sort key. I.e. if someone chooses to sort by name, sort by country code. I said nothing about the default appearance. 118.90.66.84 (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what I mean. There is no difference in the table on the main page, except that the ALPHABETIC sort code is based on the three letter code. Nothing else has been changed, before someone accuses me of some motive for this.

118.90.66.84 (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I prefer the current method or sorting countries by the common name as displayed. This makes a significant difference for some countries such as Spain (ESP) and North Korea (PRK).  -- Tcncv (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I was thinking the same thing (difference for ESP and PRK) but for the opposite reason! ( :p ) The alpha-sort putting North Korea next to Norway is sensible from an English POV, I grant that... Bottom line: I thought, if the article was aiming for consistency with the IOC then this would be the ... um... obvious (?!) next step. 118.90.66.84 (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The simplest solution is to put the IOC code in a separate sortable column and make the common name column (un)sortable. I vote for unsortable common name because it only facilitate quick finding for English speaker, and not very universal like the IOC codes. --Kvasir (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the English-language Wikipedia, you know... AnonMoos (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed image of US Team
I removed the image of the US team because there are many atheletes who won medals in the game. Displaying the US team only would be biased. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * László Cseh isn't American... --Jh12 (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * May I add that they are all men? Might sound lame, but the discussion above also mentioned there should be greater diversity/equality in presenting photos of the medal winning atheletes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is to display Athletes winning medals. Not Americans winning medals, not Men winning medals.  EVERY athlete in the Olympics represents a country, but that doesn't mean a photo of an athlete is meant to show approval/disapproval of their country.  The359 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are only 3 medal winners at a time (in wrestling/judo there are 4). I don't see how you can ever have all the medal winners in a single photograph to achieve non-bias. --Kvasir (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The future will judge us
I'm a Dane and i'll have no intentions of promoting USA. In the future Beijing-2008 will be known as the Olympics where a person won eight gold medals in a row. A 2008 Summer Olympics medal table without that person aka Michael Phelps would be misleading. Wikipedia is full of images from USA because they are abstaining their copyrights. Tell me why USA should be punished because of that? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refine your point to indicate how it is relevant or should be used to construct the article. Is there a particular image from the US source which you feel should be included in the article? Please link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe he is arguing against the repeated removal of the image of Michael Phelps and two other swimmers from the article, although I don't believe the image was chosen simply because it was Phelps. The359 (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Phelps was primarily the reason why the image was picked. May not be intentionally, but probably because his images are readily available. I think replacing the image with those enlarged images of each of the three types of medals would wipe out the bias. Besides, how the deails on the medals look like close up is probably within the interest of the viewers. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I'm the one that first added the image, and Phelps had absolutely nothing to do with it. I found the image and said to myself "yes, an image that clearly shows all 3 medal winners in an event. I can add that as a temporary image and hope one of just the medals comes available" and added it, not thinking that people would be upset at seeing two Americans on the page. -- Scorpion0422 23:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right that Image:Michael Phelps Ryan Lochte Laszlo Cseh medals 2008 Olympics.jpg is sheer male, white swimmers but every other image would be biased too. The Michael Phelps image has three advantages: Michael Phelps - free - all three medals. So my US source image would be the [[:Image:Michael Phelps Ryan Lochte Laszlo Cseh medals 2008 Olympics.jpg. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Golds per pop.
This probably isn't particularly suitable for the article as it's original research, but I thought people might be interested in seeing the top 5 countries but normalised per billion of population:

Jetekus (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really reveal much as each NOC is limited to number of people they can send to each event. Therefore, a country like China with such a large population can only send the same number of athletes per event as a small country like Australia. A more telling chart would be number of golds per delegation of athletes at this Games. 76.71.50.13 (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that any medal tally that puts Australia at it's rightful place (far far in front) must be correct! Clearly this is the natural order of things and should replace the existing medal tally forthwith - NOR and V be damned! Witty Lama 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What might be more interesting is a list of the most populous countries which haven't won any medals... AnonMoos (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

India has done quite bad with only 1(at this point) gold in that sense... Still from quick check it seems that some small nations would do remarkably well this way like Slovenia with 1482.7... Rating success per athlete would be best way in my opinion. --82.203.181.186 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this info should be added... is it against Wikipedia policy to find someone who has done the research for you and add his data? Leav (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia consensus is against adding such statistics to these medal table lists. you can find out more here and here. -- Scorpion0422 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently the LA TImes tracks this. (I don't suggest that we add it here.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The LA Times Olympics blog has a series of sarcastically-phrased articles on medals per capita (not golds per capita); apparently this is the latest: The Bahamas -- 400 meters from Medals Per Capita fame? | Olympics blog | Los Angeles Times... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's some Australian guy who ranks them by population and GDP: . Not really a WP:RS though. Lampman (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not fair, sometimes a huge number of population is not an advantage but the opposite, limited budget and facilities are divided by a larger population, it's not easy to produce good athletes. Ask people from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, how do they feel when told more population should produce more medals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.99.48.26 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)