Talk:Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 15 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sk005aq. Peer reviewers: Hwubb, Kyle Cameon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Schedule moved from 2020 to 2021
The Olympics didn't happen in 2020, so I added a note and link about it being postponed. But I think the schedule box is for 2020, not 2021. Can someone fix that? I'm not good at that kind of thing. Gale Peterson (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Displaying seeds in brackets
As the judoka have qualified to the game via their world rankings, and as the top 8 in each weight class are in face seeded in the draw, I suggest that we display those seeds in the weight-class brackets.

We can show either only seeds for the top 8 only, or the in-tournament ranking for all the athletes. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the top 8 is sufficient. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Top 8 as they are seeded in the draw and seperated. Kante4 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally support the full display of seeds, but ok with showing only the top 8. The seeds can be shown by attaching, when # is a number from 1 to 8, before judokas   template. The unseeded judoka will then be marked with  . Deancarmeli (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Example:

Deancarmeli (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:EDITWAR
 * In opposition to format shown here, has been deleting the "empty" boxes of un seeded competitor, resulting in un-aligned flags in the brackets. Example:

See the difference from the previous example with the boxes. ,, , , : Your thoughts? Deancarmeli (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Order
I restored the chronological order of the sections here. It makes no sense to have it in non-chronological order. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judo_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics&diff=1035299104&oldid=1035297265

--2603:7000:2143:8500:E9DE:D110:C738:85AD (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Keeping with standard structure, prioritizing participating athletes over non-participants and not giving the boycotter too a prominent stage. Deancarmeli (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? We are to edit non-POV. The notion that we should hide this and not go in chronological order to reduce the stage of the boycotter, or of the Federation, is pure POV. Unacceptable rationale. And chronological order is the norm across all articles. This happened before the results in the results section. And after the qualification. What next - we are going to moved the qualification section to the end, because the results section deserves a more "prominent stage." Your rationale is unconvincing to me. Plus, the proferred rationale in the edit summary was clearly incorrect "This did NOT do what the edit summary said, and added unsourced opinion". It did exactly what the edit summary said, and no unsourced opinion at all was added. Bizarre, frankly.--2603:7000:2143:8500:8FA:F0E:1857:7777 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Results of a competition are more important than the identity and reasons of those that didn't participate in the competition. It's that simple. Of course, the information about the boycotter should be found in this article, but at the bottom, as it is a footnote of the event — not its major highlight. Claiming that this incident should be in such a prominent position in the page that it will push down the final block brackets (in the weight class' page) or the information about those who actually took part in the competition is both an absurd and a biased position. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC), Edited. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "it's that simple" argument is unavailing. Results of the last rounds are more important than the results of the first round. But - as should be obvious - we do not list such matters in reverse chrono order. But rather in chrono order. Your personal view here is not in accord with wp practice. It is in fact your view that is "biased" - as you want to change it from the norm - chrono order - because you want to hide the "prominent stage" of the boycotter. Your words. That's just about a definition of POV editing. Which is, of course, impermissible.184.153.21.19 (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be at the bottom of this article, where it is right now. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do list the final block matches before the four pools of early rounds, so that's for that argument... Deancarmeli (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

FlagIOCteam vs FlagIOC
The use of FlagIOC (the only difference being the IOC code is removed) is the standard template being used for other related articles. See rugby sevens, softball , swimming etc. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not addressing you, I do not need to use wikilinks, there is no policy for that. As linked above three different sports all have used IOCteam template. So you need to provide a reason why you are using IOCteam here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) When addressing someone, you should ping them.
 * 2) You have to start learning how to use wikilinks. No need to use to treat them as external links.
 * 3) When providing a link – link to the relevant section. The aim of linking is to provide a clear reference, which you have not.
 * 4) As shown, in Fencing at the 2020 Summer Olympics as well as in Basketball at the 2020 Summer Olympics, just to show a few examples,, the flagIOCteam template is in use. If you want to change it, you need to provide a reason.
 * 5) As it is a recurring issue, it has been reported in the Administrators' noticeboard Edit warring section. Deancarmeli (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You do not NEED to use pings or links, but it is a nice thing to do. That is why I used the word "should" and not the word "must". I've restored the version that was before the inception of the edit war, until a support for your wanted change could find a consensus in this discussion. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)