![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
how it is possibe 20 medals?maybe 21?? there alwayes should be 3 medals no?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.106.115 ( talk) 11:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
On the Current Events section of Wikipedia, there are two news items, each claiming that said event was the first gold of the Games. Perhaps someone here can fix the issue and allow more clarity. Kaiser matias ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)/
I am very much an advocate of the overall medal count determining the leader, but when users edit the page, it is crucial that China always be highlighted in Blue (or whatever color you like), as the home country. _-Z-_ ( talk) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The table currently says the US has 10 medals, while the official Olympics website lists 8 [1]. Either the table is wrong or people are getting information from some more rapidly updated source. If there is a more current source can people say what it is? Dragons flight ( talk) 05:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The section links for each number will make it a lot harder to update the table. I propose that the country name links to the relevant "Medallists" section, and that the numbers be de-linked. Balkan Fever 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there's some disagreement about whether an image is needed or wanted here or not - I leave it to others to grapple over that. But if an image is indeed desired, why not have the one of the medals themselves? chicgeek talk 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I know this is a wiki. However, given the events of last night, in which everyone was adding and subtracting medals due to mass confusion, perhaps we should ask the admins to create designated editors to update the medal count and put the page on full protect. Rationale:
Feel free to disregard me, attack me, draw-and-quarter me as necessary. Kingnavland ( talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
-after protection denied- What a buffoon. Same administrator semi-protected this page for 3 days - as though the problem will disappear in 3 days. Kingnavland ( talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We have All-time Olympic Games medal count. Given all the talk about Michael Phelps tying others in individual medal count, any chance in someone creating the article all-time Olympic Games individual medal count? Suntag ( talk) 08:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
how do they really determine who wins @ olympics? is it by point value 3-2-1 or total medals or total golds or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 ( talk) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that the IOC places emphasis on gold medals, but the official medal count ranks countries by the TOTAL medal count. This needs to be changed on the main page! Proof: http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdnomad ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
it's (outside the US) worldwide common practice to count the gold-winners first
Following the discussion here Talk:2008_Summer_Olympics_medal_count#Section_break, I'm moving/re-naming all Olympic "medal count" articles to "medal table". -- Madchester ( talk) 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've put <noinclude> tags round the parts of the article which aren't the table, to allow the table part to be transcluded into user pages, if other users want to do this. It doesn't seem to cause any problems, but if it does, feel free to revert. See my user page for an example of it in use. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 05:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory: The reason why ESPN (and maybe Yahoo!) ranks by total medals instead of gold medals is to make it appear the U.S. is leading... – Howard the Duck 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
can someone make the following edit to this sentence: --> old: "In boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class." --> new: "In boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class under the repechage system." -- i think it helps clarify why multiple bronze medals are being awarding in these events. 220.76.15.213 ( talk) 15:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Using images of medal winners on this page isn't unreasonable (provided they are free content), but I do think it is rather biased to have three of the four winners shown be from the United States and all of them be men. Some diversity would be a good thing. Dragons flight ( talk) 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It is also permissible to use free use images of athletes outside of the Beijing Games. -- Madchester ( talk) 02:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the Official Beijing 2008 medal table, there have been 89 bronze medals handed out and 235 overall. We have 88 handed out and 234 overall. So I went through and compared each country's individual count and I couldn't find the discrepancy. Assistance would be appreciated. Kingnavland ( talk) 03:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) TIMELOOP: Now it's a question: does the total row not update automatically? Because the 4x200 women's free was included, and the totals didn't update. I changed it to reflect the official count from the Beijing 2008 medal table. Kingnavland ( talk) 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to change it, but I think it would look a lot better if the Nation column were widened such that each flag, country name, and IOC code would fit on a single line. China, being on one line, looks good. United States and South Korea, being split between two lines, looks worse. Germany and Australia, with the flag on one line and the name below it, looks worse yet. There's certainly plenty of room on the page to make it possible. Alanmjohnson ( talk) 16:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that 85 gold medals have been awarded per country chart, yet medals to be awarded per your events chart shows that 87 medals should be awarded by the end of August 14. Juve2000 ( talk) 19:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
hi, I made a template for Olympic Medal count. So, I think it's useful and easy to use . This is a preview:
{{Olympic Medal header|class=wikitable sortable}} {{Olympic Medal team |p=1 |t=CHN |c=2008 Summer |g=3 |s=1 |b=0 |bg=ccccff }} {{Olympic Medal team |p=2 |t=USA |c=2008 Summer |g=2 |s=2 |b=4 }} {{Olympic Medal team |p=3 |t=KOR |c=2008 Summer |g=2 |s=1 |b=0 }} {{Olympic Medal total|g=7 |s=5 |b=4}} {{Olympic Medal footer}}
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | 7 | 5 | 4 | 16 |
The template looks great, but I think it can do without the additional internal links for each medal column. In the example above, there would be 5 internal links leading to the same "China at the 2008 Olympics" page and that would violate WP:NOTLINK. (On the other hand, Roger_Federer#Singles_performance_timeline has a table containing many internal links, but they all lead to different event articles so it doesn't violate WP:NOTLINK.) -- Madchester ( talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it really needed to sort the first column (rank)? Maxime.Debosschere ( talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, cause it's international standart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.194 ( talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
How many medals currently have been won out of how many? This may be useful/interesting to have on the article. Thanks. Emesee ( talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
maybe it should be noted as a minimum of 302 gold medals because ties could result in additional medals although unlikely Weather130 ( talk) 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, The Marshall Islands, Montenegro and Tuvalu are linked to their country pages, not their respective 2008 Summer Olympics pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.4.56 ( talk) 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A new section and update on medal counts with this story on doping stripping the PRK medal? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/15/2336655.htm?site=olympics/2008
No update on the athelete's profile, medal standing, and official results on the Beijing 2008 site yet. -- Kvasir ( talk) 05:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why the external links were revised. The revisor gave no reason for this edit and the information was not redundant. I placed the United States NBC and the Great Britain's BBC medal count into external links in answer to concerns that the wikipedia page did not contain break downs for the medals. BBC gives a good list for specific events that the medals were in. NBC gives a good list of individuals who recieved medals. Omahapubliclibrary ( talk) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be at least some edit warring going on regarding the ordering of tied countries in the list. I'd propose a well-defined policy of what the ordering should be - either alphabetical by country name or country code would make the most sense to me. I just think that this needs to be stated somewhere. -- Mbell ( talk) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We should use either the English names or the country codes. Considering official rankings are put by name, that would be more correct, I guess. I think we all agree that using country codes is better, but alas, it's only our opinion. Balkan Fever 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Like it or not, it is the only free image available that shows all three medal recipients, so it is the most appropriate for the page. And please note that the image of the medals is fair use, so its use should be minimalized to one or two articles. Besides, the current one does show a Hungarian, so is it biased towards them too? I'm curious, if we had an image that had two Brits or two Canadians, would people be so concerned about potential bias? -- Scorpion 0422 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone update the GB tally to 17 with 7 golds, 3 silver and 7 bronze and move it up to 6th? Official table. 90.194.244.14 ( talk) 12:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm really surprised here. Why are US-Americans everytime confused about the common medal rank (by gold)? Everytime they have to discover that the whole world is counting by gold medals, counting by olympic champions and not by non-champions. the whole world including the IOC is doing this, and it makes sense. Here in the discussion i can read americans posting "It is common sense ranking by total medals". Even after those posters get the information that the USA is the only country in the world counting by totals, they still believe (and post) that total medal count is "common sense". Uhm ?!? Why do they think that their American TV Stations define the "common sense" for the worldwide wikipedia medal table, and why do they believe this again and again? Do they forget it after 4 years and are surprised again or how can this be explained? 11:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
China, gold25 silver9 bronze6 =2596
United States, gold14 silver12 bronze18 =1538
Germany, gold8 silver2 bronze4 =824
South Korea, gold6 silver8 bronze3 =683
actually the most common "Points" based allocation is (3pts for Gold, 2pts for silver, 1pt for Bronze). Many accredited Sports Almanacs uses this system. In this rule China would still be on top. 68.127.183.136 ( talk) 21:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
An Olympic champion is an Olympic champion is an Olympic champion. The old Greeks didn't even awarded a medal to the first loser. In fact, the first loser bore the greatest shame. I won't say that losing gold is a shame, but you're still no champion. Should at the end the table be led by a country which has not even a single champion within its ranks?-- Bluerisk ( talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.211.178 ( talk) 03:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Who added that hidden message and what is the purpose? The "This list was last updated..." is completely unencyclopedic, and I feel as if that hidden note is preemptive. This chart is copied completely from the only reference and I think the only note that needs to be there is "Please do not add medals if it conflicts with the reference" or something like that.
I'll be bold and remove it, but feel free to add it if there is a legit reason for its placement there. -- haha169 ( talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
For example, someone adds the bronze medal before the event final is held. - Ngckmax ( talk) 08:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think someone should update the "Changes in medal standings" section and add some sort of explanation there why Jamaica has 2 silvers. Alpha-Toxic ( talk) 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there one more event to be posted on the medal standings? Total gold medals awarded is 166 while the events chart shows total should be 167 by the end of the day. Juve2000 ( talk) 17:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The medal count has an extra gold, silver, and bronze medal added to the US' count and an extra gold added to South Korea's count. This is blatant US-centrism editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.156.172 ( talk) 05:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are there (as of this post) 14 bronze medals but only 12 gold and 12 silver? I thought for each event, equal numbers of medals were awarded. This is not a mistake in this article, as I see it is in the source, but an explanation might be useful.- gadfium 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
the USA should be referred to as "USA" or "United States of America" that's the official title, the rest of the official titles are used, so "United States" just won't cut it...
I also recommend changing "China" to People's Republic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 ( talk) 06:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
During the parade of nations, I recall the NBC commentators stating that certain countries (I don't remember which) have never won a single medal at all during any Olympic games. Have any won their first medal so far, and if so, can/should a note be made in this article? -- 92.104.153.110 ( talk) 11:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Mongolia won its first gold medal this year. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Michael Phelps should be ranked, seeing as how if he were a country he would be in a tie for second with South Korea, behind only China. USA loses 5 golds due to Michael Phelps declaring independence, leaving them in fourth with only 4 gold medals. Phelps does indeed retain a tie for second, since the table sorts by gold medals, not total medals, and Michael comes before South in the alphabet.
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
13 | 3 | 5 | 21 |
2 | ![]() |
5 | 6 | 1 | 12 |
3 | Michael Phelps | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
4 | ![]() |
4 | 7 | 9 | 20 |
5 | ![]() |
4 | 4 | 2 | 10 |
Bjquinn ( talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to ask - how does the Phelps nation win a relay medal with only one swimmer? 86.13.148.178 ( talk) 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Phelpsyvania isn't an independent country???!!! What a shocker! Does this mean we have to restore his gold medals back to the count of the USA-centric entity? JGC1010 ( talk) 03:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Swedish wrestler Ara Abrahamian rejected his bronze medal in protest. He is also facing displinary charge, which could have an effect on medal count. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/wrestling/7563231.stm -- Kvasir ( talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A vote here for use the IOC tally, add an asterisk and a footnote. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 ( talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the image of the swimmers there is not fair to the other athletes, and doesn't really convey the medals anyway. I'm not all that great with WP's rules on copyright for images and what not. Are there any images http://images.google.com/images?q=2008%20Beijing%20Olympic%20Medals&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi <--there that will fit that could be used? -- Me Holla! 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The women's silver medawas ruled a tie. I don't have time to find a source right now, but could someone please do so and post it JakeH07 ( talk) 03:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
19 | 21 | 25 | 65 |
2 | ![]() |
35 | 13 | 13 | 61 |
3 | ![]() |
11 | 6 | 8 | 25 |
4 | ![]() |
9 | 10 | 12 | 31 |
5 | ![]() |
9 | 6 | 6 | 21 |
6 | ![]() |
8 | 9 | 5 | 22 |
7 | ![]() |
8 | 5 | 7 | 20 |
8 | ![]() |
7 | 12 | 12 | 31 |
9 | ![]() |
6 | 6 | 6 | 18 |
10 | ![]() |
5 | 3 | 6 | 14 |
11 | ![]() |
4 | 9 | 12 | 25 |
Total | 167 | 168 | 192 | 527 |
THIS MAKES NO SENSE!
Constan69 (
talk)
04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone put the Individual Event table back up, as i found this really helpful earlier this morning 86.132.88.42 ( talk) 15:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want a list of each event UK's BBC If you want the names for each person [ USA's NBC] Omahapubliclibrary ( talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
See List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for whoever started it, and i'll help with past olympics 86.151.64.155 ( talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and added Men's triathlon, sorry I didn't read discussion first, but I double checked and it should be good. Basser g ( talk) 04:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay I've read with interest the debate above about how US publications rank the medal count differently from the rest of the world, and I thought I'd look into this to see how far this goes back. On Google News Archives I've found a report from the New York Times following the end of the 1912 Olympics see ( http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07EFDF1630E233A25755C1A9619C946396D6CF "America First As Olympics End"). Curiously the ranking used here appears to be based on a point system. Although the report says that it is the conclusion of the games it says the USA had 16 "firsts", the official table shows 25 US gold medals, so perhaps the report is a bit presumptuous. It's not made clear how these points are allocated, but assuming that they are missing a few medals it looks like they might be awarding 3 points for a Gold, 2 points for a Silver and one point for bronze. I've no idea if this was IOC practice at the time or whatever and I'm not making any suggestion that this system should be used anywhere. Jooler ( talk) 09:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please change "and" to "or" in the following sentence: "Therefore, the total number of bronze medals is greater than the total number of gold and silver medals." i.e. "total number of gold or silver medals." or perhaps "total number of either gold or silver medals." Das nbs ( talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that the table, to equal countries (e.e. having won the same amount of the same kinds of medals) are put as 69, 69, 69, 69, etc... Shouldnt we, for equal countries, have one 69, then = signs for the rest? This would show that they are equal. Cadan ap Tomos 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
{{sort|1==69|69}}
for those situations, if desired. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
i always look at these tables (here and other places) and am left scratching my head about those countries that win only a few medals...especially the ones with only 1 medal (be it any color). wanting some perspective, did the country enter athletes for every event? just a few? seems like a column could be added stating # events entered? or total medals possible (since in some events (e.g., swimming, gymnastics)it seems a country could sweep the event (i.e., win all three medals?) i think "total medals possible" would be a start.
i'm sure this could open yet another can of worms; i hope not.
regards. 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A list of "swept" events belongs at the List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners, not here. This is a medal table, and should only include things that directly relate to the standings - changes, which nation won their first, etc. Medal sweep events, multiple medallists and medals in most disciplines are just trivial and relate to the athletes, which is why they should be in the medal winners article. -- Scorpion 0422 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
sorry to have flamed the fire. my comment was very simple and had nothing to do with the "power" countries weighting the table. it was merely a wonderment of how many events a country entered and/or how many possible medals a country started the games. perhaps there is a wiki page where one of the adamant defenders of this page's status quo can direct me? meanwhile, i'll just continue to remain clueless about how many possible medals a country (say togo or china or usa) vied for and/or how many events in which a country participated.
i won't comment again.
regards. 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be interesting to add the combined total of the European Union to the table.
This is what is would look like:
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
11 | 13 | 9 | 33 |
2 | ![]() |
9 | 3 | 2 | 14 |
3 | ![]() |
4 | 4 | 0 | 8 |
4 | ![]() |
3 | 4 | 5 | 12 |
5 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
6 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
85.5.187.219 ( talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Now, that wouldn't be fair to the Antarcticans. :P Heilme ( talk) 19:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
11 | 13 | 9 | 33 |
2 | ![]() |
10 | 3 | 3 | 16 |
5 | ![]() |
6 | 6 | 8 | 20 |
3 | ![]() |
6 | 4 | 3 | 11 |
4 | ![]() |
6 | 2 | 4 | 12 |
6 | ![]() |
1 | 4 | 5 | 10 |
-- Amazonien ( talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming this was a joke. But for the record, no, this page isn't for alternate histories about the British Empire and Soviet Union being intact. ;) Thompsontough ( talk) 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
What is Russia doing there?
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
9 | 3 | 2 | 14 |
2 | ![]() |
4 | 4 | 0 | 8 |
3 | ![]() |
3 | 4 | 5 | 12 |
4 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
5 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
- | ![]() |
11 | 13 | 9 | 33 |
Unranked at the bottom is the only possibility, but as other have mentioned having more teams than any single nation makes it kinda meaningless. Only slightly interesting to see. -- 85.197.248.132 ( talk) 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If the European Union going to be added on the end there should also be {{
Flag|African Union}}
,
Union of South American Nations,
22px
Association of Southeast Asian Nations etc. added onto the chart without rank also.
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
13 | 3 | 4 | 20 |
2 | ![]() |
7 | 7 | 8 | 22 |
3 | ![]() |
5 | 6 | 1 | 12 |
4 | ![]() |
4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
5 | ![]() |
3 | 4 | 2 | 9 |
- | ![]() |
11 | 13 | 9 | 33 |
- | 22px Association of Southeast Asian Nations | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
- | {{
Flag|African Union}} |
0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
- | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
— ■~∀SÐFムサ~■ =] Babashi? antenna? 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the above posters covered most of this, but I'll throw in another take on it for anyone still reading this and thinking about it since there are obviously people who still don't understand why this is inherently flawed. Suppose every
U.S. state was allowed to compete separately in the Olympics. People would cry foul about US-centrism, and rightly so, if
Michael Phelps took the gold medal while competitors from the same country (as in one entry from
California, one from
Michigan, one from
Maine, for example) took the silver and bronze. Giving a combined score for the EU here is the equivalent of doing just that, because every EU member competes as a separate entity. The EU idea would work if there was some equivalent of the
Unified Team at the 1992 Summer Olympics whereby the EU members are collectively represented once in each competition - but I wouldn't hold my breath for that. Hopefully this helps put things into perspective.
Thompsontough (
talk)
06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I particularly like what we have in the 2006 Winter Olympics article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_winter_olympics#Results ) where we have stats for multiple medallists and medal sweep events. I'd like to see it as a separate section after the Medal Table. -- Kvasir ( talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Uzbekistan should be 36th, not tied at 35th. This will cascade changes down the list. 204.54.36.245 ( talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Kugo
This might be a useful article to add to the article somehow, assuming it's not perceived as non-neutral POV or something:
If not, it's at least interesting reading for the folks debating about medal counts on this talk page. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Belarus is 15th now. And Kenya is 16th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimon.by ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
When I was younger I would always get confused when team event winners would get multiple medals but only one would be listed on any medal chart.
The opening paragraphs state
"The 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is a list of National Olympic Committees ranked by the number of medals won by their athletes during the 2008 Summer Olympics"
"The ranking sorts by the number of gold medals the athletes from a country have earned"
This is not really correct as the medal table is a ranking of the top three finishers for each event. Whoever wins men's soccer(football) is not going to get 20+ golds in the medal table. Should this be explained somewhere on this page? Or did I miss it? Or is it not needed? 72.209.246.97 ( talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
As of right now, the Chinese athletes have been awarded 69 total gold medals, and US athletes have been awarded 80. Just wanna put that out there. DaRkAgE7 [Talk] 03:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the article states Serbia won it's first Olympic medal. This is technically incorrect, as they are considered to be the same NOC as Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. So, I have added a note saying this. Or should we take the bit about Serbia out alltogether? For now though, it will stay with a note.
Can someone kindly tell me the IOC's official table medal count? Is it based on the total number of medals won or the total number of gold medals. Here in Canada, the CTV news network places the US on top with more medals than China as does my local Vancouver Sun newspaper. But in Wikipedia's Olympic table, China is first because it has more gold medals than the US even though it has a less overall medal count (gold, silver, bronze) compared to the US. So, I wonder how does IOC resolve this problem? If 2 states had a total of 16 medals and country A has 4 gold compared to country B with 3 gold, certainly country A is placed higher on the medal count. But when the US has more total medals than China but less gold medals than China, I don't know who places first. What does the IOC say? Thank You Leoboudv ( talk) 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, does this make sense? The U.S. ranks #1 with 200 bronzes but China ranks #2 with 199 golds. - 12:40PM, 22 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.97.232 ( talk)
Why bother having Gold medal matches? If you just going to count every medal equal??? Why not just stop and give the Top 3 competitors each Gold?? You see-- counting the total medals is very flawed. Its easier to understand but flawed in the sense of degrading the worth of being a Gold medalist or the Olympic Champion. I think the "Points System" is the most accurate measurement of a country's performance. But I prefer the Gold Medal Tally than the Total Medal Tally (The most flawed of the three.) But regardless I agree with the IOC not recognizing these Medal Tally's. These Tallies are just for fun. There are too many factors to consider. The reason why US topping the medal table is because they have the money, source, training facilities etc etc to succeed in the Olympics . If all the countries have equal footings then Overall Medal should be awarded every closing ceremonies. Of course that would never happen, Maybe in the future when all countries is as rich as the US but as for now Medal Tallies are just for fun. 68.127.152.38 ( talk) 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely flummoxed by people's inability to understand the conventional ranking system, what one might call "the gold standard". 11 bronzes cannot be worth more than 10 golds in this universe. Gold Medals are what it is all about. Gold is a win everything else is losing by a greater and greater degree. It just happens that you get a consolation prize for coming second and third, but there could just as easily be copper and tin medals for 4th and 5th. There is no exchange rate for gold medals. Any G=3, S=2, B=1 or G=10, S=3, B=1 or whatever other point system you come up with will be wrong because no athlete would swap their gold medal for a dozen or a hundred or a thousand bronzes. It seems so obvious to me, and yet apparently not so obvious to many others that I think there must be some sort of defensive groupthink going on here, where people are so used to the total medal system that they cannot conceive of it being illogical or wrong. Or maybe its me who is the victim of groupthink. Jooler ( talk) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's an LA Times article: Weighing Olympic gold - Los Angeles Times... AnonMoos ( talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think "The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)" should be changed to "information from the IOC" or "information from the IOC website"---there's noone at the IOC doing work to send Wikipedia the information (i.e. the IOC's not "providing"), but its just Wikipedia people going to the website and copying it... 118.90.66.84 ( talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the text says the table will organize first by gold, then by silver, then by bronze. I think it would be better to have two tables, one that organizes by gold through bronze, and one that does it on total medal count (unless subst:RankedMedalTable/sandbox has a sortable option I've never noticed). Kolindigo ( talk) 02:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We agree on the total count: I think that to some extent, the USA would find a way to sort the medal count by country name starting by "usa", in order to be first. The coverage of the games in the USA is also quite "American", but I'm sure that any country, starting by France, is showing their athletes first. Nevertheless, showing medals by total number is a brilliant find. GO TEAM AMERICA !!! (heard the other day for water polo). Peace brothers and sisters.
PATtheFrog. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.225.214.42 (
talk)
19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You should create an American wikipedia where bronze is more important than gold, the Earth is flat as it is proved by the Bible and Tibet wasn't a part of China till 1950. You're so immature, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.90.154 ( talk) 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Being able to sort the medal table is a great feature, however China always has a rank of one, which gives the false suggestion that China won the Olympics. Countries do not win medals, athletes win medals, and the table is provided for informational purposes only. When a column is sorted, the rank should start at the top with the rank of 1. Is this a limitation of Wikipedia, or would it be possible to do this in wikipedia? Doing it any other way would suggest that one country is more superior than the other at the Olympics, which is against the principle of the IOC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.124.164 ( talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've put it at List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. Chanheigeorge ( talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems we have a minor edit war going over the use of boldface to highlight the winners of the most medals in each "category"; i.e. gold, silver, bronze, and total. I don't think it's necessary because it is possible to see which country is winning each "category" by simply sorting the tables. It just adds confusion, especially since it's not explained in the article what the significance of the bold face is. However, I still think it would be unnecessarily confusing even if an explanation was added. The other side of the argument is that this has been done for previous Olympic pages. Is the precedent relevant here if it's not making the table any easier to understand? Discuss. KiwiDave ( talk) 06:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This couldn't just be a sentence fragment in the article, if even that? Emesee ( talk) 02:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Mongolia has 2 gold medals, but for whatever reason is ranked 45th, behind nations with only one gold. what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.242.45 ( talk) 07:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO the bolding of the top figures for each of G/S/B/T is unnecessary, becuase anyone who feels they need to know will click the sort buttons anyway. It seems to me that telling people beforehand is a bit like saying "here's the medal table, but the default sorting is misleading, so I'll tell you who got the best in each column."
The bolding should be removed and left as plain text (goes for the whole table). 118.90.66.84 ( talk) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, why are there 302 golds and 303 silvers? Did the Gold Medalist shoot someone and was killed in the process? Seriously, that is like the oddest thing I've seen here. Fix it! 64.105.27.214 ( talk) 02:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Read the article: "Additionally there was a tie for the silver medal in the women's 100 metres in athletics..." 90.240.209.118 ( talk) 07:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What silver medal did they win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinality of the Infinite ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In Eastern Europe the Points Classification has been popular in the past. The points were calculated like that: 8 for a gold, 7 for a silver, 6 for a bronze, 5 for 4th place, 4 for 5th place, 3 for 6th place, 2 for 7th place and 1 for 8th place. It was officialy showed in tv and newspapers. For Beijing 2008 I haven't noticed it being calculated officialy, but I have calculated it for myself. I have a question: Has anyone noticed such calculation being made ever in Western European countries, or in USA, or anywhere else? -- Jakas1 ( talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian showed the rankings if one gave three points for a gold, two for a silver and one for bronze. Just now that would give:
China 47 17 25 200
USA 31 36 35 200
Britain 18 13 13 93
Russia 17 18 22 109
Germany 14 9 13 73
Australia 12 14 16 80
S. Korea 11 10 7 60
It is maybe a better reflection of achievement. -- GwydionM ( talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Faircompare ( talk) 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with that gold=3, silver=2, bronze=1 reflects the achievement better. If a medal count and ranking table is made, then they have to account numerically for the different medals. That is a natural consequence - the IOC just has not got it yet. Sooner or later they will learn it, though. After all, putting the gold medals as the only significant ones in order to push China before the USA in the medal count list means nothing but not counting the silver and the bronze medals (gold =1, silver =0, bronze=0). So, do silver and bronze count, or not ? What is the IOC stand on that?
Whereas I think it is balooney to count the E.U. as a block, I do believe it makes sense to compare nations in terms of olympic efficiency, and thus look at the medal count after dividing by population or per capita.
The Gold Medal method does take Silvers and Bronze into consideration. they use it to break ties with countries with the same amount of Gold. If the Countries still have the same amount of Gold and Silver then they will the Bronzes as the tie breaker. If Everything else is the same then those countries would have the same Rankings. 68.127.148.83 ( talk) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And I disagree with the comment from wiki that the world would change wiki, but wiki could not change the world.
Image:Beijingolympicsmedals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.-- 130.225.204.130 ( talk) 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I think the countries should be sorted by their three letter code when sorting by ABC --- the IOC site states the three letter code first, then the English. The codes are unique so they shouldn't be a problem. Help:Sorting has info on hidden sortkeys, since the article is locked I can't do it myself. 118.90.66.84 ( talk) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, there is a matter of consistency. Someone has just pu the US first, probably because they are first in totla medal count! But the rest of the countries are sourted by the number of gold, silver and bronze medals. -- Chief White Halfoat ( talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This is what I mean. There is no difference in the table on the main page, except that the ALPHABETIC sort code is based on the three letter code. Nothing else has been changed, before someone accuses me of some motive for this.
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
51 | 21 | 28 | 100 |
2 | ![]() |
36 | 38 | 36 | 110 |
3 | ![]() |
23 | 21 | 28 | 72 |
4 | ![]() |
19 | 13 | 15 | 47 |
5 | ![]() |
16 | 10 | 15 | 41 |
6 | ![]() |
14 | 15 | 17 | 46 |
7 | ![]() |
13 | 10 | 8 | 31 |
8 | ![]() |
9 | 6 | 10 | 25 |
9 | ![]() |
8 | 10 | 10 | 28 |
10 | ![]() |
7 | 16 | 17 | 40 |
11 | ![]() |
7 | 5 | 15 | 27 |
12 | ![]() |
7 | 5 | 4 | 16 |
13 | ![]() |
6 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
14 | ![]() |
5 | 10 | 3 | 18 |
15 | ![]() |
5 | 5 | 4 | 14 |
16 | ![]() |
4 | 5 | 10 | 19 |
17 | ![]() |
4 | 1 | 3 | 8 |
18 | ![]() |
4 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
19 | ![]() |
3 | 9 | 6 | 18 |
20 | ![]() |
3 | 6 | 1 | 10 |
21 | ![]() |
3 | 5 | 2 | 10 |
21 | ![]() |
3 | 5 | 2 | 10 |
23 | ![]() |
3 | 4 | 8 | 15 |
24 | ![]() |
3 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
25 | ![]() |
3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
26 | ![]() |
3 | 1 | 5 | 9 |
27 | ![]() |
3 | 0 | 3 | 6 |
28 | ![]() |
2 | 11 | 11 | 24 |
29 | ![]() |
2 | 4 | 7 | 13 |
30 | ![]() |
2 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
31 | ![]() |
2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
31 | ![]() |
2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
33 | ![]() |
2 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
34 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 4 | 6 |
34 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 4 | 6 |
36 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
37 | ![]() |
1 | 4 | 3 | 8 |
38 | ![]() |
1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
39 | ![]() |
1 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
40 | ![]() |
1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
41 | ![]() |
1 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
42 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
42 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
44 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
45 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
46 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
46 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
46 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
46 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
50 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
51 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
52 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
52 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
52 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
52 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
56 | ![]() |
0 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
57 | ![]() |
0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
57 | ![]() |
0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
59 | ![]() |
0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
60 | ![]() |
0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
61 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
62 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
62 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
62 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
79 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
80 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Total | 302 | 303 | 353 | 958 |
118.90.66.84 ( talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the image of the US team because there are many atheletes who won medals in the game. Displaying the US team only would be biased. 64.229.239.26 ( talk) 08:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a Dane and i'll have no intentions of promoting USA. In the future Beijing-2008 will be known as the Olympics where a person won eight gold medals in a row. A 2008 Summer Olympics medal table without that person aka Michael Phelps would be misleading. Wikipedia is full of images from USA because they are abstaining their copyrights. Tell me why USA should be punished because of that? --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think Phelps was primarily the reason why the image was picked. May not be intentionally, but probably because his images are readily available. I think replacing the image with those enlarged images of each of the three types of medals would wipe out the bias. Besides, how the deails on the medals look like close up is probably within the interest of the viewers. 64.229.239.26 ( talk) 21:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This probably isn't particularly suitable for the article as it's original research, but I thought people might be interested in seeing the top 5 countries but normalised per billion of population:
Country | Golds |
---|---|
China | 21.9 |
United States | 59.0 |
Great Britain | 181.6 |
Germany | 109.5 |
Australia | 373.9 |
Jetekus ( talk) 10:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What might be more interesting is a list of the most populous countries which haven't won any medals... AnonMoos ( talk) 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
India has done quite bad with only 1(at this point) gold in that sense... Still from quick check it seems that some small nations would do remarkably well this way like Slovenia with 1482.7... Rating success per athlete would be best way in my opinion. -- 82.203.181.186 ( talk) 19:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this info should be added... is it against Wikipedia policy to find someone who has done the research for you and add his data? Leav ( talk) 21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
how it is possibe 20 medals?maybe 21?? there alwayes should be 3 medals no?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.106.115 ( talk) 11:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
On the Current Events section of Wikipedia, there are two news items, each claiming that said event was the first gold of the Games. Perhaps someone here can fix the issue and allow more clarity. Kaiser matias ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)/
I am very much an advocate of the overall medal count determining the leader, but when users edit the page, it is crucial that China always be highlighted in Blue (or whatever color you like), as the home country. _-Z-_ ( talk) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The table currently says the US has 10 medals, while the official Olympics website lists 8 [1]. Either the table is wrong or people are getting information from some more rapidly updated source. If there is a more current source can people say what it is? Dragons flight ( talk) 05:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The section links for each number will make it a lot harder to update the table. I propose that the country name links to the relevant "Medallists" section, and that the numbers be de-linked. Balkan Fever 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there's some disagreement about whether an image is needed or wanted here or not - I leave it to others to grapple over that. But if an image is indeed desired, why not have the one of the medals themselves? chicgeek talk 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I know this is a wiki. However, given the events of last night, in which everyone was adding and subtracting medals due to mass confusion, perhaps we should ask the admins to create designated editors to update the medal count and put the page on full protect. Rationale:
Feel free to disregard me, attack me, draw-and-quarter me as necessary. Kingnavland ( talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
-after protection denied- What a buffoon. Same administrator semi-protected this page for 3 days - as though the problem will disappear in 3 days. Kingnavland ( talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We have All-time Olympic Games medal count. Given all the talk about Michael Phelps tying others in individual medal count, any chance in someone creating the article all-time Olympic Games individual medal count? Suntag ( talk) 08:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
how do they really determine who wins @ olympics? is it by point value 3-2-1 or total medals or total golds or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 ( talk) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that the IOC places emphasis on gold medals, but the official medal count ranks countries by the TOTAL medal count. This needs to be changed on the main page! Proof: http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdnomad ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
it's (outside the US) worldwide common practice to count the gold-winners first
Following the discussion here Talk:2008_Summer_Olympics_medal_count#Section_break, I'm moving/re-naming all Olympic "medal count" articles to "medal table". -- Madchester ( talk) 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've put <noinclude> tags round the parts of the article which aren't the table, to allow the table part to be transcluded into user pages, if other users want to do this. It doesn't seem to cause any problems, but if it does, feel free to revert. See my user page for an example of it in use. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 05:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory: The reason why ESPN (and maybe Yahoo!) ranks by total medals instead of gold medals is to make it appear the U.S. is leading... – Howard the Duck 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
can someone make the following edit to this sentence: --> old: "In boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class." --> new: "In boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class under the repechage system." -- i think it helps clarify why multiple bronze medals are being awarding in these events. 220.76.15.213 ( talk) 15:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Using images of medal winners on this page isn't unreasonable (provided they are free content), but I do think it is rather biased to have three of the four winners shown be from the United States and all of them be men. Some diversity would be a good thing. Dragons flight ( talk) 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It is also permissible to use free use images of athletes outside of the Beijing Games. -- Madchester ( talk) 02:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the Official Beijing 2008 medal table, there have been 89 bronze medals handed out and 235 overall. We have 88 handed out and 234 overall. So I went through and compared each country's individual count and I couldn't find the discrepancy. Assistance would be appreciated. Kingnavland ( talk) 03:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) TIMELOOP: Now it's a question: does the total row not update automatically? Because the 4x200 women's free was included, and the totals didn't update. I changed it to reflect the official count from the Beijing 2008 medal table. Kingnavland ( talk) 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to change it, but I think it would look a lot better if the Nation column were widened such that each flag, country name, and IOC code would fit on a single line. China, being on one line, looks good. United States and South Korea, being split between two lines, looks worse. Germany and Australia, with the flag on one line and the name below it, looks worse yet. There's certainly plenty of room on the page to make it possible. Alanmjohnson ( talk) 16:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that 85 gold medals have been awarded per country chart, yet medals to be awarded per your events chart shows that 87 medals should be awarded by the end of August 14. Juve2000 ( talk) 19:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
hi, I made a template for Olympic Medal count. So, I think it's useful and easy to use . This is a preview:
{{Olympic Medal header|class=wikitable sortable}} {{Olympic Medal team |p=1 |t=CHN |c=2008 Summer |g=3 |s=1 |b=0 |bg=ccccff }} {{Olympic Medal team |p=2 |t=USA |c=2008 Summer |g=2 |s=2 |b=4 }} {{Olympic Medal team |p=3 |t=KOR |c=2008 Summer |g=2 |s=1 |b=0 }} {{Olympic Medal total|g=7 |s=5 |b=4}} {{Olympic Medal footer}}
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | 7 | 5 | 4 | 16 |
The template looks great, but I think it can do without the additional internal links for each medal column. In the example above, there would be 5 internal links leading to the same "China at the 2008 Olympics" page and that would violate WP:NOTLINK. (On the other hand, Roger_Federer#Singles_performance_timeline has a table containing many internal links, but they all lead to different event articles so it doesn't violate WP:NOTLINK.) -- Madchester ( talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it really needed to sort the first column (rank)? Maxime.Debosschere ( talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, cause it's international standart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.194 ( talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
How many medals currently have been won out of how many? This may be useful/interesting to have on the article. Thanks. Emesee ( talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
maybe it should be noted as a minimum of 302 gold medals because ties could result in additional medals although unlikely Weather130 ( talk) 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, The Marshall Islands, Montenegro and Tuvalu are linked to their country pages, not their respective 2008 Summer Olympics pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.4.56 ( talk) 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A new section and update on medal counts with this story on doping stripping the PRK medal? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/15/2336655.htm?site=olympics/2008
No update on the athelete's profile, medal standing, and official results on the Beijing 2008 site yet. -- Kvasir ( talk) 05:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why the external links were revised. The revisor gave no reason for this edit and the information was not redundant. I placed the United States NBC and the Great Britain's BBC medal count into external links in answer to concerns that the wikipedia page did not contain break downs for the medals. BBC gives a good list for specific events that the medals were in. NBC gives a good list of individuals who recieved medals. Omahapubliclibrary ( talk) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be at least some edit warring going on regarding the ordering of tied countries in the list. I'd propose a well-defined policy of what the ordering should be - either alphabetical by country name or country code would make the most sense to me. I just think that this needs to be stated somewhere. -- Mbell ( talk) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We should use either the English names or the country codes. Considering official rankings are put by name, that would be more correct, I guess. I think we all agree that using country codes is better, but alas, it's only our opinion. Balkan Fever 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Like it or not, it is the only free image available that shows all three medal recipients, so it is the most appropriate for the page. And please note that the image of the medals is fair use, so its use should be minimalized to one or two articles. Besides, the current one does show a Hungarian, so is it biased towards them too? I'm curious, if we had an image that had two Brits or two Canadians, would people be so concerned about potential bias? -- Scorpion 0422 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone update the GB tally to 17 with 7 golds, 3 silver and 7 bronze and move it up to 6th? Official table. 90.194.244.14 ( talk) 12:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm really surprised here. Why are US-Americans everytime confused about the common medal rank (by gold)? Everytime they have to discover that the whole world is counting by gold medals, counting by olympic champions and not by non-champions. the whole world including the IOC is doing this, and it makes sense. Here in the discussion i can read americans posting "It is common sense ranking by total medals". Even after those posters get the information that the USA is the only country in the world counting by totals, they still believe (and post) that total medal count is "common sense". Uhm ?!? Why do they think that their American TV Stations define the "common sense" for the worldwide wikipedia medal table, and why do they believe this again and again? Do they forget it after 4 years and are surprised again or how can this be explained? 11:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
China, gold25 silver9 bronze6 =2596
United States, gold14 silver12 bronze18 =1538
Germany, gold8 silver2 bronze4 =824
South Korea, gold6 silver8 bronze3 =683
actually the most common "Points" based allocation is (3pts for Gold, 2pts for silver, 1pt for Bronze). Many accredited Sports Almanacs uses this system. In this rule China would still be on top. 68.127.183.136 ( talk) 21:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
An Olympic champion is an Olympic champion is an Olympic champion. The old Greeks didn't even awarded a medal to the first loser. In fact, the first loser bore the greatest shame. I won't say that losing gold is a shame, but you're still no champion. Should at the end the table be led by a country which has not even a single champion within its ranks?-- Bluerisk ( talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.211.178 ( talk) 03:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Who added that hidden message and what is the purpose? The "This list was last updated..." is completely unencyclopedic, and I feel as if that hidden note is preemptive. This chart is copied completely from the only reference and I think the only note that needs to be there is "Please do not add medals if it conflicts with the reference" or something like that.
I'll be bold and remove it, but feel free to add it if there is a legit reason for its placement there. -- haha169 ( talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
For example, someone adds the bronze medal before the event final is held. - Ngckmax ( talk) 08:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think someone should update the "Changes in medal standings" section and add some sort of explanation there why Jamaica has 2 silvers. Alpha-Toxic ( talk) 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there one more event to be posted on the medal standings? Total gold medals awarded is 166 while the events chart shows total should be 167 by the end of the day. Juve2000 ( talk) 17:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The medal count has an extra gold, silver, and bronze medal added to the US' count and an extra gold added to South Korea's count. This is blatant US-centrism editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.156.172 ( talk) 05:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are there (as of this post) 14 bronze medals but only 12 gold and 12 silver? I thought for each event, equal numbers of medals were awarded. This is not a mistake in this article, as I see it is in the source, but an explanation might be useful.- gadfium 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
the USA should be referred to as "USA" or "United States of America" that's the official title, the rest of the official titles are used, so "United States" just won't cut it...
I also recommend changing "China" to People's Republic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 ( talk) 06:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
During the parade of nations, I recall the NBC commentators stating that certain countries (I don't remember which) have never won a single medal at all during any Olympic games. Have any won their first medal so far, and if so, can/should a note be made in this article? -- 92.104.153.110 ( talk) 11:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Mongolia won its first gold medal this year. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Michael Phelps should be ranked, seeing as how if he were a country he would be in a tie for second with South Korea, behind only China. USA loses 5 golds due to Michael Phelps declaring independence, leaving them in fourth with only 4 gold medals. Phelps does indeed retain a tie for second, since the table sorts by gold medals, not total medals, and Michael comes before South in the alphabet.
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
13 | 3 | 5 | 21 |
2 | ![]() |
5 | 6 | 1 | 12 |
3 | Michael Phelps | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
4 | ![]() |
4 | 7 | 9 | 20 |
5 | ![]() |
4 | 4 | 2 | 10 |
Bjquinn ( talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to ask - how does the Phelps nation win a relay medal with only one swimmer? 86.13.148.178 ( talk) 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Phelpsyvania isn't an independent country???!!! What a shocker! Does this mean we have to restore his gold medals back to the count of the USA-centric entity? JGC1010 ( talk) 03:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Swedish wrestler Ara Abrahamian rejected his bronze medal in protest. He is also facing displinary charge, which could have an effect on medal count. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/wrestling/7563231.stm -- Kvasir ( talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A vote here for use the IOC tally, add an asterisk and a footnote. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 ( talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the image of the swimmers there is not fair to the other athletes, and doesn't really convey the medals anyway. I'm not all that great with WP's rules on copyright for images and what not. Are there any images http://images.google.com/images?q=2008%20Beijing%20Olympic%20Medals&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi <--there that will fit that could be used? -- Me Holla! 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The women's silver medawas ruled a tie. I don't have time to find a source right now, but could someone please do so and post it JakeH07 ( talk) 03:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
19 | 21 | 25 | 65 |
2 | ![]() |
35 | 13 | 13 | 61 |
3 | ![]() |
11 | 6 | 8 | 25 |
4 | ![]() |
9 | 10 | 12 | 31 |
5 | ![]() |
9 | 6 | 6 | 21 |
6 | ![]() |
8 | 9 | 5 | 22 |
7 | ![]() |
8 | 5 | 7 | 20 |
8 | ![]() |
7 | 12 | 12 | 31 |
9 | ![]() |
6 | 6 | 6 | 18 |
10 | ![]() |
5 | 3 | 6 | 14 |
11 | ![]() |
4 | 9 | 12 | 25 |
Total | 167 | 168 | 192 | 527 |
THIS MAKES NO SENSE!
Constan69 (
talk)
04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone put the Individual Event table back up, as i found this really helpful earlier this morning 86.132.88.42 ( talk) 15:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want a list of each event UK's BBC If you want the names for each person [ USA's NBC] Omahapubliclibrary ( talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
See List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for whoever started it, and i'll help with past olympics 86.151.64.155 ( talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and added Men's triathlon, sorry I didn't read discussion first, but I double checked and it should be good. Basser g ( talk) 04:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay I've read with interest the debate above about how US publications rank the medal count differently from the rest of the world, and I thought I'd look into this to see how far this goes back. On Google News Archives I've found a report from the New York Times following the end of the 1912 Olympics see ( http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07EFDF1630E233A25755C1A9619C946396D6CF "America First As Olympics End"). Curiously the ranking used here appears to be based on a point system. Although the report says that it is the conclusion of the games it says the USA had 16 "firsts", the official table shows 25 US gold medals, so perhaps the report is a bit presumptuous. It's not made clear how these points are allocated, but assuming that they are missing a few medals it looks like they might be awarding 3 points for a Gold, 2 points for a Silver and one point for bronze. I've no idea if this was IOC practice at the time or whatever and I'm not making any suggestion that this system should be used anywhere. Jooler ( talk) 09:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please change "and" to "or" in the following sentence: "Therefore, the total number of bronze medals is greater than the total number of gold and silver medals." i.e. "total number of gold or silver medals." or perhaps "total number of either gold or silver medals." Das nbs ( talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that the table, to equal countries (e.e. having won the same amount of the same kinds of medals) are put as 69, 69, 69, 69, etc... Shouldnt we, for equal countries, have one 69, then = signs for the rest? This would show that they are equal. Cadan ap Tomos 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
{{sort|1==69|69}}
for those situations, if desired. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
i always look at these tables (here and other places) and am left scratching my head about those countries that win only a few medals...especially the ones with only 1 medal (be it any color). wanting some perspective, did the country enter athletes for every event? just a few? seems like a column could be added stating # events entered? or total medals possible (since in some events (e.g., swimming, gymnastics)it seems a country could sweep the event (i.e., win all three medals?) i think "total medals possible" would be a start.
i'm sure this could open yet another can of worms; i hope not.
regards. 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A list of "swept" events belongs at the List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners, not here. This is a medal table, and should only include things that directly relate to the standings - changes, which nation won their first, etc. Medal sweep events, multiple medallists and medals in most disciplines are just trivial and relate to the athletes, which is why they should be in the medal winners article. -- Scorpion 0422 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
sorry to have flamed the fire. my comment was very simple and had nothing to do with the "power" countries weighting the table. it was merely a wonderment of how many events a country entered and/or how many possible medals a country started the games. perhaps there is a wiki page where one of the adamant defenders of this page's status quo can direct me? meanwhile, i'll just continue to remain clueless about how many possible medals a country (say togo or china or usa) vied for and/or how many events in which a country participated.
i won't comment again.
regards. 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be interesting to add the combined total of the European Union to the table.
This is what is would look like:
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
11 | 13 | 9 | 33 |
2 | ![]() |
9 | 3 | 2 | 14 |
3 | ![]() |
4 | 4 | 0 | 8 |
4 | ![]() |
3 | 4 | 5 | 12 |
5 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
6 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
85.5.187.219 ( talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Now, that wouldn't be fair to the Antarcticans. :P Heilme ( talk) 19:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
11 | 13 | 9 | 33 |
2 | ![]() |
10 | 3 | 3 | 16 |
5 | ![]() |
6 | 6 | 8 | 20 |
3 | ![]() |
6 | 4 | 3 | 11 |
4 | ![]() |
6 | 2 | 4 | 12 |
6 | ![]() |
1 | 4 | 5 | 10 |
-- Amazonien ( talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming this was a joke. But for the record, no, this page isn't for alternate histories about the British Empire and Soviet Union being intact. ;) Thompsontough ( talk) 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
What is Russia doing there?
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
9 | 3 | 2 | 14 |
2 | ![]() |
4 | 4 | 0 | 8 |
3 | ![]() |
3 | 4 | 5 | 12 |
4 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
5 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
- | ![]() |
11 | 13 | 9 | 33 |
Unranked at the bottom is the only possibility, but as other have mentioned having more teams than any single nation makes it kinda meaningless. Only slightly interesting to see. -- 85.197.248.132 ( talk) 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If the European Union going to be added on the end there should also be {{
Flag|African Union}}
,
Union of South American Nations,
22px
Association of Southeast Asian Nations etc. added onto the chart without rank also.
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
13 | 3 | 4 | 20 |
2 | ![]() |
7 | 7 | 8 | 22 |
3 | ![]() |
5 | 6 | 1 | 12 |
4 | ![]() |
4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
5 | ![]() |
3 | 4 | 2 | 9 |
- | ![]() |
11 | 13 | 9 | 33 |
- | 22px Association of Southeast Asian Nations | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
- | {{
Flag|African Union}} |
0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
- | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
— ■~∀SÐFムサ~■ =] Babashi? antenna? 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the above posters covered most of this, but I'll throw in another take on it for anyone still reading this and thinking about it since there are obviously people who still don't understand why this is inherently flawed. Suppose every
U.S. state was allowed to compete separately in the Olympics. People would cry foul about US-centrism, and rightly so, if
Michael Phelps took the gold medal while competitors from the same country (as in one entry from
California, one from
Michigan, one from
Maine, for example) took the silver and bronze. Giving a combined score for the EU here is the equivalent of doing just that, because every EU member competes as a separate entity. The EU idea would work if there was some equivalent of the
Unified Team at the 1992 Summer Olympics whereby the EU members are collectively represented once in each competition - but I wouldn't hold my breath for that. Hopefully this helps put things into perspective.
Thompsontough (
talk)
06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I particularly like what we have in the 2006 Winter Olympics article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_winter_olympics#Results ) where we have stats for multiple medallists and medal sweep events. I'd like to see it as a separate section after the Medal Table. -- Kvasir ( talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Uzbekistan should be 36th, not tied at 35th. This will cascade changes down the list. 204.54.36.245 ( talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Kugo
This might be a useful article to add to the article somehow, assuming it's not perceived as non-neutral POV or something:
If not, it's at least interesting reading for the folks debating about medal counts on this talk page. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Belarus is 15th now. And Kenya is 16th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimon.by ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
When I was younger I would always get confused when team event winners would get multiple medals but only one would be listed on any medal chart.
The opening paragraphs state
"The 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is a list of National Olympic Committees ranked by the number of medals won by their athletes during the 2008 Summer Olympics"
"The ranking sorts by the number of gold medals the athletes from a country have earned"
This is not really correct as the medal table is a ranking of the top three finishers for each event. Whoever wins men's soccer(football) is not going to get 20+ golds in the medal table. Should this be explained somewhere on this page? Or did I miss it? Or is it not needed? 72.209.246.97 ( talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
As of right now, the Chinese athletes have been awarded 69 total gold medals, and US athletes have been awarded 80. Just wanna put that out there. DaRkAgE7 [Talk] 03:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the article states Serbia won it's first Olympic medal. This is technically incorrect, as they are considered to be the same NOC as Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. So, I have added a note saying this. Or should we take the bit about Serbia out alltogether? For now though, it will stay with a note.
Can someone kindly tell me the IOC's official table medal count? Is it based on the total number of medals won or the total number of gold medals. Here in Canada, the CTV news network places the US on top with more medals than China as does my local Vancouver Sun newspaper. But in Wikipedia's Olympic table, China is first because it has more gold medals than the US even though it has a less overall medal count (gold, silver, bronze) compared to the US. So, I wonder how does IOC resolve this problem? If 2 states had a total of 16 medals and country A has 4 gold compared to country B with 3 gold, certainly country A is placed higher on the medal count. But when the US has more total medals than China but less gold medals than China, I don't know who places first. What does the IOC say? Thank You Leoboudv ( talk) 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, does this make sense? The U.S. ranks #1 with 200 bronzes but China ranks #2 with 199 golds. - 12:40PM, 22 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.97.232 ( talk)
Why bother having Gold medal matches? If you just going to count every medal equal??? Why not just stop and give the Top 3 competitors each Gold?? You see-- counting the total medals is very flawed. Its easier to understand but flawed in the sense of degrading the worth of being a Gold medalist or the Olympic Champion. I think the "Points System" is the most accurate measurement of a country's performance. But I prefer the Gold Medal Tally than the Total Medal Tally (The most flawed of the three.) But regardless I agree with the IOC not recognizing these Medal Tally's. These Tallies are just for fun. There are too many factors to consider. The reason why US topping the medal table is because they have the money, source, training facilities etc etc to succeed in the Olympics . If all the countries have equal footings then Overall Medal should be awarded every closing ceremonies. Of course that would never happen, Maybe in the future when all countries is as rich as the US but as for now Medal Tallies are just for fun. 68.127.152.38 ( talk) 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely flummoxed by people's inability to understand the conventional ranking system, what one might call "the gold standard". 11 bronzes cannot be worth more than 10 golds in this universe. Gold Medals are what it is all about. Gold is a win everything else is losing by a greater and greater degree. It just happens that you get a consolation prize for coming second and third, but there could just as easily be copper and tin medals for 4th and 5th. There is no exchange rate for gold medals. Any G=3, S=2, B=1 or G=10, S=3, B=1 or whatever other point system you come up with will be wrong because no athlete would swap their gold medal for a dozen or a hundred or a thousand bronzes. It seems so obvious to me, and yet apparently not so obvious to many others that I think there must be some sort of defensive groupthink going on here, where people are so used to the total medal system that they cannot conceive of it being illogical or wrong. Or maybe its me who is the victim of groupthink. Jooler ( talk) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's an LA Times article: Weighing Olympic gold - Los Angeles Times... AnonMoos ( talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think "The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)" should be changed to "information from the IOC" or "information from the IOC website"---there's noone at the IOC doing work to send Wikipedia the information (i.e. the IOC's not "providing"), but its just Wikipedia people going to the website and copying it... 118.90.66.84 ( talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the text says the table will organize first by gold, then by silver, then by bronze. I think it would be better to have two tables, one that organizes by gold through bronze, and one that does it on total medal count (unless subst:RankedMedalTable/sandbox has a sortable option I've never noticed). Kolindigo ( talk) 02:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We agree on the total count: I think that to some extent, the USA would find a way to sort the medal count by country name starting by "usa", in order to be first. The coverage of the games in the USA is also quite "American", but I'm sure that any country, starting by France, is showing their athletes first. Nevertheless, showing medals by total number is a brilliant find. GO TEAM AMERICA !!! (heard the other day for water polo). Peace brothers and sisters.
PATtheFrog. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.225.214.42 (
talk)
19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You should create an American wikipedia where bronze is more important than gold, the Earth is flat as it is proved by the Bible and Tibet wasn't a part of China till 1950. You're so immature, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.90.154 ( talk) 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Being able to sort the medal table is a great feature, however China always has a rank of one, which gives the false suggestion that China won the Olympics. Countries do not win medals, athletes win medals, and the table is provided for informational purposes only. When a column is sorted, the rank should start at the top with the rank of 1. Is this a limitation of Wikipedia, or would it be possible to do this in wikipedia? Doing it any other way would suggest that one country is more superior than the other at the Olympics, which is against the principle of the IOC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.124.164 ( talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've put it at List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. Chanheigeorge ( talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems we have a minor edit war going over the use of boldface to highlight the winners of the most medals in each "category"; i.e. gold, silver, bronze, and total. I don't think it's necessary because it is possible to see which country is winning each "category" by simply sorting the tables. It just adds confusion, especially since it's not explained in the article what the significance of the bold face is. However, I still think it would be unnecessarily confusing even if an explanation was added. The other side of the argument is that this has been done for previous Olympic pages. Is the precedent relevant here if it's not making the table any easier to understand? Discuss. KiwiDave ( talk) 06:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This couldn't just be a sentence fragment in the article, if even that? Emesee ( talk) 02:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Mongolia has 2 gold medals, but for whatever reason is ranked 45th, behind nations with only one gold. what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.242.45 ( talk) 07:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO the bolding of the top figures for each of G/S/B/T is unnecessary, becuase anyone who feels they need to know will click the sort buttons anyway. It seems to me that telling people beforehand is a bit like saying "here's the medal table, but the default sorting is misleading, so I'll tell you who got the best in each column."
The bolding should be removed and left as plain text (goes for the whole table). 118.90.66.84 ( talk) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, why are there 302 golds and 303 silvers? Did the Gold Medalist shoot someone and was killed in the process? Seriously, that is like the oddest thing I've seen here. Fix it! 64.105.27.214 ( talk) 02:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Read the article: "Additionally there was a tie for the silver medal in the women's 100 metres in athletics..." 90.240.209.118 ( talk) 07:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What silver medal did they win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinality of the Infinite ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In Eastern Europe the Points Classification has been popular in the past. The points were calculated like that: 8 for a gold, 7 for a silver, 6 for a bronze, 5 for 4th place, 4 for 5th place, 3 for 6th place, 2 for 7th place and 1 for 8th place. It was officialy showed in tv and newspapers. For Beijing 2008 I haven't noticed it being calculated officialy, but I have calculated it for myself. I have a question: Has anyone noticed such calculation being made ever in Western European countries, or in USA, or anywhere else? -- Jakas1 ( talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian showed the rankings if one gave three points for a gold, two for a silver and one for bronze. Just now that would give:
China 47 17 25 200
USA 31 36 35 200
Britain 18 13 13 93
Russia 17 18 22 109
Germany 14 9 13 73
Australia 12 14 16 80
S. Korea 11 10 7 60
It is maybe a better reflection of achievement. -- GwydionM ( talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Faircompare ( talk) 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with that gold=3, silver=2, bronze=1 reflects the achievement better. If a medal count and ranking table is made, then they have to account numerically for the different medals. That is a natural consequence - the IOC just has not got it yet. Sooner or later they will learn it, though. After all, putting the gold medals as the only significant ones in order to push China before the USA in the medal count list means nothing but not counting the silver and the bronze medals (gold =1, silver =0, bronze=0). So, do silver and bronze count, or not ? What is the IOC stand on that?
Whereas I think it is balooney to count the E.U. as a block, I do believe it makes sense to compare nations in terms of olympic efficiency, and thus look at the medal count after dividing by population or per capita.
The Gold Medal method does take Silvers and Bronze into consideration. they use it to break ties with countries with the same amount of Gold. If the Countries still have the same amount of Gold and Silver then they will the Bronzes as the tie breaker. If Everything else is the same then those countries would have the same Rankings. 68.127.148.83 ( talk) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And I disagree with the comment from wiki that the world would change wiki, but wiki could not change the world.
Image:Beijingolympicsmedals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.-- 130.225.204.130 ( talk) 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I think the countries should be sorted by their three letter code when sorting by ABC --- the IOC site states the three letter code first, then the English. The codes are unique so they shouldn't be a problem. Help:Sorting has info on hidden sortkeys, since the article is locked I can't do it myself. 118.90.66.84 ( talk) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, there is a matter of consistency. Someone has just pu the US first, probably because they are first in totla medal count! But the rest of the countries are sourted by the number of gold, silver and bronze medals. -- Chief White Halfoat ( talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This is what I mean. There is no difference in the table on the main page, except that the ALPHABETIC sort code is based on the three letter code. Nothing else has been changed, before someone accuses me of some motive for this.
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
51 | 21 | 28 | 100 |
2 | ![]() |
36 | 38 | 36 | 110 |
3 | ![]() |
23 | 21 | 28 | 72 |
4 | ![]() |
19 | 13 | 15 | 47 |
5 | ![]() |
16 | 10 | 15 | 41 |
6 | ![]() |
14 | 15 | 17 | 46 |
7 | ![]() |
13 | 10 | 8 | 31 |
8 | ![]() |
9 | 6 | 10 | 25 |
9 | ![]() |
8 | 10 | 10 | 28 |
10 | ![]() |
7 | 16 | 17 | 40 |
11 | ![]() |
7 | 5 | 15 | 27 |
12 | ![]() |
7 | 5 | 4 | 16 |
13 | ![]() |
6 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
14 | ![]() |
5 | 10 | 3 | 18 |
15 | ![]() |
5 | 5 | 4 | 14 |
16 | ![]() |
4 | 5 | 10 | 19 |
17 | ![]() |
4 | 1 | 3 | 8 |
18 | ![]() |
4 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
19 | ![]() |
3 | 9 | 6 | 18 |
20 | ![]() |
3 | 6 | 1 | 10 |
21 | ![]() |
3 | 5 | 2 | 10 |
21 | ![]() |
3 | 5 | 2 | 10 |
23 | ![]() |
3 | 4 | 8 | 15 |
24 | ![]() |
3 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
25 | ![]() |
3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
26 | ![]() |
3 | 1 | 5 | 9 |
27 | ![]() |
3 | 0 | 3 | 6 |
28 | ![]() |
2 | 11 | 11 | 24 |
29 | ![]() |
2 | 4 | 7 | 13 |
30 | ![]() |
2 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
31 | ![]() |
2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
31 | ![]() |
2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
33 | ![]() |
2 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
34 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 4 | 6 |
34 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 4 | 6 |
36 | ![]() |
2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
37 | ![]() |
1 | 4 | 3 | 8 |
38 | ![]() |
1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
39 | ![]() |
1 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
40 | ![]() |
1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
41 | ![]() |
1 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
42 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
42 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
44 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
45 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
46 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
46 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
46 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
46 | ![]() |
1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
50 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
51 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
52 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
52 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
52 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
52 | ![]() |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
56 | ![]() |
0 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
57 | ![]() |
0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
57 | ![]() |
0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
59 | ![]() |
0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
60 | ![]() |
0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
61 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
62 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
62 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
62 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
65 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
71 | ![]() |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
79 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
80 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
81 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Total | 302 | 303 | 353 | 958 |
118.90.66.84 ( talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the image of the US team because there are many atheletes who won medals in the game. Displaying the US team only would be biased. 64.229.239.26 ( talk) 08:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a Dane and i'll have no intentions of promoting USA. In the future Beijing-2008 will be known as the Olympics where a person won eight gold medals in a row. A 2008 Summer Olympics medal table without that person aka Michael Phelps would be misleading. Wikipedia is full of images from USA because they are abstaining their copyrights. Tell me why USA should be punished because of that? --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think Phelps was primarily the reason why the image was picked. May not be intentionally, but probably because his images are readily available. I think replacing the image with those enlarged images of each of the three types of medals would wipe out the bias. Besides, how the deails on the medals look like close up is probably within the interest of the viewers. 64.229.239.26 ( talk) 21:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This probably isn't particularly suitable for the article as it's original research, but I thought people might be interested in seeing the top 5 countries but normalised per billion of population:
Country | Golds |
---|---|
China | 21.9 |
United States | 59.0 |
Great Britain | 181.6 |
Germany | 109.5 |
Australia | 373.9 |
Jetekus ( talk) 10:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What might be more interesting is a list of the most populous countries which haven't won any medals... AnonMoos ( talk) 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
India has done quite bad with only 1(at this point) gold in that sense... Still from quick check it seems that some small nations would do remarkably well this way like Slovenia with 1482.7... Rating success per athlete would be best way in my opinion. -- 82.203.181.186 ( talk) 19:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this info should be added... is it against Wikipedia policy to find someone who has done the research for you and add his data? Leav ( talk) 21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)