Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in volleyball/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 24 September 2010.

List of Olympic medalists in volleyball

 * Nominator(s): Courcelles 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because; well, I'm actually kind of nervous about this nomination, mainly because after running it up to DYK, it often languished on the back burner while other projects came and went. There's a massive list of athletes here, a good many of whom we struggle to put two sentences together about. I've considered whether this should be two lists due to the page's size, over 65kb, but there's enough value in having all the athletes on one page to leave it as is, in my opinion. The images are all fairly recent, I spent a lot of time looking for free images of some of the older athletes both on Commons and through the Toolserver, but to mix my sport metaphors, consistently struck out. At any rate, this is already tl;dr, so enjoy. Courcelles 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Great list, great job! Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: is there a good reason why the summary table stops at 3 medals? How many more are with two (at least one of which is gold)? It might be worth at least explicitly stating the number if not listing the names. Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are lots more. The Soviet mens teams of the 60's and 70's didn't change much from Games to Games, and won five medals in five Olympics.  The Brazilian mens teams of '04 and '08 were substantially identical.  The women's side is the same situation with the Japanese and Soviet teams of the 60s-70s, and the Cubans of the 90's. I'm thinking of expanding it to everyone who has three medals, full stop, as that would only run the table to 27 entries.  Probably the longest in any of these FL's, but not insanely long.  Thoughts? Courcelles 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is now done; the table lists anyone who has three medals, regardless of colour. Like I said above, expanding it to those with just two would overwhelm the page. Courcelles 15:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not quite what I had in mind. Essentially everybody cares more about gold than the total. Since it is medal leaders, I would really prefer having all the multiple medalists with at least one gold medal (i.e. the last should be 1 gold 1 bronze). Would that be too long? If yes, then count them and write after the table that there are "x with 1 gold and 1 silver", "y with 1 gold and 1 bronze", etc. And chop off the non-golden ones (but you could still write the number of multiple medalists without gold). Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, saying golds are more important than other colours is something we would have to debate- I would strongly disagree that two medals, one gold, is better than three silvers. The real problem is that what you're asking would have to be put together by counting (your edit seems to indicate this, even), which would be too far into original research for my tastes. Courcelles 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The counting issue: when one says that US has 50 states, or EU has 27 members it does mean they counted them. I don't get it what is the problem saying "over 50 (or whatever number) have won two medals in volleyball". Nergaal (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so everybody is happy (some would say a gold is more important than 2 bronze medals) I think the simplest would be to just leave out the triple medalists without a gold (i.e. like it was initially). That way there won't be a discussion that someone with 2 golds should be put above the ones with 2 bronze and a silver, and so on. All I wanted is to have a sentence before or after that table saying x more people won 3 medals and y more won at least 2. Nergaal (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now . After actually going through the text in detail, I noticed that the first two paragraphs are about USSR and USA, with a very brief mention of China. Just to give an example The United States men's team did not compete in the three Olympics prior to 1984, as they failed to qualify for the 1972 Munich and the 1976 Montreal Games. This has almost nothing to do with being a medallist, while the likes of Japan, Poland, Yugoslavia get no mention. Seriously, please change the intro from appearing almost like a USA vs USSR issue to something that truly covers the medalists. Also, a very notable missing element is the fact that there is no summary on countries. Since Olympics are much about national pride, and especially since volleyball is a team sport, having a summary on the national performance makes very much sense. Nergaal (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a table of NOC's who have won more than a single medal. What this reveals, though, is that while the lede does need to discuss Japan more (I'll work on that), the Soviet Union would be the medal leader if she and her successor entities were considered one entity (they are not; the USSR, the Unified Team, and the Russian Federation are three separate NOC's), and the United States is third.  Brazil has the most medals, and more emphasis can be put on them, though most of their medals are in the newer beach game. But this lede is in chronological order, and the USSR was dominant until the Los Angeles Games, hence why it looks disproportionate in the first two paragraphs. Courcelles 01:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you would leave out the single-medal NOCs (at a quick glimpse there seem to be only about 5 of them). Also, since indoor and beach are so different, I think having a 3*4 table like here would be appropriate (a set of 4 for indoor, a set of 4 for beach, and another one for totals). I know I sound picky, but I am saying all of these because I do think these are notable issues. Nergaal (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've edited the lede to mention a few other countries it didn't originally discuss. As to the table by NOC, actually there are ten more, not five.  The 4 by 3 table is excessively large for normal-sized monitors, and expanding this table-either way- will require the use of sort templates, making a very slow page even slower for negligible benefit. What you are requesting would require adding another ~250 templates to this page to get the sorting to work properly, a feature of little value, not present in any similar lists, and in no way required by the FL criteria. Courcelles 00:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I thought it would make sense but if it requires that much work for that little benefit then I am fine. I stroked down my oppose. Nergaal (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain me how is The United States men's team did not compete in the three Olympics prior to 1984, as they failed to qualify for the 1972 Munich and the 1976 Montreal Games.[5] relevant to the text? The intro is now a bit on the long side; I would prefer have the text consolidated a bit. Nergaal (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed that. It got put in when I was looking for a decent DYK hook, but it's not all that useful now that the lede is a good bit longer. Courcelles 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Looks fine to me.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The list, in my opinion, fully satisfies FL criteria. Ruslik_ Zero 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.