Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:OLYMPICS below:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Welcome to the WikiProject Olympics talk page 

To start a new discussion section, please click here

Currently, Swimming, Diving, Water Polo and Artistic Swimming are structured as separate disciplines on the Olympic pages. As such, we have articles for:

• "Swimming at the [year] Summer Olympics" and "Swimming at the [year] Summer Olympics – [event name]"
• The same structure for Diving, Artistic Swimming and Water Polo

However, Marathon Swimming articles are categorised as sub events of the swimming discipline. As such, there is no pages "Marathon Swimming at the [year] Summer Olympics" or "Marathon Swimming at the [year] Summer Olympics – [event name]". Instead, the events are structured as part of the "Swimming" discipline, and we have "Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon 10 kilometre" for example.

This doesn't make sense because the sources categorise them as separate disciplines:

• https://www.worldaquatics.com/competitions/2943/olympic-games-paris-2024/medals?disciplines=
• https://www.olympics.com/en/olympic-games/paris-2024/results/swimming

Therefore I propose splitting marathon swimming into it's own discipline. If people have no issue with this, I'll go ahead and do it. IAWW (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's right to separate the two. While the disciplines within Aquatic sports are indeed divided into different articles, this is not the case in other sports (such as basketball, cycling, canoeing, equestrian gymnastics, volleyball, and wrestling). I believe there's a significant difference between water polo, diving, and swimming. However, the difference between swimming and marathon swimming/open water swimming is not that great.

Tagging here those who participated in a previous discussion on this topic: Sportsfan 1234, Ravendrop, Dirtlawyer1, and, JoshMartini007. Nimrodbr (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I didn't realise this was common across other disciplines. I just assumed it was a mistake/no one had given it the thought. Regardless, there is definitely enough content on Marathon Swimming at the Olympics to split it into it's own discipline, so I guess it becomes an organisational question? I think the modularity of having Marathon Swimming separate is well worth it, as I have seen content mistakes caused by merging them in articles. IAWW (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that Marathon swimming is a different discipline, but a separate article for 2 events might be overdoing it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, lets drop this proposal then. What I'll do is just split the swimming from the marathon swimming a bit more in the articles which contain information about both. IAWW (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that makes more sense. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nim and Sportfan. Open water swimming just isn't different enough to have its own page. With that said, we should take care in making it clear it is a different discipline than swimming (like the other combined discipline pages in other sports). Additionally, doing a quick look at the 2008 and 2012 Olympics, Open Water Swimming is combined in the "Sports" section listing the number of events of each sport and discipline and should be separated accordingly. JoshMartini007 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberius has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of, I was curious to see why a Roman Emperor is under this WikiProject, so I checked. He is listed in the template as an Olympic winner, but the article does not mention this anywhere in the text (at least not under when searching for Olymp...). I suggest the article addresses this to justify the inclusion of box, otherwise it just brings confusion. Tone 21:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He won the Tethrippon (four horse chariot race) in 17 AD. Of course he never set foot in Olympia but, as the owner of the horses, he is credited with the honour of being an Olympic champion http://www.olympedia.org/athletes/2800833 Topcardi (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks for clarifying. Still a neat fact to mention in the article somewhere, since there are the boxes at the bottom. Tone 06:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter lastyearmixed is not implemented for Template:Infobox Olympic athletics event. Could someone with technical knowledge of this kind of template perhaps fix this, so that the parameter is properly displayed in 4 × 400 metres relay at the Olympics? – Editør (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editør, done at Special:Diff/1293939570, thanks. --Habst (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Habst! – Editør (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a disagreement at Talk:Chelsea Wolfe (BMX cyclist) (about the article and the DYK) about whether she was an Olympian / represented the US at the Olympics or not. All input is welcome at that page. Fram (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC about whether we should refer to the Khelif's sex as being uncertain. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath^talk 10:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely when an RfC is only opened because clearly prejudiced users went on rants about adding unreliable and not-new sources to say something they don't say, it shouldn't be given the time of day. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking particularly at Mauritania at the Olympics but it looks like every country on this list has this as well. The athletes-per-games information is the only useful information on this table, the rest is just practically mocking the countries concerned.

Having these tables in every article appears to be the result of the cookie-cutter methods used to produce them, probably with the idea that they would be improved later, but it's 2025 already, let's have a table just for the countries that haven't won any medals? I'm thinking a count of the athletes, maybe a "notes" column so you can list any notable performances? I know come 2028 some (a few?) countries will finally have medals, but in that case we don't need to have a table listing all of the zeros stretching back decades - the medals table can start with the first medal. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is both appropriate and important for several reasons:

• Completeness and Consistency: Every country that has participated in the Olympics deserves a standardized and complete record. Including medal tables, even if they are all zeroes, maintains a consistent format across all olympic-articles.
• Recognition of Participation: Participation itself is a major achievement, especially for smaller or less wealthy nations that face significant logistical, financial, and political hurdles. Listing these medal tables honors their involvement and shows that their athletes competed on the world stage, regardless of outcomes.
• Encyclopedic documentation: An official record should document facts without bias. Omitting a medal table could imply that the country’s participation is somehow only legitimate, if they win medals.

Miria~01 (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is silly to have tables that consist entirely of zeroes when a single sentence saying "no medals were won" demonstrates the same thing. Mocking even. Nor does any amount of consistency require us to list zero-results. It detracts from the clarity of the article, and uselessly takes up space on the page. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take Mauritius at the Olympics as an example. You would erase all their previous participation with zero medals before 2008 (and perhaps even after) in the table because in your perception it "mocks" the country. And of course, a table is an eye-catcher for the reader, to receive information directly in a compressed form, so subjective perceptions are no reason to erase them.

But I can agree with you on one point: notable performances can of course be mentioned in a section below. Miria~01 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to happen upon the page, and I saw the table in that state, I'd have simply assumed they didn't participate. It's not "shaming" to state they had no medals, simply having athletes make the Olympics is still a massive accomplishment, especially for many smaller countries, and it's provides meaningful context. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who goes through the various countries at the Olympics articles quite a bit, I think it makes a lot of sense. It does what it's meant to do, it very quickly summarizes those accomplishments and, if it were absent, I think folks may often assume that its absence is a mistake. By including it, you're cutting right to the chase and providing the relevant information immediately to those who know of that being included and would immediately be looking there for the information. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Between Josh's view directly above, and an alternative view on the idea it's "mocking" (I would instead suggest that having a column for medal count could be interpreted as a "we believe you'll get one so here's a place to list it when you do"!), and the fact it's status quo at the moment, I think it's the easiest way to present the information. Willing to hear more views otherwise, though. Kingsif (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we should always list all participation, even if it does not result in any medals. To add to the above, imagine a country like France or something somehow not receiving any medals in the future. Would we leave the year off, while showing the rest? No that wouldn't make sense. We would list the participation with zero medals. This is not difficult to understand. The table being a medal table is perhaps is a misnomer, it's more of an overview of Olympic participation, but it absolutely should have a row for each Games the country participated in, with our traditional spans for non-participation and participation as/as part of another NOC. Jmj713 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself will mention participation. Including a medal table for every country implies that medals are a critical measure of a country, and if it's all zeroes, than that country has failed. I strongly opposing including all zero medal tables. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a very incorrect way of seeing things. Participation itself is an honor. Jmj713 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. Having an article says they participated. An empty medal table adds pure negativity. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is an important point: we can easily recognise participation without these silly all-zero tables. FOARP (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are they silly? They give a reader a very easy to understand table which they can view a given country's totality of participation at a glance. A summary won't do that. It's important to see which Games each country participated in, were there any gaps, how long did it take them to win their first medal, their first gold? Hopefully, eventually, every country will medal at some point. The zero rows will give context. Jmj713 (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A table that just says "no medals" communicates the same information, but in a far easier to understand way, than 30 or 40 zeros. FOARP (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica's participation in the Winter Games was never described as a failure, even though no medals were won, but rather it was always an honor to have qualified, as Jmj713 said. In practice, many problems would also arise arbitrarily, Togo is a good example: should the two participations in winter be replaced with a Bullerpoints list (without zeros), but the ones in summer remain, since there is one medal out of 12 participations, or should they also be deleted, since there are more zeros than medals. Such an approach for Spain by removing zero lines would result in a catastrophic informational mess, in which the reader would lose clarity.Miria~01 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal. I do not see any clear reason why these should be removed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I gave my reasons above. Point out what's wrong with my reasoning. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am frankly not concerned with the perceived mockery but can we just present Countries' medal-less editions with a full width column of "No medals won", not a bunch of 0, 0, 0s as mentioned by FOARP. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. The heaps of zeros are ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not how tables work. Jmj713 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes currently, that's the unspoken consensus. But we have "did not participate" and "future event" coded in under a "colspan". How is this any different? Similarly "did not participate" was not really seen as a mockery but as a cold hard fact.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would something like this make people happier?

It still shows what people seem to be wanting (appearances, athletes, etc) without having a huge block of 0s. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have in mind, at least for me. Much cleaner Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why always this cherry-picking? If you apply this to other tables, it just looks chaotic. Here's an example from Spain (2000-2020 cut off so the table isn't too long).

Miria~01 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the "no medals" instead of so many 0s. The Spain example does not look chaotic for me. Kante4 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "no medals" span looks really bad. How exactly are zeros different from 1 or any other amount? Jmj713 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the concern was for countries that had no medals, or very very few; a country like Spain who is regularly medalling probably doesn't need to have this sort of overhaul. Don't really have an opinion either way, just coding up a table so people can visualise some options. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively I do not know if the project is willing to adopt a more flexible approach. Brunei at the 2024 Summer Olympics for example does not need a sortable table with three athletes, but there's an implied consensus to make it sortable regardless if its France with 500+ athletes or Brunei with 3. Sorry for another of tangent but the point is we could consider flexibility rather than all-or-nothing approach for the sake of consistency. For some country with has no medals yet, like Brunei (again), its superfluous to have unused columns.

Athletes by Summer Games

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this is treating countries differently, I'm not a fan of that at all. There should be a uniform table across the entire project. I'm really having a hard time seeing any issue with listing all participation by all nations as it occurred. Deleting, simplifying, spanning etc. all seems to me like it's disregarding the participation of a given nation. The medals are not the point of the Olympics. The IOC does not even publish official tables. So I reject that showing all zeroes is somehow disparaging. I believe doing anything to show participation as different from countries like the USA or China that always medal is inherently biased. Every country should be treated the same. Jmj713 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hariboneagle927: Fyi: Hope it's okay that I added your forgotten signature to your post.
According to your description, it would only affect countries without medals, meaning Mauritius at the Olympics would remain as it is (11 participations and 1 medal) with a lot of zeros, if I understand correctly. So, after Brunei wins a medal, the zeros would return. Another case: how would countries with medals in one season but no medals in the other be handled (see Jamaica at the Olympics? Two different tables for each season in such cases? In conclusion, instead of following a standard that objectively sets the same rules for everyone, we would have to discuss case distinctions that are based on subjectivity.Miria~01 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, either the 0s (status quo) would return for prior games or colspans of "no medals won" (suggestion). I'm not sure about Jamaica's case cause you have four unused columns which just exist for implied information (they participated from 1988 to 2022). The explicit topic of the header for that section reads "Medal tables". We could have a "Medals by Summer Games" table and a separate Winter Games section where we have a table for the number of athletes per edition? And a brief prose that "X nation has never won a medal has participated in the Winter Olympics".

Frankly, I do not care about the morality of displaying the zeroes or not, or the platitude of some implied message of "I hope these minor countries win a medal". I just see the unused columns as decors. It's like we do not list every participating NOCs in the 2024 Summer Olympics medal table, only those who medal not to avoid "mockery" of nations who do not win but its pointless to list the non-medalling countries at all. I do not think simplifying, deleting columns is not "disregarding" participation. You still get info on which games or how many athletes took part in a certain games. What disregarding would look like is to delete the whole medal table of non-medaling nations.

Okay, I'll play the devil's advocate for a while. A case per case basis approach would probably not be feasible, it needs enough people to be onboard. An IP or a newer user could easily insert all the 0s back to Brunei or any less watched page. And listing standardized tables across all NOCs are standard in database websites. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics#Requested move 14 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. DCAllStar (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 3,165 "Country at the YYYY Summer Olympics" articles, and I would like some help to update them to conform to the post-WP:NSPORTS2022 era by including relevant biographical details of athletes listed that may not have enough SIGCOV found yet to have their own articles.

No information needs to be removed; brief biographical sections will be added based on the structure of e.g. Category:Lists of minor league baseball players articles. To avoid duplication for multiple-time Olympians, selective transclusion will be used with the source of truth being the earliest article. Most redirected Olympian stubs already link to their "Country at the YYYY Summer Olympics" articles, but for the few that don't exist or target elsewhere I'll create or retarget them to their earliest Olympic participation.

The first example is here: Cornelius von Lubowiecki now redirects to Austria at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Cornelius von Lubowiecki using the new {{R from Olympian}} redirect template, where relevant details are.

I plan on first doing this for athletics Olympians, which I created a list of in full here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Tasks/Olympians. (AFAIK, this is the first ever complete listing of all athletics Olympians on one page.) I also created a script to monitor progress (to be clear, the script is only for monitoring progress but all edits will be manual). In order to keep track for the script, the {{R from Olympian}} template can be added to Olympians that redirect to a dedicated section with prose like for von Lubowiecki, which adds a special tracking category. There are "only" 393 athlete sections and 223 "Country at..." articles that would need to be edited in total for this initial task.

A similar format could be applied to Winter Olympics or non-athletics articles once this initial task is done. --Habst (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus to do this. It's effectively merging biographies into these articles like [1]. You're effectively quoting this as if it's an accepted policy as WP:COUNTRYATOLYBIO when it's not. Pinging @FOARP, @Let'srun, @Svartner, @Geschichte, @JoelleJay LibStar (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @BeanieFan11 and @Clariniie here as a cursory. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is yet another attempt at disrupting AfD consensus. Coatracking with irrelevant primary-sourced material on non-notable people is unacceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding brief details on the few Olympians in an otherwise-permastub article focused entirely on those very subjects "irrelevant"? How is this different from the accepted ways of doing it in football, baseball and cricket as mentioned below? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not adding "brief" details, in many cases it's effectively copy and pasting a whole article. This is s back door way to circumvent consensus. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting like, four sentences. What "consensus" is it "circumventing"? The consensuses are that the athletes are not notable enough for a standalone, not that they can never be discussed anywhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the all AfDs you have participated in the consensus is usually redirect or delete, not merge. Many get redirected in prod stage. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The consensuses are that the athletes are not notable enough for a standalone, not that they can never be discussed anywhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the consensus to merge? Habst has effectively spent the last few hours merging and quoting WP:COUNTRYATOLYBIO without community consensus. It should be sought here before making wholesale change. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need community consensus to add content to articles. And he did bring it here for discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brought it here for discussion and implemented it as WP:COUNTRYATOLYBIO without waiting for community consensus. People may or may not like this, or want to modify it. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it was brought here for discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet to achieve consensus. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing it here and applying it without even waiting for 1 response is not consensus. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. All of these "merges" should be reverted until after this discussion has concluded. I do appreciate Habst starting a discussion on this topic, but only after consensus has been achieved should any wholesale changes be made. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dumping primary-sourced pseudobiographies of redirected/deleted athletes onto the pages for a country's performance at a particular Olympics directly conflicts with NPOV. JoelleJay (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from any of the football, baseball or cricket lists mentioned below? The article is dedicated to the athletes who participated for a particular country at the Olympics. When there's only, for example, one athlete competing at all, what else could possibly go in the country article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is really a argument that some of the country articles should be merged together to represent a larger set of Olympics, similar to how several of the early college football season articles were merged into a single article covering multiple seasons. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea, and a valid way to include content on Olympians we'd otherwise have nothing on. These "Country at Olympics" articles are often very bare-bones and lacking content. Including content relating to the athletes, who may not be notable themselves, is I think a good solution to both (i) addressing non-notable Olympians and (ii) adding content to the stubby County/Olympics articles. This isn't too different from how its done in e.g. football, baseball and cricket (although cricket includes a little less content). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the football list is an actual list of people rather than an article on one country's performance at one Olympics. Secondly, the biographical content in the "list of Southwestern Moundbuilders head coaches" is limited almost exclusively to the individual's coaching career at Southwestern. They do not have sportsperson infoboxes; they are not formatted to be like the first line of a biography (e.g. Frank Armin [dmy – dmy] was an American football coach...); and they for the most part do not include details that are not directly related to the subject's coaching at Southwestern. This is in stark contrast to the copy-pasting of deleted biographies into articles about a country's performance at one event that Habst has unilaterally undertaken against consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue here is that the content is not just about the Olympic performance, but is rather also including unrelated details and prose only sourced to primary sources, which is UNDUE to the topic of said articles. As such, I am strongly opposed to this proposal as it has been currently constructed. There are other details which can be included in these articles (information about the delegation as a whole, how the athletes qualified for the Olympics, etc) which will be WP:DUE. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Break in the discussion -- I am just getting back to this and did not expect this level of opposition. I always strive for consensus, which is why I posted this here and waited (it took several days before the first response) before creating just a few athlete sections.

It seems like User:LibStar only found this because I redirected an article that they had PRODed, and then LibStar pinged five other people (who pinged two others) who have been the exclusive people to comment so far.

Because of that, I think it's fair to ask, User:JoelleJay User:FOARP User:Let'srun User:Svartner User:Geschichte User:BeanieFan11 User:Clariniie, would it be OK with you if I ping all the members of WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Athletics (edit: note I added the WP Athletics link just after Let'srun responded) so we can achieve a consensus that isn't dominated by one person and the seven people subsequently pinged? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Let'srun (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 1/6: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 2/12 (switching to 25 at a time now): ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 3/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 4/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 5/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 6/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 7/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 8/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 9/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 10/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 11/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 12/12: ​​​​​​​​​​​​ --Habst (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Libstar - A) There's no community consensus for this, B) It sets the precedent that people can bypass AFD consensus by merging/creating sections at xxxx Olympic articles which is not okay. C) I don't see why we need information on someone who's clearly not notable and clearly hasn't contributed to the sport field enough to warrant mentioning. D) In years to come when "Bob" paticipates in the Eurovision song content as a complete career change ..... the sections then wont make any sense and would be outdated,

In short I see no valid reason as to why we need these merged sections which as I pointed above only creates more problems than it solves. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these aren't "clearly non-notable" though. E.g. one of the cases which has been argued about was someone who appears to be the most accomplished Libyan athlete ever (a fifth of all their medals ever in the history of the Arab Championships). We're also about to delete someone who was the first Olympian, first Olympic flagbearer, second Olympian and second Olympic flagbearer for Mauritania – someone who has the only medal at the African Championships for the country in any sport ever. Do you think those athletes who are extremely accomplished for their nation are not even worth discussing at all on this site? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in those AfDs, we have no suitable coverage of these athletes we can use to write about them, despite extensive searches for sources. It looks like Mauritania doesn't place any importance whatsoever in the Olympics, given that its modern newspapers don't even cover them, so Wikipedia should not be emphasizing aspects simply because a couple editors believe we can generalize how impressive Americans think their own modern Olympians are to the attitudes of every other country. JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Extensive searches for sources"??? What are you talking about?? In like 80% of these discussions not a single archive in that nation's history is being searched, and in the 20% that do have proper newspaper searches performed, the vast majority are kept. Its not that coverage doesn't exist, its that we don't have anyone looking for it, something compounded by the fact that LibStar et al. are nominating so many for deletion on a daily basis its impossible for me or Habst or anyone else to devote an appropriate amount of time to research them: instead we have in most cases two or three passer-by editors performing next-to-no search and just throwing up a "delete per above". And whether Mauritania covers the Olympics specifically isn't what matters: what matters is whether the cover sports at all, which they do. The mentioned subject's accomplishments are not limited to the Olympics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP went well beyond what is expected from BEFORE by searching a MENA database and The Historical Dictionary of Mauritania. That is an extensive search according to Wikipedia norms. And considering their media doesn't cover the Olympics, why would we expect them to cover minor sports in other championships? JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here to say that it is deeply unhelpful to repeatedly be told that no search was done, and when you search literally every database you can think of plus a few more that you didn't even know existed before you started, then be told that you didn't search far enough. The only conclusion is that this is just not worth investing that much time in. Do the basic WP:BEFORE search on Google and so-forth and then move on. If people want to do more, that's on them, but they cannot simply demand more searching whilst showing no intention of doing the further searching they are demanding themselves. Like, these people are literally demanding that offline databases that may not even exist be searched, with no actual reason to think the SIGCOV will necessarily be there beyond "trust me bro".

Is there a complete archive of Gaddafi-era Libyan newspapers, including local ones? If there is, what country is it in? Libya? The country which is still a literal warzone? The country which we *know* had media which tended to focus on reporting news about Gaddafi to almost the exclusion of anything else? But that's what these people were saying *had* to be searched!

It is just totally unrealistic to repeatedly demand that volunteer editors perform the kind of search that would cost hundreds or thousands of pounds, requiring days of time, with no expectation of success, just to save another stub that Lugnuts spent mere seconds creating.

Please get real and stop wasting people's time by demanding that kind of searching in every AFD. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So because LibStar/Let'srun pinged 7 people directly involved in the prior discussions where your attempts at this were opposed, you think it's appropriate for you to ping 300 editors instead of just leaving project talk page notifications?? JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, it was less than 300 editors, I've never attempted anything like this before so there was no prior opposition, and I already left a project talk page notification (we are on the relevant project talk page right now). I have always respected both your contributions and consensus and plan to continue doing that. --Habst (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness to Habst they pinged random people from Wikiproject:Olympics.... they've not pinged people who have supported their proposals in the past. Lets not make a mountain out of a molehill. –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar pinged only editors who have previously opposed Habst's efforts (i.e. canvassing). Habst pinged all editors whom this proposal effects (i.e. the range of Olympics contributors). There is nothing wrong with that, especially since others agreed with doing so. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One editor agreed to pinging Olympics project members. Habst waited all of 20 minutes before pinging hundreds of editors. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's wrong with that? It makes the discussion a whole lot more balanced to have a range of interested editors notified than to exclusively ping editors known to be in opposition to the proposal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say LibStar's pings were acceptable. But pinging hundreds of uninvolved editors is rarely acceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there was prior opposition, what are you talking about?? And it is not at all accepted practice to ping hundreds of uninvolved editors; talk page notifications should be enough. JoelleJay (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to respond to this I think there is some misunderstanding as I am genuinely confused about how there could be prior opposition to a new idea. I actually learned the syntax for doing hidden pings from you, coincidentally, because I had seen you do the same thing with a similar amount people at another discussion and copied your syntax as a reference. A talk page notification here was already made before the ping because we are currently on the most relevant project talk page. --Habst (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose, some of these articles will become glorified list of bios and too lengthy. I think perhaps in the prose of each sport section we can mention x athlete represented the country for the first time, and finished 8th or something similar. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Replying to Habst's ping. Using the von Lubowiecki example provided above to understand this change, I don't think converting stub articles into sections of other pages is helpful. Instead of clogging up summary pages of country participation at the Olympics with mini biographies of various athletes, why not flesh out the stub articles instead? In the example, the article is about Austria at the 1900 Olympics; the von Lubowiecki biography is mostly anecdotes about his participation in the event (in which case it would be more appropriate to include that information on the discus event page for the 1900 Olympics; indeed he's already mentioned there briefly), or other biographical information not relevant or related to the 1900 Olympics. I might not be opposed to general idea if implemented in a different way - perhaps instead of inserting each athlete bio in the middle of the summary of events, include them at the end so as not to impede the flow of reading, or have a separate page of "Olympic Athletes from Country XXX" whereby the mini bios can be included on that page without interfering with the presentation of information on the other pages. Reade (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the stub bios can't be fleshed out is because they're being nominated for deletion and deleted, even when in decent shape (see this as an example – it was deleted then userfied to allow me time to research further). BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Reade (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having a page with every Olympian athlete. If articles of current athletes are already being deleted simply because they don't have many accolades, then we should make a space where they can be found. A believe a collective space for Olympic athletes would help readers to find the information they are looking for quicker. Remember we may know how to find what we want quickly, but the average reader does not. Thank you for listening to this Wiki Rookie! Ooouah (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooouah, pages are being deleted due to failing the global consensus requiring sportsperson articles to cite a source of independent secondary reliable SIGCOV. So the issue with these pages isn't that they don't have enough accolades, it's that they don't have the requisite coverage to justify a standalone article. And the issue with this proposal is that it's inserting whole database-sourced biographies into pages about events, which is against our policy on basing large portions of content on primary sources. Furthermore, much of the material habst has been introducing has no relevance to the specific Olympics performances the page is about, violating UNDUE. JoelleJay (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean support I think there should be discussion on how to do it, but when I improved the Haiti at the 1936 Summer Olympics article, I included brief information about its only athlete - including that which is directly relevant to his participation. Something similar to that, which contextualizes who they are and how they've ended up at that Games, how they prepared, anything, I think is valuable coverage for the scope of [Country] at [Year] [Games] articles in general. I will always support that kind of inclusion - and it may be a better way of including biographical information on AfD'd stubs than by adding whole sub-sections for mini-bios that are formatted as standalone bio articles. I also see the suggestion above, for a 'List of Olympians' type listicle, which would presumably (like List of Characters in X) have main links for those with articles and a brief bio for those who do not. I also like this idea. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kingsif, it looks like you expanded that article with a lot of great info related to Ambroise's activities surrounding that Olympics. This is something that is already encouraged by PAGs. However, habst is trying to formalize bloating these pages with sections containing entire deleted biographies, sourced primarily or even entirely to stats databases, and including a lot of arbitrary stats-based info that has no relevance to that Olympics. JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I agree that dumping mini-bios, in a bio format, into these articles is not ideal, my !vote is as much a reaction to the rest of the discussion as the specific proposal. The overall idea of retaining what information we can for these athletes, at an article where such belongs, is one I support (my opening statement was that it certainly needs discussion, which I hope this project will proceed with), and it felt like the prevailing view above was almost "the bios were deleted get over it" - which I felt would close off any near-future discussion. Kingsif (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean oppose I was pinged too. Conceptually I like having a repository for information about any Olympian. I prefer a stub article rather than ganging it onto another page. And we should build in some structural integrity to such a stub article so it is not easily attacked and deleted with little notice, because unfortunately there is a cast of malicious editors who get their jollies out of deleting content. Initially I thought Habst had intended a link to the "nation at" article, which would be a good solution when we have absolutely nothing other than documentation of their participation. But when we have actual content, this is an interruption to the flow of a "nation at" article. Imagine if we had a team of 30 players and only a description of their game at the Olympics and nothing else. Each of those individuals could link to the article about the account of the game, that account could be housed in a 'nation at" article but probably more appropriately at the game within the tournament. If all we had was birth dates and death dates, that could fit into such a repository. So a "nation at" article would be a last resort over preferable other locations.Trackinfo (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is some weird undue coverage of content totally irrelevant to the topic. When reading about Austria's performance at the 1900 Olympics, I do not want a whole section giving a partial biography of the least notable person on the team. A description of Cornelius von Lubowiecki's actual participation could be included at Austria at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Athletics, but the fact that he set a personal best three years later has absolutely no place in this article. The fact that he's not notable enough for an article (and I absolutely maintain that mere participation, particularly in the early games, does not guarantee notability or the need for an article) does not mean that this guy who didn't even show up to his event has so much more prominence with his birth year and activity than any other athlete who did better at the 1900 games. Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with the above. If they are not notable enough for a standalone article, bad luck. But this should not be in those articles. Kante4 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where should the content be, then? If someone is the most accomplished athlete in the history of a nation, there should be content about them somewhere on this site. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tbh, i don't know. It just looks weird to scroll through the Austrian article linked above and then there is a segment about a competitor. And if that is done for every competitor that has no article, it gets "messy". Kante4 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about doing it in a note format, like this? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better for sure. Not sure how it would look if it was done for more competitors (could be getting quite big aswell at the bottom then). But like said better than having a whole infobox and an article there for one person (or more). Kante4 (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          Notes shouldn't be a dumping ground for primary-sourced irrelevant biographical details, either. That just bloats the page in a different way. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          Is explaining that, "before so-and-so competed for Libya at the Olympics, he also was a medalist at this major international tournament" really irrelevant though? I don't think so. Having a handful of brief notes at the bottom of the article isn't really "bloating the page". BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          If the only indication that that achievement is important in general, let alone important to understanding X Country's participation at Y Olympics, is its appearance in some database and an editor's assumption that it must be relevant, then it is in fact not DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          What are you saying is needed to indicate that an achievement is "important"? It is not difficult to connect that e.g. being the only medalist at an international tournament in any sport ever for a country is important for that country. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          It is absolutely difficult to make that connection when we have zero indication that it is considered important by that country, or that anyone has even characterized that achievement in such terms ("only medalist at an international tournament..."). And it is especially difficult to argue that that achievement is encyclopedically relevant to a page on a country's participation in another event. JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        • Footnotes are for details or clarification that are relevant but perhaps don't fit the flow of the paragraph. In the context of the 1980 article, this is totally irrelevant trivia about the person and absolutely inappropriate here, otherwise notes sections would be longer than the articles themselves to list other competitions they went to. Even just the birthdate like that is out of place. — Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being the "most accomplished" at something is not even close to being an inclusion criterion. These people are already mentioned in the list articles, they do not need to be covered more than that. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, that's why they don't automatically get kept. But they still should be covered to an extent somewhere on the site, and more than merely in a long list of other competitors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        No, they should not, because we do not have the appropriate sourcing to support that information nor is it BALASP. Leave it to the database sites. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        • Wikipedia is not made unbalanced by giving a small bit of content to people who are their countries' greatest athletes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          You continue to assume that "greatest athlete" is a meaningful distinction, or even a characterization made anywhere outside of your opinion, to anyone in those countries. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          Do you have anything to indicate that Africans do not care about sports or the top African sportspeople? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          What a bad-faith mischaracterization of my argument. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          If there's enough sources discussing them as being the greatest athletes, then they'd likely still have articles. Regardless, articles about a country's participation by year, if not WP as a whole, do indeed become unbalanced if they're stacked with information about certain individual athletes beyond their performance at those games. These kinds of articles are welcome to have more prose about how their athletes did in those respective sections in addition to tables, but they shouldn't become bogged down with extraneous things just for the sake of having biographical content about them. — Reywas92^Talk 18:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          This isn't a "small amount of text". LibStar (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          The vast majority of attempts to add content to Olympics articles have not been that size. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        Just because you think the information should be kept does not mean that it automatically should be. There are other places for that information to exist, and wikipedia is not everything. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        Throwing out "wikipedia is not everything" is not useful to this discussion. Why do you think the greatest athletes in countries' histories do not deserve to be mentioned anywhere on this site? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        Because no one has bothered to publish anything of substance about them and our only sources are database entries of their results! It's original research to call them "greatest". Sorry, but if they're not written about, then maybe they're not actually that great with respect to how Wikipedia works, and not every country is necessarily going to have many Wiki-notable athletes! Related to the African country with the footnote format you linked above, perhaps Sport in Libya should be expanded to mention its "greatest athletes", but putting non-Olympic biographical details into Olympics articles doesn't make sense to me. — Reywas92^Talk 04:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        No offense, but the attitude in your first sentence here strikes me as you're not particularly good at gathering sources. The article I mentioned above, Haiti at the 1936 Summer Olympics, had an informal deletion discussion in part because people were asking why the only competitor didn't compete and couldn't find any sources. Look now and you'll find news reports, a later interview, about it. Daniela Larreal was deemed too much of a stub to run at ITN RD initially, because of lack of sources - and only mentioned one Olympics participation, natch, as it was initially lazily mass-created during that Olympics - but now reflects that yes she was considered her nation's greatest Olympian until Rojas came along. If someone is good at finding sources, there will be something on pretty much every 21st century Olympian. And maybe not enough to sustain a whole bio, but enough to give some non-stat info somewhere. Kingsif (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        Oh I know how to do a literature review! But BeanieFan11 is speaking in generalizations and I responded in kind. And this discussion began with a link about the 1900 Olympics, not 2000. Anyone who wants to research and expand articles with relevant content is more than welcome to do, but again we shouldn't shoehorn non-Olympic biographical details into Olympics articles, regardless of how important that person actually is. Thematic articles should remain balanced and on-topic, regardless of the state of the bio articles. — Reywas92^Talk 13:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        If you do not search even a single source in the history of a nation, how do you know that coverage doesn't exist? Hint: you don't. In fact, in some of these discussions, we've actually had sources identifying subjects as some of the greatest, yet they still got deleted despite almost zero BEFORE done. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        You also don't know for sure if those sources actually exist. As they say, it is impossible to prove a negative. Let'srun (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        Sometimes a subject has such accomplishments that it only makes sense that coverage exists. But regardless, if you don't check even a single source in the history of a nation, how can you guarantee like Reywas92 that no sources exist? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        You can't prove a negative, even after checking native language sources. Let'srun (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I originally wasn't going to comment because to be honest I just get really tired of having these practically-identical discussions over and over. You can see that closers are just really tired of reading us discuss the same things over and over as well. I felt that the last thing anyone needed was yet another discussion from the same people on the same topic.

However I felt I had to come in to support Reywas92, who is not one of the Olympian AFD regulars as far as I know, when they really hit the nail on the head by saying "When reading about Austria's performance at the 1900 Olympics, I do not want a whole section giving a partial biography of the least notable person on the team." The proposal here is just to load down the COUNTRY at the YEAR Olympics articles with potentially dozens of partial biographies with no real relevance to the actual performance of that country at that Olympics.

I've also got to point out that this kind of merging has been discussed in the past as a solution to Lugnuts negligent mass-creation. At no point did it receive consensus, quite the opposite. Habst may be under the misimpression that this is something we as a community never considered, but we have considered it.

Finally, the information that people are proposing to merge is of indifferent reliability. Names, biographical details, cited to Olympedia (previously hosted on Sports-Reference.com, so these are the same source), a project largely run by amateur historians, should definitely not just be cited without any corroboration in any other source. The only information on there that is relatively high-confidence is the information about the performances at the Olympics, because it's typically taken directly from the official journal. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the logic until the last paragraph. Have you ever observed Olympedia to have gotten even one detail wrong on an athletics Olympian? Secondary sources are valuable when the only alternative is primary-sourced journals and we generally need reason to discredit a source. --Habst (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The times I've checked an athlete on Olympic.org (which should be a primary source) it's always matched that of Olympedia, but with further information on the latter page. Olympedia seems to be a very carefully sourced page to me.

I think information about individual athletes can be useful on pages of very small teams, like when there's a handful or less athletes in a squad, but I wouldn't want that sort of information clogging up the already large page of Sweden at the 2020 Summer Olympics for instance.

One alternative we could do is to make a separate article for athletes, and create say "Sweden's athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics" and include relevant biographies there if needed. -- Lejman (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m steadily collecting a list of Olympedia/Sports-reference-based articles with wrong death-date or wrong name. FOARP (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that list for reference (and keep in mind, this is just from a small subset of Olympians): [[2]]. While it should probably be discussed further at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I don't think that it is a reliable source. Let'srun (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that's a weak list. Frank English? They had a wrong date, and when it was pointed out, they quickly corrected it. Not familiar with Jacqueline Barasinski. Antoine Masson? Sports-Reference had the wrong name about seven years ago, and some years back it was corrected. Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly? "Dit" should have been lowercased, and that's it. Ahmed Moharran? Misspelled an "m" for an "n". Unfamiliar with Auguste Wagner. This is out of probably a million pages on the site. Its actually impressive it manages to have this few mistakes (and very minor ones at that) given how many subjects it is covering. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we haven't closely looked at every single one of their profiles. It is very possible, and statistically likely that there are more out there. Let'srun (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand, of the six errors listed at User:FOARP/Olympedia:

• Frank English: [3] lists a date of death of 11 Dec 1998, that's correct per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis English
• Jacqueline Barasinski: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Barasinski not an incorrect name, simply a married versus unmarried name.
• Antoine Masson: Not an Olympedia error, [4] has always said "Louis Masson" per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Masson (boxer)
• Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly, "BTW, Olympedia has the name as Coulibaly Yoyaga Dit Fatogoma, which is an acceptable version, not an error. Less wikilawyering would help these interminable discussions".
• Ahmed Moharran: One Wikipedian claims that the name should be "Ahmed Moharram", but the only source is an Arabic-language-only newspaper. It seems like there just is no common English transliteration for this person's name.
• Auguste Wagner: Name is listed as Auguste "Bib" Wagner at [5], this is the correct name per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustav Wagner (bobsledder)

I have a high standard for sourcing, but we have to find at least one error we can agree upon first. --Habst (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a better conversation for the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, IMO. Not agreeing or disagreeing with your analysis, but again I'll point out it is a small subset of athletes covered there. Let'srun (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympedia has made itself more transparent recently (effectively instituting something like our edit histories), perhaps to encourage trustworthiness. It’s also pretty easy to contact them - with those kind of editorial standards met, unless there’s frequent misinformation that doesn’t get retracted, it’s not an RSP/N case IMO, cases of errors would be something to discuss at article talk where relevant. Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst:

• Frank English was corrected after the AFD, based on our findings at the AFD. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source. Here's what it looked like prior to the AFD - as you can see it recites an incorrect death date of March 1984.
• Jacqueline Barasinski is still the incorrect name.
• has always said "Louis Masson"" - no, it hasn't.
• Olympedia had the name as Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly. "dit" is not an Ivorian name, it's to indicate that the following name is "so-called", and the name that Coulibaly is "so-called" is Fatogoma. "Yoyaga Dit Coulibaly" is just a name that has been cooked up through inattention and poor fact-checking, it is not a name that the person was ever known by or referred to.
• "It seems like there just is no common English transliteration for this person's name", you mean in other words the name they carry on Olympedia is incorrect.
• "Name is listed as Auguste "Bib" Wagner at, this is the correct name" - nobody ever concluded any such thing. What was shown were different sources using different names. The Olympic journal, which ought you be authoritative, says "Wagner, Gustav". It simply isn't clear what this guy's name actually is, or even if the sources are referring to the same person - which, by the way, is why it's deeply misguided to search primary sources and pull out biographical details about people who may simply share the same name.

@Kingsif - "Olympedia has made itself more transparent recently (effectively instituting something like our edit histories). Olympedia is a wiki-like source and we're clear on the reliability of such sources. FOARP (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it has an editorial team (Mallon and co), and they do oversee what original research gets put on the website. That's no different from news or other information-gathering websites. There were just requests for clarity on who/when info was changed, so Olympedia did that. Kingsif (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"news or other information-gathering websites" are not written primarily by amateurs. FOARP (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how Bill Mallon and other leading Olympic historians are "amateurs". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He’s a doctor by profession, and was a pro golfer. The others are even less qualified. FOARP (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's authored two dozen published books on the history of the Olympics, founded the International Society of Olympic Historians and has received the highest Olympic award for his efforts. If that's not sufficient for being an expert on the Olympics, then what and who posssibly is? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides this, my point was, it has an editorial process. It's not completely lawless or shadowy in its standards, so RSP/N wouldn't be the right venue and errors should be handled individually. Kingsif (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was under the impression that these were supposed to be current errors on Olympedia. For #1, #3, #6, they were fixed at some point in the last eight years so I don't see an issue with that. Please explain how #2 is an incorrect name, and how saying "dit" in a name is incorrect for #3.

For #4, what exactly do you expect them to do when there is no English transliteration available and the website requires a transliterated name? Just not put in any name at all? The current name they uses agrees with the official Olympic reports. Also, it's entirely possible there was a transliterated name but it's not in online sources.

Considering Olympedia uses the Olympic journal as a reference and not vice versa, the Olympic journal is definitionally more likely to have errors (see for example many of the poorly-transliterated Arabic names in the Journals) that are then fixed in Olympedia and #6 looks like one of these cases.

By the way, the Olympic journal is a primary source while Olympedia is often secondary. Secondary sources are very valuable for Olympics biographies. I'm thankful for your attempt to find errors in a valuable resource, but we have to be honest about the nature of these. --Habst (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympedia is owned by the IOC. It is a primary source. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst - 1) Olympedia is being continually updated by volunteer amateur historians. It is therefore a Wiki-like, work-in-progress source. 2) We can see that corrections were introduced right after the error was discovered here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a source. FOARP (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, but the sources discovered on Wikipedia can be used by others too ;) Kingsif (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any questions about Olympedia, you can always email me at bam 1729 bam at gmail dot com. I'm Bill Mallon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Mallon) and am one of the 3 founders of Olympedia. One of the others is deceased and the other is older and does not contribute much anymore.

Of note, Olympedia was bought by the IOC in 2016 but we have had a contentious relationship with them. They ended our contract in December 2023 so we no longer update Olympedia. We have a private site (www.olymadmen.com) that we update daily and has all the data from Paris 2024 and the 2024 YOWG, which Olympedia does not.

Our group has about 30 people in it now. Many of them are national experts for their various countries, and we represent about 15 different nations (I'm a Merkan).

We source everything very carefully and keep a history of all changes to the database so we can track them. Again, if you have questions about these, please contact me. Not sure if there are many, if any, who have more original sources than I do for Olympic data on their computer and in their library.

All our Olympic results are from original IOC or OCOG documents such as Official Reports and/or Official Results. However, for the early Games before computers, we have found a lot of new data not available to the IOC before they contracted with us. Possibly you have seen or heard of the series of 7 books I did on the results of the 1896-1920 Olympic Games, before Official Reports had any significant detail (except for 1908 and 1912).

As to Jacqueline Barasinski, that is the name by which she was entered in the 1968 Grenoble luge competition. Here is the listing in the Official Results (sorry, I can't get this to work - I don't do Wikipedia very much - I assure you that is how she is listed in the Official Results). She has since married and we have added her name in www.olymadmen.com but not in Olympedia as we don't edit that anymore.

As to whether or not we are amateurs, I get that all the time, although usually from academic sports historians. If anyone wants to know my history of working in Olympic history happy to provide it.

Again, just contact me if you have questions. Bambam1729 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chipping in here Bill. So you are no longer associated with Olympedia, which is no longer being updated (or anyway not by you and your team), and from 2016-2023 Olympedia was under contract with the IOC. This I think clarifies a few things. FOARP (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, I understand that you want to make a(nother, as it's been discussed twice before) WP:RSN discussion for Olympedia. Can you please make it sooner (i.e. this week) rather than later? I think it is a reliable source and there are thousands of Wikipedia articles already relying on it, and time is of the essence as there are many Olympic-related articles pertinent to this discussion being nominated for deletion. And when you make it, could you please ping all who replied to the Olympedia-related discussion here? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I think the indifferent reliability and lack of independence of this source is already established. We already decided that it doesn't count towards the notability of a topic in WP:NSPORTS2022. The "thousands of articles" are overwhelmingly the stub articles written by Lugnuts that have been widely condemned. You're free to start a discussion if you think otherwise. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly isn't per above discussion, where you are the only one who seems to think it is not reliable (edit correction: Let'srun also mentioned they think it is not reliable). Can you please make a WP:RSN thread on this topic this week then either way? --Habst (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIY. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think an RSN discussion for Olympedia is necessary because it's already been discussed at RSN twice before and never been challenged there.

But from your perspective, because you just said you think it's unreliable, I would want to bring it to RSN soon given its widespread use. So can you do that this week? --Habst (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't count towards notability, so whether it's reliable is irrelevant for deletion purposes. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, I have a lot of respect for your contributions so can we please try to use nuance here instead of sweeping statements? Of course, prose-based biographies written in reliable sources (as done for e.g. Michael Phelps and many others) can be notability-contributing even if they're on Olympedia.

Because you, FOARP, and Let'srun seem to think the source is either not reliable or non-contributory, can you please bring it up at RSN? Even though I do not think another RSN topic is necessary, trying to put myself in your shoes it's important and timely and widely used on Wikipedia. --Habst (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPS and non-independent sources do not count towards notability, you know this. The Olympedia link for Phelps supports the single primary database fact of his winning 28 medals, it doesn't even cite the prose biography.And can you please stop spamming that "I have a lot of respect for your contributions" line. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do have respect for you and it's important in these discussions even when they get heated. Olympedia is neither self-published nor non-independent with respect to e.g. Sanya Richards-Ross or Tirunesh Dibaba. These could of course be used to establish notability in some cases (regardless of how it's currently cited in the Michael Phelps article), which is why nuance is needed here.

If you think that Olympedia is either not reliable or never notability-contributing, can you please start a(nother) RSN discussion on this topic and ping those who commented on the Olympedia-related discussion here? --Habst (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mallon consulted for the IOC for decades and Olympedia is owned by the IOC, the site is clearly not an independent source on Olympic athletes. No one else here has an issue with this besides you. JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, reading the above, I can't find any consensus that prose-based biographies like that of Tirunesh Dibaba can't be notability-contributing (presuming that they are reliable and acknowledging that FOARP and Let'srun have said they think the site isn't reliable). Given that Olympedia and the one site editor you mentioned aren't even affiliated with the IOC any more, and there are over 100,000 Olympians who have no financial relationship with the Olympics, I really don't see what relationship Bill Mallon could possibly have with e.g. Tirunesh Dibaba. At the Kassie AfD last week I recall you argued that an Olympics.com news piece was not independent even when it was about a runner that had never even competed at the Olympics.

If you are so convinced that there are no notability-contributing bios on Olympedia, why not take it to RSN where that can be settled? I genuinely want closure on this issue as it is exhausting to re-hash the same arguments from the same couple of people over and over. --Habst (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are over 100,000 Olympians who have no financial relationship with the OlympicsNo point wasting my time with this one. JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. What do you think about making an RSN topic for Olympedia, then? --Habst (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already decided that it doesn't count towards the notability of a topic in WP:NSPORTS2022. – where, specifically, did we decide there that Olympedia is unusable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSPORT: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. Since Olympedia is basically just sport-reference.com's Olympics database this clearly already covers Olympedia. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is listings – if there's no prose on the Olympian in Olympedia then you're correct its not SIGCOV – if there is however in-depth discussion of the athlete there then it is SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It having some poorly-sourced verbiage added by a volunteer doesn’t change it being a listing. FOARP (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a "database listing" if it is in-depth prose added by sports historians (no, they're not a "poorly-sourced volunteer" effort...) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that we can now take something that an Olympedia contributor wrote - either of the two editors who have already chipped in on this page for example - and say "this is an authoritative, reliable source"? No? So why should that be any different when they are writing on Olympedia (or whatever site they have decamped too now)? FOARP (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that we can now take something that an Olympedia contributor wrote - either of the two editors who have already chipped in on this page for example - and say "this is an authoritative, reliable source"? – depends exactly what it is on, but if its on Olympians, I would say "yes". BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Bambam1729 and Topcardi can write a Wikipedia article, unsourced, and you'll vote keep on that? For real? FOARP (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were referring to them publishing content on sites outside of Wikipedia. Generally I don't think we should have editors writing unsourced Wikipedia articles even if they are experts, but if the subject is notable, I would still support keeping. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a transparent, published editorial review process (sending one's individual work off to the rest of the group to look over is not what "editing" means for the purposes of journalism), and we don't know who authored a given prose biography or whether it was edited. That's not sufficient to put this outside SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that the same content published by Sports Reference is SPS? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do they publish prose biographies? They are reliable for statistics, as they have multiple full-time employees dedicated to maintaining the databases, but AFAICT they have no editors or editorial process for prose so I would not consider such content non-SPS on there either. JoelleJay (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They published the same biographies as Olympedia. I still see zero reason to consider bios written by sports historians such as Mallon as unreliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mallon literally just told you on this very page that academic sports historians aren’t accepting of his work (”As to whether or not we are amateurs, I get that all the time, although usually from academic sports historians.”). If there’s no clear authorship, no clear editing process, no independence from the IOC, and the project is run by amateur historians little different (and at least sometimes identical to) Wikipedia editors, then we don’t need to discuss any further. FOARP (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

at least sometimes identical to) Wikipedia editors - eh, one guy is the crossover, and mostly just to tell people on WP when things are wrong. Mallon clearly made an account to explain stuff in this discussion.

Speaking of which, I would see no issue, based on that info, to note that Olympedia is not maintained and did not have editorial independence from the IOC after 2016 (around the time it tried to implement transparency, I think? Certainly during the IOC period). It is already not notability-establishing, but should be appropriate to source biographical facts, provided a pre-2016 link can be verified? Some sort of note along those lines, which should be uncontroversial per info from the horse's mouth as it was. Kingsif (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mallon literally just told you on this very page that academic sports historians aren’t accepting of his work ("”As to whether or not we are amateurs, I get that all the time, although usually from academic sports historians.”"). If there’s no clear authorship, no clear editing process, no independence from the IOC, and the project is run by amateur historians little different (and at least sometimes identical to) Wikipedia editors, then we don’t need to discuss any further. From FOARP

----------------------

Well, this has gotten silly. There seem to be 4 major areas of concern which I’ll address in order, then get off this treadmill.

1) Complaints that I’m not an academic sports historian

2) Complaints that I am not a professional editor

3) Project run by amateur historians

4) No clear editing process or sources in Olympedia/OMM

1) This complaint only comes up by academic sports historians who say I don’t have a PhD in history or sports history. I do, however, have a “doctorate” as an MD, and getting board certified as an orthopaedic surgeon takes a hell of a lot longer than getting a PhD. I was also a clinical professor of orthopaedic surgery at Duke University, a former President of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (2014-15), and long-time editor-in-chief of the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (2008-24).

In terms of sports history, I’ve published 30 books on the history of the Olympic Games with a few on other sports (golf, track & field, cycling) (and 4 orthopaedic textbooks). I was a co-founder of the International Society of Olympic Historians (ISOH) in 1991, and served as its second President (1996-2000. I received the Olympic Order in Silver from the IOC in 2001 for my work in Olympic history. In 2021 I received the Lifetime Achievement Award from ISOH for my work in founding that organization.

I have served as a consultant to the IOC in terms of Olympic history and statistics from 1997-2023. I have served as a consultant to several OCOGs: 1984 Los Angeles, 1996 Atlanta, 2000 Sydney, 2002 Salt Lake, 2004 Athens, 2012 London, 2018 PyeongChang, 2022 Beijing, and 2024 Paris. I have worked as a consultant to the USOC/USOPC since 2010, and have also attended 15 Olympic Games since 1976.

And yes, in sports, I did play on the PGA Tour from 1975-79 (prior to medical school) and made All-American status at Duke in my junior and senior years. (And by the way, my Wikipedia bio is way out of date, and has several errors.)

2) I would fully dispute this as few would have more editing credentials than I have, as follows: going way back, editor-in-chief of my high school yearbook (The Archon, Framingham North HS, Framingham, MA – 1968-69); editor-in-chief of FASTracks, the newsletter of FAST (Federation of American Statisticians of Track) (1984-92); medical editor, Golf Digest magazine (1987-2007); editor-in-chief, Citius Altius Fortius (now the Journal of Olympic History) (1991-96); North American associate editor, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (2003-08); editor-in-chief, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES) (2008-24); executive editor, JSES Family of Journals (2017-date) (we now have 5 journals). I think this qualifies me as a professional editor as I’ve been paid for my work as an editor since 1987.

3) Our group with Olympedia comprises about 30 people (we call ourselves the OlyMADMen [OMM]), several of whom are former Wikipedians. About 25 of us are members of ISOH, and stay up-to-date on the latest research, and we cover about 15 different countries. We have 1 former Olympian who is an expert in his sport, fencing. We also have experts in several other sports. Our group has written over 60 books on Olympic history, several by our German group (3 different authors). One of these by 2 of the German guys is the definitive history of the Olympic arts competitions. Others have written definitive histories of Hungary and Britain at the Olympics. We cover about 10 different languages fluently in the group, including Arabic, as one of our members is an academic in Arabic history. I doubt that the Wikipedian Olympic group can approach our background on the Olympics.

4) On the contrary, we have a detailed editing process for all aspects of Olympedia/OMM. There are 2 types of data update – 1) results updates, and 2) bio updates (names, dates, height/weight, etc).

For results updates (90% of which are done by me, things like doping re-allocations), these can be updated directly, but the system will not allow it to run if there are major errors detected. If minor errors are detected, the update can run but the system will alert us/me to those errors, which can then be corrected.

To do a bio update we require that it be submitted to the entire OMM group of 30 people before updating, and you are supposed to allow us 1 week to review it for any errors or omissions. You also must first run bio updates thru an update checker in our system that alerts you of any possible errors.

For text/prose/bio updates, we require that these are always sent to the entire group so all 30 of us can look at them and correct, or recommend correction of, any errors or omissions. After writing, and before being sent to the group, all our bios are edited by one other OMM member, and finally, I read and edit every final version of a text bio or event or national description that goes into Olympedia/OMM, so each bio has 2-3 edits, and 30 sets of eyes on it.

This is far more editing than on Wikipedia in which, to my knowledge, anyone can simply edit anything at any time.

As to sources, as I mentioned, we keep track of all sources and they are in the system, but only visible to the editors (OMM). It could be argued that we should make these visible to all users but for now we have not done that. Our bios also include 2 sections that are visible to non-editors, which are Research Notes and Errata, where we can add notes about controversial items.

It should be noted that, similar to your discussions, our group often has discussions about whether we should use Wikipedia as a source, and currently, the group is against that. There are 2-3 of the OMM who are vehemently opposed to using Wikipedia. FWIW, I am not one of those and have spoken out frequently that we should allow Wikipedia as a source, citing for the group the 2 (at least) academic studies that show Wikipedia is as reliable as Encyclopaedia Britannica. So far, that has been in vain.

One final note. In 2016 when the IOC selected Olympedia to be the official database of the IOC and Olympic history, the selection process came down to 4 choices – 1) Olympedia, 2) a Bulgarian group led by Mariya Bulatova, who has published several books on Olympic history, 3) Gennadi Marichev (Latvia), who has published a series of books on Olympic statistics, and 4) Wikipedia. The final decision by the IOC came back in that order.

As stated, I’ll sign out of this discussion but anyone can contact me if you have any questions. We can also provide private access to our current database (www.olymadmen.com) if anyone so desires, but it cannot be used as a direct source because of our former contract with the IOC. See ya. Bambam1729 (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Bill - I'd say don't worry, that people who bother looking into Olympedia understand your status as subject-matter experts and that there's been some editorial standards, but as you can see there are people who refuse to do so and make assumptions based on "if it looks like Wikipedia, it's the same as Wikipedia". Thanks for this, and perhaps you can copy it over to a user sub-page for future reference should it be needed.

I also reply to say that I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source - but you can look at the references our articles cite for that same information (I'm sure you know bibliography mining goes a long way in a lit review!) Kingsif (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's always been our ultimate decision. Take Wikipedia as a possibility, then look at the sources and decide if they are trustworthy and/or find additional evidence Topcardi (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not dismissive of this work and appreciate what it for what it is, I am concerned that per WP:CW, any source regularly citing wikipedia is not reliable and cannot be used to establish notability for any subject here. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He just said that they don't cite Wikipedia: It should be noted that, similar to your discussions, our group often has discussions about whether we should use Wikipedia as a source, and currently, the group is against that. ... FWIW, I am not one of those and have spoken out frequently that we should allow Wikipedia as a source ... So far, that has been in vain. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even the judgement that wikipedia is reliable gives me great concern. Let'srun (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is one editor who is 73 years old who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. There are many editors at major reliable newspapers that also don't know how Wikipedia works. As long as it doesn't affect their work, and we know in this case it hasn't, I don't see it as an issue. --Habst (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a tertiary source, in any event, on par with Citizendium. Let'srun (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all on par because Citizendium is a WP:UGC wiki that anyone can edit, while Olympedia is a site with analysis that only qualified experts can add to. The Olympedia bios can sometimes be secondary i.e. analysis from primary-sourced materials. --Habst (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympedia is actually Sports Reference/Olympics plus eight years additions, corrections and fine tuning. Yes, I admit I was one of the Olympedia team too. Topcardi (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created a template to automatically calculate the total number of medals (gold, silver, bronze, total), highlight the highest number of each color in bold, and make the header sticky at the top of the screen when scrolling. The style is retained as before with additional options such as displaying the Olympic Games flags and dual rankings of gold and total (like the USA).

I personally believe it has an advantage, since many edits occur during the games without updating the total row, so it could save some maintenance.

Example of an excerpt from Germany at the Olympics records with setting host for 1936 Olympics.
(also full examples for the Medals in Summer of Germany and United States an be seen here: User:Miria~01/sandbox3)

{{Medals table country
| country = Germany
| season = summer

| row1_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1896}}| row1_athletes = 19 | row1_gold = 6 | row1_silver = 5 | row1_bronze = 2 | row1_rank = 3
| row2_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1920}}| row2_participation = ''did not participate''
| row7_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1924}}| row7_participation = ''did not participate''
| row10_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1936}}| row10_athletes = 433 | row10_gold = 33 | row10_silver = 26 | row10_bronze = 30 | row10_rank= 1 | row10_host = yes 
| row13_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1956}}| row13_participation = ''as the {{flagIOCteam|EUA}}''
| row14_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1960}}| row14_participation = ''as the {{flagIOCteam|EUA}}''
| row30_games = {{GamesName|SOG|2024}}| row30_athletes = 428 | row30_gold = 12 | row30_silver = 13 
| row30_bronze = 8 | row30_rank = 10
| row31_games = {{GamesName|SOG|2028}}| row31_participation = ''future event''
| row32_games = {{GamesName|SOG|2032}}| row32_participation = ''future event''
}}

{{Medals table country
| country = Germany
| season = summer
| show_dual_ranks = yes
| show_games_flag = yes

| row1_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1896}} | row1_athletes = 19 | row1_gold = 6 | row1_silver = 5 | row1_bronze = 2 
| row1_rank = 3 | row1_medal_rank = 3
| row6_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1920}} | row6_participation = ''did not participate''
| row7_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1924}} | row7_participation = ''did not participate''
| row10_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1936}} | row10_athletes = 433 | row10_gold = 33 | row10_silver = 26 | row10_bronze = 30
| row10_rank = 1 | row10_medal_rank = 1 | row10_host = yes
| row13_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1956}} | row13_participation = ''as the {{flagIOCteam|EUA}}''
| row14_games = {{GamesName|SOG|1960}} | row14_participation = ''as the {{flagIOCteam|EUA}}''
| row30_games = {{GamesName|SOG|2024}} | row30_athletes = 428 | row30_gold = 12 | row30_silver = 13 | row30_bronze = 8 
| row30_rank = 10 | row30_medal_rank = 9
| row31_games = {{GamesName|SOG|2028}} | row31_participation = ''future event''
| row32_games = {{GamesName|SOG|2032}} | row32_participation = ''future event''
}}

Miria~01 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks neat and could potentially help a bit with maintenance. Although you will always have to remember to update the rankings in the summary row. Nimrodbr (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Good idea, I hadn't even thought of that. I've now changed the code so that they are extracted automatically from Module:Olympic ranking/data. So the parameters total_rank and total_total_rank are superfluous. Only the data module would need to be updated after each Olympic Games, but this can be quickly handled with a simple Excel spreadsheet. Miria~01 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're still working on it, but please make sure when things go live that you're not transcluding sandboxes. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed that now, as all options should be included now. I have now compared the current medal tables of the USA, Germany and India (summer in each case) with the template (see User:Miria~01/sandbox3 for test cases). And you can see that in the Wikipedia article for Germany, the total for silver and bronze is incorrect (the total row hasn't been updated). Or that India's ranking hasn't been updated either.Miria~01 (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small point: "medals" is not a proper noun, and a line-break does not prompt capitalization, so it should be:

Gold

medals

and

Total

medals

I also suggest changing parameter names from total_rank to total_gold_rank and total_medal_rank.

Heck, maybe even the heading for these columns need to change, because they're not clear at first sight.

"Gold medal rank" and "Total medal rank", maybe? HandsomeFella (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the parameters (alltime_medal_rank, alltime_gold_rank, etc.) because readability indeed did suffer. Regarding the header, I looked at United States at the Olympics and wasn't impressed either (so I added the abbreviation explanation). I've added the abbreviation explanation, but if it needs to be changed, feel free to do so. Miria~01 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medals table country is now released and ready for use. Some otpions are added like:

• most athletes in bold
• labels can freely be added
• participation-only-row (as it is in India)
• All-time ranking (summer/winter) is is automatically included at the bottom

To the optimized code, the documentation, sandbox, and test cases have also been created. If no objections arise in the near time, I will slowly add this to the first few articles and and hope others later do the same. Here's a complete example for Norway (Winter Games) with a fantasy participation-only-row in the last row for illustration:

{{Medals table country
| country = Norway
| season = winter
| show_games_flag = yes

| row1_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1924}} | row1_athletes = 14 | row1_gold = 4 | row1_silver = 7 | row1_bronze = 6 | row1_rank = 1
| row2_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1928}} | row2_athletes = 25 | row2_gold = 6 | row2_silver = 4 | row2_bronze = 5 | row2_rank = 1
| row3_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1932}} | row3_athletes = 19 | row3_gold = 3 | row3_silver = 4 | row3_bronze = 3 | row3_rank = 2
| row4_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1936}} | row4_athletes = 31 | row4_gold = 7 | row4_silver = 5 | row4_bronze = 3 | row4_rank = 1
| row5_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1948}} | row5_athletes = 49 | row5_gold = 4 | row5_silver = 3 | row5_bronze = 3 | row5_rank = 1
| row6_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1952}} | row6_athletes = 73 | row6_gold = 7 | row6_silver = 3 | row6_bronze = 6 | row6_rank = 1
| row6_host = yes
| row7_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1956}} | row7_athletes = 45 | row7_gold = 2 | row7_silver = 1 | row7_bronze = 1 | row7_rank = 7
| row8_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1960}} | row8_athletes = 29 | row8_gold = 3 | row8_silver = 3 | row8_bronze = 0 | row8_rank = 4
| row9_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1964}} | row9_athletes = 58 | row9_gold = 3 | row9_silver = 6 | row9_bronze = 6 | row9_rank = 3
| row10_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1968}} | row10_athletes = 65 | row10_gold = 6 | row10_silver = 6 | row10_bronze = 2 | row10_rank = 1
| row11_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1972}} | row11_athletes = 67 | row11_gold = 2 | row11_silver = 5 | row11_bronze = 5 | row11_rank = 7
| row12_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1976}} | row12_athletes = 42 | row12_gold = 3 | row12_silver = 3 | row12_bronze = 1 | row12_rank = 4
| row13_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1980}} | row13_athletes = 64 | row13_gold = 1 | row13_silver = 3 | row13_bronze = 6 | row13_rank = 8
| row14_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1984}} | row14_athletes = 58 | row14_gold = 3 | row14_silver = 2 | row14_bronze = 4 | row14_rank = 6
| row15_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1988}} | row15_athletes = 63 | row15_gold = 0 | row15_silver = 3 | row15_bronze = 2 | row15_rank = 12
| row16_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1992}} | row16_athletes = 80 | row16_gold = 9 | row16_silver = 6 | row16_bronze = 5 | row16_rank = 3
| row17_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1994}} | row17_athletes = 88 | row17_gold = 10 | row17_silver = 11 | row17_bronze = 5 | row17_rank = 2
| row17_host = yes
| row18_games = {{GamesName|WOG|1998}} | row18_athletes = 76 | row18_gold = 10 | row18_silver = 10 | row18_bronze = 5 | row18_rank = 2
| row19_games = {{GamesName|WOG|2002}} | row19_athletes = 77 | row19_gold = 13 | row19_silver = 5 | row19_bronze = 7 | row19_rank = 1
| row20_games = {{GamesName|WOG|2006}} | row20_athletes = 69 | row20_gold = 2 | row20_silver = 8 | row20_bronze = 9 | row20_rank = 13
| row21_games = {{GamesName|WOG|2010}} | row21_athletes = 99 | row21_gold = 9 | row21_silver = 8 | row21_bronze = 6 | row21_rank = 4
| row22_games = {{GamesName|WOG|2014}} | row22_athletes = 134 | row22_gold = 11 | row22_silver = 6 | row22_bronze = 9 | row22_rank = 1
| row23_games = {{GamesName|WOG|2018}} | row23_athletes = 109 {{ref label|2018|a|a}} | row23_gold = 14 | row23_silver = 14 | row23_bronze = 11 | row23_rank = 1
| row24_games = {{GamesName|WOG|2022}} | row24_athletes = 84 | row24_gold = 16 | row24_silver = 8 {{ref label|2022|b|b}} | row24_bronze = 13 | row24_rank = 1
| row25_games = {{GamesName|WOG|2026}} | row25_participation = ''future event''
| row26_games = {{GamesName|WOG|2030}} | row26_participation = ''future event''
| row27_games = {{GamesName|WOG|2034}} | row27_participation = ''future event''
| row28_games = note | row28_participation = ''planned participation as {{flag|Kalmar Union}} from 2036''
}}
*{{note label|2018|a|a}}Notes can be added without restrictions (for illustration).
*{{note label|2022|b|b}}Notes can be added without restrictions (for illustration).

• ^a Notes can be added without restrictions (for illustration).
• ^b Notes can be added without restrictions (for illustration).

Miria~01 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football § Football at the 1896 Summer Olympics, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the list stop at archive 20? There are now 21 archives for this talk page. And archive 20 starts in Dec 2022 and ends in May of 2024. I couldn't figure out the errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one has edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/header with the new archive label. I personally have never found this sort of manually-updated list to be useful, so I changed it to use the dynamic {{archives}}. Anyone is welcome to revert me to start a discussion, but it should keep the archive list updated as new ones are created. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I recently created the draft Draft:List of New Zealander tennis players at the Summer Olympics, after my other draft, the List of Canadian tennis players at the Summer Olympics was approved to be an article, but I noticed it is quite difficult to getter all of the information and sources I need to make this new draft complete. I would like to know if anyone here can help me with this Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the articles with the respective events of the Olympic Games for the specific year, there are unfortunately no links for the overview of the sports discipline. For example Gymnastics at the 2024 Summer Olympics has no link to Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics. There is a navigation bar in the desktop version at the bottom, but not in the mobile version (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnastics_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics).

My suggestion would be to include the link in the respective infobox. Of course, something like this would have to be solved with a bot, if possible, since it affects thousands of articles.

Miria~01 (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to link to the sport in the infobox then it would be better to hardcode it into {{Infobox Olympic event}} directly, with a #switch statement to give a linked output for a given |event= input. This will standardise the output and avoid people doing weird things. Granted, they might already be doing weird things, but your statement seems to imply that there are no articles that use a wikilink inside |event=. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed/remembered that this was requested last year at Template talk:Infobox Olympic event § Wikilink event; if no one objects in the next few hours I'll see about implementing it. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be the better solution. Just for your information, only a few team sports at the Olympics use different templates for their infoboxes (but not consistently across all games). I ran a pet scan of the respective infoboxes with articles ending with "Olympics", so e.g. Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament using {{Infobox international football competition}} is not considered in the search in contrast to Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics, which uses {{Infobox Olympic event}}.

• PetScan *Olympics: {{Infobox international football competition}}: 1900-1992
• PetScan *Olympics: {{Infobox basketball tournament at games}}: 1936-2016
• PetSccn *Olympics: {{Infobox Volleyball Olympic tourney}}: 7 times (not consecutively)
• PetScan *Olympics: {{Infobox international ice hockey competition}}: 1924-1994
• PetScan *Olympics: {{Infobox International Handball Competition}}: all from 1936 / 1972--2024
• PetScan *Olympics: {{Infobox Olympic water polo tournament}}: 1996-2020
• PetScan *Olympics: {{Infobox field hockey}}: only 1964

Since it these are only isolated cases, they can be left out for now.

A positive example, however, is the tennis infobox used at the Olympics, which has a link for the whole discipline.

• PetScan *Olympics: {{Infobox tennis tournament year}}: 21 results, e.g.

Miria~01 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, putting this out there for community feedback. I came across this merge in Amadou Sy Savané. Personally, I think it's too much material to merge all that content from one athlete profile to another. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @GreenLipstickLesbian, who made this merge. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @LibStar, yes I too think merging all the content would be too much, which is why I only moved the parts that looked most important (which totaled to about 100 words), with an emphasis on material that supported the categories on the redirect for BLP reasons. Anyways, I think it's a reasonable amount of information to have on somebody's direct relative (you can often find that much on important siblings in non-sportsy bios), at least as a starting point until somebody more interested in the subject that myself comes along and trims to the actual most important bits. Personally, I despise the Olympics and have refused to watch them in over 10 years, so in addition to not being the best at fine tuning, I'm afraid I didn't have the interest to go any further. Feel free to edit the article yourself, however. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And before anybody asks why I was editing the page, given my disdain for the topic area - Behold, this 10k ish word discussion. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4