Talk:Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics

If Russia excluded Pyeongchang, how to deal with this entry?
Russia possibly banned because of state-sponsored doping program. If Russia excluded Pyeongchang, how to deal with this entry?

If Russia banned Pyeongchang Olympics, how to deal with this entry?
Russia possibly banned because of state-sponsored doping program. If Russia excluded Pyeongchang, how to deal with this entry? Simon 1996 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's three possibilities: The first is that Russia is banned, in which case the article can be moved to something like: Russian ban from the 2018 Winter Olympics. The second is that they are allowed to compete normally, in which case the article will remain where it is.   The third is that the there will be some form of a partial ban, such as occurred in the Rio Olympics, and we will still have the article in the same place, but it will look like Russia at the 2016 Summer Olympics.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Russia is now banned from the 2018 Winter Olympics by the IOC. However, clean Russian athletes will be able to compete under the neutral IOC flag. Wagnerp16 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Title
, seriously? That's the ugliest title I've ever seen. Nor does this seem accurate: much is about the doping scandal, but not all of it. I think you should move this back. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved it, moved it back. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This follows the naming of other instances where a country has been banned and their athletes have competed under the IOC banner. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? But..."this is their official title for athletes from Russia competing"...who is "they"? and why is the title singular? I admit it has a very Slavic (or pseudo-Slavic) ring to it, but man. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies I agree the title is quite weird, as its singular. However, this is what the IOC is rolling with. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * [off-topic] Oh, so the IOC made the call? Wow... Drmies (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is odd, given that the Kuwaitis enrolled as "Independent Athletes at the Olympics", but I've checked a few sources and apparently they are designating each individual athlete as "OAR" rather than as a team. I guess they're trying to specify that they're not "the Russian Team" but "a singular Russian athlete". Primefac (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about Russian athletes at the 2018 Winter Olympics? ViperSnake151   Talk  20:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is what the NY Times and the CBC are calling them. The title should be plural.18abruce (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I've move protected it at WP:THEWRONGVERSION for 1 week. Discuss. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Title discussion
I forgot the RM request added a header. There were two posts in this thread that are now the first two "votes" in the RM below. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. While the support !votes raise an issue of concern in regard to the status of these athletes, the consensus is in favor of following WP:CONSISTENCY and usage in reliable sources. I'd suggest the semantic situation be addressed in the article text. (non-admin closure) James (talk/contribs) 17:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics → Olympic Athlete from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics – I'm upgrading this to a formal move request. The reason the original title was at the proposed target is because the IOC official designation is for individual athletes to compete as an "Olympic Athlete from Russia" (no s). Do we stay with the "somewhat clunky but accurate" designation or go with "what sounds good" based on media reports? Primefac (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Change it back to Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Title should be as it is:"Olympic Athletes from Russia ...." It is what various major media sources are using.  I understand that the IOC press release used the singular, however this page is for a collective group of athletes.  I do concede that when we title it "Russia at the ..." we don't use the plural "Russians" but as I stated earlier the CBC, NY Times and others are using the plural rendition.18abruce (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral I am genuinely neutral in this discussion, as I would mostly like to get it resolved so that I can properly update country alias without a daily request to get it changed.
 * As a note, proposals to change it to should probably be ignored, given current precedent for "independent" teams (e.g.  is a redirect). Primefac (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per 18abruce. This article is for the athletes that will be taking part at the 2018 Winter Olympics. Also, every other independent team of late has been pluralised. This should be no exception. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Calling this article "Olympic Athlete from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics" infers that there will only be one athlete from Russia, when there will be many Russian athletes at the Games. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 08:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This particular rename, to me, seems pointless. I think that a rename and/or move should have at least, a title that completely changes the title, not just make it singular/plural. Especially when related articles are plural as well, because there is no way that there is a single Russian competing in the team. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 00:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant naming convention here is Naming conventions (plurals), which states that normally, we use the singular in article titles (e.g. Bird, not Birds). Granted, there is an exception within the guideline for articles "on groups or classes of specific things", and 18abruce makes a good point that other Olympic articles regarding these kinds of designations have historically used the plural in their titles. Mz7 (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Historically the membership in/naming of said organizations was plural. This is singular, hence the consternation. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. The titles of each individual athlete has always been "Individual Athlete", "Independent Athlete", etc. The title of the group of athletes has always been plural. That's just how the English language works. Smartyllama (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as consistent with past practices. An individual athlete competing independently has been called "Independent Olympic Athlete", "Individual Olympic Athlete", etc. but the names of the teams have always been pluralized. That's just basic English and there's no indication that will change here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The title should be under 'athlete' and not 'athletes'. It isn't us to change what is being communicated by the IOC. The intent of the IOC is to show the athletes are competing individually and not as part of a broader team (like in all previous cases). The use of athlete was deliberate to show that these athletes are competing individually. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Each individual athlete is called an athlete. The athletes collectively are called athletes. This is how it's always been, and how English generally works. It would be completely inaccurate, not to mention misleading, to refer to the entire team as "Athlete" in the singular unless there is only one athlete (which isn't happening.) If the IOC had their way, this article wouldn't exist at all since there's no such team in their view and the athletes are competing individually and are officially unrelated to each other. But if we are going to have the article in spite of IOC policy that the team in question does not exist (and we should) we should call it something that's factually and grammatically correct. And using the singular to refer to multiple athletes is neither. Smartyllama (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And calling them with the s is considered factually correct, especially considering the IOC is using athlete? The title should reflect what the IOC is calling it and we should make a note in the article about any of the concerns raised. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The IOC isn't calling the team as a whole anything; as far as they're concerned it doesn't exist. Have they ever referred to the entire group of athletes collectively in the singular? Or at all for that matter? All the quote above shows is that they will refer to each individual athlete (or team) with the title "Olympic Athlete from Russia". It says nothing about how, if at all, they would refer to all of the athletes collectively. And as far as I can tell, they're not acknowledging that at all. As far as they're concerned, each of these athletes (or "individual" teams, such as in hockey or curling) is competing independently of the others. But if we're going to have an article, we have to call it something, so it might as well be grammatically and factually correct. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By that argument (The IOC isn't calling the team as a whole anything...each of these athletes... is competing independently of the others) we should call them in the singular here. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in how you think WP:PLURAL factors in here. If we use similar logic, isn't each individual dog called a dog, but aren't the dogs collectively called dogs? If our article on dogs is about dogs collectively, then why do we title it "Dog" and not "Dogs"? I think I just experienced semantic satiation for the word dog... Mz7 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO the fact that the IOC uses grammar that, to some of us, is incorrect, does not make it right. If linguistically the plural is the correct form, then that is what should be used. IMHO if in the end only one Russian participates, the the use of "athlete" would be correct. But if more then one athlete competes (and at this moment it is estimated that there will probably be a lot) "athletes" should be used. If only to recognise in the title of the article that there was more than one (the title might otherwise suggest that there was only one, which would be misleading). Furthermore if it is decided that the article should be moved to a different title I would recommend using a title such as Independent Olympic Athletes in the &c Even if there was only one country that was banned. Russia has been banned by the IOC. If Russians do compete and the title remains Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics, it should be made clear that Russia was banned (and why) and that the Russian athletes who participated were competing as independant athletes. Although as an athlete I would not like to be conjuncted with a ban, so I would be more comfortable as being labelled "Independant". It is also important that a distinction is made between a ban and a boycot (if only to disambiguate from historical precedences). JHvW 08:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this idea, if only to keep us from killing each other over an s. There's nothing saying we can't have an article called Independent Olympic Participants at the 2018 Winter Olympics (and in fact, I had to create the link so the other independent teams would link to it properly). Primefac (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - pedantry has gotten the better of me. The IOC made this distinction, and it's not our call to change that. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You started this discussion. You can't !vote again. You're welcome to contribute with further comments, but please strike the second !vote. (The comments after it can stay, of course.) Smartyllama (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I started this discussion as a neutral party because it was already underway and I felt something more "official" was required. You'll notice my original !vote was "neutral" because I didn't care which way it went. In the intervening time my opinion has changed. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfectly reasonable, and not prohibited IMO (as WP:RM Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line does not apply here), but they should definitely have disclosed this in the explicit !vote just to make it easier for the closer. Andrewa (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nothing says the article name has to exactly match the IOC designation. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Proposed title is not common in English, in fact to my ears it is barely English at all. Andrewa (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A few more items wanted?
Some arguably important info might usefully be sourced, checked, and added to this article (especially as it's currently In The News on our front page): Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I don't really want to get any more involved with this article myself (I only had a quick look at it after seeing a disagreement between editors at ITNC); I'm just mentioning it here in case other editors might wish to do something about it. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - the Olympic Anthem will be played if OAR athletes win (per Channel 4 news yesterday evening; we currently just seem to say the Russian anthem won't be played)
 * -OAR athletes will compete in 'neutral' uniforms (see current NYT link in article)
 * -'Olympic Athletes from Russia' has been described (by NYT) as a concession to Russia (in the past similar athletes were just 'Independent Olympic Athletes')
 * -(Unnanmed) Olympic officials have said the ban might be lifted in time for the Russian flag to appear at the closing ceremony (NYT)
 * -perhaps there would also be a few other items from other sources that I haven't checked

Lede and point tables
Currently, the lede sentence reads "Olympic Athlete from Russia (OAR) is the formal designation of athletes from Russia who will be allowed to compete at the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, from 9 to 25 February 2018, under the Olympic flag." Shouldn't that now say "who will not be allowed to compete", in light of today's news of the ban? Secondly, there are two tables of points for preliminary round matches in two different events. They contain all zeros. Why do they contain zeros when, presumably, these matches have not taken place yet? They should be blank, if they are shown at all. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the point tables, but the OAR people are the ones who are allowed to compete. It's the rest of the athletes that're banned. NekoKatsun (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is the hockey standings you are speaking of, that is a matter of how the standings module works; whether you put a zero or leave it blank it will display a zero. If it says matches played are zero for scheduled games, what exactly is the issue?18abruce (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics
We should have a separate article called Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics, mentioning that Russia has been banned from the games, instead of having it as a re-direct to this article. It a slightly different topic, to what's in this article. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see how it is a different topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not a different topic. The article would end up being a stub with the main article being here, so this article is where the bulk of the information could be found. Besides, redirects are cheap. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 08:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time we've had to create pages for "independent athletes". The current title is appropriate and the "Russia at..." will stay a redir. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we're really arguing over an s
There is currently disagreement regarding the opening sentence of this article. And yes, it's over an s. The official press release from the IOC states:

Thus, I am contesting that our opening sentence should read

This is because each individual Russian will be given the designation OAR, and the way the opening sentence is worded makes this clear. The argument that the WP:LEAD must be exactly the same as the title is silly, because a) we're not restating the title verbatim, and b) MOS:LEADSENTENCE allows for flexibility in these sorts of cases. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, each individual athlete is an athlete. The group of athletes are called athletes. Do I really need to explain the basics of the English language to you? Each athlete from Kuwait at the 2016 Olympics was an "Independent Olympic Athlete." Together, they were "Independent Olympic Athletes", plural, hence the title and language at Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Unless the IOC forgot how to grammar, they're obviously referring to the athletes (plural) in the plural, not the singular. Hence "Each athlete will be referred to as an Olympic Athlete from Russia" would be correct, but "The athletes will be referred to as Olympic Athlete from Russia" would not. The plurals need to match up. That's not just IOC terminology, that's basic English. Smartyllama (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, funny how I can quote the IOC itself and you still think that I don't know how to grammar... Primefac (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just copy the language used in previous articles, such as the Kuwait 2016 one, and say "Olympic Athletes from Russia will compete at the 2018 Winter Olympics..." rather than worry about whether the singular or plural makes more sense in that context? That would be more consistent with what we've done in the past, and in that context, "Olympic Athlete from Russia will compete..." is clearly wrong, especially given the conversation we just had about the title. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's acceptable. I originally wrote the lead back when it was singular and was basing it off the IOC announcement that specifically listed them as single, but if we're not talking about the designation and just doing a hand-wavey "they're Olympics athletes from Russia" I have no issues. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The title should be under 'athlete' and not 'athletes'. It isn't us to change what is being communicated by the IOC. The intent of the IOC is to show the athletes are competing individually and not as part of a broader team (like in all previous cases). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jeez,, where were you before I closed the RM above... Primefac (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the page was not on my watchlist! I think the discussion needs to be reopened, especially if they march in the opening ceremony without the s! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've re-opened it. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , Russian athletes won't march in the opening ceremony: Cskamoscow100 (talk) 6:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have changed the lead for now to omit mention of the official title while retaining the plural, in a matter consistent with prior articles, since there seemed to be consensus to do that assuming the title remains plural. If the title is changed to singular, we can change the lead accordingly, but the appropriate place to discuss that is in the move discussion above. The lead should not be your other parent. Smartyllama (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Russian Olympic Curling Trials
I see 2017 Russian Olympic Curling Trials was just created, stating that the winner would represent Russia at the Olympics. I'm not sure how this wording works, but am hesitant to change it... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead was updated a couple hours later to indicate that the winning team would represent the "Olympic Athletes from Russia team." Seems a fair enough compromise to me. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If If the Russian appeal is successful? I'm opposition Russia compete for neutral.

 * If the Russian appeal is successful? How to doing? Change to Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics? Simon 1996 (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With the facts, when they are presented.18abruce (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm opposition Russia compete for neutral because if Russia use "Olympic Athletes from Russia", possible appear to "Olympic Athletes from Scotland", "Olympic Athletes from Catalonia" ... for after? The consequences are very serious. IOC possible offend to United Kingdom, Spain... because Scotland independence, Catalan independence movement, even Spanish constitutional crisis or other similar incident, I worry about to very serious consequences. Simon 1996 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Simon 1996 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Who chooses the athletes?
In a normal Olympic setting, entry positions (quotas) are given to National Olympic Committees, and the NOCs decide independently which athletes they wish to send (they might be different from the ones who actually earned the qualification). Given that the Russian NOC is suspended, who actually makes the decision about which Russian athletes get to compete under the "OAR" banner? The International Federations? The IOC itself? Athlete lists have to be submitted very soon (January 15 for at least some sports), which is before the CAS will hear the appeal of the ban. 121a0012 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The ROC (or maybe the federations, I don't remember exactly) will submit a list for consideration by a committee setup by the IOC, which will prune the list and send it to the whole IOC for consideration (and the whole IOC may prune it further).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the IOC, the invitation list was supposed to be disclosed at a meeting on 27 January (four days before the CAS ruling was handed down). But I can't find anything on olympic.org or pyeongchang2018.org that actually says who was invited (or indeed who has accepted). Is there a reliable source with the full invitation list?  121a0012 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Now on the official website for the Games, in the athletes & teams section you'll be able to see the list of 169 athletes (speedskater Graf is still there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symon-peter (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

OAR athlete total
On the official olympic site it lists 168 competitors, however there are two issues. Graf, who has publicly stated she will not go, is still listed, and there is the strange case of Stepan Fedorov. Fedorov is still listed in the men's luge, but is not listed as part of OAR's team when you pull up the full listing under "countries". So they list 7 lugers and 4 speed skaters, but I don't know if either one is accurate.18abruce (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * changed the header. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Early close per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics → Olympic Athlete from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics – IOC created the NOC called ″Olympic Athlete from Russia″ and there is NO OFFICIAL MENTION in documents, and even a team with multi participants calls ″Olympic Athlete from Russia″ (in the singular). For example, see this: 4 men calls in the singular  Voltmetro   20:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: There was a move request just 3 months ago that voted to not move the page. I would suggest waiting a year or so before making another request. Codyorb (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was very clearly plural in all the comentating during the games and in most if not all of the articles I have read. I would say the even if that official name is singular, the common name is plural. -DJSasso (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was plural in virtually all reliable secondary sources before and during the games. We just had this discussion a few months ago. Enough. Smartyllama (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty evident that common parlance was Olympic Athletes from Russia, both in broadcast commentary and print/news media in almost all reliable secondary sources. Also, as was previously mentioned, this discussion has already taken place. Student of Sci&#38;Life (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 16 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is no consensus whether those are team names, and thus proper names, or descriptive phrases. Title-case spelling by IOC is an important, although not decisive, factor that was considered. There is a somewhat stronger case for moving non-OAR teams to lowercase, but whether there's consensus for that is unclear. No such user (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

– Obviously not proper names, even though the Olympics like to cap them. Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics → Olympic athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics
 * Independent Paralympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Paralympics → Independent Paralympic participants at the 1992 Summer Paralympics
 * Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics → Independent Olympic participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics
 * Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics → Individual Olympic athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics
 * Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics → Independent Olympic athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics
 * Independent Olympic Participants at the 2014 Winter Olympics → Independent Olympic participants at the 2014 Winter Olympics
 * Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics → Independent Olympic athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics
 * Olympic Athletes from Russia women's national ice hockey team → Olympic athletes from Russia women's national ice hockey team


 * Support per nom. This clearly looks like title case when WP uses sentence case. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have no issue with using sentence case in the running prose (e.g. "In 2014 independent Olympic athletes represented...") but the acronyms are IPP/IOA/OAR, not iPp/iOa/Oar. In other words, the title of the group is as they are currently named, i.e. proper names. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If the "justification" for the capitalisation is to apply initial capitals to the term in full term because capitals are used in its abbreviation, then this contrary to guidance at MOS:CAPSACRS. We don't do that either. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to respond to that other than to say that the IOC refers to them in Title Case, but "official" things keep getting thrown out the window in favour of "common names". Primefac (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , your argument, to me (and dare I say ?) appears to be saying that the expanded form of an acronym should be capitalised. If you didn't mean that, then your comment wasn't clear (to me at least). Regardless, it is not good form to move other editor's posts the way you have done in order to suit how you wish to reply to them. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were replying to me, and thought you had accidentally mis-threaded it; feel free to move it back if I was wrong or it's that big a deal. I think the title of the page should be in title case, yes. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I had not mis-threaded. One can think that the title of this (or any other page) should be in title case but WP uses sentence case (per policy at WP:AT). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you "have no issue with using sentence case in the running prose", you should support these changes – our title policy (see WP:NCCAPS) is to use sentence case in titles. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am allowed to disagree with our MOS and naming conventions. I also believe that exceptions can and should be made in certain circumstances. I am also aware that I will not always have the weight of consensus behind me, but I am clearly not the only one who feels the way I do. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course you are allowed to disagree with guidelines and policy. My "should" should be interpreted as what guidelines and policies would suggest. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per our guideline to minimise capitalisation. Primefac, the casing of acronym letters has no influence on the expanded form. Tony (talk)  11:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS (especially MOS:SPORTCAPS), MOS:ACRONYMS. "Olympic[s]" is a proper name, but "Olympic athlete[s]" is not, and is not consistently capitalized except in materials that lack independence from the subject. Cf. WP:SSF. This is yet another case of over-capitalization of sports stuff just because it has something to do with sports.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It's not a proper noun so it should not be capitalized. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Nothing really to add. This seems fairly open-and-shut. Primergrey (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name of the team is a proper noun in the context of the Olympics. For example, would we really say "...the refugee Olympic team competed..." instead of "...the Refugee Olympic Team competed..."? Zowayix001 (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Refugee Olympic Team is the proper name of an actual team. But that's not what this discussion is about; not a good analogy to the individual/independent athletes/participants. Dicklyon (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't "Independent Olympic Athletes" equally a proper noun/team name alongside "Refugee Olympic Team"? Zowayix001 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a team, nor a named entity of any sort that I can see, but rather a classification of some individuals. See book example (2005–2015 editions at least) of lowercase usage; another book example; and another.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose in re: Olympic Athletes of Russia. This is a proper name and something that the Int'l Olympic Committee uses to refer to Russia's participation in the 2018 Winter Olympics. If you search for the 2018 news about the Olympics, you'd exclusively find the capitalized version when referring to the Russian participation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Strong Oppose (At least for this individual page and the last request, but it may make sense to split a separate proposal for the other, non OAR subjects, as the situations appear to potentially differ) . There is a reasonable question of whether this should be treated as though it is a "team" name, or simply a description of athletes from Russia competing at the 2018 Olympics. Because of this, our guidelines tell us to look at usage in reliable sources. Overwhelmingly, reliable sources used the current title structure, and our policies therefore tell us to follow that convention. I see a number of !votes noting our guidelines to encourage avoiding unnecessary capitalization -- which is correct! -- while ignoring the part of those same guidelines that make clear the top priority is ultimately to follow usage in reliable sources when it is clear. Under our WP:COMMONNAME policy this appears fairly clear cut, and I am not convinced by arguments requiring us to ignore the policy, or citing our capitalization policies but ignoring the language in them about usage in sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But I showed above, by linking multiple book sources with lowercase usage, that the capitalization in sources is far from "overwhelming", and hence caps are not "necessary"; per MOS:CAPS we default to lowercase in such cases. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just went through the first few pages of Google News results again, and Google Books, for "Olympic Athletes from Russia" and 2018. Every single news results used the current capitalization, and 2 of about 30 in books used it. That seems overwhelming to me, and I don't see why cherrypicking counterexamples would change what otherwise appears to be a very clear and overwhelming situation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also note the counterexamples you shared actually use the capitalized version of "Olympic Athletes from Russia"! Perhaps it may make more sense to close this out for individual discussions for each case (although if they follow the trend of the first, sources would still lead me to strongly oppose).--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh also obvious oppose for the nonsensical Olympic athletes from Russia women's national ice hockey team -- are we really arguing there that the word "athletes" is being treated like a normal common noun and that's the structure we should end up with?--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per SMcCandlish and Dicklyon: These are not proper names in the linguistic sense of that term. They are merely descriptive terms used to describe groups of things, not individual things. Also per MOS:CAPSACRS. Wikipedia does not use title case in such situations. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC
 * Support Grammar police here. If it's not a proper noun, there's no need to capitalise. Helen (💬📖) 20:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that is the question; for example, is the team name "Independent Paralympic Participants"? If yes, it should probably be capitalised. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that when the committee is listing athletes, and there's no team name, they stick this phrase into that title-case slot. That doesn't make it a team name or a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that the Olympics used those names as proper names, not as sentences. An abbreviation example: It was the "OAR" that won the 2018 Men's Olympic Gold in ice hockey, not the "OaR". GoodDay (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple of things here. Use of an acronym/initialism doesn't imply anything about capitalization of the words that went into it.  Second, are you saying that somewhere it was reported that "the OAR" won the gold, as opposed to "an OAR"?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As has been pointed out, these are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. These are merely classifications. --WikiEditor50 (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. An athlete is a common noun here. BD2412  T 07:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: Per Primefac above. IPP/IOA/OAR are the official team names, and hence as a whole are proper nouns. The proposed changes are equivalent to proposing a change from Golden State Warriors to "Golden state warriors" because individual words "state" & "warriors" simply aren't proper nouns. In fact, every word in the team name individually does not have to be a proper noun. Russia/Olympic Committee simply chose to not give fancy names to those teams but went ahead with a more precise title. In both cases the team name taken as a whole is a proper noun. "Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics" is equivalent to "France at the 2018 Winter Olympics", where OAR & France are both team names. And thus, capitalisation should be preserved accordingly. Meanwhile if there were a list of athletes of team France or list of athletes of team OAR, the word "athletes" would obviously not be capitalised because in that case it would not be a proper noun. But, that is not the case here. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 20:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you conclude that these are team names? Many sources do not treat them as such; e.g. this book and this one.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Russian and Belarus nationalities as independent athletes
There is an ongoing discussion that could affect this article. It is concerning Russian and Belarus nationalities and flag icons on some Olympic-related articles. Please join in the discussion at WikiProject Olympics to help sort things out. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)