Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 5

Update on 2004 stuff
Hey there. I just recently went through the 2004 events pages (listed on my subpage User:Jared/2004 events FYI) and found that we've done a great job so far getting those pages up to par as far as our standards. Unfortunately, there is definitely a ways to go, and what I've done is made a list here of all the sports that have pages/subpages that are not up to the current standards. The others not listed are of good enough quality or have been brought up to the right standards. Several below, like swimming, I was iffy about because I think a lot has changed since we did those pages, and maybe now there might be some better way to do those. Anyhow, here's my list. Feel free to change it.


 * Archery (some)
 * Athletics (maybe)
 * Badminton (some)
 * Basketball
 * Boxing
 * Canoeing (maybe)


 * Cycling (some)
 * Equestrian
 * Football (maybe)
 * Handball
 * Hockey


 * Modern pentathlon
 * Rowing
 * Shooting
 * Softball
 * Swimming (maybe)


 * Synchronized swimming
 * Table tennis
 * Volleyball
 * Water polo
 * Wrestling

— └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea, having a "checklist" — even if we haven't documented our "unofficial standards" yet! I'm currently working on the fencing articles, and I think Parutakupiu has a little bit of work left on gymnastics. Andrwsc 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thought: we ought to focus on the individual sports first, as I think we need some discussion about the team sports.  Maybe we ought to get some ideas out here first.  Andrwsc 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm finishing the Gymnastics articles with the Artistic qualifiers page. I think once we get the project standards drafted we could have a proper "to-do" page for creation and cleanup of pre-2004 per-Games sports articles, so we don't lose track.  Parutakupiu  talk 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * TEMPLATES. Looking throgh the sport/discipline pages for 2004, I noticed at the bottom the overall olympic template being placed above the "events of 2004 Olympics" template and the "sport/year" template.  Is this overall olympic template even neccessary? I realize that the particular template is automatically "hiden", but I don't want these pages cluttered with templates.  I propose taking the overall olympic template down.  Perakhantu 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In response, I did that so that in order to allow for easy back and forth between all the Olympics pages. In reality, though, I don't really see a reason why someone would have a dire need to go from Archery at the 1956 Summer Olympics to 1984 Winter Olympics. I think it's fine because it is hidden and all, and wouldn't mind if it stayed, but I can see why it may seem cluttering and thus I wouldn't care either if we got rid of it. (Note that if there is consensus here, I have already fixed Olympic Games so that it fixes the "problem." I've reverted my change, but if there is consensus, revert it back to the version in history with the obvious summary!) └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't exactly know what you are saying in the last couple of sentences, but I tried to eliminate that overall olympic template from the 2004 sport pages, and I can't seperate it out from the other two. Is there a way to get rid of that template,, but keep the rest?Perakhantu 22:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, everything's all set. Nevermind what I said above. The hidden bar has been entirely removed. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gymnastics articles
Hey all. Just to let you know that I've finished yesterday with the creation and/or cleanup of the Gymnastics at the 2004 Summer Olympics main and event pages. One important change/addition I've made to these type of articles was the creation of separate articles for the men and women's artistic qualification round (I've changed GymnasticsAt2004SummerOlympics accordingly). Another thing, I'm still waiting for sources (i.e. official report) on the exact total number of participating gymnasts (in the three disciplines), because I can't find the rhythmics team's rosters. Hence the actual figure only includes the artistic, trampoline and individual rhythmic event gymnasts.

If you want, you can have a look and see if I missed anything relevant.  Parutakupiu  talk 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! -- Jonel | Speak 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nicely done! That was a big job to get that done according to style.  The only suggestion I'd make would be to include the names of each member of the medal winning teams, both on the main page medal summary table and at the top of the event pages.  Actually, I think I'd also put the names for all teams on the team event pages.  Right now, you'd have to click on the qualification page and scroll around to find the roster of each team.  Other than that, great!  Andrwsc 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, good job, there. Also, it's funny that you should mention the official reports because I e-mailed AAFLA the other day asking when the 2004 Olympics report would be published, and they responded, "The 2004 report is in process. We expect it to be loaded by this or next month." So that looks good! Good timing as far as what we're doing here. That will definitely help us in our work. I just thought I'd tell you. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really a great work! I am impressed! I would only like to correct the spelling of same names. Up to now I have only changed two names on the men's artistic qualification page. I will have a look at all the others in the next hours. Is this O.K.? Doma-w 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, you don't need to thank me. It's my "job" and I do it gladly ;)
 * As for Andrwsc's suggestion: you're absolutely right (I knew I'd forget something) and therefore I'll add the medalist team's rosters for all the team events, apart from the rhythmics events since I don't have sources (That's why those 2004 reports will be a bliss! So good move, Jared!). Finally... Doma-w, you're the Olympic names "master corrector", so correct all you wish ;)  Parutakupiu  talk 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrwsc, you really think I should add the rosters on the team event pages' results table? That would REALLY expand the table and cells... not to my liking, to be honest. But unless this has been done consistently on other pages, then I have no problem.  Parutakupiu  talk 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks fine with the full names. If we later added the individual scores per gymnast per apparatus, that might be useful.  It would be a tradeoff between seeing who the strongest members of each team were vs. a mass of numbers in a table.  Anyway, for now I think it helps having the names of all the people who were in that event.  It's like the "team squads" sections for team sports, perhaps.  A bit tedious, but probably necessary.  Andrwsc 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. After some thinking I ended up seeing the possibilities behind adding the rosters to the results table. And now that you wrote them I strengthened my new position. I've finished adding the rosters to the results tables and now they really are asking for results per gymnast. That's my next goal :) Thanks!  Parutakupiu  talk 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ups! "Master" Hmm. I will do my best not to lose my "job". :-) Doma-w 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done now the men's artistic qualification. Maybe same corrections will follow on Russian and/or Ukrainian names. I do not understand the reason why the page is spelt Alexei Nemov when in the text every Aleksei is spelt Aleksei, the only Alexei is in the title. The correct translation from Russian to English is Aleksei. The next problem is Valeri Goncharov. Here the correct translation from Ukraninian to English is Valeriy. Here the page also shows this translation.


 * And I have "found" the Kazakhstani gymnast Yernar Yerimbetov. :) Doma-w 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Swimming articles
OK, so I was looking back through our articles and found that the swimming articles are not so pretty, as far as today's standards go. I think that these may have been the first ones we did, and at that time, we may have liked the way we did them, but for example, I wouldn't exactly agree with the way Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle is currently laid out. (That was our model page for a while; see this archived section.)

Going along the lines of what was has been being used for other types of pages, I created my prototype at Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle. I expanded it a little with citations and the latest template usage, but mainly, I got rid of the massive and redundant lists of heats and rankings and compiled them into tables.

Now originally, I had the heats, semis, and finals all in one table (see here) but that defeated the purpose of fixing it in the first place, so I split it off, and split heats into two. I think this looks better. But I also question the necessity of the initial heats actually being on the page. Sure it may be nice to see it, but there are so many swimmers on it that really, all we might care about is the last few rounds. Which brings me to question whether we should make a qualification page like the ones Parutakupiu made for gymnastics (see here). This may be a good idea, and would alleviate clutter on the main event pages.

Any suggestions here? I know this is just overwhelming, but it's something that has to be done, so I figured I'd address it because it came up in my work. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 18:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think the layout you came up is more confusing than the ones in Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle (heats, semifinals and final all separated) and User:Jared/sandbox1 (all rounds compiled). I'd prefer to stick with one of these which display the information more clearly.
 * My example of a separate page for the artistic gymnastics qualification isn't the best example for comparison because it is a qualification round for all artistic events simultaneously... unless you're thinking about a separate page to put the heat results of every event in different sections, so that they don't appear on the event pages. Is this what you're saying? Isn't that still too much data to put on a single page? I mean, numerous and hugely participated heats times 16 events...  Parutakupiu  talk 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion is to stick with this, it looks way better. Punkmorten 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is only necessary to give the existing version a class=wikitable? So all the heats get borders to look more stylish? Doma-w 11:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that individual event pages must include all competitors. If we were to omit the heats for the sake of brevity, we would miss notable athletes not making the finals — such as 2000 bronze medalist Pieter van den Hoogenband coming in 17th in 2004.  We would miss notable athletes getting disqualified.  We would miss the results of notably bad swimmers, like Eric Moussambani ("the eel").
 * Now, having said that, I also think that we ought to find a layout that only lists each result once, and each name as few times as possible. That greatly assists clarity and maintainability of the page.  The diving results, or Triathlon at the 2004 Summer Olympics are good examples.  I think we ought to collapse some event results down into single tables like that.  For example, I think that the detailed per-segment results (with rankings) on Modern pentathlon at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's are a bit much and could be compressed.  I'd like to see decathlon results compressed to perhaps two tables (Day 1 and Day 2) instead of ten tables!
 * With that in mind, I think Jared's proposal for swimming is an improvement. I never liked the idea of repeating the rankings from the heats in a second list.  However, I do see the benefit in looking at the heat results both sorted by heat number and by absolute time.  Therefore, might I suggest we consider a sortable table, as used in Swimming at the 2007 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 50 metre freestyle.  I would make a couple of changes to those tables — the default sort order (before you click on any table headers) ought to be by heat and lane, and Template:sortname needs to be applied to the name column.  Also, I would only use the sortable table layout for the heats, and stick with a standard list for the semifinals and finals.
 * What do you folks think? Andrwsc 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe it's better to have the heats on the event pages; otherwise these would have much less info than a hypothetical page created for all heats. I think the sortable table idea is very good to achieve that goal of compiling results in one table and avoiding swimmers' names repetition. Go ahead! Having that in mind, I think I'll have to make some adjustments to some gymnastics results tables.  Parutakupiu  talk 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've updated Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre freestyle to use the sortable table for the heats so that you can see what I am proposing. I haven't cleaned up the rest of that page yet, just the heats section.  Andrwsc 18:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so I haven't responded to anything that's been going on here, because I wanted to see how it hashed out (and because I've been gone) but from what I see, I think I very much like Andrwsc's alteration. It allows for the sorting by heat and time, so the two tables could be combined. Really, that is what I wanted to ensure: that there were not two sets of repeated information. But in the process, my suggestion got rid of any traces of what heat the athlete was in, which I didn't really think was that important, but maybe it is. Anyhow, I would think that with Andrwsc's idea, there would be three separate tables, one for each round. That's perfectly fine with me. I like to keep things as together as possible, but when you try too hard, it just makes a mess. So I like this. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 23:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Volleyball articles
My turn, I guess. I think I did an OK job of cleaning up the volleyball articles, (certainly got rid of the god-awful "block tables"). Anyway, I was looking at some previous discussions on this page dealing with tournament brackets, and I think brackets would be a good idea for the playoffs of the volleyball articles. Any thoughts? Any other ideas on improving those articles? Perakhantu 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We should definitely use the brackets system, if there is a quarter-final phase — a huge visual helper :) Perhaps something could also be done on the way the fixtures are displayed, something on the line of footballbox.  Parutakupiu  talk 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree that the current results are kinda crammed to one side (and for the regular volleyball, it doesn't say how each set was scored). For the bracket system, I was thinking of using something along the lines of tennis doubles.  Since the first names are already known from the pool play, using just the last names would work for the brackets.  On a side note, I thought that I had done a decent job cleaning up those pages, but now that I look at them some more, I see that I'm not even half-way done.  Perakhantu 23:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that once we get this into brackets, it looks much better, because it's consolidated. I had started doing the Badminton articles earlier, and they looked much as the volleyball ones did. For example, Badminton at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's doubles. But I bracketed those results, making it look more like Badminton at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's singles, which is much better. Now, I would suggest using this template: 16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3. The actual individual-game scores can be found here, so I would suggest that this would make it more complete, and the tennis template would allow for multiple games to be recorded, much like the badminton ones. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 23:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've hit a stumbling block. That 16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3 works perfectly, save for one little detail.  It does not allow for 3rd place matches.  I DO NOT want the volleyball pages to look like the brackets for singles badminton with the 3rd place match kicked down to the bottom of the page (that is my only beef with the badminton template).  Is there some way to combine the tennis template with the one for fencing? All that is really needed to be done is to somehow insert the third-place match right into the bracket.  This is my work so far (men's beach volleyball):

Perakhantu 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the one who made Template:32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds with the bronze medal game inside the bracket, so if you give me some time, I can do the same for 16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3. Andrwsc 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I started thinking about having the dates of the matches incorperated into the bracket as well. Something along the lines of boxing.  Of course then we would be getting into very specialized templates that would be more of pain to keep track of.  seeds? no seeds? 3rd place? no 3rd place? etc. etc. etc.  BLEH!  Anyway, following the KISS principle would probably be best.  So, thanks for helping me out Andrwsc. Perakhantu 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, in response to the whole lack of a third-place medal match thing, it's really too bad because I really don't like how the badminton one looks either. I'm really not sure how to fix it, save for making a new section, or manually fixing the template to allow for it. Anyhow, I was looking at the men's indoor page, and I'm wondering why it's only down to an 8 team bracket? Is it just that some of the other matches are still up in tables above? That's what I figure. That should be fine, but a full bracket would be nice. Ah well. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 00:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason is that there were 2 pools in which the volleyball teams played, with 8 teams per a pool. The top 4 teams from each pool advanced to the playoffs (quarterfinals); hence the 8 teams.  So, there was never really a full single elimination tournament.  Parutakupiu brought up the idea of having the pool play games in the style of footballbox, but with 3 to 5 sets a match, I have no idea how to pull that off.  Perakhantu 00:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Equestrian articles
I'm not too sure what to do with these articles. Let's begin with Equestrian at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Individual dressage, just as a starting point. I had noticed that the horse that was ridden seems to be an important thing, so what I did to keep this way in the flagIOCathlete template, I put the horse name in parentheses after the rider's name. Now, there are several other options for this: make a totally different column (which I'd rather not do), write it "Rider on Horse" in the template, we can do it like doubles tennis (but that would make them look "equal." I like the way it is now, but certainly would also agree with option two above.

As far as the results go, I'm new to equestrian. To me, I don't even know if it could be qualified to be a sport (but I have my qualms about other sports too). Anyway, the way it is run is confusing, like the number and quota of riders moving on to the next round, the way in which rounds are scored (using averages of previous rounds). So what I suggest is that we, for the three different runs, just show each judge's score, and a total score, and then whether they qualified to go to the next round. After those tables, a final table would show the rankings of each rider (?) because that changes each time, due to averaging. In other words, there will be an initial exposatory section which shows the results, and a final ranking table, where the progressive averages would be shown. This seems like the best way to go. It certainly seems confusing in writing!

Now, as far as team events go for this, they just use the same results as the individual events. Should we still have separate pages. I think we should, but something tells me that it's just too repetative. Maybe we should have a "qualification" page like gymnastics. Or could we keep the team pages, just link to the individual scores, and show cumulative results in a table? I don't know. Sorry for yet another article set! └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, not much of a fan of having the horse in a seperate column? Well, I guess "Rider on Horse" would work.  We could also have it where the horse is in italics, to differentiate them even further.  (just an idea).  As for the results go, yeah, what a mess.  The one that got me was the Individual eventing page.  wow.  I like the idea of having a running total on the last column of each table so the reader can keep track of the aggregate score without having to scroll up and down all the time.  Having a final table that shows the finals scores would be a good idea.  Another idea is to utilize sortable tables where the reader can "rank" the riders by country, each judges' score, final score, etc.


 * I really think pages like these need to be re-structured so that the list of competitors is shown only once, ranked by final score. All the segments that go into that final score need to be listed in a set of columns in that one table.  It can be done! Andrwsc 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, as far as the team events goes, I think I have definitely found the solution. Check out team jumping.  The tables would have to be cleaned up a bit, but you get the general idea of having just the final score of the individuals placed under the country name.  I see absolutely no need to duplicate the individual tables on the team pages.  Anyway, the Equestrian pages might be the biggest pain to keep track of due to so many rounds and having individual and team events linking to each other. Ahh, and just think that this is just one sport in one edition of the games that needs to be cleaned up. 2008 is just around the corner. egad!  Perakhantu 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh! I get a headache just looking at all those tables :S I think I would need quite some time to figure out a way to rearrange these pages and to compile all data into the essential.  Parutakupiu  talk 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can put these off till last...! └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 21:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to that. No need to get bogged down with this page when we have progrssed with the others. Perakhantu 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Handball articles
I've begun to clean up these as well, but as you can see on the men's page the brackets look weird. Do any of you know how make this better? Should the 9th and 11th place matches even be in bracket form? Perakhantu 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've given a somewhat major cleanup to that article. Check if you agree with the way the classification playoffs are displayed (and with the rest, too).  Parutakupiu  talk 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I really like the use of Template:footballbox for the match results — I'd like to see it used on the group matches too, and then we're done! Andrwsc 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, me too. There's no need to create a handball-specific template when the football one works like a charm. Besides, they'll grow thicker when we get the match details (scorers, referee, attendance...) so it will look much filled than now. I'll apply it to the group matches too; I just didn't do it now because they were so many, lol.
 * What should we do with the medalists table: apply the vertical format and add the entire team roster (15!!!) or leave as is?  Parutakupiu  talk 04:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think have the full roster for the medalists would be nice, and apply the verticle format. If we are going to have the results in the football(soccer) format with all the details, such as dates, times, attendance, offcials, etc., might as well remove the date and time from the brackets.  It clutters up the brackets.  Perakhantu 17:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added to the page with the footballbox template. I have to say I'm not all that impressed.  Does anybody know of a place where we can get official results of the 2004 Olympics?  Adding in the information of attendance, and refs, and stuff will help.... I think. Perakhantu 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Supposedly LA84 should have the Official Report posted soon.  A veritable treasure trove, that'll be. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, don't mind the template's look without the attendance, referee, and even the goals (there can be only seven different scorers listed per team, so there's no risk of exaggerated vertical expansion). When the report comes out, this article will "blossom" :)  Parutakupiu  talk 22:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales needed
Now we have this nice bot BetacommandBot applying deletion warning tags to a big load of Olympic logos because they don't have an additional article-specific fair use rationale (FUR) besides the licensing template. Yesterday, I've added FURs to all Olympic bid logos (tagged and untagged) but this bot works faster than us (as expected) and now we have a whole lot of images in risk of deletion. Is it possible for anyone available to help add FURs to them?

I've been practically using the same FUR with slight changes:



Fair use rationale in ...
This image represents a corporate logo and is thus subject of copyright restrictions. Its use in the English Wikipedia qualifies as fair use under U.S. law because: —  Parutakupiu  talk 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) it represents the visual identity of ...
 * 2) it cannot be replaced by a free equivalent version
 * 3) it is a low resolution image (<300px)


 * I've noticed the same thing. That bot has been leaving me messages left and right on my talk page about not having FURs on my images! In fact, I just got one today. Anyway, I'd be willing to help, but I'm not sure which logos you'd like me to do. Give me a place to work and I'll do it, though. (Maybe.) └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the ones that are most important to the project are the main logos for each Games. We only show them in a single sport — in the infobox on each "year season Olympics" main article — and the logos are important for those articles (not just decorations) so fair use is appropriate.  The other place where I've seen BetacommandBot recently tag images are some of the per-Games pictograms, but to be honest, I wouldn't be too fussed if they got removed, as they aren't as critical.
 * Another image that I fear will be imminently tagged and deleted is Image:Flag of the Olympic Movement (bordered).svg, which we use as a flag icon for non-nation teams, such as EUN in 1992, IOP in 1992, IOA in 2000, ZZX in 1896-1904, and various nations who didn't boycott in 1980 but used the Olympic flag. Quite a large number of pages will be messed up if that image gets deleted.  Any suggestions on how we can satisfy the fair-use criteria?  I think a 22x20px size icon cannot possibly hurt the Olympic branding, but the current FU crusade seems quite strict.  Andrwsc 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrwsc is right and, anyway, those logos would be my next "target" even before the per-Games sports pictograms which are really not that crucial to maintain.
 * As for Image:Flag of the Olympic Movement (bordered).svg, a FUR couldn't be used at its best because that file, despite being a lossless scalable vector image, has a high resolution base. We could upload an already-resized (22x20 px) version of it, for template use only, and leave the original "big" image for articles like Olympic Games, or we could upload a smaller version (up to 300px) so that it has the right size for these articles and still be code-resized for the templates. What do you think?  Parutakupiu  talk 22:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Athletes as part of the Project
There was a small discussion about this a while back, but I don't think anything conclusive came from it. But, should athletes who competed at the Olympics be part of the project? Even if you limit it to medallists or by whoever is most well-known for their participation, you get problems. Take for example, Martin Brodeur and Dominik Hasek, two hockey goalies who are considered to be among the best ever and both pages are FAs. Both are Olympic gold medalists (Hasek in 1998, Brodeur in 2002) and were among the highest profile members of their respective teams, and their Olympic performances are well remembered. But overall, their Olympic performances are just a small part of their careers. On the other hand, other sport WikiProjects tag every article of every player who has played that sport (no matter how minor) so perhaps the OPW should tag every amateur athlete who has won a medal and every pro athlete who has won the gold. Thoughts/comments? -- Scorpion0422 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What a pain this is! Haha. We're always brushing this under the table!


 * In reality, and thinking logically, I think that only pages we are willing to take care of should be umbrella-ed under WP:OLY. In other words, if there is a wikiproject that can more appropriately take care of the page, then we probably shouldn't try to get involved. For example, the article on Martin Brodeur is certainly important and winning an Olympic gold medal is a huge accomplishment, but I am certainly not going to be taking care of his article, mainly because the Ice Hockey wikiproject would more aptly take care of that page. He himself has little to do with the Olympics. On the other hand, Jesse Owens is deeply rooted in the Olympics and should definitely be covered, regardless of the fact that some WP may already "own" him.


 * I don't think a one-size-fits-all thing will work with athletes, because they are all different. We just simply cannot say that one type of medal deserves more status than another, or that medalists are more important that non-medalists. I think that if a person has some connection with the Olympic Games which is not in conflict with any other major connection they may have, we have the grounds to claim that article. Otherwise, I don't think we should be mindlessly tagging pages just for the sake of doing it (cough WPBIO cough). I hope this can be our solution, which is certainly not a solid one, but one that can easily be followed nonetheless. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally back Jared on his perpective.  Parutakupiu  talk 21:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
Recently, four categories that do not match the rest of the project's categorization scheme have been created:
 * Category:Canadian athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Competitors for Canada at the 2004 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Canadian athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics
 * Category:Competitors for Canada at the 2000 Summer Olympics

The intersection of country and year seems unnecessary to me, not to mention the intersection of sport, country, and year. There is a discussion concerning them at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8 and Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8. Those discussions started as a request to merge the athletes into the competitors; but, I think it may be good to eliminate all four of them. If you are interested, please comment there. Neier 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Category:Competitors at the 1908 Summer Olympics by country. Should it, along with the subcategories, be nominated as well? Punkmorten 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I noticed that over the weekend, but haven't been able to string enough time together to do the dirty work.  The USA also has a 1904 category to go with the 1908 one. Neier 10:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

New member
Have you seen, that we have a new member? WikiProject Olympics/Members Maybe we will send him a welcome message? Doma-w 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is Bill Mallon, alright, he probably should have registered before subscribing the project. Anyway, if true, it's the most terrific member this project could have.  Parutakupiu  talk 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Another deletion debate
Articles for deletion/Denis Murray (athlete)

-- Jonel | Speak 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Early Olympic history
Folks, could I get a few more pairs of eyes over at 1896 Summer Olympics, International Olympic Committee, and Pierre de Coubertin please? Some heavy POV-pushing going on there. Thanks. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right.... I think the editor may have a point if there is sufficient belief in those statements among the general population, but from what I know, they just seem to be a minority opinion. Perhaps, though, I'm uninformed. Regardless, I don't think that old info should be replaced with new info; it should instead supplement the already existing theories. I don't want to revert the editor, but would suggest that he/she provide both viewpoints (if the latter is in fact popular). └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with points of view pushing. Read "The Modern Olympics - A Struggle for Revival" by David C. Young published by The Johns Hopkins University Press ISBN 0-8018-5374-5

This is the reference work for the history of the revival of the modern Olympic Games.

The revival was built on what happened in Athens in 1859, 1870, and 1875. And what happened at Crystal Palace in London, in 1866.

Stop ignoring the true founders of the Olympic Games. Start reading about the real history of the modern Olympic Games and stop listening to the rubbish that the International Olympic Committee is still publishing. Nipsonanomhmata 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, please watch your style of discussion on talk pages, edit summaries, etc. You come across as very heavy-handed, giving us commands to what we should do.  You will not gain any allies this way.  Please work within proper Wikipedia etiquette guidelines.  Andrwsc 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have reason to believe that there were other founders (co-founders or collaborators, perhaps) who helped in the revival of the Olympic Games, then as long as you have sources to adequately back this up, I see no reason to include this in articles. However, there are currently sources indicating that Coubertin actually revived the games. We cannot just remove this information based on the claims of someone else that negate this. Rather, we can supplement the information. We are not attempting here at Wikipedia to offer an opinion of a topic, but rather show the evidence for anything that relates to it. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Revival of the Olympic Games in Modern Times
The history of the revival of the modern Olympic Games needs to be improved upon. The reference work for this subject is David C. Young's book "The Modern Olympics - A Struggle for Revival" ISBN 0-8018-5374-5.

The first modern international Olympic Games to be held in a stadium was held in Athens at the Panathenian stadium in 1870. This was not a minor event. This was not a national event. It was a major event that involved the refurbishment of an ancient Olympic stadium. It was an international event that involved participants from Greece and from the separate Ottoman Empire.

Anybody that denies the above facts is in cahoots with the fake version of modern Olympic history touted by the International Olympic Committee.

The Athens 1896 Olympic Games could not have happened without the Panathenian Stadium. It was the experience of the Greeks in arranging three earlier Olympic Games in 1859, 1870, and 1875 together with the experiences of Dr William Penny Brookes who organised a national Olympic Games in the United Kingdom at Crystal Palace in 1866 that made Athens 1896 possible.

If you want to criticize the revival initiated by Evangelis Zappas then I suggest that you take a good look at Paris 1900 which had no stadium. If you are looking for chaos then take a good look at St Louis 1904.

Take a good look at the side-shows hosted at the 1900 Exposition, the 1904 World's Fair and the 1908 Franco-British Exhibition before criticising or reducing the importance of the dedicated athletics Games held in Athens in 1859, 1870, and 1875. The Games in Athens were not side-shows. These Games were dedicated athletic Olympic Games and a true revival of the ancient Olympic Games.

What were you expecting to happen in 1859, 1870, 1875 in any case? These were the first modern international Olympic Games to be held since the ancient Olympic Games.

Baron Pierre de Coubertin did not pay for the building of the Panathenian stadium. Nor did he pay for the building of the Zappeion (named after Evangelis Zappas) that was used for the fencing events in 1896, and as the first Olympic Village (for the Hungarian team) in 1906.

Stop ignoring Evangelis Zappas. He was the true founder of the modern Olympic Games. And Dr William Penny Brookes was the true founder of the modern Olympic Movement. Give credit to the Baron where it is due. The Baron founded the International Olympic Committee, he did not found the modern Olympic Games, he did not organize the first international Olympic Games, and since he borrowed most of Dr Brookes ideas he did not found the modern Olympic Movement either since Dr Brookes organised the first major Olympic Games to be held outside of Greece in 1866. It may have been a national Olympic Games but so what. The event was a prototype for all future Olympic Games that were held outside of Greece. --Nipsonanomhmata 19:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I did take a look a book titled "A Brief History of the Olympic Games" written by the same author, David Young. And in the preface he states "The modern revival was a slow process wherein a few Greeks and Dr. Brookes advocated the idea of an Olympic revival for decades, but never fully succeeded. A sporadic series of modern revivals in each country attracted little interest or support. Yet after the aging Brookes told the young Frenchman of their efforts, Coubertin achieved what they had not." Those are the authors own words. The same author that wrote the book you are using as a source.


 * Should Zappas, Brookes, Wenlock, and the rest be ignored? No, I don't think so. But first you must hold back from wholesale deletions and editing and discuss BEFOREHAND at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics page. We can hash this out there and put in the appropriate edits. Perakhantu 19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "A Brief History of the Olympic Games" has some content pertaining to the modern revival but it is a brief and generic overview. It's about half the size of "The Modern Olympics - A Struggle for Revival".


 * What exactly does "never fully succeeded" mean? Besides that is an opinion and not a fact. The fact is that the first modern international Olympic Games took place in 1859. The first modern international Olympic Games to be held in a stadium took place at the Panathenian stadium in 1870. That so called "failed revival" was a step that was used by the IOC's revival. That doesn't give the IOC any right to ignore that the first modern international Olympic Games took place in Athens in 1859.


 * Greece was still recovering from a war with the Ottoman Empire, and there was always the danger of more war, and it was difficult to sustain a revival but that doesn't mean that the revival failed or did not happen. It does not mean that it can be ignored and swept under the carpet. The IOC used the Panathenian stadium in 1896. A stadium that they could not have used if Zappas had not refurbished it the first time around. And if they had refurbished it the way that Zappas had asked them to and given them the money to do then a second refurbishment would not have been necessary.


 * So ... what do we call Evangelos Zappas ... the man who was the first to revive the Olympic Games from ancient times ... the man who paid for the revival out of his own pocket ... a man who paid for the organisation ... the medals, the prizes... except for the prize donated by Dr Brookes ... do we ignore him because he died before his dream could be realized despite all the money he left to make it happen.


 * Do we just say "Baron Pierre de Coubertin founded the modern Olympic Games" but we've never heard of Evangelos Zappas?


 * That is not fair or right or just.


 * Zappas made the first modern international Olympic Games happen. Give him recognition for it. Mention his name.Nipsonanomhmata 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, not only do you guys ignore Zappas but you then add insult to injury by talking about the Cotswold Olympicks which have never been Olympic-like and have no connection whatsoever with the Olympic Games. Then you add further insult to injury in promoting the false history promoted by the Wenlock Olympian Society about how Dr William Penny Brookes founded the modern Olympic Games in 1850. Get real! These Games were sports days with very few Olympic-like events before the 1860s. Most of the Olympic-like events were adopted after the revival of the Olympic Games in Greece. The first serious effort by Dr Brookes to make an Olympic Games happen was what he organised for Crystal Palace in London in 1866. You never talk about 1866 which was a national Olympic Games. Instead you talk about the local events sports days that involved typical sports day events and were neither Olympic in name or in nature. They were called "Olympian Class" between 1850 and 1859 then "Wenlock Olympian Games" from 1860. Don't believe what the Wenlock Olympian Society says ... instead read what Dr Brookes himself wrote in their archives. Dr Brookes founded the Wenlock Olympian Society in 1860.


 * Oh yes ... and the first person on the honor roll of that society was Petros Velissariou (or Velissarios) who happened to be from Smyrna in the Ottoman Empire (which was outside Greece). So the first person on the honor roll was one of the the first international Olympians.


 * Nipsonanomhmata 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please tone down your style. It makes it look like a severe case of POV-pushing.  Now as for your content, as long as it meets the criteria set down by WP:Verifiability, and it looks like it might, then you can certainly add it to Wikipedia.  However, please do so in a way that isn't disruptive.  For example, please don't add too much content to 1896 Summer Olympics.  Your content is not about those specific Games.  Instead, create a new article and link to it from the 1896 page.  Similarly, that new page can be linked from the "Revival" section of Olympic Games etc.  Also please remember to use the correct templates to cite your references.  Thanks, Andrwsc 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm no Wikipedia expert. I don't have any idea about scholarly styles. I just know that the content on the Olympic pages on Wikipedia is IOC POV-pushing. It's high time that a less biased approach was considered in these Olympic pages. The history should be based on facts and not opinions.


 * Facts that include: "First modern international Olympic Games was held in an Athens city square in 1859, and the first modern international Olympic Games was held in the Panathenian stadium in 1870."


 * These are facts. Not like the rubbish that I've been reading in these scholarly Olympic-pages. Excuse my tone. But these pages deserve this tone.


 * Baron Pierre de Coubertin did not found the modern Olympic Games. He did found the International Olympic Committee. Fact.


 * Don't mention the Cotswold Olympicks in any comparison with the Olympic Games. The idea is totally ridiculous.


 * Do mention Zappas and Brookes. Nobody has even bothered to mention Soutsos. I despair! Nipsonanomhmata 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, mister! What's with all that aggressive attitude?! Can't you simply add the content and proper references to the articles (in a consistent way so that doesn't disrupt its structure) if you so religiously believe they are verifiable facts?? Quit the complaining because we are also here to improve articles and provide the most comprehensive information regardless if we contradict any established perspective! We are not here to buy POV-fights with anyone. We just can't be expected to know everything about the Olympics. That's why Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who can contribute positively. So cool your head, ok?  Parutakupiu  talk 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request
Before I nominate 1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita and 2000 Summer Olympics medals per capita for deletion, I would just like to know if there would be any opposition to it. I doubt it, but I don't want to be a jerk if someone actually likes it. I see Jonel has already once tried to redirect them, but he was quickly reverted, so I think AfD is in order. I'll fish around, while I'm at it, for other potential candidates that shouldn't be here! └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please go for it!!! Andrwsc 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, a page I've never even heard of. Talk about useless.  I certainly won't lose any sleep over it's deletion. Perakhantu 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The deed is done. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And now that this AfD has closed, anybody want to try and re-re-re-re-nominate European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics? ;)  Andrwsc 18:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another useless article. Are there any more of these "interpretive articles" floating around out there?  I know there once was a page that listed the countries from the tropics who competed at the winter olympics, but I guess that got deleted.  Back to the article that you mentioned, Andrwsc.  There was a strong push to get it deleted when it first came out, and I personally don't see it being deleted now, unfortunately.   I guess we have to be on guard about crap like this popping up right after the 2008 games.  Perakhantu 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I think the opposite is true. Previous attempts to delete it took place right around those Games, and lots of "occasional" editors got involved in the discussion, while their own patriotism/nationalism/etc. emotions were running high.  I think that in the current "quiet period" between Games, more objective discussion can take place.  Andrwsc 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing images
Several images have been deleted in the span of like 2 days. First was the Flag of the Olympic Movement image which was no surprise. My question now is: is there a replacement we can use, because these are the symbol of our project (right behind, of course). Also, if the only reason for deletion was that there was no fair use rationale, then why couldn't we just add one?

And the second image, the most alarming, was Image:Opening Ceremony Athens 2004 Fire rings.jpg, a featured image! It was apparently because it was moved to the commons, but it is not there either, which very much confuses me. Could someone catch me up on this if you know about it? Thanks. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, like you I'm completely lost on the causes of these deletions. I'm surprised I did not even noticed these changes on my watchlist! We knew the risks that would come of using the Olympic Flag image without taking full care of rationalizing its application. There are other SVG versions of it (Image:Olympic flag.svg), and they probably can replace the deleted one (don't imagine how hard the task of replacing every instance could be).


 * But I was mostly shocked to see that that Athens 2004 OC shot — released in the public domain, uploaded in Commons... and featured!!! — was simply erased.  Parutakupiu  talk 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Was the Athens 2004 one actually public domain? It was deleted from Commons as having come from stock.xchng, which suggests it wasn't PD.  If there was a PD release somewhere, I'd recommend letting the Commons administrator who deleted the image know. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, didn't notice that. And it was able to become FP? Weird. Too bad, it was quite a fantastic photo. But the new one, despite not an FP, is nice too ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parutakupiu (talk • contribs)


 * The nomination is here. It seems the image was tagged PD and that wasn't questioned during the nomination (except for some strange trademark-related comments).  I don't know if it was released into the public domain, but it would have required a specific release.  -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Youth Olympics
Looks like we need a new article to describe these! Andrwsc 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jared created it a while ago and has already updated it with the new information. Nothing is official, but I can say that my country will be bidding! :D  Parutakupiu  talk 18:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, see this section of this page. The page is Youth Olympic Games. I'm way ahead of you! Haha. There isn't much in the article, but it's informative, if you know what I mean. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez, mea culpa. I didn't see that and didn't even bother looking for an article first before I posted here...  Sorry!  I was just reading some press releases on the IOC site and hadn't heard of it before.  Seems like a great idea for certain nations to have a "trial run" before a "real" Olympic bid.  I guess this begs the question of how notable will these Games be.  Do we want to create results pages for every event?  I'd suggest we just stick to medal summary pages, perhaps.  Anyway, we have a few years to figure it out.  Andrwsc 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I predict the media coverage will much lower than the grown-up versions. Especially being held on Olympic/World Cup/Commonwealth Games years. The first Youth Olympians will be far from being sufficiently notable to have a WP entry; we don't want result pages full of redlinks, do we? But as you said, there are still 3 years of waiting.
 * As for Youth Olympic Games, can't you add the (short) bidding calendar, Jared?  Parutakupiu  talk 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By bidding table, do you mean the timeline of events leading up to the first games? I'm not really sure what you're talking about. And yes, I say maybe just a page like Events at the 2006 Winter Olympics would do for these games. At least until we see how notable they really are. We can go from there. └ Jared ┘┌ t ┐&ensp; 12:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant the timeline of the bidding procedure up until the host city announcement in February 2008.  Parutakupiu  talk 22:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)