Template talk:Medal

Use of Medal|Disqualified - Reason for disqualification
Should this be used for athletes disqualified because of a team-mate caught doping (e.g. Michael Johnson (sprinter)? What about athletes disqualified before the medal ceremony for various infractions (e.g. Churandy Martina)? Should the reason be indicated somehow, in particular to distinguish between doping (or other forms of cheating) and other rule infractions? Some athletes disqualified for other reasons than doping: Dorando Pietri, Frederick Lorz and Ara Abrahamian, with only Lorz cheating.

My opinion is that "Medal|Disqualified team mate" should be introduced, as the athletes are disqualified for a reason beyond their control. It is far too likely that readers of the medal record will jump to detrimental conclusions of the athlete, so it could be considered a BLP issue. I think the current "Medal|Disqualified" works in other cases, and that it should only be used where the medal was awarded i.e. not when the disqualification is the result of a decision taken before the medal ceremony. (Of course exception can be made in high profile cases, e.g. if the medal ceremony was delayed because of a strong suspicion of doping.) As an alternative I think we could distinguish between doping/cheating and "unsportsmanlike conduct". If consensus favours use of the template in cases like Martina's, I would suggest distinguishing such rule violations from deliberate cheating in some manner. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If a teammate causes a disqualification, the team is disqualified. There is no BLP issue, the team is disqualified, all members of the team is disqualified. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The potential BLP issue is not about the fact, but the high potential for an overly negative perception of the fact. It is possible that some readers will simply read "disqualified" and assume that the athlete has been caught "doping". Any other medals could be perceived as tainted. Is it really fair to treat Michael Johnson the same way as Marion Jones? Possible outputs for a "disqualified team" option could be "Disqualifed team", "Disqualified teammate", "Disqualified (Antonio Pettigrew)" or "Disqualified (Antonio Pettigrew) ". 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the non-doping examples listed above, only Ara Abrahamian is relevant: the others were never given the medal, so their medal was never disqualified. Furthermore a reader's incorrect inference of information is not a BLP issue. Abrahamian's disqualification is important to his career and it is an appropriate usage. If a medal is disqualified then the reason must be discussed in the article. As far as I can see, current usage not a problem. SFB 15:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wanted clarification on whether the template was supposed to be used in the other cases, but I did not think so. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding relays, if you feel strongly enough about it, then you can simply add a reference at the end of the medal entry leaving a brief description of the reason. There's no need to over complicate this with ambiguous listings like the ones you mention. SFB 15:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It may not be a BLP issue, but it is an issue nevertheless. I noticed that the edit window in the article on Michael Johnson included hidden text to prevent good faith removal of the disqualification. It may be a better solution to include more detailed information as an option in the template. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As disqualified takes up almost all the alloted space in the medal column think the best option would be to introduce a "Disqualifiedfootnote" option if that is possible. If this is possible using the reference method you mentioned would it be possible to describe the method in the template documentation. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * the reference method you mentioned: (quoting SFB) "simply add a reference at the end of the medal entry leaving a brief description of the reason."
 * I think this means a template-generated cell includes a superscript link to some kind of explanatory note and, if so, you two are on the right track here. I have no opinion about complicating the template to automate the footnote.
 * Offhand I suppose that the template appears in articles that mix references and explanatory notes in one References section; articles with a separate Notes or Footnotes section, some of which use template efn; and articles with free-form notes immediately following their tables. I don't know anything about how best to handle that technically. --P64 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing from gold/silver/bronze to 1/2/3
User:Alakzi recently made a bold change to convert the medal template style from having the words "gold", "silver" or "bronze" to a circular medal image of the same colour with the numbers 1/2/3 in the centre (these also have alt text denoting the text gold, silver or bronze, respectively). See the substitutions below and compared with this and this.

Although a bold move, I think this is a good one as the images are very intuitive (numerical inishing position being more naturally understood than medal colour text) and save on presentation space in the templates (a genuine issue for some sports and the original driver of the change). Further to this, the difference in the text lengths of the colour led to different column lengths in different articles, whereas this one will be presented in a standard manner as all images are the same size.

I've also just amended the template so that the winner, runner-up and playoff fields bring back non-coloured text. Applying colours to these concepts isn't helpful as if the medal colour terminology isn't preferred in the competition, then we shouldn't be using the colours. SFB 13:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support change - Per Sillfolkboy's rationale above. In the interests of full disclosure, I am the editor who suggested the change to Alakzi, so I am not an unbiased third-party opinion.  My reasoning is that the color-coded circular medal icons (with 1, 2 and 3 for gold, silver and bronze) are (a) graphically much cleaner and more refined look than the simple color bars that were previously standard formatting; (b) more space efficient than the color bars with text, and help alleviate line-wrapping of text within the infobox medals tables; and (c) are a more judicious use of color than the color bars.  My thanks to SFB for initiating this discussion.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding notice - Given that this template is widely used and within the scope of a number of WikiProjects, I have notified the WPs for Olympics, athletics (track & field), badminton, basketball, boxing, cycling, equine, fencing, football (soccer), gymnastics, kayaking, martial arts, rowing, sailing, swimming, tennis, triathlon and volleyball. I think that covers all of the "Olympic sports" that regularly use these graphics.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Tentatively Oppose - The new infoboxes look unbalanced. The wider column for the ranking meant that there were three columns that were roughly equal in size. I was never aware of line-wrapping causing issues with medal boxes, have you considered using small text?--MorrisIV (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The text is very close to the WP:ACCESS minimum. I don't know why the columns have to be of equal width. Alakzi (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be of equal width, down to the millimeter. But now there is one small column on the left with two much larger columns which I believe give the medal boxes and unbalanced presentation.--MorrisIV (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, a matter of personal taste, MorrisIV. As a matter of efficient layout and design, however, I disagree: I see no reason for three columns of roughly equal size.  In fact, I believe that an unnecessarily wide medal column is a waste of limited infobox space.  I can provide numerous examples wherein longer place names (e.g., Indianapolis, Kuala Lumpur, Rio de Janeiro, Santo Domingo) and longer event names (e.g., 4x100 m medley relay, 200 m breaststroke, some of the sailing events) cause line-wrapping.  The intuitive graphics are clearly superior, IMO, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a swimmer and I never recall seeing any spacing issues, especially with the medals boxes were outside of the infoboxes.


 * You're right, some of my criticisms are based on personal taste, but that goes both ways. For example it's argued that the new format is graphically better and more refined than the old version. I respect that different people see things differently, but I do not see how this new version is much better (or significantly worse) than the old version. This frankly strikes me as change for the sake of change.--MorrisIV (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Totally agree, i don't see how the new changes are improving in any way the template. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support change The new look is much cleaner. There is no reason the column have to be of equal width (as applies to any table), and the extra space for text is welcome. --NSH002 (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support change and agree with Dirtlawyer1 on all three points. (I am no familiar with the matter of SFB's third paragraph, only with what is exhibited in this section --and with the absence of column labels such as 'Rank', 'Meet', 'Discipline', which I approve.) --P64 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't see the old version to compare since the change has taken over all the templates. Can we see a side-by-side comparison? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fyunck, I'll ask Alakzi to work up a quick mock-up for side-by-side comparison. Bear with us -- it may take a little bit of time.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's what the two look like side by side. Dirtlawyer or anyone can add examples of line wrapping. Alakzi (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Examples of line-wrapping

Second set of examples provided to illustrate typical line-wrapping issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is a big change from what we have and it will affect many articles. I like the clean look, and it will help, but not eliminate line wrapping. It's quite clear to me. I do like the space efficiency it affords us. On the minus side we have to assume when making these that our readers are colorblind impaired (to pass wiki standards.) So it will be 1, 2, and 3 all in grey circles. Before they could read at a glance gold, silver and bronze. Yes, they can mouse over and get the names, but it is less convenient to them at a glance and I don't believe mouse-over works on all devices. When I look at the box on the Steffi Graf article, it looks great just the way it is, but then we have no line wrap problem with Graf. I will think on this a couple nights but right now I have no preference as to which is better. A question... can we have the new version as an alternate template choice... to be used only if we have line wrap troubles? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - These infoboxes look unbalanced, unpretty and hard to see in big or giant screens. Medals gifs are way too small. Without colors, its almost impossible to see the differences between the positions. Why should we change it anyway?? We have been with this system for many years and no one complained?????????? For a major change like this that affect thousand of sports pages, there should be a stronger debate and a much valuable reason then esthetic to change it anyway. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * - style="text-align:center;vertical-align:middle;"
 * bgcolor=gold|Gold medal icon.svg
 * 2012 London
 * Example


 * I would counter that the medal gifs are actually larger than the original text and also the text in the rest of the templates. Also, they do have colours, so I'm not sure why this hypothetical problem of distinguishing positions without colours is worth bringing up. Unless you're referring to the reduction of colour in the field as a whole? Alternatively, we could also continue to use background colours as in the example to the right:


 * Is this an improvement? SFB 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Its much better, but its not very different from the current version. Why should we change it anyway? TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Why should we change it anyway?" Well, TGG23, as explained above, and as shown by the examples provided above, the new version reduces line-wrapping by providing more space for available text for event location and event descriptions within the medals tables.  Can you not see that from the examples provided?  Furthermore, the new system would continue to use gold, silver and bronze colors, in addition to 1-2-3, to distinguish medals awarded.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Convenience break, No. 1

 *  Strong Oppose  Can live with proposed compromise below This is going to foul up every single article on the Olympics, Pan-American games and so on that use gold/silver/bronze: articles on athletes, events, etc.  thousands of articles.  At least cross-post this with WP:Olympics. Also, where placings are 1-2-3, sometimes there are ribbons, not medals, and then we have colors -whic vary from nation to nation.  Montanabw (talk)  02:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I urge you to read the explanations and comments above before commenting further:
 * 1. These changes are limited to Template:Medal -- there is ZERO impact on sports that use ribbons, not medals, which may vary from nation to nation.
 * 2. Not only was WikiProject Olympics notified, the WikiProjects for the following sports have also been notified: athletics (track & field), badminton, basketball, boxing, cycling, equine, fencing, football (soccer), gymnastics, kayaking, martial arts, rowing, sailing, swimming, tennis, triathlon and volleyball.  I think that covers all of the "Olympic sports" that regularly use these template graphics.
 * 3. As someone who actually edits articles for the Olympics, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, and Pan Pacific Championships, I would be grateful if you could explain, in some detail, how "this is going to foul up every single article on the Olympics, Pan-American games and so on that use gold/silver/bronze: articles on athletes, events, etc. thousands of articles," because as a regular editor of those articles I see no problems at all.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing as it may be to you, yes, I have actually worked on them. So cut the condescension and focus on the issue.  We have dozens (at a minimum) of articles on individuals who participated in the equestrian events at the Olympics, and a bunch of dots with "1,2,3" looks absurd. If you have a formatting problem with text wrapping, then you have a formatting problem, removing the abbreviations and replacing them with numbers just looks silly.  Call an experienced template editor and ask them to parse the syntax and fix it.  Per the comments about text readers, it would almost make more sense to keep the abbreviations and toss the colors.   Montanabw (talk)  00:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, we would still like to see two or three examples of how the new graphics are "going to foul up every single article on the Olympics" among the thousands alleged. As I have noted several times elsewhere in this thread, the circular medal icons numbered 1, 2 and 3, for first-place gold medals, second-place silvers, and third-place bronzes, with the gold-silver-bronze color-coding retained, are a heck of a lot more intuitive and far more universally understood to non-sports fan readers than than the abbreviations "gold," "silver" and "bronze".  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I second that. Could you provide examples of these "foul-ups"? Also - why should the achievement of reaching a play-off have a bronze background? SFB 10:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably this template is never to be used with anything except medal awards that almost inevitably are labeled gold, silver and bronze, so why change to 1, 2, 3?  Montanabw (talk)  00:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Why change to 1-2-3?" Because it is simpler, cleaner, more graphically refined, more space efficient, and helps reduce the line-wrapping problem illustrated above.  Furthermore, there is no real inconsistency to using color-coded gold, silver and bronze medal icons labeled 1-2-3; labeling the medal icons 1-2-3 is a far more intuitive concept and far more universally understood than gold, silver and bronze abbreviated labels.  The new icon scheme could easily be improved for screen-readers and all users by incorporating a mouse-over display into the icons that displays "1st place gold medal," 2nd place silver medal," etc.  That would be a very significant improvement over the present color bars.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I like replacing the colors with the placings. It gives more room for the details. I also like it for one of the reasons Montanabw opposes it.  A number of individual martial arts articles have used the medals even when the events didn't actually give out medals.  I think using the placings make things clearer and lessen the assumption that medals were actually awarded, as well as removing any ambiguity about where they placed. Papaursa (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Paparusa, my take is that we then need something other than a "medal" template for other awards... horse shows give out placings to at least five if not six or eight places, horse races pay purse money to four. None of these are awarded medals and this template would not be appropriate for them!  Montanabw (talk)  00:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per my comment below to Papa Bear, we are in 100% agreement on this point: we should not be shoe-horning non-medal awards, blue-red-white ribbons, playoffs, win-place-show placings, etc., into a template specifically designed to serve those sports that actually award gold, silver and bronze medals to the first three finishers in major championship events. On the other hand, there is no real inconsistency in using color-coded gold, silver and bronze medal icons labeled 1-2-3; labeling the medal icons 1-2-3 is a far more intuitive concept and far more universally understood than "Gold," "Silver" and "Bronze" abbreviated labels for gold, silver and bronze medals, or worse yet -- obscure G-S-B abbreviations.  The new icon scheme could easily be improved for screen-readers and all users by incorporating a mouse-over display into the icons that reads "1st place gold medal," 2nd place silver medal," etc., when invoked by a screen-reader or mouse-over.  That would be a very significant improvement over the present color bars.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Papa Bear, one of the things I take way from this discussion is that there are editors and articles that are using this template when it should not be used: if the particular sports event does not award medals, we should not be misrepresenting those competitions by using medal icons or color-coding them gold, silver and bronze as if they were. We probably should have a separate template that recognizes ribbons or other award systems for competitions that do not award medals, whether it's win-place-show, blue-red-white ribbons, or simply 1-2-3 with no color-coding and/or medal icons.  For instance, American college sports tournaments only recognize a single champion in each event -- there are no gold, silver and bronze medals, or medals of any kind in NCAA sports -- but I have observed editors adding silver and bronze honors to athlete infoboxes as if they had received gold, silver or bronze medals.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We agree on that, Dirtlawyer - that the template is being used for things that aren't "medals" - we have Awards (note plural) for that. So rather than make this one look amateurish, let's encourage use of the other (some confusion is no doubt due to Award (note singular) is for barnstars and people may not realize the other exists.  Montanabw (talk)  00:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Amateurish?" Apparently we have very different senses of graphic refinement, MBW.  When I see simple color blocks, such as these, that lack any sense of graphic refinement, i.e., that is "amateurish" -- like a very high percentage of the infobox graphics favored by some template editors.  The circular medal icons, on the other hand, do not assume that every reader knows the significance of "gold," "silver" and "bronze," but instead rely on the more intuitive, universally understood concepts of first place, second place and third.  That said, the medal icon graphics also retain the gold, silver and bronze color coding for quick recognition by our more sports-savvy readers.  And we could take yet another step to improve this proposal, we could encode the icons for mouse-over reading, so that the icons would be read as "1st place gold medal," "2nd place silver medal," etc.  That would be a radical improvement over the present junk graphics that contribute to unnecessary line-wrapping and look like they were designed by an 8th-grader on a Commodore 64 in 1985.  Most of our infobox graphics desperately need a more professional make-over by template editors with a sense graphics, layout and design, and this Template:Medal and Template:Infobox sportsperson are not alone in that.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume we could easily do a "wrap" for this template where the placings 1-2-3 would not be color-coded gold, silver and bronze and assign an alternate template name like "sports event results" or something similar. In the case of Template:Medal as it presently exists, it appears some folks are trying jam round pegs into square holes.  Ditto the options for "playoffs" -- I still cannot fathom why that optional parameter was inserted into a template for medal results.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to generalise this template; we're gonna need to have a better understanding of how it's been (mis)used. (I don't edit in the area of sports, so this is all quite foreign to me.) In the interim, I've added tracking for playoffs; see Category:Articles using Template:Medal with Playoffs (yet to be populated). Alakzi (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Any instances where someone has used this and its associated templates to display non-medal information needs to ask themselves why they are using a template specifically called "Medal" under a section called "Medal record". The proposed changes somewhat ease the problem by emphasising position instead of medal colour, but I think non-medal misuses are a problem for articles, not the overall template implementation. It's such a profound form of misusage that there is no reasoning to it or even possibility of reconciling it without destroying the underlying purpose of the templates. SFB 22:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you nailed it! This is not a template titled "awards" or "placings."  It is called "medals" and medals are named "metals" because, guess what?  They are made out of ME D TAL. And the gold/silver/bronze tradition goes back over 100 years.  People don't say someone "placed first" at the Olympics, we say they were awarded a gold medal.  Montanabw (talk)  00:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds like pedantry to me. It is generally understood that gold means first. The number "1" is easier to register than the letter "G", or "Gold", so - if nothing else - this is good usability; infoboxes are all about grasping key facts at a glance. Also, it might interest you to know that medal and metal are - to the best of our knowledge - etymologically quite distinct. Alakzi (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Typo on my part, writing too fast... yes, "medals" are usually made out of "METAL" - my handy dictionary says that a "medal" is "a metal disk..."  Montanabw (talk)  16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Alakzi, this Template:Medal was designed to serve those sports that actually award gold, silver and bronze medals in major international championship events, e.g., the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games, IAAF World Championships (athletics/track), FIBA World Cup (basketball), FINA World Championships (swimming), Pan Pacific Championships (swimming); most national championships do not award medals, nor do many international sports events, e.g., FIFA World Cup (association football/soccer). This looks like an example of a template where some folks thought it could do more well than it should attempt.  Remember my credo: a simpler template, with fewer options, tailored to a specific purpose, often works better in practice.
 * That general philosophical statement having been made (and you've heard it from me once or twice before), we very much agree on the particulars of the graphics here. The new circular medal icons do not assume that every reader knows the significance of "gold," "silver" and "bronze," but instead rely on the more intuitive, universally understood concepts of first place, second place and third place (1-2-3).  That said, the new medal icon graphics also retain the gold, silver and bronze color coding for quick recognition by our more sports-savvy readers.  And, as I noted above for MontanBW's benefit, we could take yet another step to improve this proposal, we could encode the icons for mouse-over reading, so that the icons would be read as "1st place gold medal," "2nd place silver medal," etc., by a screen-reader or mouse-over.  That would be a radical improvement over the presently primitive graphics that contribute to unnecessary line-wrapping.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why awards does not already meet all of your criteria for a simpler template, and there, "1, 2, 3" makes perfect sense. If the problem is "a template where some folks thought it could do more well than it should attempt," then why not swap out the two templates?  Better yet, perhaps MERGE this one with awards but then add optional parameters so people can choose to note medals as opposed to mere ribbons or trophies or other pretty things?   Montanabw (talk)  16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You say, "I fail to see why awards does not already meet all of your criteria for a simpler template . . ." My answer?  For the simple reason that we have the existing Template:Medal that is designed to be used for the specific purpose of medals awarded in major international sports championships, and awards is not structured for that purpose, but for civic and literary awards, etc., where the awards table relies 100% on text without icons.  Using awards would not resolve the line-wrapping problem, and in many cases would make it worse because of the 100% reliance on text vs. icons and symbolic graphics.  Merging Template:Medal with Template:Awards is a very bad idea; with a merge, we would have one template that serves neither purpose particularly well.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So fix the line-wrapping problem, but keep the names gold/silver/bronze or a reasonable abbreviation thereof: gld/sil/brz or whatever. It's 1/2/3 that's my biggest beef.  Montanabw (talk)  03:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps there should be two templates. Medal and Olympic Medal. You mention more "universally understood" and I have an issue with that. As far as the Olympics are concerned it is the 1,2,3 that looks odd. I don't know a kid that thinks of first place at the Olympics as anything but Gold. I'll bet most nations are the same, at least English speaking nations, which is what we are concerned with. Everything we see and hear about the Olympics is gold, silver, bronze...all the time. So when we get hit in the face right up top with an infobox that says 1, 2, 3 instead of gold, silver, bronze it looks a bit out of place. I'm not saying I have any problem with it or that it doesn't look clean, but the "easier to understand" reasoning I don't buy into and perhaps the Olympics could have their own medal template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be a fallback, but seriously, how many "medals" are NOT g/s/b?  Montanabw (talk)  03:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spending as much time on this as you have; I appreciate that you are carefully considering the merits and downside of any changes. My primary area of concern regarding this template is Olympic athlete infoboxes, not some random sport or tournament.  Olympic athlete bios are the primary users of Template:Medal, and we need to get it right for Olympic sports.  That said, the proposed medal icons do preserve the existing gold-silver-bronze color-coding, and we have added the circular medal symbol (in addition to the 1-2-3 numbering).  The stand-alone medals tables are titled "Medals record," and infobox medals tables also incorporate section headers for each "games" in which the athlete has received a medal (e.g., Olympics Games, Commonwealth Games, FIBA World Cup, etc.).  Would it make a difference to you if we incorporate the suggested mouse-over display into the icons, so that a mouse-over would reveal/display "1st place gold medal" or "gold medal - 1st place"?  To my way of thinking, that could not be clearer in combination with existing graphics, section headers, etc.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned back aways, not all devices have mouseover functionality. Many now access simply by scrolling on their phones. And with the color circles being much smaller than the rectangular blocks, the color differentiation is a bit tougher on those with eyesight issues. Right now when I mouse over the new charts it mouseovers to gold, silver and bronze... that's good enough for the mouseover aspect I think. Just wondering, what if instead of 1, 2, 3 we had G, S, B for the olympic articles? It might be worse but I'd like to see it since I'm more in-tuned to gold, silver bronze when it comes to olympics. No one I know talks about who came in first at the Olympics... they all ask who won Gold. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned back aways, not all devices have mouseover functionality. Many now access simply by scrolling on their phones. And with the color circles being much smaller than the rectangular blocks, the color differentiation is a bit tougher on those with eyesight issues. Right now when I mouse over the new charts it mouseovers to gold, silver and bronze... that's good enough for the mouseover aspect I think. Just wondering, what if instead of 1, 2, 3 we had G, S, B for the olympic articles? It might be worse but I'd like to see it since I'm more in-tuned to gold, silver bronze when it comes to olympics. No one I know talks about who came in first at the Olympics... they all ask who won Gold. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean like the G-S-B denoted example icons at the bottom? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

All-black text:

All-white text:

Max contrast text

Max contrast text with G-S-B notation


 * Yes, but added to the side-by-side comparisons of the actual tables to get a better understanding of how it would look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you satisfy Mr. Fyunck's request? He wants to see a side-by-side comparison of the mock-up medal tables with 1-2-3 and G-S-B denoted medal icons . . . .  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here they are, with and without SFB's cell background colour idea. Alakzi (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you explore what is necessary to encode the three medal icons with mouse-over reveal text "Gold medal – 1st place," and so on, for each of them? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow thanks for that . I have to say, I'm glad I asked for the comparison because I happen to like both versions of G,S,B the best (of course I'm probably the only one who'll feel that way :-). It retains the normal olympic nomanclature, yet saves space. Esthetically both the new circle/cell-background versions look identical to me... it "might" be easier to see the cell background version for the visually impaired. I understand where many are coming from that this could be a solution in search of a problem since I've never had any trouble with the old version. Obviously a few have. I can only say that I try to put myself in the place of a new venturer to wikipedia who's looking for information. I see no problem at all for them using any of the medal box choices. I'm not visually impaired so that I can't speak for. However the new choices do it in a less-crowded fashion which will help with word wrapping, which is a good thing in these boxes. I might lean towards the cell-background choice of GSB, but both the GSB choices are my favorites. I don't think there's any doubt that words all on one line are better then wrapped over two lines, as long as the same information is given in each style choice. I feel they do need to say Gold, Silver or Bronze upon mouseover. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I take your comment as a conditional "support" for the new icons provided we use the G-S-B denotations for gold, silver and bronze medals. Correct?  While I think the 1-2-3 notations are more intuitive than G-S-B -- that concern can be largely addressed by encoding the icons for "Gold medal – 1st place," etc., for mouse-over "reveal" text.  I assume that you have no objection to that?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I almost hate to take a position on this. One it's kind of minor, and two I rarely concern myself with Olympics (even in tennis articles). But others that edit tennis articles might wonder "what just happened" if it changes and they don't look often at the project page. I like all the versions, even the original that you don't. I guess what I would say is this...if I was starting from scratch in building the Olympic medal template I would go with the streamlined G,S,B with cell background. I would also add for the record, that as far as it applying to the Olympics, I think the G,S,B notation is more intuitive than 1,2,3 or 1st,2nd,3rd because those numbers aren't really used in the Olympics...it's medal color this and medal color that... every day for two weeks, every two years. Newspapers never list 1,2,3... the tv never uses 1,2,3... everyone wants to know who won gold or did we at least get a bronze medal. Away from the Olympics 1,2,3 makes more sense to me depending on the discipline in question. Horse shows and dog shows usually use ribbons but they also say 1st place in gigantic letters also. Ice skating shows I watch often give places when away from the Olympics. I assume track and field events do also? My main purpose here was simply to try and help everyone come together and perhaps compromise on something that might help our readers. I don't even recall how I stumbled upon this. Probably the tennis project posting. But I found it and thought about it overnight, needed to see some examples (which were graciously given) and then made my comments. I may just step aside now and be surprised the evening I sit down and find the template has changed to whatever gets decided. I'll mention it to a few stalwart tennis editors who have better insight than I do. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize for not being a partisan -- your unbiased opinion and input is welcome. Thanks for taking the time to express your concerns and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the old and proposed new medal graphics.  Send some more of the tennis guys this way if they're interested.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At least you are looking at the issue; I don't have an issue with trying to address formatting problems, I do have an issue with replacing g/s/b with 1/2/3, Fyunck says it well. And mouseover is not a perfect solution.  Montanabw (talk)  03:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you live with what Fyunck has proposed -- the circular medal icons denoted G-S-B, color-coded to correspond to gold, silver and bronze -- with the added proviso that we will have our template editor add the mouse-over reveal text for "Gold medal - 1st place," etc., for each of the three medals? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could live with that. If your real goal is to make the icons smaller to address assorted formatting problems,  I don't want to get in the way of that. Basically, the thing I'm spotting is a dramatic difference in look between Anky_van_Grunsven and Beezie Madden - one has the older format, the other the newer...  What's happening there?   Montanabw (talk)  03:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Montana. I will have our template editor, Alakzi, see what is necessary to code the mouse-over revealed text function for the template.  In answer to your first question, there are two motivations on my part, and I think Sillyfolkboy, from his comments, shares them: (1) space efficiency to reduce line-wrapping, and (2) generally more refined graphics.  As for your second question, why are some articles presently displaying the old format, and others displaying the proposed new format, I don't know, but it appears that the transclusions do not all automatically and simultaneously update.  I noticed this during the back-and-forth reversions over the weekend.  This much I do know: if you edit the article showing the new medal icons, and save the page, it will return to the old graphics -- as presently encoded on Template:Medal.  Kinda weird, eh?
 * Now that we're more or less in agreement on this compromise, I would be grateful if you would strike your "strong oppose" above, with notation/caveat referring to color-coded medal icons, denoted G-S-B, with mouse-over text. With your support, we stand 8 to 2 in favor of the new icons, as modified.  I expect we will keep this discussion open through next weekend to give everyone interested the opportunity to voice their opinions.  Thank you for taking the time to work through your concerns.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Convenience break, No. 2

 * From an aesthetical point of view the numbered circles look much better, and I do not agree that any meaning has been lost. Thus I support the change. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the change. I prefer the 1/2/3 format, but I can live the the G/S/B format as well. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the numbered version. I don't think the letter abbreviations of G/S/B is more intuitive than 1/2/3 for the simple reason that numbers like 1,2, and 3 give you full, unabbreviated pieces of information, while you have to know that G/S/B are the initial letters of the words gold, silver and bronze. This the very definition of the word intuit, so I think saying GSB is more intuitive is actually semantically incorrect. I think the letters contravene the principle of least astonishment in terms of design. SFB 20:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like you, my first choice is the new medal icons with 1-2-3 (over G-S-B) for the reasons you express. However, by agreeing to the G-S-B compromise -- with mouse-over reveal text "Gold medal -- 1st place" -- most of the editors who were opposed to this change are willing to support it.  I think that's a good compromise; I would rather get three quarters of a loaf than no loaf at all.  The compromise implements the circular medal icons for infobox medal tables, a needed improvement, and we can revisit 1-2-3 vs. G-S-B in a year or two and see where opinion stands then.  If you you look at the Template:Medal/testcases, you can see we're ready to implement the new icons, with mouse-over reveal text, immediately.  With compromise, we have a 9–2 !majority and a very solid consensus.  Can you accept this?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The sum of my opinion expressed in this thread is in favour of the reduced, medal format. So, you can take that as me being in favour of a move to the form you state. Still, my overall feeling is I'm making strong arguments based upon design principles and signifier comprehension, whereas others are being more influenced by familiarity with the original design. SFB 09:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This may be a bit of a de-railer, but I also think removing the location and just keeping the year would be an improvement. The location is typically the least important piece of information in the template and arguably in many cases it has little relevance at all. Are Daegu, Berlin and Nassau really such a big deal to Usain Bolt that they warrant mention in the lead infobox? They certainly would never form a necessary part of the lead prose. SFB 09:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SFB, I thank you for your willingness to strike the bargain, and accept the win for the team. We can revisit the issue of 1-2-3 vs. G-S-B on the one-year anniversary.  As for the year and location of the medal events, I'm sure you know that this is the way the medals tables have been structured for quite some time (at least my 6 years on-wiki, and apparently substantially longer).  There is a logic to it -- especially for the Olympics, which are commonly referenced as "Rome Olympics," "Munich Olympics," etc.  Ditto for the Pan American Games and Commonwealth Games, but certainly far less so for the IAAF and FINA championships.  That said, I am willing to discuss alternatives, but I would urge you to allow this discussion to be closed and move forward with the new medal icons.  We can immediately thereafter open the discussion regarding alternatives to the issue you raise, although I would strongly suggest that we should have concrete ideas for at least two or three alternatives before we start that discussion.  What say you?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all fine with me. It's a different solution with a very different (and more arduous) implementation but somewhat addresses the same point. SFB 20:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SFB. I look forward to chatting more with you about your ideas on your user talk page.  I'm going to request our template editor to implement the consensus regarding the new G-S-B medal icons immediately.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * After more than two weeks of talk page discussion, and a good deal of back-and-forth negotiation here, there is a clear consensus and strong 9–2 !majority in favor of the new medal icons. Please take whatever steps are necessary to implement the new graphics in good order.  Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a few issues that you should try to address before finalising the changes: HTH --RexxS (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The text size for G S B in the mock-ups is 72% of default (9.18px/12.7px) - that's far too small for folks with poor vision. WP:ACCESS recommends a limit of 85% or 11px.
 * The mock-ups use text inside a div with a circular border. That's good from a web-design point of view, but you can't then use image alt text to convey expanded information like "Gold" or "First place". I assume that the intention is eventually to use images for the medal icons for that reason. Such small images need to be properly anti-aliased at the correct size to retain legible text in them, rather than relying on Mediawiki software to downscale a larger image cleanly (it generally doesn't).
 * Although it's a bonus to have mouseover text to deliver expanded information, you mustn't count on it. It won't show up on touch-sensitive devices (there's no hover functionality) or for users who can't use a mouse.
 * WP:COLOUR recommends meeting at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible for contrast between foreground and background and using Snook's Colour Contrast Check to check each combination. Black on gold meets AAA. Black on silver meets AAA. The colour used for bronze, #967444, with white text doesn't even meet WCAG 2.0 AA level. I'd suggest using black text on #B88E53 background (or even lighter e.g. #E1AE65) which meets AAA.
 * See, and , and the testcases. Is there anything that remains to be addressed? Alakzi (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, why is the discussion fragmented over different pages? --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know; people like to post on my talk page. It's got that barren feel to it everybody's come to love. Alakzi (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you find it discourteous to other editors to take discussions of how to improve a template off into other unrelated namespaces? Nobody who read the discussion above would be aware of your efforts to meet some of the issues I highlighted, nor would they have been aware of the testcases in the sandbox. --RexxS (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be upset if I'd been made to waste my time for lack of communication. I should've said something here; I apologise. Alakzi (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for implementing this, Alakzi. I also think that the lighter brown background for the bronze medals improves the text/background colors contrast.  Well done.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any good reason that parameter isnt "hidden" e.g. in: Its need an ending | but why this solution? Christian75 (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Christian, the correct format should be:


 * }
 * For sports medals, the idea is to include the medal (i.e., gold, silver or bronze), the larger games or contest (e.g., Olympic Games), and the particular event (e.g., 100 metre dash). These templates were designed to be used for sporting events, and that is their primary purpose, although I suppose there is no harm in using them for non-sports medal awards if it is appropriate.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is probably not an appropriate use of either the medals table or the sportsperson infobox. Alakzi (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Change "disqualified" medal
The way this template is now is somewhat uninformative. It doesn't show if the disqualification was say due to false start (so essentially meaningless), or whether the person actually won the race and then had the medal stripped for whatever reason (which has more meaning). So instead of this "disqualified" thing, we should have something like a gold medal icon that is crossed out, and then for silver and bronze, too. --bender235 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2019
Could the main template be synced with the sandbox ( diff )? My sandbox edit removes an unnecessary, which is now automatically handled by. Retro ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 10:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to ignore the following question because it is purely esoterica, but is there a particular reason you left a space between the and the table? I don't think it makes any difference in this context, but I also don't think it needs to be kept.  Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 11:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think its needed for the table markup to work --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See the sandbox; there's has no newline in the wikitext, but the table renders fine. I only noticed the newline retention because my drafted change in the sandbox is different than your applied change. Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * hmm. Do you want me to remove it? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Purely for my own wikisource aesthetics, I would say yes.
 * But based on actual data:
 * {{sl|insource:"noinclude" insource:/\\{\{{!}}/||ns10}}: 971 templates have no intervening character
 * {{sl|insource:"noinclude" insource:/\ +\{\{{!}}/||ns10}}: 0 templates have consecutive spaces
 * {{sl|insource:"noinclude" insource:/\[^ -~]\{\{{!}}/||ns10}}: 1,470 templates have a newline (or possibly some other non-ASCII character, but that seems unlikely).
 * {{sl|insource:"noinclude" insource:/\[^!-~]{2,}\{\{{!}}/||ns10}}: 10 templates have two or more newlines (which, surprisingly to me, does not appear to affect the HTML rendering.)
 * (Note these searches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)
 * Therefore I must conclude the ideal response is no, just leave it alone. It doesn't matter enough to add another trivial edit to the page itself. I don't think the edit would cause any performance detriment, but it also doesn't pass my minimum threshold for being worthwhile to edit again, hence I have synced the sandbox. Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 19:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Logo in medal template
May i know if there any rules that talks about logo in the medal templates? Can it be used or not? (See: Saina Nehwal and P. V. Sindhu) --Stvbastian (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 November 2021
A small change to Disqualified: <pre style="overflow:auto"> | Disqualified | DQ                = background-color:pink" | Disqualified
 * Currents state

<pre style="overflow:auto"> | Disqualified                     = background-color:pink" | Disqualified | DQ                                = background-color:pink" | DQ
 * Proposed state

Or: <pre style="overflow:auto"> | Disqualified | DQ                = background-color:pink" | Disqualified | DQd                               = background-color:pink" | DQ

Currently, in the rare cases where DQ is used, it takes tables usually using only G/S/B out of balance, being much wider than other elements in the medal column. The First option I've proposed fixes the problem for earlier DQ using articles. The second offers full backward compatibility and only gives the option to use the shorter version going forwards. Deancarmeli (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Rational
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Adding a small-version of DQ
Currently, in the rare cases where DQ is used, it takes tables usually using only G/S/B out of balance, being much wider than other elements in the medal column. I'm proposing adding a "DQd" / "DQs" option that offers full backward compatibility and only gives the option to use a shorter version going forwards. None of the existing articles will be directly effected, but the option will be there for editors to make medal tables more compact. Deancarmeli (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments