Talk:Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Tables
I think this article would look a lot neater and be a lot clearer if there tables were used for each sport rather than just lists. Darryl.matheson (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We've had discussion about that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. Something will be "standardized" in the next couple of months.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey qualification
How come it says England qualifed for the Olympics by beating India in the Euro Hockey comp?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.64.28 (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes this was wrong, it was actually at the Olympic qualifiers, i've corrected this. -Basement12 (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Gymnastics Results
Should the format of the women's results table be the same as the men's results table? I know little clue as to how this competition works/progresses, so will leave for someone else to do. Yboy83 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put in a similar table, assuming the competition works in the same way. It's quit complicated but I think i've done it right. Basement12 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Contributors
To all those who are regularly making edits and updating the Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics page:

Add your User:name to this list with your interests and special knowledge about Team GB and the sports we're involved in.


 * Yboy83 - Sports: swimming, track cycling, triathlon; Other: British records in swimming; General: Editing to ensure consistency throughout the page

Swimming Record
Is the womens 4x100m relay record correct? I thought that one of the swimmers was replaced for the final.Cairocat (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct - Sylvester replaced Beckett for the final. I now remember Jameson/Moorhouse saying on TV that there had been a swim-off in the training pool between the heat and final. I have fixed this now. Yboy83 (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hockey detailed results
User:Basement12 has recently added detailed results for the hockey. My opinion is this additional information is not required as part of this article. For no other sports have we included so much detail - who the officials were, which seat in the boat the rowers are sitting, score for each individual dive in the diving etc. The Sport at the 2008 Summer Olympics are the article pages for such detailed information, and as such there are   for each sport in this article, leaving a summary in a simple readable table as had been prepared. What are the thoughts of other editors to this article? Yboy83 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, I merely added it to be in line with other team sport results on pages for other nations, eg at Argentina or Brazil. This is probably something to discuss WikiProject Olympics? - Basement12 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although individual splits in e.g. swimming relays are probably a similar level of detail (at least to who the scorers were) and I don't think they are a bad thing. Basement12 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Something has gone wrong with GB hockey results: the results are internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the hockey page Metalmouth70 (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Aquatics
Should this not be broken down into seperate swimming and diving sections and placed in th corresponding alphabetical positions, as found at the other nations pages. They are listed as seperate sports on Template:EventsAt2008SummerOlympics. - Basement12 (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest asking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics‎, to ensure that it's the same for every country. Bluap (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have now asked for opinions here. - Basement12 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Heptathlon/Decathlon
Do people think a table like the one below, found at the US page, would be a good addition for these events or is it too much detail?

The various events within events are equivalent to the different rounds in e.g 100m so I believe the full scores should be included. Basement12 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That table looks very nice. Bluap (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included, much better table. Eddie6705 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Records Section
This is starting to get quite large, to cut it down a bit I suggest only listing the records under their highest classification, i.e. a WR doesn't need listing 4 more times under OR, CR, NR and ER and a CR or ER should not be listed under NR. Basement12 (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but if we are keeping the details of the previous record, then all should be listed. Infact, I doubt we need to include the previous record information. But remember that WR>ER>NR, but OR and CR are not necessarily ER/WR. As I see the required fields are:
 * Date
 * Sport/Event
 * Athlete(s)
 * Result
 * Record type - i.e. list of initials of which records apply.
 * Should we sort by sport/date/athlete name? Perhaps just make it a sortable table... Yboy83 (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree previous record not necessary, particularly if the record is properly referenced. Personally I like your sortable idea but another option is to keep the current sections adding a note at the top of each stating e.g. WR>OR, NR, CR, ER or CR>NR. This would mean listing some records more than once but would remove need for sorting. Basement12 (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made an attempt at it - see here: User:Yboy83/Sandbox. The notes at the top are just some info. Have setup sortkeys for record types and names (team records sortkey is first person in the team list). Yboy83 (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Only possible problem is that I have a feeling the cycling team sprint may technically a "world's best" not WR, as better times might have been recorded but at higher altitudes. My knowledge of the sport isn't good enough to be sure though. Other than that I see no reason not to put it into the article. Basement12 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might be right: According to List of Olympic records in cycling and http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/REC/CT.shtml there are only World and Olympic records recognised in a small handful of events. See also, the results from Manchester World Champs - at the top of the results pages, there is the current world record, but for team sprint, it isn't recorded. I'm going to change it to WB until someone proves otherwise.
 * I have found this: http://www.uci.ch/data_UCI/track/palmares/records/world_M.htm, but it doesn't appear to have been undated in some time. Also http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/tra/track_records.asp, which links to an excel sheet, which would confirm a British Record.
 * To conclude: Sprint Team: WB, BR; Women's Pursuit: BR; Men's Pursuit: OR; as these are the only ones we can confirm atm.
 * I'll move the table from my sandbox to the article later tonight unless someone has serious objections. Yboy83 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Athletics: Sorted by events?
User:Peterwill appears to have chaged the ordering of the athletic tables by events rather than the traditional by surname established in other articles and in other tables of this article as well. While I do not condone such actions, because it makes easy to see which events British athlete are in but usually when your updating the table it's natural to look for the athlete by their surname. Also, if this table is going to be kept like this, are the other tables going to be changed as well? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally when i started designing the tables being used on all the Nations pages, the intention was to list alphabetically by athlete surname as personnally I want to see everything a particular competitor has performed in, more so than a comparision of all British competitors in a particular event. I see someone has done something similar for the track cycling pursuits too. A solution would be to have sortable tables, but then we'd have to remove the rowspan and repeat the athlete name for each event. I think we'd only want to do this for athletics and swimming where there are multiple competitors in an event, and there aren't too many team/relay events. Yboy83 (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Medalist dates
Someone added a date column to the medalist table, I don't think this is a bad idea, particularly as the day by day medal tables will probably be removed post-games. What do others think and if it stays what format should the date take (16th, Aug 16th, etc)? basement12 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not a bad idea and nothing wrong with just 16th. Dont think it needs to be linked to the date as following the link does not provide any information about the Olympics. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal targets
How about adding the targets for each sport set by UK Sport in a table with comparison of how many medals were won in each sport? SeveroTC 22:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely worthy of a section in the article in my opinion. Probably should slot in just below the list of medalists i guess.basement12 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Long page!
A random bit of trivia: this page is currently number 405 in the list of long pages!! Yboy83 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mirroring the current medal table we're behind US (28th) and China (59th). But this article is in far better shape! - basement12 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes Section - Rebecca Romero Medalist in two Olympic Sports / References
I have adjusted the wording for Rebecca Romero ace achievement today as there have been multi-sport winners in the Winter Olymipics but according to the BBC not in the Summer Olympics see here. I have also removed the statement re only second woman in history to will medals in two different sports as there are a number of these but maybe in relation to the Summer Olympics only, this is I suspect only a small group and worth noting if it can be checked out.

I think references should be added to support statements here and provide access to further information so will try and add these. Welcome others to join in. Tmol42 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolded Names in Rowing
There are certain names in bold in the rowing tables, and other names not bolded. That can be considered a NPOV violation. Is there a good reason why the names are bold?  Acro X   13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are medal winners. This is the same for all sports, not just rowing. Yboy83 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PB/SB in athletics
Some athletics results have been listed as personal or season best times. These are all unreferenced, are almost certainly not completed for all the athletes and are not mention for other sports. I think they should be removed but wanted to check with other users before doing so. basement12 (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm all for removing them. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Yboy83 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now removed them from the article. If someone wants to put them back I wouldn't have a problem with it if they were properly referenced and implemented in all sports. basement12 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure they could be added for all sports, but in atheltics especially (and swmming to some extend) PBs/SBs seem to be a heavily focused on and will be easy to find references for. I'm not so sure it would be easy to find referneces for many other sports (e.g. rowing). That shouldn't stop us including them in the article where we can find references though - with the aim of including them for every sport should references be found/be actualyl something that is actually measures. 78.86.183.220 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are heavily focused on, mostly in talk between tv hosts and during interviews with the athletes, but are not really relevant to the olympics. Obviously they belong on the athlete's pages but they have no bearing on what is being discussed in this article. Basement12 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, athletes' individual pages are the place for personal best information - in a few weeks/months, they could well post new personal bests, and I doubt anyone is going to come back to this article to remove the PB notation. Yboy83 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Section headings/subheadings
Minor proposal: we adjust the subheadings of Canoeing and Cycling to: * 7 Canoeing o 7.1 Flatwater o 7.2 Slalom * 8 Cycling o 8.1 BMX o 8.2 Mountain bike o 8.3 Road o 8.4 Track Equestrian is already in this format, and I have seen this on a few of the other nations pages too. Yboy83 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Had the same thought myself about 5 minutes ago but kept getting edit conflicts so gave up. Go for it. Basement12 (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary Paragraphs
Now that the events in many sports are drawing to a close I think its a good idea to write short paragraphs summing up the British performance in each. I've had a go at one for track cycling and would like some opinions both on the idea and what i've written. Basement12 (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Medalist vs Medallist
While I appreciate that medallist is the correct British-English spelling the spelling medalist is in common use in Britain and is the one used on ALL etc wikipedia olympic pages and this article should be consistent. Basement12 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR-Strong national ties to a topic. See section here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. Yboy83 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Got to agree with Yboy83 on this one. Haven't changed back as it's in danger of becoming an edit war and I think a consensus needs to be reached first. Dpmuk (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally I would point out that it took nearly two weeks of hundreds of edits a day for anyone to notice this, and I suspect that even then we all had to check a dictionary first? As far as the medal(l)ist sections go (for all nations) i'm in favour of renaming to medal winners as suggested by Andrwsc, or just medals as in the 2004 page. But i don't think going as far as moving Category:Olympic medalists for Great Britain and other pages is particulary necessary. Basement12 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with what you say but the problem is that it has now been noticed and as it would appear there's some disagreement it looks like a decison needs to be made. I like the medal winners idea as it will solve this problem in a neutral way. Dpmuk (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Medallist" is correct but "medal winners" is a sensible compromise. – ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * British article, British English. I thought that's how Wikipedia worked. The compromise is fine, but I just think it's using a phrase which isn't the first that comes to mind. Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to change it to Medallist, in accordance with WP:ENGVAR-Strong national ties to a topic, at least until any decision is made on standardising all nation articles to a "medal winners" heading then I don't have any problem with that. I was merely attemting to avoid confusion for readers browsing through the various nation/olympic articles, any disagreement i have is entirely based on this. Basement12 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will change it to "medallist" this once (sorry if I seem a bit persistant, but I really am all for proper/British English), and will see what happens about it being changed back and the "medal winners" change... Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

British Personal Bests at the 2008 Summer Olympics
Am I the only one thinking this new article that has been linked to from the 'Records' section of this article is redundant and should be suggested for deletion. It appears to be just a duplicate of the information on this article. Yboy83 (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only is it a duplicate it is wrongly named (its a list of NR, not PBs), unreferenced and factually wrong (all the NRs are listed under WRs). It should probably be nominated. Basement12 (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have let User:Mazdamx5, who is the sole editor of the article, know about this discussion on their talk page. Basement12 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wushu?
Other than the fact it needed special permission to take place does this have anything whatsoever to do with the 2008 Summer Olympics? Its not part of the games in any case so I don't think it belongs here. Basement12 (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also brought the subject up here. Basement12 (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no real consensus on either page but I've removed it again for three reasons: Dpmuk (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I've no real opinion on it either way, I edited the section previously to make the status of the event clearer, but that was not because I supported its inclusion. However, to save a constant battle of adding and removing, might it be a good idea (and a compromise) to at least have a subheading for it, followed by something like "For details of the wushu tournament organised alongside, though not part of, the Beijing Olympics, see this article"?Lukens (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mainly to keep consistency with other country's page as none of these include it - I'm treating this as a pseudo consensus not to include it.
 * The editor that last added it this article included it as a 'non-olympic' sport.
 * There's a very slight consensus against including it (for disclosure reasons I'll admit I've mad a comment not to include it).


 * This discussion has been taken to Wikiproject olympics. Resons for the section's removal are explained there. Please add any further comments there. Basement12 (T.C) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics → Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the 2008 Summer Olympics — Per BOA website: "Team GB is the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team." — Mais oui! (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose - this has already been discussed many times, see links in discussion section below. Basement12 (T.C) 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. It is th GB&NI team - end of discussion. --MJB (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - firstly, GB&NI implies that all NI competitors compete for this team, which is not necessarily the case. Secondly, the official medal page,, refers to the team simply as Great Britain. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per more accurate. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - we just have to ask: "why not?" --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - GB alone seems to be predominant usage by an enormous margin. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME. I could be convinced otherwise, don't have a particularly strong opinion on this eitherway. --Jza84 | Talk  15:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the name of the team is Great Britain, regardless of whether or not we think that name is accurate. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We seem to go through this discussion every two years, don't we?  The name has been simply "Great Britain" for almost every Games since the beginning, per the official reports downloadable here.  Current media, including the BBC website, the official 2008 Games site, etc. all use "Great Britain" alone as the common name.  The right place to educate people that this team represents the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is in the lede, not the article name.  Obviously, that approach was taken on the main United Kingdom article, and the same should be done here. It was an unfortunate choice a century ago of using the inaccurate "Great Britain" instead of the more appropriate "United Kingdom" as the shortcut name for this team at the Olympic Games, but that's what happened, and that's the name this encyclopedia should use.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now adapted the lede of the article to reflect the fact that the team reprsents GB & NI, hopefully this will serve as a suitable compromise. Basement12 (T.C) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - for the reasons elucidated by Andrwsc. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If the 'British' government cared enough about ALL the people they purport to represent they could, quite easily, have their representative team called 'UK' or 'Team UK'. But they don't, so they haven't. Unless and until the name is changed it should continue to be described as 'Great Britain', 'GB' or 'Team GB'. I suppose we should just be grateful it isn't known as 'ENG'. :) Daicaregos (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Slightly off topic comment—in the 1896 official report, the team was referred to as "England"! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As the Olympics (without any argument from the UK) use the name 'Great Britain'. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Already uses the more common name and GB&NI is already a redirect to here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Surely its pet name would be Team GB & NI otherwise. Plus, it's not entirely the UK thanks to the Irish citizenship law... Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One Olympian has moved from Team GB to the Ireland team in recent years - it simply depends who they choose to compete for, so the British/Irish/dual citizenship issue shouldn't be an issue here. We shouldn't use it as a reason not to use the name "Northern Ireland" anyway.- --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support:I think it is fair enough that "Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics" should redirect somewhere better if there is no reason not to. It must be noted that "GB" (as used in "Team GB") never strictly equalled "Great Britain". GB was chosen as a needed two-letter abbreviation years ago - and was always technically incorrect regarding Northern Ireland - but was and is used for NI all the same. The only inarguable name is "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and as the official site uses it (alongside “Team GB”) on their principle Infomation page (here) I would support changing the article name to it. That for me is stronger than any prior use over the history of the games. For me it's just a case of 'it's more accurate - can you give a good reason why not?' There is nothing wrong with using "The United Kingdom", either - as long we have all the redirects in place - but GB and NI would be more in keeping with "Team GB" (which, like the website, include Northern Ireland). With article titles, I do this accuracy should always be the key. So 'support' per "GB" including Northern Ireland, and the introducion on the Team GB website - they are both enough for me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ideally for me personally, either "The United Kingdom" or "Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics" would be the best, but I see "Britain" in the common cultural way as including the "British citizenship" country of Northern Ireland, and not as short for Great Britain. Others choose to define "Britain" as GB, however – so using Britain would have an element of ambiguity too. There is nothing wrong with removing ambiguity when it does no harm to do so, so I support the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" rename for the title: the intro will explain the accuracy of the title - which is surely better than an Intro explaining the inaccuracy of a title?. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is *not* a country-based article, it is a *NOC* based article. If these articles were based on common name then Taiwan would not be Chinese Taipei at the Olympics, it would be called . NOC areas are _not_ countries. The Olympic entity is called "Great Britain", which is not the same entity as the nation called "United Kingdom...". 70.51.10.38 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Since you don't hear "representing Great Britain and Northern Ireland" at any stage by the announcers. And also, it would be slightly incorrect to call them "GB&NI", since athletes from NI can represent the Republic. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By Republic, I mean the Republic of Ireland, not any other one. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose The team is called "Great Britain" and that term can be used to refer to the mainland and Northern Ireland. Adambro (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose The team doesn't represent Northern Ireland. 87.112.82.4 (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they do - Wendy Houvenhagel (who won silver in the track cycling) comes from NI. . And if you can't believe the BOA's website, who can you believe? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm in agreement with existing comments opposing the change Lukens (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Suggest description 'The Great Britain Team' or 'Team Great Britain' - the team included people from NI, so is strictly Team UK, rather than Team GB, but the fact is they entered as GB, were recorded as GB and wore GB, so rightly or wrongly, that is what they are. The term 'Team GB' or 'The GB team' recognises the geographical mismatch, but also recognises the name they used when they competed. It might have been more appropriate if they had called themselves 'Team UK' - but they didn't, and Wikipedia runs on the basis of verifiable fact - not opinion. My OPINION is that the team should have been called UK, but that is totally irrelevant - what matters it the FACT - which is that they competed as GB.

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * This concerns a lot of articles, not just this one. I think you should take it direct to WikiProject Olympics. SeveroTC 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree discussion should probably go to WikiProject Olympics, if it hasn't already been discussed somewhere in the archives there. Additionally WP naming conventions says "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", which i'd imagine is simply GB not GB & NI. Basement12 (T.C) 13:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been previously been discussed here, here, here and here. I think clearly the subject does not need to be brought up again. Basement12 (T.C) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. --Jza84 | Talk  16:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that Team GB has addressed the NI issue themselves, using both "GB" (which as the two letters actually includes NI) and this Introductory page to the Tean GB website which clearly states "Team GB is the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team". Shouldn't we follow their own lead, despite what has happened here (or elsewhere) in the past? I support the rename - it seems directly in line with the Team GB approach, which seems to have actually quite subtly addressed the old "Great Britain" Olympic tradition, if you think about it. I can't see a good reason not to do it, either. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Two other different approaches are using "United Kingdom", and to just use "Team GB". As long as the redirects get here. I would guess most similar Olympic team articles are more in line with "United Kingdom", but I haven't looked. What is the typical approach?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:The article is not about the performance of the country (i.e Uk or GB & NI) at the olympics, but is about the performance of the team of athletes selected to represent that country. Rightly or wrongly that team is officially known as Great Britain as far as the IOC are concerned. To use a slightly poor analogy asking for this article to be renamed is similar to asking for a page on Manchester United to be renamed to Manchester. Basement12 (T.C) 22:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In agreement. We should stick with the IOC on this topic - as this article deals with the Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But is there a "Great Britain" article? In the sense of the team? Using the title "Great Britain at the Olympics" (where Great Britain is a team), would logically require a "Great Britain" team article. I can see the ambiguity here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's not? you're free to create one. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great Britain at the Olympics is the summary article for all GBR Olympic teams—is that what you are looking for? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite - what about the Commonwealth Games etc? This "Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics" title seems to need a "Great Britain" athletics team page, as surely they compete elsewhere as 'Great Britain'? If they don't, this title should be "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic team" IMO, and should relate the title history from Great Britain to Team GB, and cover NI being involved. If the "Great Britain" team is genuinely a fixed body, then "Great Britain Olympic team" is would be the correct one per COMMONNAME. But is there a fixed 'Great Britain' body outside of the Olympics? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The arguement about GB being a team name was just to try and simplify the matter. There are no other major multinational, multisport competitions on the same scale so there is no need for such a body to exist outside of the olympics. However as this page is about the olympics that is not relevant and the Great Britain at the Olympics page is the ""Great Britain" athletics team page" which you seek. In the Commonwealth Games the team is seperated into England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (also Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man and possibly others). The fact that you are unaware of this may show you that perhaps your knowledge in this field is not enough to support a page move? As i've already said this issue has been very heavily debated before (see e.g. here, here, here and here) and seems to come up every Olympic year (e.g. 2006. Discussion has always (rightly) resulted in the use of Great Britain as opposed to any other name. Basement12 (T.C) 00:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My inital concerns are with UK nationality representation - it is currently a very worked-on issue on WP regarding the UK. It's something I've worked in since I started properly editing Wikipedia around a year ago. "Great Britain" specifically is of key interest to me here, and NI too. I had looked at your links (you've listed them before), but none of them represent to me the kind of discussion that equates to a 'done deal' with this article (they are all rather short discussions, in fact). I did wonder about the Commonwealth Games (and it clearly lists the home nations on its Wikpedia page), but I found this list that mentioned GBR on Google (here it is). I only scanned it I admit, but "GBR" seemed to represent the possibility of a GB team. So Great Britain at the Olympics is the Great Britain athletics team page? If a Great Britain team exists outside of the Olympics, why not create a Great Britain team article? I would support keeping this "Great Britain" then. If it doesn't have that distinct identity, I'm not so sure we have the best title here. I'm watching the Olympics now, btw, and have seen quite a lot of it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry i wasn't suggesting in any way that you were ignorant of the situation. I will assume you're using "athletics team" as a term to encompase the multisport team in this senario? The British Olympic Association (BOA) is the organisation responsible for picking and managing the team. As such it is responsible for selecting teams only for the summer and winter olympics not any other events (as far as I know). Therefore the Great Britain at the Olympics is the "team page" which summarises the entire history and results of these teams for every summer and winter games dating back to the 1st games in 1896.
 * Teams for other events are managed by different organisations, e.g the Athletics world championships where I think the athletics team was known as Great Britain and N.I.
 * If you look at the Official 2008 Olympic Website you will see that the term Great Britain is used exclusively, there is no mention of UK or & NI anywhere. For this page to be moved you would surely be saying that the official website is wrong. Basement12 (T.C) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Since this discussion started, I have been carefully looking at the GBR competitors on the television coverage, and every single uniform I saw (across multiple sports) said "Great Britain" or "GBR" and nothing more. Clearly the team itself subscribes to WP:COMMONNAME arguments.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from RM:


 * Change to United Kingdom at the 2008 Summer Olympics because United Kingdom = Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This implies move over redirect. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can I bet a tenner on this happening during the 2010 Winter Olympics? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Medals by Discipline"
Is this needed? I haven't seen it prior to today and we were fine without it. Surely the sortable table for all medals would cover such a table. And, on my browser at least, it overlaps the main table of medallists. Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Works well if you have a very wide screen! but I dont think it really adds any value to the article all the information is listed under each discipline further down. Support deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't think its needed. In addition to all the ifo being under each sports section the number of medals per sport is summarised in the targets section. Basement12 (T.C)

I added this this morning as a similar table was shown on the BBC coverage and I felt it was an interesting way to display the data. I've considered merging it with the targets table though, as there is obvious overlap between the two, and I suspected it could be problematic on smaller screens. Perhaps the "Targets" section could be renamed "Medals by Discipline and Targets" (or similar). What do people feel about this? Personally I think it's nice to have the medals summarised in this way, rather than having to piece this information together from other tables, but I understand if people feel it doesn't add enough value to weigh up with any negatives. Lukens (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also argue that the table adds as much, if not more, value as the 'Daily: Overall Medals' table does.Lukens (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Daily overall medals will probably be removed after the games. See Wikiproject olympics - day by day medal tables. - Basement12 (T.C) 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You could try expanding the target table as you suggested, we can always change it back if it looks confusing! MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that the medals by sport table is much more useful than the medals by day, and would rather have the former than the latter (which you can get by sorting the main list) Bluap (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed the day by day table (PER consensus at Wikiproject Olympics) as having 3 tables next to each other was causing problems in some browsers. Basement12 (T.C) 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Number discrepancies
On 2008 Summer Olympics, it says GB has 312 competitiors, as does the infobox, but the lead section says 311. I assume the lead is wrong because 168 men plus 143 women equals 312, but the math for the total delegation with either number is wrong because 236 officials plus 311/312 competitors is 547 or 548, not 549 like the lead says. Reywas92 Talk 14:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the numbers so they are consistent, unfortunatley the 2 sources used (no's 2+3), both from the official Team GB website are inconsistent. One says 311 athletes the other 313. I've gone for 311 as the source for this is the actual list of competitors. Basement12 (T.C) 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There were originally 313 competititors named but Frankie Gavin and Alex Nelson withdrew without competing and were not replaced. If you add all the competitors and a few extrarelay squad members you should get 311. Topcardi (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Targets
The article states that the BOA revised the medal target to 20 medals on the 20th August. Apart from the Times article I couldn't find any other references to a new target. The article actually says "...British Olympic officials have set their sights on a final count of 20." which is, I think, quite different from setting a new target. Unless anyone objects I'll rewrite the text here in the next day or so. Spuddock (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Took me ages to remember but I have changed the section on the revised target as I've done more digging and can't find another reference other than the Times article. Spuddock (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

H1nkles (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011114059/http://www.equestrianteamgbr.co.uk:80/news-detail.php?id=166 to http://www.equestrianteamgbr.co.uk/news-detail.php?id=166

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090730151256/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921000417/http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/RO/C95/RO0000000.shtml to http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/RO/C95/RO0000000.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912221851/http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SA/C95/SA0000000.shtml to http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SA/C95/SA0000000.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)