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 |
Adding a daily schedule of medal events, commented out in the medal table. For Beijing 2008, there was a similar system, so that the table was updated after the conclusion of each event. Writing up some rough instructions on how to update after each medal event. -- Madchester ( talk) 02:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, please, please update the entire page when you update after the conclusion of an event. This entails editing the 1) the actual medals gained for each country on the different rows of the table; 2) the total medal count at the bottom of the table; 3) moving the countries up and down on the table - they don't move automatically; and 4) the note in the hidden section stating for which event the table has been updated last. If editors do only one or two of these steps, it causes havoc and panic for other editors trying to figure out what needs to be fixed. Thanks! Kingnavland ( talk) 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be interesting to add a column, indicating the ratio of medals received to that nation's population, and/or to the # of athletes participating in these Olympics (the downside to the latter is that nations participating in team sports, such as hockey, have numerous atheletes vying for only one medal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.240.1 ( talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I like this idea, but I would prefer a "per participants" number. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE - While there are many ways to express medals/capita (or participant); there is no method recognized across the media at the same level as the basic gold medal sort (and total medal count). Expanding the table gives undue weight to a system that's been proposed, but not uniformly implemented worldwide.
WP:NOR - to derive said calculations ourselves would be original research. We'd have to decide whether it's golds/capita, total medals/capita, how many decimal places of rounding are needed; which source to use for the population totals, etc....... Said medals per "Variable X" articles have been nominated for multiple AFDs and deleted everytime for violating our original research policy
Feel free to create said tables on your own user page; but they're not appropriate for an article. -- Madchester ( talk) 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include in the table expandable boxes under the individual countries that would let you see the names of the athletes and the sport they medaled in for that country? Expandable so that in a quick look you could see the entire list of countries and medals, yet if you wanted to find the more in depth material, you could do so on this page. Thnaks 69.129.145.181 ( talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought I remembered a table on Wikipedia with the number of first- through tenth-place finishes for each country in Beijing, rather than just first, second and third. Now I can't find it, and I think I may have been mistaken. Does anybody know of such a table?
If there isn't one, it might be good to add one. I know this is less important than a medal table, but it would still be good information to have, probably in a separate article. 82.124.110.89 ( talk) 14:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There was no bronze medal awarded in one event, so why are there as many bronze medals as gold medals? -- 174.113.197.134 ( talk) 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The caption for the top picture does not mention the countries of the medalists, unlike the captions for the other picture. Could this be fixed? (In the same order as the picture - silver - Slovenia, gold - Austria, bronze - United States.) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.3 ( talk) 06:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I like that you can change the table according to gold, silver, bronze and total medal ranking, but is there a way for the ranking number to change as well? As it is, you have to count by hand to figure out a country's ranking in a category other than gold medals. Funnyhat ( talk) 04:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Everyone!
I am not very experienced in editing Wikipedia articles so I thought I would post this idea to get everyones help with this.
I was thinking it would be a good idea to have a "Country Olympic Performance" page, with a few sections including (but not limited to) Memorable Moments, Major Upsets, and Medal Standings
For example:
Canada's Olympic Performance
Memorable Moments
2010
- Joannie Rochette gets Bronze after mothers death
- First time Canada won Gold on home soil
- Record breaking year for total medals at a Winter Olympics (previous is Turin, 2006)
- Record for most Gold medals won at a Winter Olympics for a host Country (previously USA, 2002, 10 gold medals)
2006
- Cindy Klassen 5 medals in one Olympic Games
Major Upsets
2006
- Mens Hockey Defeat
Medal Standings
Here would be a list of all the Olympics Canada has participated in (Summer & Winter) with the following table headings (again not limited to)
- Year
- Summer or Winter
- Host
- Overall Rank (by total # of medals)
- Number of Gold
- Number of Silver
- Number of Bronze
- Total
So for the USA page Michael Phelps would be listed under Memorable Moments, for the Netherlands Sven Kramer would be listed under Major Upsets etc...
What are your thoughts? Any other suggestions?
Elzinga.byron (
talk)
04:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose to introduce a new template: Template:Medal table row or Template:Medals or something like that. Template:RankedMedalTable should be amended accordingly. — Christoph Päper 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{| {{RankedMedalTable|class=wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed|nation-width=12em|caption=Medal table for the 2010 Winter Olympics, participating NOCs without any medal won are not included}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUS| 2| 1| 0|13}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUT| 4| 6| 6| 9}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|BLR| 1| 1| 1|17}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CAN|14| 7| 5| 1|host=yes}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CHN| 5| 2| 4| 7}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CRO| 0| 2| 1|21}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CZE| 2| 0| 4|14}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|EST| 0| 1| 0|25}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FIN| 0| 1| 4|24}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FRA| 2| 3| 6|12}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GBR| 1| 0| 0|19}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GER|10|13| 7| 2}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|ITA| 1| 1| 3|16}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|JPN| 0| 3| 2|20}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KAZ| 0| 1| 0|25}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KOR| 6| 6| 2| 5}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|LAT| 0| 2| 0|23}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NED| 4| 1| 3|10}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NOR| 9| 8| 6| 4}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|POL| 1| 3| 2|15}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|RUS| 3| 5| 7|11}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SLO| 0| 2| 1|21}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SUI| 6| 0| 3| 6}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SVK| 1| 1| 1|17}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SWE| 5| 2| 4| 7}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|USA| 9|15|13| 3}} {{RankedMedalRow| |total|86|87|85}} |} {| {{WeightedMedalTable|class=wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed|nation-width=12em|caption=Medal table for the 2010 Winter Olympics, participating NOCs without any medal won are not included}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUS| 2| 1| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUT| 4| 6| 6}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|BLR| 1| 1| 1}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CAN|14| 7| 5|host=yes}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CHN| 5| 2| 4}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CRO| 0| 2| 1}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CZE| 2| 0| 4}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|EST| 0| 1| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FIN| 0| 1| 4}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FRA| 2| 3| 6}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GBR| 1| 0| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GER|10|13| 7}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|ITA| 1| 1| 3}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|JPN| 0| 3| 2}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KAZ| 0| 1| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KOR| 6| 6| 2}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|LAT| 0| 2| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NED| 4| 1| 3}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NOR| 9| 8| 6}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|POL| 1| 3| 2}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|RUS| 3| 5| 7}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SLO| 0| 2| 1}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SUI| 6| 0| 3}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SVK| 1| 1| 1}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SWE| 5| 2| 4}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|USA| 9|15|13}} {{WeightedMedalRow| |total|86|87|85}} |}
I would suggest {{
WeightedMedalTable}} and {{
WeightedMedalRow}} be immediately nominated for deletion. They are based on entirely arbitrary weightings and serve no purpose.
Basement12
(T.
C)
16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just looked back as far as the 1980 winter games, and I;m pretty sure the USA has also broken the record for the most brooze medals won by any nation in a winter games. A minor detail, but nevertheless one that needs to be mentioned and confrimed. Forgive my spelling, its very late here on the east coast now. Congrats to all NOCs on a great olympic games! -- 72.145.141.250 ( talk) 08:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Germany, which had the pervious record for the most brooze in a winter games, still manage to keep the most silver at a winter games, which is 16. Mite be worth noting as well. -- 72.145.141.250 ( talk) 08:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
most 3rd place finishes ... nice, most 2nd place finishes nice ... better mention who has the most 11th place finishes at the olympics, I think it's Zimbabwe ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.86.35 ( talk) 19:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Canada tied Norway's 2002 and USSR's 1976 record for most gold medal at a Winter Olympic Game. It is not yet written on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.90.45 ( talk) 04:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Now the page says: "Canada also tied the record of the most gold medals won at a single Winter Olympics, of 13 set by the former Soviet Union in 1976 and Norway in 2002." But that's a rather ridiculous comparison - in 1976 there were only 37 gold medals in total, today there are 84. 13 / 84 is little compared to 13 / 37. My17cents ( talk) 11:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I added the facts. Gold: Soviet Union 13/37, Norway 13/80, Canada 14/86. Total: US 37/258. My17cents ( talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The ranking for medal standings is traditionally and technically based on total medals, then by total golds, total silver, and total bronze. I attempt to correct this error, though my skills are not great. If the ranking isn't corrected, then could someone who does have the skills make the correct changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.200.171 ( talk) 04:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, see the IOC's Offical Reports for past Olympic Games; the medal tables are sorted by golds. Thanks. -- Madchester ( talk) 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
At the beginning, it looked better for canada to rank by gold... then they realized it look better (for them) to rank by total so they switched. Like madchester said, the "Olympic medal table" page say the IOC usually rank by gold. The vancouver website isn't an objective source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.61.52 ( talk) 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It is probably better to sort by total medals, then by gold, silver, and bronze. Take a look at the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. Georgia (3 gold, 0 silver, 3 bronze, 6 total) is ranked above Cuba (2 gold, 11 silver, 11 bronze, 24 total)? Doesn't make sense. Anyone in their right mind would say Cuba's 2008 Olympic performance easily rivaled Georgia's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.222.207 ( talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to further argue whether it makes more sense to rank by gold first or Total first (since it's more than obvious that ranking by total first makes more sense, and gives more information as to the overall performance) however, if we're going to use the IOC's LISTING system, then we should not use a table that uses the word RANK in it's header. This is NOT a ranking if it's based on the IOC system it's just a listing. Therefore the table template that should be used is Template:ListedMedalTable.--Brendan OhUiginn 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We have used the current ranking method on WP:WikiProject Olympics pages for years, based on consensus, and more importantly, based on reliable sources. The BBC, for example, also use the IOC system for their medal standings. There are about several hundred, maybe a thousand, pages on this Wikipedia that consistently use the same method. It would be foolish beyond belief to change all that based on personal preference, fueled by nationalism. We created Olympic medal table in 2008 to help explain the issue, so perhaps any further discussion should go on that talk page instead of here, which would reek of recentism. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Realistically there are two issues here. Whether we should be using the IOC system or not isn't too hard to understand. They're the international governing body for these events. So we should use their system. The problem is that people see these tables as a ranking of the nations medal standings. Which is NOT what the IOC system or information is presenting. The tables use the word RANK when the table that the IOC presents isn't actually ranking these nations in any of the cases, historical and current. So we should be using the table Template:ListedMedalTable. We should not be presenting incorrect information. -- Brendan OhUiginn ( talk) 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The final word on this is that Wikipedia's editors have come to a consensus on this and it is what should be used here despite personal or supposed national preference. According to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856271893833843.html, and several other articles I've read recently, the IOC unofficially endorse "gold-first ranking", which is what is used on Wikipedia. Officially, "According to the Olympic Charter, 'The IOC and the OCOG (the local Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games) shall not draw up any global ranking per country.' Instead, the host stadium is supposed to display a 'roll of honor' of the individual winners." (emphasis mine). I suspect that's why my request for the official Olympic ranking was never answered (and no, that PDF is still made by an American country based on the official results of the events, it's not an official IOC report). -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I never understood why we use these controversial total medals or total golds systems that are technically inaccurate. A much better system, used by the New York Times, is to assign point values: 4 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze. The only problem being that this would conflict with all the previous tables and require substantial re-editing. However, I am certain this would not be the first time that Wikipedians re-edited that much information.
Metallurgist (
talk)
07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If you really want to see the medal total for all countries, its not that hard to do. Just click the top of the total medal article. I think that it is ranked Gold first for a good reason, because the gold medalist is the person that won and in almost everyother sport the winner is the country that is given credit. Furthermore, if you give every medal equal value it seems very unfair for those the get 4th place. I think this debate will come up every Olympics based on people from countries that have higher medal totals with less gold medals. Bennyj600 ( talk) 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I also agree we should use the total medals instead of who has the most Gold medals. that Cuba and Georgia situation just proved it and it has always bothered me since the 2008 Olympic Games. We can't just allow our laziness to overpower what's right and wrong. Str8cash ( talk) 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The ranking is currently unclear, with the page saying that the traditional way of ranking (i.e. most gold medals first) is the primary listing, but the page shows the most total medals ranking as first in the default view of the list, at present. Also, more significantly, the host country shading has the US as the host country, which is obviously wrong and needs to be fixed. My recommendation, which I am not going to edit myself but rather want others in this discussion to see, is to abide by the traditional ranking (yes, I understand, nobody "wins") with the most gold medals first. It not only fits with other pages on the medal rankings of previous Winter Olympics, but it draws attention to the unprecedented number of golds that Canada has won, which affirms the point of the traditional ranking in the first place: just like in an individual competition, gold counts for more. Lrschum ( talk) 20:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Since when is a mathematical fact "personal commentary"? By that standard every single sentence would need a source-- JimWae ( talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Stating the overall number of events to grant medals is no more POV than saying "Canada also broke the record for the most golds won at a single Winter Olympics, which was 13, set by the Soviet Union in 1976 and Norway in 2002. The United States placed first in total medals—its second time doing so in a Winter Games—and set a record for most medals won at a single Winter Olympics, with 37.". the reason is obvious. If you have more events in which to gain a medal, you have a higher likelihood of getting more medals than before. It actually adds balance to those earlier POV statements. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to list the medal counts of previous games on this page, why not list them on all of the previous medal table pages? As is mentioned, the conclusion that Canada won the number of gold medals that it did simply due to the number of events violates WP:NOR without giving a source to state that information is true or relevant. If this information is to be placed in the article, find a reliable source that indicates the relation between number of events and medals earned, and cite it if the information is added to the page. Bcperson89 ( talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It is just a matter of finding a source stating why the number of events is important to mention. Also, the question arises as to how far back into the past do we go? Do we go back to Salt Lake City or Nagano? Why not Lillehammer? Or should we list the number of events for every Winter Olympics going all the way back to the 1924 Winter Olympics in Chamonix? And then, if the number of events for past Winter Olympics is listed on this page, should we go back to all the other Olympic medal table pages and start listing the number of events on each of those pages? Perhaps a better method would be to create a page of something like List of Winter Olympics by number of events or List of Summer Olympics by number of events, and place information there such as the country with the most golds and the total number of events. This would eliminate the question of how far back into the past we would need to list on this page, as all the event number information continually being placed on this page could be listed on a new one. Bcperson89 ( talk) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the number of events for this games was in the lede this page, and in the lede of all the medal pages. I was referring to the list that was previously on this page detailing the number of events in past games. It was on this page stating something along the lines of "It is important to note that there were 86 events in these games, whereas the 2006 games had XX events, the 2002 games had XX events, the 1998 games had XX events, the 1994 games had XX events...", without a reference indicating as to why that list information is important to be noted here. Bcperson89 ( talk) 01:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact that there a numerous articles stating Canada won most gold medals without taking notice of number of events seems POV by the writers of these articles. Having said that, I do believe there are more factors that can influence this, as number of participating nations: in 1976 only 37 nations partook while in 2010, 82 nations entered, which should make it harder to win gold. But I do agree the text, constantly stating: "broke the record" sounds very POV to me (the IOC doesn't even register medals counts, let alone records, as stated numerous times on this pag). Objectively, you cannot compare the different winter games, the fact that the media loves records, shouldn't mean Wikipedia automatically has to follow that subjective trend. Joost 99 ( talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I reordered the medal table for the sake of accuracy, for the sake of agreement. If we are going to provide a link under General in the references section to the official medal count, we had better order our medal table according to how the officials order it. It seems absurd to use their information and not follow their format. I have promptly redressed this concern and have made it impossible for further criticism. Please do not revert my edit and leave it as it is ad infinitum, as it cleared up any and every question a reader may have. Thanks for your help, The Reformed Editor ( talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that that sums it up only too well. Please do not revert my subsequent edits.The Official Vancouver 2010 website, the most reliable source possible, which is supposedly being used as a source here ranks by total medals. Who cares what the BBC does? Since when are they an official source for the Olympic games? Just because we have been doing something wrong for years is no reason to continue doing so.
That makes utterly no sense. The person publishing the table for the recent Olympic games (at The Official Count did not make the table "look[...] better" for themselves. The organization publishing the table is "The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games ". They're Canadian, yet the United States (grand as it is) appears at the top of the table instead of Canada, the host country that published the table in the first place. I wish that you will come to understand the art of argument, learn to analyze your evidence, and present it in such a manner that will not make a fool out of yourself. Consider this an essential lesson for life and business. Regards, The Reformed Editor ( talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Also look at who leads the table and who would lead with the total medal count measure. My very personal, yet I believe very well founded view is that the "correct", "offical", "right" version of the table is always that one which looks better to the person publishing the table.
I have come to realize something: who cares how the table is ranked? It's sortable anyway, so anyone who wants to know who lead in totals/golds can easily do so. It's all about editors from certain nations wanting to make their nation look superior. Frankly, I think we should just remove the damn ranking and default sort it alphabetically, then we won't have to go through this waste of time debate every two years. -- Scorpion 0422 21:32, 3 March 2010 (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 |
Adding a daily schedule of medal events, commented out in the medal table. For Beijing 2008, there was a similar system, so that the table was updated after the conclusion of each event. Writing up some rough instructions on how to update after each medal event. -- Madchester ( talk) 02:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, please, please update the entire page when you update after the conclusion of an event. This entails editing the 1) the actual medals gained for each country on the different rows of the table; 2) the total medal count at the bottom of the table; 3) moving the countries up and down on the table - they don't move automatically; and 4) the note in the hidden section stating for which event the table has been updated last. If editors do only one or two of these steps, it causes havoc and panic for other editors trying to figure out what needs to be fixed. Thanks! Kingnavland ( talk) 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be interesting to add a column, indicating the ratio of medals received to that nation's population, and/or to the # of athletes participating in these Olympics (the downside to the latter is that nations participating in team sports, such as hockey, have numerous atheletes vying for only one medal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.240.1 ( talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I like this idea, but I would prefer a "per participants" number. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE - While there are many ways to express medals/capita (or participant); there is no method recognized across the media at the same level as the basic gold medal sort (and total medal count). Expanding the table gives undue weight to a system that's been proposed, but not uniformly implemented worldwide.
WP:NOR - to derive said calculations ourselves would be original research. We'd have to decide whether it's golds/capita, total medals/capita, how many decimal places of rounding are needed; which source to use for the population totals, etc....... Said medals per "Variable X" articles have been nominated for multiple AFDs and deleted everytime for violating our original research policy
Feel free to create said tables on your own user page; but they're not appropriate for an article. -- Madchester ( talk) 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include in the table expandable boxes under the individual countries that would let you see the names of the athletes and the sport they medaled in for that country? Expandable so that in a quick look you could see the entire list of countries and medals, yet if you wanted to find the more in depth material, you could do so on this page. Thnaks 69.129.145.181 ( talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought I remembered a table on Wikipedia with the number of first- through tenth-place finishes for each country in Beijing, rather than just first, second and third. Now I can't find it, and I think I may have been mistaken. Does anybody know of such a table?
If there isn't one, it might be good to add one. I know this is less important than a medal table, but it would still be good information to have, probably in a separate article. 82.124.110.89 ( talk) 14:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There was no bronze medal awarded in one event, so why are there as many bronze medals as gold medals? -- 174.113.197.134 ( talk) 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The caption for the top picture does not mention the countries of the medalists, unlike the captions for the other picture. Could this be fixed? (In the same order as the picture - silver - Slovenia, gold - Austria, bronze - United States.) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.3 ( talk) 06:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I like that you can change the table according to gold, silver, bronze and total medal ranking, but is there a way for the ranking number to change as well? As it is, you have to count by hand to figure out a country's ranking in a category other than gold medals. Funnyhat ( talk) 04:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Everyone!
I am not very experienced in editing Wikipedia articles so I thought I would post this idea to get everyones help with this.
I was thinking it would be a good idea to have a "Country Olympic Performance" page, with a few sections including (but not limited to) Memorable Moments, Major Upsets, and Medal Standings
For example:
Canada's Olympic Performance
Memorable Moments
2010
- Joannie Rochette gets Bronze after mothers death
- First time Canada won Gold on home soil
- Record breaking year for total medals at a Winter Olympics (previous is Turin, 2006)
- Record for most Gold medals won at a Winter Olympics for a host Country (previously USA, 2002, 10 gold medals)
2006
- Cindy Klassen 5 medals in one Olympic Games
Major Upsets
2006
- Mens Hockey Defeat
Medal Standings
Here would be a list of all the Olympics Canada has participated in (Summer & Winter) with the following table headings (again not limited to)
- Year
- Summer or Winter
- Host
- Overall Rank (by total # of medals)
- Number of Gold
- Number of Silver
- Number of Bronze
- Total
So for the USA page Michael Phelps would be listed under Memorable Moments, for the Netherlands Sven Kramer would be listed under Major Upsets etc...
What are your thoughts? Any other suggestions?
Elzinga.byron (
talk)
04:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose to introduce a new template: Template:Medal table row or Template:Medals or something like that. Template:RankedMedalTable should be amended accordingly. — Christoph Päper 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{| {{RankedMedalTable|class=wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed|nation-width=12em|caption=Medal table for the 2010 Winter Olympics, participating NOCs without any medal won are not included}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUS| 2| 1| 0|13}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUT| 4| 6| 6| 9}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|BLR| 1| 1| 1|17}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CAN|14| 7| 5| 1|host=yes}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CHN| 5| 2| 4| 7}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CRO| 0| 2| 1|21}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CZE| 2| 0| 4|14}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|EST| 0| 1| 0|25}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FIN| 0| 1| 4|24}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FRA| 2| 3| 6|12}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GBR| 1| 0| 0|19}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GER|10|13| 7| 2}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|ITA| 1| 1| 3|16}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|JPN| 0| 3| 2|20}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KAZ| 0| 1| 0|25}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KOR| 6| 6| 2| 5}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|LAT| 0| 2| 0|23}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NED| 4| 1| 3|10}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NOR| 9| 8| 6| 4}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|POL| 1| 3| 2|15}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|RUS| 3| 5| 7|11}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SLO| 0| 2| 1|21}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SUI| 6| 0| 3| 6}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SVK| 1| 1| 1|17}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SWE| 5| 2| 4| 7}} {{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|USA| 9|15|13| 3}} {{RankedMedalRow| |total|86|87|85}} |} {| {{WeightedMedalTable|class=wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed|nation-width=12em|caption=Medal table for the 2010 Winter Olympics, participating NOCs without any medal won are not included}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUS| 2| 1| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUT| 4| 6| 6}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|BLR| 1| 1| 1}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CAN|14| 7| 5|host=yes}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CHN| 5| 2| 4}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CRO| 0| 2| 1}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CZE| 2| 0| 4}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|EST| 0| 1| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FIN| 0| 1| 4}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FRA| 2| 3| 6}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GBR| 1| 0| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GER|10|13| 7}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|ITA| 1| 1| 3}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|JPN| 0| 3| 2}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KAZ| 0| 1| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KOR| 6| 6| 2}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|LAT| 0| 2| 0}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NED| 4| 1| 3}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NOR| 9| 8| 6}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|POL| 1| 3| 2}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|RUS| 3| 5| 7}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SLO| 0| 2| 1}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SUI| 6| 0| 3}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SVK| 1| 1| 1}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SWE| 5| 2| 4}} {{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|USA| 9|15|13}} {{WeightedMedalRow| |total|86|87|85}} |}
I would suggest {{
WeightedMedalTable}} and {{
WeightedMedalRow}} be immediately nominated for deletion. They are based on entirely arbitrary weightings and serve no purpose.
Basement12
(T.
C)
16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just looked back as far as the 1980 winter games, and I;m pretty sure the USA has also broken the record for the most brooze medals won by any nation in a winter games. A minor detail, but nevertheless one that needs to be mentioned and confrimed. Forgive my spelling, its very late here on the east coast now. Congrats to all NOCs on a great olympic games! -- 72.145.141.250 ( talk) 08:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Germany, which had the pervious record for the most brooze in a winter games, still manage to keep the most silver at a winter games, which is 16. Mite be worth noting as well. -- 72.145.141.250 ( talk) 08:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
most 3rd place finishes ... nice, most 2nd place finishes nice ... better mention who has the most 11th place finishes at the olympics, I think it's Zimbabwe ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.86.35 ( talk) 19:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Canada tied Norway's 2002 and USSR's 1976 record for most gold medal at a Winter Olympic Game. It is not yet written on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.90.45 ( talk) 04:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Now the page says: "Canada also tied the record of the most gold medals won at a single Winter Olympics, of 13 set by the former Soviet Union in 1976 and Norway in 2002." But that's a rather ridiculous comparison - in 1976 there were only 37 gold medals in total, today there are 84. 13 / 84 is little compared to 13 / 37. My17cents ( talk) 11:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I added the facts. Gold: Soviet Union 13/37, Norway 13/80, Canada 14/86. Total: US 37/258. My17cents ( talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The ranking for medal standings is traditionally and technically based on total medals, then by total golds, total silver, and total bronze. I attempt to correct this error, though my skills are not great. If the ranking isn't corrected, then could someone who does have the skills make the correct changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.200.171 ( talk) 04:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, see the IOC's Offical Reports for past Olympic Games; the medal tables are sorted by golds. Thanks. -- Madchester ( talk) 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
At the beginning, it looked better for canada to rank by gold... then they realized it look better (for them) to rank by total so they switched. Like madchester said, the "Olympic medal table" page say the IOC usually rank by gold. The vancouver website isn't an objective source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.61.52 ( talk) 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It is probably better to sort by total medals, then by gold, silver, and bronze. Take a look at the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. Georgia (3 gold, 0 silver, 3 bronze, 6 total) is ranked above Cuba (2 gold, 11 silver, 11 bronze, 24 total)? Doesn't make sense. Anyone in their right mind would say Cuba's 2008 Olympic performance easily rivaled Georgia's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.222.207 ( talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to further argue whether it makes more sense to rank by gold first or Total first (since it's more than obvious that ranking by total first makes more sense, and gives more information as to the overall performance) however, if we're going to use the IOC's LISTING system, then we should not use a table that uses the word RANK in it's header. This is NOT a ranking if it's based on the IOC system it's just a listing. Therefore the table template that should be used is Template:ListedMedalTable.--Brendan OhUiginn 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We have used the current ranking method on WP:WikiProject Olympics pages for years, based on consensus, and more importantly, based on reliable sources. The BBC, for example, also use the IOC system for their medal standings. There are about several hundred, maybe a thousand, pages on this Wikipedia that consistently use the same method. It would be foolish beyond belief to change all that based on personal preference, fueled by nationalism. We created Olympic medal table in 2008 to help explain the issue, so perhaps any further discussion should go on that talk page instead of here, which would reek of recentism. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Realistically there are two issues here. Whether we should be using the IOC system or not isn't too hard to understand. They're the international governing body for these events. So we should use their system. The problem is that people see these tables as a ranking of the nations medal standings. Which is NOT what the IOC system or information is presenting. The tables use the word RANK when the table that the IOC presents isn't actually ranking these nations in any of the cases, historical and current. So we should be using the table Template:ListedMedalTable. We should not be presenting incorrect information. -- Brendan OhUiginn ( talk) 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The final word on this is that Wikipedia's editors have come to a consensus on this and it is what should be used here despite personal or supposed national preference. According to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856271893833843.html, and several other articles I've read recently, the IOC unofficially endorse "gold-first ranking", which is what is used on Wikipedia. Officially, "According to the Olympic Charter, 'The IOC and the OCOG (the local Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games) shall not draw up any global ranking per country.' Instead, the host stadium is supposed to display a 'roll of honor' of the individual winners." (emphasis mine). I suspect that's why my request for the official Olympic ranking was never answered (and no, that PDF is still made by an American country based on the official results of the events, it's not an official IOC report). -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I never understood why we use these controversial total medals or total golds systems that are technically inaccurate. A much better system, used by the New York Times, is to assign point values: 4 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze. The only problem being that this would conflict with all the previous tables and require substantial re-editing. However, I am certain this would not be the first time that Wikipedians re-edited that much information.
Metallurgist (
talk)
07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If you really want to see the medal total for all countries, its not that hard to do. Just click the top of the total medal article. I think that it is ranked Gold first for a good reason, because the gold medalist is the person that won and in almost everyother sport the winner is the country that is given credit. Furthermore, if you give every medal equal value it seems very unfair for those the get 4th place. I think this debate will come up every Olympics based on people from countries that have higher medal totals with less gold medals. Bennyj600 ( talk) 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I also agree we should use the total medals instead of who has the most Gold medals. that Cuba and Georgia situation just proved it and it has always bothered me since the 2008 Olympic Games. We can't just allow our laziness to overpower what's right and wrong. Str8cash ( talk) 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The ranking is currently unclear, with the page saying that the traditional way of ranking (i.e. most gold medals first) is the primary listing, but the page shows the most total medals ranking as first in the default view of the list, at present. Also, more significantly, the host country shading has the US as the host country, which is obviously wrong and needs to be fixed. My recommendation, which I am not going to edit myself but rather want others in this discussion to see, is to abide by the traditional ranking (yes, I understand, nobody "wins") with the most gold medals first. It not only fits with other pages on the medal rankings of previous Winter Olympics, but it draws attention to the unprecedented number of golds that Canada has won, which affirms the point of the traditional ranking in the first place: just like in an individual competition, gold counts for more. Lrschum ( talk) 20:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Since when is a mathematical fact "personal commentary"? By that standard every single sentence would need a source-- JimWae ( talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Stating the overall number of events to grant medals is no more POV than saying "Canada also broke the record for the most golds won at a single Winter Olympics, which was 13, set by the Soviet Union in 1976 and Norway in 2002. The United States placed first in total medals—its second time doing so in a Winter Games—and set a record for most medals won at a single Winter Olympics, with 37.". the reason is obvious. If you have more events in which to gain a medal, you have a higher likelihood of getting more medals than before. It actually adds balance to those earlier POV statements. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to list the medal counts of previous games on this page, why not list them on all of the previous medal table pages? As is mentioned, the conclusion that Canada won the number of gold medals that it did simply due to the number of events violates WP:NOR without giving a source to state that information is true or relevant. If this information is to be placed in the article, find a reliable source that indicates the relation between number of events and medals earned, and cite it if the information is added to the page. Bcperson89 ( talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It is just a matter of finding a source stating why the number of events is important to mention. Also, the question arises as to how far back into the past do we go? Do we go back to Salt Lake City or Nagano? Why not Lillehammer? Or should we list the number of events for every Winter Olympics going all the way back to the 1924 Winter Olympics in Chamonix? And then, if the number of events for past Winter Olympics is listed on this page, should we go back to all the other Olympic medal table pages and start listing the number of events on each of those pages? Perhaps a better method would be to create a page of something like List of Winter Olympics by number of events or List of Summer Olympics by number of events, and place information there such as the country with the most golds and the total number of events. This would eliminate the question of how far back into the past we would need to list on this page, as all the event number information continually being placed on this page could be listed on a new one. Bcperson89 ( talk) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the number of events for this games was in the lede this page, and in the lede of all the medal pages. I was referring to the list that was previously on this page detailing the number of events in past games. It was on this page stating something along the lines of "It is important to note that there were 86 events in these games, whereas the 2006 games had XX events, the 2002 games had XX events, the 1998 games had XX events, the 1994 games had XX events...", without a reference indicating as to why that list information is important to be noted here. Bcperson89 ( talk) 01:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact that there a numerous articles stating Canada won most gold medals without taking notice of number of events seems POV by the writers of these articles. Having said that, I do believe there are more factors that can influence this, as number of participating nations: in 1976 only 37 nations partook while in 2010, 82 nations entered, which should make it harder to win gold. But I do agree the text, constantly stating: "broke the record" sounds very POV to me (the IOC doesn't even register medals counts, let alone records, as stated numerous times on this pag). Objectively, you cannot compare the different winter games, the fact that the media loves records, shouldn't mean Wikipedia automatically has to follow that subjective trend. Joost 99 ( talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I reordered the medal table for the sake of accuracy, for the sake of agreement. If we are going to provide a link under General in the references section to the official medal count, we had better order our medal table according to how the officials order it. It seems absurd to use their information and not follow their format. I have promptly redressed this concern and have made it impossible for further criticism. Please do not revert my edit and leave it as it is ad infinitum, as it cleared up any and every question a reader may have. Thanks for your help, The Reformed Editor ( talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that that sums it up only too well. Please do not revert my subsequent edits.The Official Vancouver 2010 website, the most reliable source possible, which is supposedly being used as a source here ranks by total medals. Who cares what the BBC does? Since when are they an official source for the Olympic games? Just because we have been doing something wrong for years is no reason to continue doing so.
That makes utterly no sense. The person publishing the table for the recent Olympic games (at The Official Count did not make the table "look[...] better" for themselves. The organization publishing the table is "The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games ". They're Canadian, yet the United States (grand as it is) appears at the top of the table instead of Canada, the host country that published the table in the first place. I wish that you will come to understand the art of argument, learn to analyze your evidence, and present it in such a manner that will not make a fool out of yourself. Consider this an essential lesson for life and business. Regards, The Reformed Editor ( talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Also look at who leads the table and who would lead with the total medal count measure. My very personal, yet I believe very well founded view is that the "correct", "offical", "right" version of the table is always that one which looks better to the person publishing the table.
I have come to realize something: who cares how the table is ranked? It's sortable anyway, so anyone who wants to know who lead in totals/golds can easily do so. It's all about editors from certain nations wanting to make their nation look superior. Frankly, I think we should just remove the damn ranking and default sort it alphabetically, then we won't have to go through this waste of time debate every two years. -- Scorpion 0422 21:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)