This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of IIHF World Championship medalists article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | List of IIHF World Championship medalists is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Tempers are clearly rising (yes, I admit I am guilty) and several users are starting to attack one another. I don't think any of us want to go to mediation, so let's try and reach a peaceful resolution.
Here is my position: I think this list should stay to what it is, a list of champions. This article does not need to be a database of statistics and if one wants to find them then we could provide an external link. As for the combining of successor nations, I think they should remain seperate for the reasons all stated above, and I do not believe that the discovery of an IIHF source that combines them changes things much. If somebody wants to know how many gold the Soviets and Russians have won then all they need to do is add 22 + 2 and voila, there you go. As I have suggested above, I am open to a seperate table, or adding an extra column.
All I want to do is try to get this page to FL status and this edit war has prevented this and is continuing to prevent this. -- Scorpion 0422 03:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look somewhere above, I was open to having two tables all along, as a compromise. More information is always better than less, and if those tables are explained then it should work.-- Lenev ( talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and to this discussion. If I was doing the medal table I would combine USSR/Russia and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic and Germany/West Germany. In 2007 the IIHF published a book titled World of Hockey: Celebrating a Century of the IIHF. The book contains a section which gives a brief history of each of its member nations. It makes the following statements about the above teams: Czech Republic: from page 180: "admitted in 1908 (as Bohemia)....When Bohemia became Czechoslovakia after World War I, it was re-admitted to the IIHF under its new name on April 26, 1920....After the fall of Communism, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, and the Czech republic replaced Czechoslovakia in the IIHF program." Russia: from page 187/188: "admitted in 1952 (as Soviet Union)....The famous CCCP was replaced by Russia in 1992" Germany: from page 181/182: "admitted in 1909....was reinstated as the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) on March 10, 1951....(continued as Germany)following the re-unification of the country" WCan ( talk) 04:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it so painfully difficult for some people to realize that the following two statements are both true, yet not contradictory with each other:
— Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The medal table is incorrect. Russia does simply not have 25 golds itself, many of the former Soviet players were also Latvians playing in the tournaments and players from 13 other federations could be listed as Soviet Union, as these federations only played in the world cup as Soviet. And Czechoslovakia cannot be listed in the Czech Republic list, as Slovakia was also part of the country and there were Slovaks playing as well. I don't want to change it myself without to discuss it, but the list is simply not correct. I would suggest to use the old medal table, the way it used to be, as it is more fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 ( talk) 10:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It is true that the membership rights within IIHF of Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia rolled over to Russia and Czech Republic respectively and the others had to make their way up to the main competition from the lowest. But I agree it does not make sense to sum up the medals for the countries that simply do not exist anymore. Especially since they are also credit to the prior partners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.40.97 ( talk) 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Why Slovakia hasn't got Czechoslovakia gold medals? Should not be (1/7) in 2002 gold medal? Czech republic in 1996 has (1/7), so is completely right to put the same for slovakia in 2002. And in final table as well: Slovakia (1,1,1) Czechoslovakia (6,12,16) total (7,13,17). I changed it, hope all regular updater agree with me about this change, otherwise change it back the way it was and answer in this discussion please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 19thnervous ( talk • contribs)
I created a new medal table under the old one only for history after 1993. It partly solves the problem of counting medals of Czechoslovakia and Soviet Union to Czech republic and Russia. It also gives some interesting information, but I am open to discussion whether this table should be on this page or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.181.92 ( talk) 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the reason is quite simple if you think about it and stop being arrogant. There are many people how think it's not a good medal table, because it's not fair - Czech republic has more medals than it should have, so does Russia. Deleting SSSR and Czechoslovakian medals isn't a good solution, because then Canada (and Sweden, and USA...) has had more opportunities to get the medals, that's what is interesting about this new table. And why there should be only for recent years and not other eras too? Because the recent past is the thing everybody is interested in the most. PS: Cause you deleted my table without discussing it, I am putting it back without discussing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.151.217 ( talk) 12:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know what you find as a "consensus support" and I am 95% sure that any number of people would seem to you as a minor group. It is sad that sites about hockey on wiki has better quality in Czech, Svenska or Paruski than in English...I thought Canadians do care about hockey, but I was probably wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.234 ( talk) 18:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry if you took this as an attack, I was just sad about how you are not open for discussions. And one last thing - after 2 eras of dominance of one nation, the hockey got finally interesting in 1992 (probably more accurate year than my 1993) - the table for the whole history gives no interesting stats...and I am not saying it because my country leads my table, I personaly think that the number of medals is more valuable than number of gold medals so in my eyes Sweden is the team who has the best performance since 1992... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.234 ( talk) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That being said, perhaps you do indeed define "better quality" and "open for discussions" as "They do things the way I want," in which case I encourage you to continue to patronize such wikis. In the meantime, should you come up with a consensus here backing your version of things, that would be another matter. So far, though, it does indeed seem to me that a minority of a single editor is a "minor group" which completely fails of consensus. RGTraynor 14:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
And again - you want me to do something, but you didn't say anything specific. What peopla shloud have the same opinion? How many? Where do I found them? I thought that wiki works the way when there is a discussion, there is a big red line "There is a discussion here" and people are welcome to say theier opinion. Some nonsences you said: 1. Czech republic has a quite good position in this table too, so there is no need for putting there a new just so my country looks good (and it is rude that you think so even I said many times, that this is not the point). 2. Spliting medal tables in other sports might be interesting too, but this is a bit different case - 2 big countries stoped existing and the system changed a lot too... I don't want you to say "what the hell, put it there so he shuts up", that wouldn't make any sence. I just want you to tell me WHAT exactly support I need and HOW can I get this support right here on wiki. There surely is a protocol for this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.151.217 ( talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Okey, so wikipedia isn't "free encyclopedia" and any changes are very unlike to happen. I thought it is a bit different here, I was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.181.92 ( talk) 10:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I thought that was my last sentence, but you guys are so rude I have to react. I am not angry that you put my change away. I am dissapointed, because I thought that wiki works as a democratic utopia - if somebody wants to make a change, there is an open discussion and everybody can tell his or her opinion. The fact that wiki works that only editors have the right to vote is just a dissapoitment to me (of course I understand the reason why this is, it's much more easier and the other system won't probably work at all, I just thought that wiki works this way). And one last thing - I don't know why are you so rude. I didn't say anything bad about you, I just tried to explain to you my POV and that I thought that wikipedia works a little bit differently. But I see that editors on wiki are even more arrogent than editors on other pages so come on, one last shot on me so I can see how you are reacting in your patterns and are not capable of a simple apologie. PS: I am sorry if I offended you in any way, but this is just how this situation looks from my spot...just try to think about it, ok? (i know you won't) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.151.217 ( talk) 00:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly what I said - I apologized, but you won't. And you don't care about my opinion and you never won't, cause you think you are somehow better or bigger than me... It's just sad, that's all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.234 ( talk) 19:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Assorting the medal table by e.g. name or counts is completely broken due to the few added "totals" that some want to credit to countries that did not win them. Consider whether these are needed, and if so, fix the table for it to be properly sortable or remove them, as currently the table does not work with them included. 2A00:11C0:4:794:0:0:0:180 ( talk) 20:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The IIHF specifically includes the history of Czechoslovakia with those of Czechia in their encyclopedia, they do not include them in Slovakia's history. Czechia took their place, specifically their seeding position in the World Championships, Slovakia had to start at the bottom and win their way up. Fair or not, these are the facts. 18abruce ( talk) 21:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that the footnotes in the "Medal table" section be revised from "successor state" to "successor member". It seems like multiple users are confused by the wording "state" as opposed to "member". Please note that the Slovak Ice Hockey Federation is a separate entity to the Czech Ice Hockey Association, founded in 1993 and 1908 respectively. Similarly, we should refer to the member association for Russia/Soviet Union and East/West Germany. Any thoughts. Flibirigit ( talk) 01:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of IIHF World Championship medalists article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | List of IIHF World Championship medalists is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Tempers are clearly rising (yes, I admit I am guilty) and several users are starting to attack one another. I don't think any of us want to go to mediation, so let's try and reach a peaceful resolution.
Here is my position: I think this list should stay to what it is, a list of champions. This article does not need to be a database of statistics and if one wants to find them then we could provide an external link. As for the combining of successor nations, I think they should remain seperate for the reasons all stated above, and I do not believe that the discovery of an IIHF source that combines them changes things much. If somebody wants to know how many gold the Soviets and Russians have won then all they need to do is add 22 + 2 and voila, there you go. As I have suggested above, I am open to a seperate table, or adding an extra column.
All I want to do is try to get this page to FL status and this edit war has prevented this and is continuing to prevent this. -- Scorpion 0422 03:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look somewhere above, I was open to having two tables all along, as a compromise. More information is always better than less, and if those tables are explained then it should work.-- Lenev ( talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and to this discussion. If I was doing the medal table I would combine USSR/Russia and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic and Germany/West Germany. In 2007 the IIHF published a book titled World of Hockey: Celebrating a Century of the IIHF. The book contains a section which gives a brief history of each of its member nations. It makes the following statements about the above teams: Czech Republic: from page 180: "admitted in 1908 (as Bohemia)....When Bohemia became Czechoslovakia after World War I, it was re-admitted to the IIHF under its new name on April 26, 1920....After the fall of Communism, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, and the Czech republic replaced Czechoslovakia in the IIHF program." Russia: from page 187/188: "admitted in 1952 (as Soviet Union)....The famous CCCP was replaced by Russia in 1992" Germany: from page 181/182: "admitted in 1909....was reinstated as the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) on March 10, 1951....(continued as Germany)following the re-unification of the country" WCan ( talk) 04:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it so painfully difficult for some people to realize that the following two statements are both true, yet not contradictory with each other:
— Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The medal table is incorrect. Russia does simply not have 25 golds itself, many of the former Soviet players were also Latvians playing in the tournaments and players from 13 other federations could be listed as Soviet Union, as these federations only played in the world cup as Soviet. And Czechoslovakia cannot be listed in the Czech Republic list, as Slovakia was also part of the country and there were Slovaks playing as well. I don't want to change it myself without to discuss it, but the list is simply not correct. I would suggest to use the old medal table, the way it used to be, as it is more fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 ( talk) 10:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It is true that the membership rights within IIHF of Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia rolled over to Russia and Czech Republic respectively and the others had to make their way up to the main competition from the lowest. But I agree it does not make sense to sum up the medals for the countries that simply do not exist anymore. Especially since they are also credit to the prior partners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.40.97 ( talk) 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Why Slovakia hasn't got Czechoslovakia gold medals? Should not be (1/7) in 2002 gold medal? Czech republic in 1996 has (1/7), so is completely right to put the same for slovakia in 2002. And in final table as well: Slovakia (1,1,1) Czechoslovakia (6,12,16) total (7,13,17). I changed it, hope all regular updater agree with me about this change, otherwise change it back the way it was and answer in this discussion please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 19thnervous ( talk • contribs)
I created a new medal table under the old one only for history after 1993. It partly solves the problem of counting medals of Czechoslovakia and Soviet Union to Czech republic and Russia. It also gives some interesting information, but I am open to discussion whether this table should be on this page or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.181.92 ( talk) 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the reason is quite simple if you think about it and stop being arrogant. There are many people how think it's not a good medal table, because it's not fair - Czech republic has more medals than it should have, so does Russia. Deleting SSSR and Czechoslovakian medals isn't a good solution, because then Canada (and Sweden, and USA...) has had more opportunities to get the medals, that's what is interesting about this new table. And why there should be only for recent years and not other eras too? Because the recent past is the thing everybody is interested in the most. PS: Cause you deleted my table without discussing it, I am putting it back without discussing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.151.217 ( talk) 12:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know what you find as a "consensus support" and I am 95% sure that any number of people would seem to you as a minor group. It is sad that sites about hockey on wiki has better quality in Czech, Svenska or Paruski than in English...I thought Canadians do care about hockey, but I was probably wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.234 ( talk) 18:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry if you took this as an attack, I was just sad about how you are not open for discussions. And one last thing - after 2 eras of dominance of one nation, the hockey got finally interesting in 1992 (probably more accurate year than my 1993) - the table for the whole history gives no interesting stats...and I am not saying it because my country leads my table, I personaly think that the number of medals is more valuable than number of gold medals so in my eyes Sweden is the team who has the best performance since 1992... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.234 ( talk) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That being said, perhaps you do indeed define "better quality" and "open for discussions" as "They do things the way I want," in which case I encourage you to continue to patronize such wikis. In the meantime, should you come up with a consensus here backing your version of things, that would be another matter. So far, though, it does indeed seem to me that a minority of a single editor is a "minor group" which completely fails of consensus. RGTraynor 14:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
And again - you want me to do something, but you didn't say anything specific. What peopla shloud have the same opinion? How many? Where do I found them? I thought that wiki works the way when there is a discussion, there is a big red line "There is a discussion here" and people are welcome to say theier opinion. Some nonsences you said: 1. Czech republic has a quite good position in this table too, so there is no need for putting there a new just so my country looks good (and it is rude that you think so even I said many times, that this is not the point). 2. Spliting medal tables in other sports might be interesting too, but this is a bit different case - 2 big countries stoped existing and the system changed a lot too... I don't want you to say "what the hell, put it there so he shuts up", that wouldn't make any sence. I just want you to tell me WHAT exactly support I need and HOW can I get this support right here on wiki. There surely is a protocol for this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.151.217 ( talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Okey, so wikipedia isn't "free encyclopedia" and any changes are very unlike to happen. I thought it is a bit different here, I was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.181.92 ( talk) 10:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I thought that was my last sentence, but you guys are so rude I have to react. I am not angry that you put my change away. I am dissapointed, because I thought that wiki works as a democratic utopia - if somebody wants to make a change, there is an open discussion and everybody can tell his or her opinion. The fact that wiki works that only editors have the right to vote is just a dissapoitment to me (of course I understand the reason why this is, it's much more easier and the other system won't probably work at all, I just thought that wiki works this way). And one last thing - I don't know why are you so rude. I didn't say anything bad about you, I just tried to explain to you my POV and that I thought that wikipedia works a little bit differently. But I see that editors on wiki are even more arrogent than editors on other pages so come on, one last shot on me so I can see how you are reacting in your patterns and are not capable of a simple apologie. PS: I am sorry if I offended you in any way, but this is just how this situation looks from my spot...just try to think about it, ok? (i know you won't) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.151.217 ( talk) 00:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly what I said - I apologized, but you won't. And you don't care about my opinion and you never won't, cause you think you are somehow better or bigger than me... It's just sad, that's all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.234 ( talk) 19:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Assorting the medal table by e.g. name or counts is completely broken due to the few added "totals" that some want to credit to countries that did not win them. Consider whether these are needed, and if so, fix the table for it to be properly sortable or remove them, as currently the table does not work with them included. 2A00:11C0:4:794:0:0:0:180 ( talk) 20:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The IIHF specifically includes the history of Czechoslovakia with those of Czechia in their encyclopedia, they do not include them in Slovakia's history. Czechia took their place, specifically their seeding position in the World Championships, Slovakia had to start at the bottom and win their way up. Fair or not, these are the facts. 18abruce ( talk) 21:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that the footnotes in the "Medal table" section be revised from "successor state" to "successor member". It seems like multiple users are confused by the wording "state" as opposed to "member". Please note that the Slovak Ice Hockey Federation is a separate entity to the Czech Ice Hockey Association, founded in 1993 and 1908 respectively. Similarly, we should refer to the member association for Russia/Soviet Union and East/West Germany. Any thoughts. Flibirigit ( talk) 01:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)