Talk:2006 Winter Olympics/Archive 1

Olympic medal record
sport-1
sport-2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Number of athletes

Are ice hockey players included in Number of athletes? One team may have up 20 players, which can be seen much in the total ranking of athletes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.7.139 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Note: I looked through other articles to find the style for this kind of articles. I am only failing this on style issues, if you can/wish to argue your reasons on style, then please do so. If I can appreciate your reasons then I'll happily award this article GA status. This was a very difficult choice, but I'm tempoarily failing this because I'm not knowledgable of Olympic style guide, the articles I did read seem stronger.

Reccommendations:

Expand intro, the others seemed stronger
Move sections that are in paragraphs (an exmaple of these is "Host selection process") to the top of the article, below the lists
Move the portal link to the very top of the article (compare with the link in Pokémon and Africa)
Put the external links at the very bottom, swapping it with references is somewhat confusing
I WOULD prose the "Highlights" rather than insane amounts of listing
Expand information on the opening ceremony with pictures, it was AMAZING, tell us about it!

It's still a very good article, please reply to me, I WANT to pass this but I need response! Many thanks, Highway 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Medal Count Placement

I think the medal count should be placed a little earlier in the article while it is still a current event, and then move it back down once it is a historic event. It would read better as a news item. I know the medal count is the first thing I look for when I come to this page.Epachamo 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The standard of sorting the table strictly by Gold Medal count is a poor one. It essentially obviates the efforts and contributions of every Silver and Bronze medal winner of the games. The most equitable method is simply to rank by total medal count, deciding ties by individual medal counts. If this doesn't seem to grant enough credit to winning an event, a weight system should be applied, for example, 3 pts for a gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze. Either of these methods is preferable by benefit of being fairer both to the countries AND to the atheletes themselves. 216.240.7.149 05:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That aint a question of personal opinion. It is standard to count the one with most gold medals first, in case of same ammount the one with more silver medals is placed higher and - matter the case gold and silver medals are equal - number of bronze medals decides who wins. That is the historical medal count standard in all sports since 1570 or somethin. All nations know that, so if they want to be ranked in higher positions - go for gold medals instead of silver and bronze. This method has 2 benefits, first is that it is standard since ever (never change a running system), second is that the chance of equal ranked nations in higher positions is very low. But feel free to make your 3-2-1 system on your own.

Yes, by that standard Canada should show in 3rd place, not 5th. I know this is the official method used by the IOC but it makes no sense. A team that one only one gold medal would rank ahead of a team which won numerous silver and bronzes, though no golds. Isn't total medal count preferable?

New Nation

I've added Kazakhstan to the nations list as they appear on the Ice Hockey qualification article. dok 11:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Flags?

Anyone feel that national flags should be entered on the Nations list ? doktorb 10:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

uh,,,does it bother you?-bskel

What do you mean????

 Newsflash930Newsflash930

Olympic Games Project

Just a note to let you know that on it.wiki we are carrying on a collaboration to create/improve as many entries as we can on the subjects related to the 2006 Winter Olympics, such as:

Athletes
Winter sports and Olympic history
History and culture of Turin and the other Olympic venues

Several of the articles are not present on en.wiki yet. If you want to translate some or are otherwise interested in the project, you can find here the to-do list and the collaboration status.
Cheers, Andrea.gf 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team?

Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics --Mais oui! 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What about "United Kingdom"? gbnogkfs 12:55 4 february 2006 (UT)

I think "United Kingdom" would sugggest England, Scotland and Ireland as a whole; that's what it originally meant. Of course, times have changed and we all know how well the Republic of Ireland would take that distinction... 65.92.144.76 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to anybody who's been paying attention for the past 80 years. It's been the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for that length of time, and perfectly well publicised as such. Average Earthman 17:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The UK of GB and NI has typically not used "United Kingdom" in Olympic competition, preferring "Great Britain". Reference in the official to Ireland (entirety at first, northern part later) is debatable, but seems (as per evidence provided in the CfD Mais oui! (talk · contribs) mentions above) to no longer be included. The IOC's official website, [1], uses "Great Britain". -- Jonel | Speak 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it reads awfully: United States beats Great Britain and Northern Ireland sounds more impressive, like it was 2 on 1. -Acjelen 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On the UK uniform it just says GREAT BRITAIN, as seen worn by the curlers. --Kvasir 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The debate isnot on the official name of countries. For the IOC, the relevant unit is not the country but the National Olympic Comity, that federates sports associations running under the same banner inthe same team. It's been long now that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland share a common team, just named Ireland, or a common championship, in several sports (including football, named soccer in US, or rugby). This de facto union of sport federations and associations is translated in the Irish NOC. So UK runs with two teams: Ireland and Great Britain.

In Northern Ireland (named Ulster by British unionists), some sport federations are affiliated with Britain, others are affiliated with Ireland (keeping a long tradition that predates the independance of the Republic of Ireland from the United Kindom). You should also know that even in Britain only, some federations are not unified : there are separate teams for England, Wales and Scotland, considered separate nations (notably in rugby, a major sport there, where also Ireland is a single competing nation). User:verdy_p 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)~

Note - Northern Ireland is a separate football team to the Republic of Ireland. I suspect the above commenter was thinking of Rugby, for which there is only an Ireland team. Average Earthman 19:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

œ== Olympic bookmarks ==

I have added additional websites with Olympic news, if that's okay. Feel welcome to add any other websites, even from other countries, that have Olympic news.--PsychoJason 23:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

only if the news is in english in my opinion, else they should be added to other languages wiki articles on the 2006 games. Boneyard 14:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Extra-Pixel even a news site? Also, I think the US Olympic Team website does contain news...so I would keep it there.--PsychoJason 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 to get in the olympics it is a  lot of work and training but you can alwasy  get in it for confidenence and  trying you  best

Biathlon<33

2006 winter olympics

and you were about to say!!!. what exactly? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei

To User:Doktorbuk: why did you remove Chinese Taipei? They're right there on the official site. [2] -- ran (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Torino2006 site is very out of date. There are a lot of athletes that didn't qualify for the Olympics. For example, the Jamaica bosleigh team and the Mexican bobsleigh team are both listed as competitors and neither made it to the Olympics. Sue Anne 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ran, I think Sue is correct on this. The official site seems to have some anomolies and out of date info. As far as I am aware, the first posting of countries omitted Chinese Taipei. Maybe we'll only know at the opening ceremony..? doktorb | words 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct. It seems that the most accurate and up-to-date information site is Eurosport (European cable/satellite TV channel that officially covers the event, and has the most complete statistics, list of competitors, results with points and timings). Anyway, Tapei really has one competitor, even if it did not qualify to finals... Verdy P 15:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Results

Well the olympics are starting this week so I think we should decide how to put up results. My suggestion is to create a new page called "2006 Winter Olympics: Results". But I am open to other ideas. Any suggestions???? Flying Canuck 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Under the sports/events header on the main page there are links to pages like Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics and so forth. I think those pages are perfectly suited for putting up results - along with Current sports events for the medals. There should also pages for each nation taking part (or should be, once torino06 gets the official list of competing athletes up. This is also consistent with the other Olympics. Sam Vimes 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on getting the pages for all the individual countries up. My goal is to have them all done by the 10th. That will make it easy to put up the results. Sue Anne 02:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Participating NOC List

Is there any reason why we are not linking to the "X Country at 2006 Winter Olympics" pages directly from this list and instead having people than click on the link for "Further information: 2006 Winter Olympics (Participating Nations)"???

This doesn't make any sense to me. Are there any objections to me linking directly from this list as I create the country pages?

Sue Anne 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed that (though the way my classes are going right now, I'm not even sure if I'll have any time to *watch the frigging Games*). Link directly, have the extraneous "Participating Nations" page redirect to the main article. -- Jonel | Speak 05:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I made that decision, and did so because I think the 2002 Olympics page has something similar. I felt having a separate page would allow for the extension of results pages by continent etc., without making this "main page" over long. It gives the opportunity for a separation of the two elements of the games - the competition on one main page, the nations on another. I'd prefer the status quo, I think it does serve a purpose. doktorb | words 07:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the 2002 Winter Olympics page is a good representation. If you look at the 2002 Winter Olympics (Participating Nations) page, there are 3 blue links to 80+ red links. In that case, it wouldn't look good to have red links all over the front page. A better comparison is to look at 2004 Olympics, where the articles about the various countries link directly from the main page. Thats' the level of work that is hopefully going to be done on the 2006 page. I'm through the C's in setting up the pages for the countries and if not done by Friday, there will be individual nation pages for everyone by the end of the weekend.

To address your continents idea, I feel that should be done via categories. We have the "Nations at ..." categories and those can be subbed. Sue Anne 08:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sue. If you go to the current separate page for the participating nations, then "edit this page", you'll see the 'hidden' templates are already there for drilling down the results further. These are there to be worked on as the results come in and be analysed. I know why you'd prefer the main page to be the conduit for all information, but I can't help but feel a preference for a separate nations article.. doktorb | words 11:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see 2004_Summer_Olympics#Nations. Having a separate page just duplicates the section in the main article. -- Jonel | Speak 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same. There should be links to the nation articles (eg Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics) on the main olympic page, and not on its own separate page. Since we are going to list the participating NOCs anyways. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the same issue, and think the country articles (e.g. Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics) should be linked from the article, rather than linking to Canada. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Official list of countries can be found here (pdf file). I'm now removing the ones that are not on that list. Sam Vimes 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Added Costa Rica, removed Morocco, Pakistan and Peru. Hopefully it's official now. Sam Vimes 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The list denotes the number of athletes each country has participating, which can be a bit deceiving. Some of the events, such as hockey, have a large contingent that other countries have not participated in. I would like to suggest that the table also show the number of sports events each country is competing for. HJKeats 18:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, except getting information is difficult. Many athletes are competing in multiple events.

And for the last time,

Cameroon and

Puerto Rico ARE NOT in the Games! Pleas check your source! --Kvasir 18:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Olympic Medal Templates

I just wanted to let everyone know that we've got a new set of templates for an olympic medalist. You can find the description at Template Talk:MedalTop. It's a very different type of template - it was created in a way that avoided the use of meta-templates. The olympic box can be called as follows:

 {{MedalTop}}
 {{MedalSport|sport-1}}
 {{MedalGold|year-1|event-1}}
 {{MedalSilver|year-2|event-2}}
 {{MedalSport|sport-2}}
 {{MedalBronze|year-3|event-3}}
 {{MedalBottom}}

I'm slowly getting through all historic olympians. But with the Winter Olympics coming up, there's an opportunity to get some of the current ones done. So please, if you are adding a new olympian who has at least one medal, make sure to use this template. Thanks! tiZom_{(the man)} 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there is also a {{MedalDisqualified}} template. Please only use this if an olympian was stripped of his/her medal due to use of banned drugs. Thanks. tiZom_{(the man)} 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Database Olympics is a great site for fact checking medal winners from previous Olympics. The IOC page is good too for fact checking to see if a medallist has received a medal previously. Sue Anne 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that IOC page is a good resource. In case anyone needs it, go here. tiZom_{(the man)} 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this template should include the de Coubertin medal, where appropriate. Average Earthman 16:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Added. See Template talk:MedalTop tiZom_(2¢) 18:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

External links need trimming

The external links section is very long, and I think should be cut back to just the first three official sites:

Official Website - In Italian, English and French
International Olympic Commitee's Turin Page
City of Turin - In Italian, English, French, Spanish and German

and:

Open Directory category

I don't think this is the place to list all the news websites, as what do we include or not? the list of news sites is certainly going to get way longer if we leave it in. This is much more true for the list of blogs. Wikipedia is not a link directory, and this just invites spam.

Any thoughts? disagreements? Otherwise, I'll come back later today and trim the links section. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the list of blogs, but not about the list of news sites. I think the list is a farily comprehensive list of the major news outlets' Olympic coverage, and definitely has its place. Sue Anne 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what's Extra-Pixel? and all the listed news sites are American and Canadian. Should we add European, Australian, other news sites? Maybe these news sites should go on the country-specific olympic pages (e.g. Canada_at_the_2006_Winter_Olympics), and not all here. Maybe just keep NBC sports, CBC, and BBC sports here, since I know these are televising the olympics in the respective countries? -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

KMF> I think keeping NBC, CBC and BBC is a good way to trim the list. Sue Anne 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I just removed the blogs. What about the photo sites? Since this article will be linked from the main page tomorrow, it's good to get the links under control (I'll be watching these pages). -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos from Torino

User:Ary29 posted the following on Village Pump. I asked for his permission to duplicate the message here.

Ciao everybody :-) I would like to inform you that we posted instructions on both Italian Wikipedia and Wikinews to upload all personal photos of Torino 2006 Olympics directly on Commons, under a free license and with the Commons:Category:2006 Winter Olympics in the summary. Contributions from all other photographers (or spectators/participants with a camera :-) are of course very welcome! Grazie :-) Ary29 13:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sue Anne 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos on commons would be great. I just found one on itwiki of a venue, copied it to commons (GFDL) and put it on enwiki. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Organization and construction

As the Olympics begin, I think the focus of the article will shift towards the actual events, rather than "organization and construction" and "olympic problems". I suggest maybe we split these sections off into a new article, leaving smaller summaries here. Any thoughts? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Most of the actual event information will go on the appropriate sport and nation pages. It's not a super long article, so I think leaving it all in one is a good thing. Sue Anne 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

At least it could be summarized more nicely. "Among the most important sporting facilities that will be used..." mentioned in the "construction" section seems to duplicate what's in the "venues" section.

And the subway is mentioned twice. In the construction section, it says "the Turin subway (VAL system), that for the Olympic games will connect Collegno to the railway station of Porta Susa;" And then, in the "Olympic problems" section, it says the subway opened on Feb. 4th, but to fewer stations. Does that mean that "for the Olympic games will connect Collegno to the railway station of Porta Susa" is still true? and, now it shouldn't be "will connect". -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it could use a bit of a cleanup and remove the remove the redundancy, but that's not a reason to split the article. Sue Anne 18:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

Since much of the world, especially the United States, may be watching the Olympics on tape delay, should we put something similar to Template:Spoiler or Template:Magic-spoiler before the events section? It could read something like:

Spoiler warning: The following section contains the results of events that may not have aired on television in your area due to tape delay. If you do not wish to know the results, you may wish to skip this section.

Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I'm sure a number of people will come across this and won't want the results spoiled for them. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added the spoiler warning for now, but welcome other people's comments/suggestions. I have also posted at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning to see if editors more experienced in the matter think I should use an already existing template. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be possible to add show/hide:

Olympics results

Though, I think we would want the results showing by default. I'll could look in how to do that, if you like the idea of adding "show"/"hide". -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

While this would do the trick, I have a feeling it would definately fall under Wikipedia:Spoiler warning#Unacceptable alternatives. Spoiler tags are generally the procedure for Wikipedia articles, and we should probably stick to that. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've moved the "results" to later in the article. This is different than 2004 Summer Olympics, but just seems a more logical ordering for the sections. As well, people will have to scroll down (they don't have to) to see the results. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the standard spoiler warning. It is common practive on Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the tape delay article talks about the 5-second-delay used to televize some live events as a means of censorship, not to timeshift events that are occuring in a different time zone. I changed it to link to Time shifting, but that's still not quite what we're looking for. Squigish 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

indeed, the tape delay link is pretty pointless like this, i don't see the problem with having a few seconds delay, you would have to be constantly refreshing wiki while watching an important even almost live. just remove that remark or make it clearer please. Boneyard 11:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh???? Don't you thinkthat the "5-seconds delay" is justthe result of physical limitation (delay for the signal to go to asatellite andthencome back to earth? Whever you're located in Europe or in US, you'll experiment this delay on any TV channel, even if you receive it from terrestrial transmittor, because these transmitors are feeded by signal coming from satellite, 36 000 km above you on the equator: This means at least 72 000 km for the signal to reach you. Then add the encoding/decoding processing times and the natural delay needed to build the data autocorrection signal for high quality reception (which requires a time shift), you'll easily reach several seconds...

Also add the delay introducedby TV framing standard concersion (US uses 60Hz frames within a smaller 6MHz channel of lower color and sound quality in NTSC than the 50Hz frames used elsewhere within a 8MHz of much better color and sound quality in PAL or SECAM. Over the satellite, the sound and color quality may be preserved, but your receptor by air will nothave it, unless you are using a digital decoder, and your TV set can natively support a 50Hz PAL signal,without the insertion of ugly interopolated frameswith lower quality and lower resolution (most TV sets today can display both a NTSC 60Hz or PAL/DECAM 50Hz signal, so framing interpolation should not be needed in your satellite descrambler, however this interpolation, is performed by your satellite provider...)

I really won't call this censorship ! This looks really stupid for me. An event delayed to you by a few seconds is still a live uncensored event. If you want shorter delays, you'll loose perfect signal quality. Verdy P 15:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Section ordering

Okay, my changes to the section ordering were reverted by User:Mervyn, under the edit summary "fixed bracket in intro". Were my changes unreasonable? Or were they accidentally reverted? My changes were merely to make the order more logical. Just seems odd to me for the host bids and organization to come after the results. More odd is having the "Opening ceremonies" section between the "Host selection process" and "Organization" sections". -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Mervyn was probably editing his fix from an earlier version, and so accidentally changed your ordering. Your version makes more sense, I would change it back unless anyone is opposed SFC9394 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also put "olympic problems" under "organization" sections. I'll might work on improving this section, with its mention of the venues (also mentioned under venues) and talking about the subway twice. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all my changes (olympic problems/organization, results, opening ceremony) were reverted again. Another accidental revert? or are others opposed? -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think they are just accidental your 'post in talk' edit summary should show any opposition if it exists. You are going to have a tough time getting the change to stick at the moment because there are a lot of edits coming in, and so people are generally working on the code without the changes.SFC9394 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me, and yes, that was completely accidental. (The splitting of the Koreas was not.) Sam Vimes 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Though, it was the second time it happened today. I wouldn't want to violate WP:3RR. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Korea(s)?

North & South Korea are listed together under the participating nations section -- is this true? I thought that the two teams marched together in the opening ceremonies as a show of unity, but competed as separate teams. --Jfruh 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, they're listed apart but with the same flag, which is probably the best way of representing it. They're definitely competing apart - see [3] and [4] - but it does represent the flag situation. Kudos to Nitsansh for coming up with that. Sam Vimes 22:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Calendar

The links to each sporting event on the calendar currently direct to the generic page for that subject, eg ice_hockey rather than ice_hockey_at_the_2006_Winter_Olympics. It it alright for me to change that or was it intentional? I don't want to edit a page of this magnitude without some sort of approval from the people who've been working on it all along. Shad4k 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense for me to do what you suggest --Nitsansh 02:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the Calendar section be moved much higher up in the main section - much more useful for casual visitors to have it near the top of the first screen. Do others agree? Rousse 16:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Crunch 21:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page may need protection. it's been hit with a lot of vandalism. images of penises and the like. that will reflect badly on the Wikipedia User:Caesarscott

I doubt it will be protected, as featured articles and other articles linked from the main page rarely are. I (and others) will do our best to keep watch of this page. If any severe vandalism attacks come, it might merit semi-protection, which should be suggested on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, for a period of time. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah i just got hit by the penis Jgold03 01:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How annoying. I would give those users strong {{bv}} warnings, post notice on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and get them quickly blocked. Hopefully we can control this w/o semi-protection. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into the vandalism. It wasn't specifically to this page, but to an image on this page. The image was replaced by a vandal, and thereby ended up here. :( -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism was actually on {{Current sport}}. We can certainly block that temporarily without any problems. (especially considering how many Olympic-related pages have this header...) But how do we do that? I've never tried... tiZom_(2¢) 01:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. At minimum, I'll add all the templates linked here to my watchlist. And can put a request for protection on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Some one has vandalised the Medal Count--Dil 21:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Possibilities" song

Hey, I was watching Day 1 of the Olympics, and I saw a commercial for Cambell's Chicken Soup with kids singing the trademark song from Campbell's "Possibilities" ... I love that song! Where can I find it and who's singing it? Janet 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Highlights

I've added a daily highlights section to the article. I've put it up the top - since lots of visitors to this article are more likely to contribute if it's in a prominent position (we can move it somewhere better once the games are over). It is acutally written at 2006 Winter Olympics highlights and is transclused onto the main page - this is good in case the highlights move off the main article after the games are completed.--Commander Keane 03:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. You think we should add the spoiler warning that we have on the results section to the highlights section? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the spoiler warning in needed at all, if you are reading the highlights then you can expect to get information - this is an encyclopedia after all.--Commander Keane 03:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though you could probably make that argument for every page that has a spoiler tag. But that's a debate with a much larger scope. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Some highlights may soon go on the main page, with discussion on Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates. It may be useful to sync "In the news" with this highlights section (with expanded items, than can fit on the main page). I've added what I have on the proposed ITN template (User:Kmf164/Main page draft2). This highlights template that you created might also fit somewhere on Current events. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the standard spoiler warning. It is common practive on Wikipedia. One example of how it might benefit someone is if they come to an article hoping to learn when an event will be broadcast on their TV network, and instead find the score. Johntex\^talk 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should have a spoiler warning, as this is facts and news. We should at the major highlights and events of the games. I keep on having edit conflicts here. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the first day of competition, not the day of the opening ceremonies, is "Day 1" (e.g. [5]). I've changed the headings accordingly. — Stickguy 03:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

After looking at some of the comments here and mulling it over a bit, I've decided to be bold and add the spoiler tag. I don't see it as doing any harm, and may help some people. If you feel adamently about it in the opposite direction, you can remove it, but it's not something that takes up a lot of space or forces anyone to take a long time to read/skim/ignore. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Leave it there. No harm, and might help someone who doesn't want to know. Wahkeenah 04:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the spoilers with a new notice (incorporated into the current events notice). This is fair for everyone I think.--Commander Keane 09:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You should also put the links to the individual event summaries somewhere near the top rather than being buried in the text. Right now, when someone selects this page, they are most likely interested in finding out quick answers to "who won what". Then leave the disclaimers as you have, for those few who are merely looking for the history of the 2006 Games. Wahkeenah 13:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the current setup works just fine for the spoiler notice. It's less obvious, but that's probably a good thing. Thanks to everyone for their comments and help. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Medal Count

How can Nowary, with 7 medals as of this writing, be ranked lower than the US, who only has 2. Yes, the US has 2 gold, but that doesn't make them the top of the list. Or does it? Kaiser matias 21:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It does. Gold ranks first, then silver, then bronze - the total matters squat all (unless you're Norwegian and wants a list with Norway on top, and isn't satisfied with the K90 today). For the same reason that Norway, with 13 gold in SLC, top of the 2002 list. (the US has three medals, btw). Sam Vimes 21:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia Medal Count Table different from standard ? Normally the Olympic medal count by NBC [6] is country with Total Medals first, then if two countries have the same total count, the one with more gold medals comes first, not what Wikipedia is doing. MG 2/15/2006

I don't believe there is any such standard. The gold tie-breaker only comes into play if two or more countries have the exact same numbers of medals. Where is there a reference for this? Crunch 10:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see it that there is a sort of de facto standard. Every form I have seen an olympic medal count in, with the exception of here on Wikipedia, has been sorted by the number of medals in total, not the number of gold medals. Odd. - Idono 02:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the Official Torino Olympics medal page, it is by count: [7] - Rosco

A vote is currently being held to determine how wikipedia will display medal rankings. Please go here to vote and to let your opinion be heard by more people who may not be reading this chat. Wikipedia:Olympic_conventions --Josilot 04:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To refer to the poster, Wikipedia is NOT different from Standard, but NBC is, and also CNN (SI.com) and some other US-sites. The problem is that in the USA they made an own "Total Medal Count System" which is nowhere else done. Of course that US-system is far away from fairness or logic and the "Gold-Silver-Bronze System" IS STANDARD (since decades or centurys). Easy example, who wants to have a 0-0-10 nation placed in front of a 9-0-0? The only system what also would be an alternative is the 3-2-1 system (3 pt. for gold, 2 pt silver, 1pt. bronze), but the risk of equal ranked nations in top 3 would be higher. So no doubt about that: the counting on wikipedia is correct, better dont try to discuss with your smattering.

Medal Count on 2006 Winter Olympics

How far do we want the list to go? top 10? top 20? or every country with a medal? -Drdisque 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Top 10 is the standard, and seems sensible. I'll amend now Sam Vimes 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree on top 10, that has been the standard during past Olympics -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. 2006 Winter Olympics medal count has the full list. Top 10 are displayed on main article, with link to full count. -- Jonel | Speak 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that'd be the best way to go, right after I deleted it. I just wanted to makie sure that someone else thought so too. --Jared 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be Top 10 by gold medals, and top 10 by total medal count (20 in total, mostly duplicates) 69.156.19.93 00:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to update medals on the main page and there are currently some problems with the count. (not accurate right now) How do I do this? (Happyax 16:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

Go to Template:2006 Winter Olympics medal count to do the edits. Sam Vimes 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

layout

I find the layout to be less than ideal. I think "Host selection process" and "Organization" should be moved towards the bottom of the article, because now that the games have actually started, the focus should be more on the event. How and why they decided to have the games at that particular location is (or, I guess, should be) greatly overshadowed by the games themselves. My suggestion would be Intro, then Highlights, Calender, Results, Venues, Participating NOCs, Security, and Host Selection Process just before External Links. How does that sound? Cacophony 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree go ahead. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Though, where do you suggest putting "Organization"? I think that construction can be merged into the venues section. What about, "olympic problems"? -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the highlights are more important than the organisation and host selection process. The focus on the article is the event itself, not the beginning. Go ahead to reorganise the contents. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Security being tight at Olympics

Since the Munich massacre, security has been tight at Olympics. However between 1972 and the 2000 Summer Olympics, the most visible security, and perhaps the only security, was the local police. The 2006 Winter Olympics is happening in the post-9/11 world. The first Olympics to see very heavy security was 2002 Winter Olympics, since they were the first since September 11, 2001. -- SNIyer12 (talk), 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. If you went to any of those games, you would know that security was extremely tight, especially for the athletes, if not so visibily for the spectators. Starting at Innsbruck and Montreal in 1976, athletes were essentially walled into their villages. Barbed wire was installed, metal detectors were installed, all athletes and officials had to have ID cards. There were police with explosive-sniffing dogs patrolling the village and the venues. They may have appeared to be "local police" to you, but whether they were local or national (and believe me it was not just the small village of Lake Placid police handling security at the winter games in 1980), the Munich Massacre marked the main increase in security at Olympic Games. I was at both Montreal and Lake Placid and security was very, very visible and heavy. Yes, security was visibily beefed up again after 9/11, but 11 athletes were killed in the Olympic Village in Munich and this completely changed the face of security at the Olympic Games. Crunch 11:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that security was extremely tight since the Munich massacre. However, the main event that led to the most stringent security at the Olympics was 9/11. The games in Munich, as well as those in Montreal and Lake Placid were happening BEFORE September 11, 2001. So, the games in Salt Lake City were the first to see the most stringent security, since they were happening in the post-9/11 world. You may also want to understand that the Centennial Olympic Park bombing during the 1996 Summer Olympics showed the world did not act strong enough to combat terrorism (the Clinton years were a time that terrorism began to escalate). So, it was mainly 9/11 that led to the most stringent security at Olympic games. -- SNIyer12 (talk), 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

9/11 has led to more stringent security world-wide at every human gathering, not just at the Olympics. I fail to see what Bill Clinton has to do with anything. My point WAS that Lake Placid, Montreal, etc. happened before 9/11 and still had strict security. The Olympic Park Bombings in Atlanta also had heavy security but still things happened. Recall that the Olympic Park Bombing happened at a public park in downtown Atlanta, not at a venue or at the Olympic Village where much of the security was focused. Also, it was committed by Eric Robert Rudolph a right wing fanatic protesting abortion and homosexual rights. This is a hardly a precursor to 9/11. It's more akin to a wacko that walks into a MacDonalds and opens fire because he's mad at the world. Just because a sole anti-abortion nut decides to set off a bomb in this setting doesn't mean the world, or the Clinton administration, didn't act strongly enough to forestall 9/11. It just meant that someone intent on doing damange got away with it. Large national and worldwide gatherings, whether the Olympics, WTO meetings, etc. are increasing magnets for gatherings of protestors, peaceful and otherwise, including some intent on using the venue and huge media spotlight as the stage for their actions. Security began to increase after Munich and has increased incrementally since, with a big leap after Atlanta and a huge leap after 9/11. Crunch 14:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there were security measures at the Games. What are the figures? Number of euro spent? Number of police forces, military? --Kvasir 06:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, this data is not usually made public. Number of dollars spent might be, but one is going to publicize info about the number of police and military, where they are deployed, etc. Crunch 16:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Country articles

What's up with the odd formating in the country articles. I mean the athlete name followed by 1. fact 2. fact, etc. Is this just a widely repeated error of using # instead of *? Should these be changed? Rmhermen 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Medal count II

Why is Wikipedia Medal Count Table different from standard ? Normally the Olympic medal count by NBC [6] is country with Total Medals first, then if two countries have the same total count, the one with more gold medals comes first, not what Wikipedia is doing. MG 2/15/2006

~~Answered in the archive, here. Wikipedia follows the standard, it seems NBC does not.~~--Commander Keane 07:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the archive was reversed, so you can see the discussion above, here--Commander Keane 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia it's the standard version, the version of NBC is not the standard. --Tlitic 16:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge the Archive page?

I don't see why this Talk page was archived. It's not that long and some of the discussions on the archive page are still active. Can we merge it back together? Crunch 11:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unarchived. Archiving was a mistake. We won't archive until the olympics are over. Please note that I pasted the contents of Archive1 above, and that some extra comments were added (see the histroy).--Commander Keane 11:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Security

From the article:

"[...] there has been very heavy security, because of fears of terrorism, part of realities of the post-9/11 world."

Apart from the fact that that's redundant, expressions like "realities of the post-9/11 world" are politically loaded and should be avoided. Would be nice if someone could rephrase that. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 21:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So, what's stopping you from doing it? Wahkeenah 00:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Mostly the fact that I've already done it ;). -- Jonel | Speak 04:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As have I, twice I believe, and someone keeps changing it back. Crunch 00:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

While I think 9/11 is old news for the 2006 Games, I think the Cartoon War is actually more current. As the day the Opening Ceremonies were carrying out the media has named it as one of the concerns for these Games. Even DURING the Games protests and violence against (mainly) European interests are still underway. --Kvasir 06:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

9/11 is NOT old news for the games. You must understand that during the state funeral of Ronald Reagan, D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey made the point clear: "In a post 9/11 world, we have to be very concerned about that and aware of the potential for something to happen." -- SNIyer12, 22:11, 19 February, 2006

I still don't understand what a particular stateman said during a funeral is relevant globally, and how it is relevant to the Olympic Games. He did not mention about the Games nor did his words are to be taken as the gospel truth as much as he is a respectable individual i'm sure. --Kvasir 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That police chief was right. Olympic games are events that draw large crowds. You have to know that in the post-9/11 world, we have to be prepared for a terrorist attack. You saw what happened in London in 2005 and Madrid in 2004. -- SNIyer12 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Highlights getting long

hmm, we're not even halfway through the games yet and the Highlights subpage is already REALLY long and will soon dominate the article. It'd be nice to pare it down, but that would result in some very difficult decisions as to what constitutes a "highlight", especially considering all the coverage that we are seeing is biased to our nations, or at least to our language. I really don't know what, if any, changes should be made. Any thoughts? -Drdisque 06:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The longer the better - this is an encyclopedia, we want information. You will notice that the highlights exists on their own subpage (2006 Winter Olympics highlights). When the games are over they will not longer be displayed on 2006 Winter Olympics. However, until then, I recommend we keep them on 2006 Winter Olympics - it encourages editing. Keep in mind that whole article 2006 Winter Olympics is in a "current events mode", and will change once the event is no longer current.--Commander Keane 22:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Map Contradiction

In the map showing national participation levels, Kyrgystan is shaded in such a way as to suggest that they have sent no athletes. Other sources, including Wikipedia itself, say they have one participant. I'm not sure if this is enough to invalidate the map as a useful reference, but it is at least troubling enough to mention.--Mopsy Fairlight 14:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Date Table

I liked the little dots a lot better than the big ovals currently there... can we go back? -- rsm2296 14:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It was diamonds, but according to MrCalifornia the diamond doesn't load on macs. Can I suggest we go back to either the small or large bullet? The pound looks horrible.--Josilot 06:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Large bullet for now, but if anyone has a better suggestion that will compile on all platforms I'm all ears.--Josilot 06:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't like the hash either, but I was trying to find a character in the chart below the edit window as I figured those are the standard characters. I think the smaller bullet was probably the best so far. --MrCalifornia 14:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Very poor American ratings

Would it be appropriate to mention in this article to mention the fact that this Olympic season is one of the worst rated Olympics in history within the United States? Vikramsidhu 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Source: [8]

Seems to me like the television ratings of Olympics in the US deserves its own article, with maybe a link to it on this page.--Josilot 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I always thought there should be a seperate page on Olympic coverage in the USA in general, like there are already articles for the coverage of major US sports on networks (i.e., the NFL on CBS, NBA on ABC, MLB on FOX). There's already an article on the infamous Triplecast during the 1992 Summer Olympics. ErikNY 21:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

One comment on the NBC ratings problem. They might have been able to boost their Olympics ratings if they had shown the Olympics during the day, instead of soap operas. The CBC showed the Olympics day, evening and night in Canada. They also tended to cover the Olympics more in their entirety. The CBC however, did see a ratings drop as well.

A message for Bob Costas

Vik, I think we can pretty much sum up the solution to making broadcasting the Olympics a heck of a lot better. Here is a frank message for Mr. Bob Costas (NSFW-ish) that should just about express all of our feeling about how NBC handled broadcasting the 2006 Olympics.

Meanwhile, NBC and all the corporate sponsors (especially Nike, who desevered to have a negative return of investment after their Bodie Miller campaign) has pretty much maked a joke out of the Olympics. I have a feeling that 2010 will be much different. I mean, apparently, someone got the bright idea to host the Olympics in Vancover, BC, Canada, headquarters of the Adbusters organization. I swear, if Kalle Lasn isn't planning to make fools out of the IOC within the next four years, then his organization will have no meaning whatsoever. --Bushido Hacks 04:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Medal Count Table

I believe the medal count table needs a ranking based on total number of medals, this is a far better estimation of a coutry's perfomrance. E.g. Estonia has 3 golds, yes beats Canada with 2 golds and 9 other medals. User:Synflame

That is the way it is done in U.S. media outlets, but the rest of the world uses the system of gold, then silver, then bronze. Ironically, that means that USA is #5 right now when Americans check the table but #1 when Europeans check the table. Uris

02:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Uris, there is more than one European country. There are also non-European contries competing. Don't be so insensitive to their efforts. Haizum 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A vote is currently being held to determine how wikipedia will display medal rankings. Please go here to vote and to let your opinion be heard by more people who may not be reading this chat. Wikipedia:Olympic_conventions --Josilot 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Stupid vote. The IOC has always used the standard order with gold first, then silver then bronze. Look at all the other olympic events. This is a century long tradition. It just looks strange this year, because countries havemore gold medals than US, even if they have less total medals. Don't change it for now (it may even happen that the standard ordering will reorder US at end, if there's only 1 additional gold: will you change all these pages for past olympics?). Look at the official IOC website if you're not convinced. National TV channels are then free to interpret these resutls the way they want, but this is not a standard. And don't forget that English Wikipedia is not just for US (there are other English-speaking countries throughtout the world, including major competitors like Canada and UK)... Verdy P 16:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Calendar Hotlinking

Is there any reason we aren't already hotlinking future, secional (i.e. anchored) results to the appropriate pages in the calendar (e.g. in the speed skating row on the 18th, it should link to Speed_skating_at_the_2006_Winter_Olympics#1000_m_speed_skating)? Telso 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the original hotlinks, and I was using a reference that only listed the medals already won, and I didn't think of adding future dates. Other than the fact that I didn't think of it at the time, I see no reason that it shouldn't be done.--Josilot 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, any reason not to link to non-medal events when we have them? For example, we can link to each draw in curling and the different rounds (round robin, quarters, semis, bronze, gold) in hockey. Telso 02:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely encourage you to experiment with the calendar in ways you think will be useful to people.--Josilot 03:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I will then, so long as I'm still up. :) Telso 04:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

whoa, this made the table gigantic.. could the bullets be made a little smaller so that it doesn't cause so much horizontal scrolling? Mlm42 11:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to the people who did the calendar linking. It looks a lot better, though the code is enormous. Good job. Jfing ers88 19:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Design of Olympic medals and other details

Besides the obvious sporting highlights, there seems to be a lack of info pertaining to other areas of the Olympics. For example, there's no description of the actual medals awarded, i.e., the hole-in-the-middle design, the designer, their composition, etc. Also a lack of mention about the torch relay. --Madchester 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The IOC does not officially recognize any medal tallies or standings

[Note: this section has been edited for readability. No page content was changed (except the rare pronoun where sections have been moved, which have been marked), though some punctuation has been added to help denote sentence breaks.--Josilot 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)]

It must be mentioned that the IOC "does not officially recognize national medal totals, nor recommend using one way of assigning medals by country over another. The original Olympic charter forbade a medal count that included a ranking per country". All medal counts published by the media are unofficial; so as every medal standings you have seen, these are for informational use only. (I have an article to prove). we should point this out.

--update from the above comment--

The "Torino 2006" official website uses the said system but not the official website of the "IOC" (I already checked it out). The system used in "Torino 2006" website is no better nor worse than the ones used at NBC or ESPN or BBC etc. "Torino 2006 website" is just one of internet media which uses medal standings but not necesarilly the "OFFICIAL" one or the "STANDARD". Which means the claim at the beggining of every olympic medal count article is FALSE. IOC does not use any system. A MAJOR editing in every olympic medal count is needed. particularly this one, "This is the full table of the medal count of the XXX Olympics. These rankings are sorted by the number of gold medals earned by a country. The number of silvers is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze. If, after the above, countries are still tied, equal ranking is given and they are listed alphabetically. This follows the system used by the IOC???, IAAF and BBC." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) .

"(I have an article to prove)" Can you provide a link to the article?--Josilot 06:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually its really a common knowledge. Ive been hearing that from Bob Costas (a US Olympic corresponder) at every closing ceromony he covers. but antway heres a link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2000/medal_tracker/news/2000/09/12/historic_methodology/

And the original Olympic ideals forbade professionals from competition, so I don't see the point of bring up the original Olympic charter. Baron de Coubertin never wanted a Winter Olympics either, but look where we are today. [9] Where in the present Olympic charter does the IOC say they don't condone medal counts? If you review the medal standings from past Olympic Games at the IOC wesite (say Athens, Salt Lake it uses said system of Torino. --Madchester 06:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well many things change thats why theres been amendment (ex. proffesional atheletes, WINTWR etc) but that doesent explain why they dont officially recognize medal tallies. STILL UP TO THIS DAY the IOC does not use any medal rankings UNLESS they change this then we could say they officially recognize this. Again I dont see any medal tallies at IOC official website. If there is then it is for informatinal use only. If you don't believe me ask the president of the IOC himself or any sport historians or the media itself. I have no time to research on this. The only thing I know that its has been a commom knowledge that the IOC simply do not use medal standings. This is not even debatable. thats why in every closing ceromony there are no presentation or any thing that pertains on this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) .

If you look around carefully, the IOC provides a historical medal database, and medal standings for each individual Olympic Games (i.e., a screenshot. Regardless, Wikipedia requires verifiable sources for such a claim to be included. You can't make claim and give evidence for inclusion, simply because it's "common knowledge" or because Jacques Rogge said so. --Madchester 07:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you should make a research on your own and prove me wrong instead of I keep proving myself right. So that you could see it for yourself. anyway heres another info, which answers the medal tallies in IOC website yet they dont officially recognize it: "Ever since, the rivalry of nations has accompanied every Olympic organization on the occasion of traditional or conjunctural confrontations among the nations-states. In a sense, the Olympic Games constitute the major field of pacific expression of the "rivalry of the nations" during a century that was marked, among other things, by the universal adoption of the model nation-state but also by the experience of two world wars and innumerable regional conflicts. The most characteristic expression of the rivalry of nations in the Olympic context is the list of medal distribution by country. These data have always been the most popular statistical information of every Olympic organization. Therefore, although the IOC does not recognize it officially, it provides it on its official website. The refusal of the IOC to recognize the ranking list goes back to the emphasis given to it during the Cold War, when the USA and the Soviet Union attempted to overpower one another in the number of medals. from: http://www.fhw.gr/olympics/modern/en/history/h101.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) .

The link your provided contains no details about where the author obtained his/her information. --Madchester 07:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How about you giving a link that shows the IOC DO officially recognize medal tallies. OK, to end all this. From IOC "Official" website states: "The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only" -- at the bottom of a medal tally. "http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/table_uk.asp?OLGT=2&OLGY=1924 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) .

In the site that you just listed, USA has 4 medals, but it is listed after Switzerland, which has 3 medals but more golds than USA. What exactly do you think should be changed in the article to reflect the information in this source?--Josilot 07:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments, it makes them easier to read and archive. Use --~~~~ to sign.--Josilot 07:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The IOC still sorts with gold medals first, which is what matters at the end of the day. --Madchester 07:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Per the IOC website under the Javascript medal standings tables, The medal tables by country are based on the number of medals won, with gold medals taking priority over silver and bronze. A team victory counts as one medal. That's the system they use, and it's what Wikipedia has been presenting.--Madchester 08:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, It really doesent matter to me which system we use as long we point out that the IOC does not use such or any system as this article claims (and all the olympic medal count artcles) I just want to help to make the articles more credible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) .

The article 2006 Winter Olympics medal count says "This follows the system used by the IOC, IAAF and BBC." I'm not sure that what any of your sources say discredits this sentence, as the link you provided to the 1924 medal count on the IOC page does, in fact, use this system.--Josilot 08:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

They don't, the editors of the website does "For Information only" but the IOC does not use any system. do you see the difference? So the said sentence is very misleading—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.141.207 (talk • contribs) .

So you would suggest changing the sentence "This follows the system used by the IOC, IAAF and BBC" to "This follows the system used by the IOC web page, IAAF and BBC." Am I following you? I don't see how this change adds any significant content to the article, or how the sentence is misleading as is. If the IOC web page uses it, then the IOC uses it.--Josilot 08:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also I think you are giving the web editors too much credit. If the web editors at my office were to take liberties and post a chart that ranks countries by number of medals won even though my office does not officially endorse any policy allowing them to do this, then we would take the webpage offline until it has been fixed to follow our company policy.--Josilot 08:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your taking this way TOO DEEP. Again, please read everything. Your over emphasizing the website. OK heres my suggestion: Drop "this follows the system..." altogether because its not really necesarry. All medal systems are all the same. The article already explain how the system works beforehand. I suspect someone just added the IOC to make it sound so "official" and "standardize" but as we know there are no "official" all are just interpretation of the media and publishers. Just make a note up front or maybe at the bottom that says the IOC does not recognize medal rankings nor use any system of such kind simple as that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.141.207 (talk • contribs) .

The fact is, even if the IOC doesn't endorse any official medal chart, they do provide medal charts on their webpage for the purpose of historical reference. That's enough for me.--Josilot 09:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not even sure what Im debating with you about. They don't officially recognize this but yes I do realize that the IOC do have medal tallies in thier website and it is for information or reference only I agree. im not oppose on medal tallies I just want to make the statement right on the articles by providing a disclaimer of some sort. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.141.207 (talk • contribs) .

It's a little hard to follow this discussion when people don't sign their posts, but I don't believe there is any "official standard" for medal count. I don't believe the IOC endorses any such standard. Such tallies are for informational purposes only, whether provided by the organizers like the IOC, or by a media outlet like CCN, the New York Times or NBC. The former uses total golds, the latter all use total medals. I think it's up to us at Wikipedia to provide the tally that's most informative rather than trying to match some imagned "official standard.". Crunch 11:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if the IOC doesn't "officially" endorse any counting method, the fact is they have consistently used the gold-priority standard for many, decades now. To include a disclaimer for a practice that is more or less regarded as convention, seems a bit excessive. There are many, many changes in the Olympic movement, some which contradict the organization's original ideals. But we're not going to be putting disclaimers every time a professional wins a medal or some asterisk to some country's medal count because they were engaged in a war during the Olympic Games. --Madchester 16:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely not advocating a disclaimer. I'm just saying that it's not necessary to adhere to a certain "standard" because we think the IOC has established one. I don't think their format is any more valid than various international media who use other formats or the USOC who uses the most-total-medals format. I think we are free to use the format that conveys the information in the most logical, intuitive format. If that requires a disclaimer, it's probably not intuitive. Crunch 17:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

AGAIN, IOC does not use ANY satndard. The EDITORS of the "IOC website" DOES BUT they use it for INFORMATIONAL or reference use ONLY. And that is different from "Officially" recognising or USING a system. Thats why they pointed that out as well on their own website. AGAIN they dont use a System (e.i. Gold Priority System). I probably used a wrong word "disclaimer" when making my argument. But that's besides the point. We can say BBC, NBC, ESPN, etc. uses such system BUT we only need point out that the IOC does not use ANY system because they DONT. The IOC does not keep medal tallies on their record book. I really dont understand why some of you find this so hard to understand? and sorry Im just a visitor and I dont know how to sign my post.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.141.207 (talk • contribs) .

Here again are instructions on how to sign you posts. (Click on the previous words "sign your posts" for full instructions or just type for tildes at the end of your post. The tilde is the squiggle key in the upper left corner of your keyboard. It's important not just so people know who you are, but more so one can tell where one person's comment ends and the next starts, especially when you use paragraph breaks as you have. I'm not even sure who are you replying to. You and I seem to agreee. Crunch 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

actually Im replying to the person before you. Im sorry if I sound so annoying whenever I reitirate my point especially when I use the word "again". But I really meant no harm. I just want to make a simple known fact to be understand. 71.106.141.207vo

Dear Madchester, Whys is it so hard for you to drop the IOC name when citing about "who uses the system"? Have you read all we are talking about here? Do you have any agenda that we need to know about?71.106.141.207 22:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Articles on Wikipedia must pertain to a neutral point of view. To present the system fairly, you must realize that the IOC recognizes medal counts by convention, if not officially. To discredit the organization's use of any counting mechanism entirely does not pertain to such a neutral view, especially when the organization presents medal standings and counting methodology on their official website. --Madchester 22:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In order to have a "neutral point of view" then we must consider what they "officially" believe. AGAIN they DON'T RECOGNIZE any medal counts by convention, this is their website editors speaking thats is why at the bottom of the medal table the website editors put a note "IOC does not recognize ...." The ORAGANIZATION or the IOC Itself does not use medal counts officially or UNOFFICIALLY PERIOD. Do you see the difference? You are confusing two things here the ORGANIZATION(IOC) and The IOC webiste. They are completely different you see.71.106.141.207 23:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Arbitrary section break

The IOC has control over its official website. That a medal count appears there means that the IOC unofficially uses that medal count. The note only indicates that the count is not official. However, its unofficial use by the IOC is a more compelling reason for us to use that method than a method used by another organization, whether it be NBC or BBC. -- Jonel | Speak 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Yes, The IOC has a complete control over their website and what is being shown there should have their approval, They approve the medal standing NOT because they use it as their own UNNOFICIAL medal count system. BUT because the EDITORS made a notice or acknowledge the fact that the IOC do not utilized any medal counts and the standings are only for iformational use. the editors clearly says that IOC does not RECOGNIZE medal counts AT ALL, which means they don't use anything at all. Its the Editors of the website created it and they are the one who utilized this. The IOC didn't give any guidelines or procedure to the editors how to rank medals whether they want it officially or unofficially otherwise the editor should have noted this. IT IS NOT BEING USE BY THE IOC. simple as that, Bottomline the IOC has nothing to do with the medal rankings that they show on the website. So we can not claim that the IOC uses an "UNNOFFICIAL" System unless the IOC would stated this or the ediotrs made a point on it. 207.200.116.68 02:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

I think the method Sports Illustrated uses is very informative. Isn't our aim to be informative and accurate? Also the United States Olympic Committee does not follow the IOC format. What does that say? I think it says that there is no format and some people who track these things and design web sites do things one way and some people do things another way. If anyone is going to follow the IOC, it would probably be the USOC. Why be a slave to a design that people find not useful. We should all step back and ask the question, "What the is the most important piece of information we are trying to convey here?" "What is the second most important piece of information?" Since I think we have all agreed that the IOC does not recognize the concept of "medal count", our goal should be to convey information well. Crunch 02:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

At that point, we're making a subjective decision on which is more useful. I don't really have a problem with that, so here's my subjective take. Personally, I think sorting by gold medals first is most useful. Olympic championships simply matter a great deal more to me than do third-place finishes. -- Jonel | Speak 03:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The most useful? Well, gee, how about both? One list by gold, silver, then bronze and another listed sorted by medal count? Can you get any better of a compromise? Cburnett 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Jonel | Speak 03:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line is, as it has been always the case, statistics may present true and real information, but the information are always tweak one way or another to show the information that people wish to see. --Kvasir 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Merged from section Please someone HELP I was unfairly BLOCKED!!!

Madchester [Note: I removed this pronoun to increase readability after the section was merged.--Josilot 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)] is confusing two things the "Organization" and the "Website." The editors themselves claims the fact that the "IOC does not recognize such medal counts" and does not use any medal counts on the said website. The EDITORS of the IOC website made it clear that the medal table in the IOC website are for information use only and it is not the official nor unofficial usage of the IOC. The problem stems from this sentence at every beggining of an Olympic medal count article. "This follows the system used by the IOC???, IAAF and BBC." Yes, the IOC "website" PROVIDES it BUT the IOC "the Organization" does not USE it. Which contradicts the questioned sentence. I hope you see the difference bet. providing it and actually using it. The IOC simply don't put medal rankings on their record books. Its Editors of the website are the ones who are responsible creating it and they are the ones who utilized It. The IOC didn't give any guidelines or procedure to the editors how to rank medals whether they want it officially or unofficially otherwise the editor should have noted this. So, IF the IOC "The Organization" does not use any system, then it is not right to claim and use their name that they do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.68 (talk • contribs) .

I just want to see if I have everything right. You think that the the sentence "This follows the system used by the IOC" is a false statement because the IOC does not endorse ranking countries by medal count in any way. I think that this is a good point, but it does not make the sentence in itself false, because as shown on this talk page the IOC website does use a medal count for informational purposes with a disclaimer. I think that "This follows the system used by the IOC" should not be removed, but I think that a sentence explaining the IOC's non-endorsement of medal rankings is important. That's my thought on the issue.--Josilot 20:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "USE" is very important, When you say "use" that means they utilizes it, they apply it, they practice it, they exercise it or they had a created a procedure how to do a system, they have certain guidelines how to do it. "System "USED" by the "IOC"???" When you simply say "This system is used by the IOC" you are refering to the organization itslf. My question: does the IOC (the organization) "USE" a medal count system? The website only "Provides" them BUT the IOC does not "USE" them. There is a difference you see. We can claim the IOC "website" uses them BUT the IOC the "organization" does not. Ive been pointing that out all along. That is why the sentence is very misleading.207.200.116.68 20:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

So changing the sentence from "This follows the system used by the IOC" to "This follows the system provided by the IOC" would satisfy you? This doesn't seem like a bad change to me if it will put this issue to rest.--Josilot 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Used" is already sufficient, given the disclaimer indicating that the IOC doesn't officially recognize country medal rankings. I don't understand why the anon. user is making a mountain out of a molehill, because the current wording already communicates the points necessary. Changes for the sake of change isn't conducive to improving Wikipedia. --Madchester 20:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear madchester,

Please answer my question with yes or no only. Does the IOC the Organization USES a medal count system? Yes or No? I orginally suggest that to drop the whole "This system is use..." sentence all together because it is completely unecesarry. Does it make any difference when you cite who uses what? But somehow I have a feeling that some especially the one who blocked feels the need to add the IOC name and connecting it to the system used here. Im not sure why but I already suggest this. "This follows the system used by the IAAF and BBC and used on the IOC website" and adding a note "IOC does not recognise global medal ranking."

OK here is my suggestion to guys: Make a sentence that suggests and that would sound like that the IOC "organization" has nothing to do with any global ranking system of anykind period and I willbe satisfied.207.200.116.68 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

That is extremely misleading. The IOC has been using a ranking system for decades, even before their official website went online. Making multiple edits in violation of WP:3RR over a minute wording difference doesn't help Wikipedia. Also refer to WP:CIVIL --Madchester 20:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god, have you even been reading what I'm been trying say? Can someone please help me explain to him/her that the IOC ORGANIZATION does not USE, or for GOD sake, USE ANY rankings or WHATSOEVER. They NEVER DONE IT Not yesterday not today not ever UNLESS they change this. Before the website you say (which still not proven) Thier publisher or editors uses it but NOT the ORGANIZATION. Internet came the WEBSITE EDITORS USES and not the ORGANIZATION. Please understand.207.200.116.68 21:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

This is getting silly. If you have been a website editor at an organization where you had complete control over the content on the website without regard to the rules of that organization, then I am surprised. In my own experience, web editors do not get to control content. The entire organization has a process to decide the content on the website. Your argument that some rogue editor thought it would be funny to boldly slap the face of his organization and rank the countries, knowing that this was an offense to the entire organization, is rediculous. Please understand.--Josilot 21:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read my past comments Ill post this one AGAIn. all the capital letters are just for emphasiz Im not angry or anything, Yes, The IOC has a complete control over their website and what is being shown there should have their approval, They approve the medal standing NOT because they use it as their own UNNOFICIAL medal count system. BUT, They approve it because the EDITORS acknowledge the fact and they made a note on it that the "IOC does not utilized any medal count system and the standings are only for iformational use." the editors clearly says that IOC does not RECOGNIZE medal counts AT ALL, which means they don't use anything at all. Its the Editors of the website created it and they are the one who utilized this. The IOC didn't give any guidelines or procedure to the editors how to rank medals whether they want it officially or unofficially otherwise the editor should have noted this. Its the EDITORS own decision. IT IS NOT BEING USE BY THE IOC. simple as that, Bottomline the IOC has nothing to do with the medal rankings that they show on the website. So we can not claim that the IOC uses an "UNNOFFICIAL" System unless the IOC would stated this or the ediotrs made a point on it. 207.200.116.68 02:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Maybe I can put this to bed. According to this page: [10], the IOC outsources their web work. Outsourcing companies do not make decisions about content. They take what they were given and make it easy for people to use and navigate. The web editors, in this case, would have no access to the medal rank had the IOC not given them that information.--Josilot 21:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you are taking this way too far again, Lets go back to the basic OK. Just let us focus on the sentence OK. Please answer my question with yes or no only. Does the IOC the Organization USES a medal count system? Yes or No?207.200.116.68 21:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Yes. There is one on their website. Can we drop this now?--Josilot 21:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The IOC uses the standings (as presented on numerous Games pages) but adds the disclaimer that they don't recognize country rankings. I don't see how this is still an issue, when Wikipedia's current wording already expresses this situation clearly. --Madchester 21:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the webiste, Im talking about the "oraganization". Does the IOC "Organization" USES or utilize or practice or exercise a medal count system? from both of you please, just say YES or NO. No looping the whole thing again please Ive ask a very simple question. Like I said we need to change the questioned sentence then I will be satisfied.207.200.116.68 21:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Yes. They use a medal count system for historical and information purposes since they recognize that other people may need this information presented in a country ranking format. They have a disclaimer saying that they don't endorse this practice.--Josilot 21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me point out why your sentence contradicts itself. Why the IOC would USE a Medal Count System if they Do not Endorse Using or Practicing it in the first place? So you are saying they are guilty of thier crime? And Im pretty sure we are going for another loop again and you will bring up the website again. But before anything else let me spell out again for you. Other ENTITY like the Editors of the IOC website or other Organization like the media or other publisher are the only ones who uses the system for Information or Historical purpose like you said and NOT the IOC. It is not the IOC who put the DISCLAIMER its the editors of the website. They did this so that the IOC would approve the content.207.200.116.68 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

There are many ways to use a medal display system. The IOC uses the system to provide information, not to rank countries by their medals. This second use they do not endorse.--Josilot 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree, They put information of individual winnings on their record books but NOT ranking of the countries or having a medal counts beacuase they do not have any system or scheme on how to do or organized this. Again I just want to put this on rest. Is it right to say that "This follows the "SYSTEM" "USED" by the "IOC"(oragization)"? 207.200.116.68 22:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Yes, since it is ued by the IOC, its websites, its publication material, etc. You can use a system even if it isn't recognized. --Madchester 22:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Madchester I'm sorry but it seems so obvious that you have not really reading what I am pointing out and you just keep on reapeting yourself. So It would be useless to argue with you anymore and I meant this in a very respectful way.207.200.116.68 22:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

It is right to say "This follows the system used by the IOC." Due to nuances of the English language, if we were to expand the pronouns and definite articles in this sentence, we could say "This system of displaying information follows the system used by the IOC to display information." However, this would be redundant, and simply saying "This follows the system used by the IOC" gets the same point across.--Josilot 22:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, the sentence does not make any sense BECAUSE, IOC (organization) DOES NOT USE ANY SYSTEM. How can they use a system if they do not even recognize any system in the first place?? So why should we make claim that they are using one? Please don't bring up the website again. We are focusing on the Organization itself and what they "officially" believe. Why not DROP the whole thing altogether? to end all the problems? or I already suggested a comprimise and retaining the IOC name: "This follows the system used by the IAAF and BBC and used on the IOC website" and adding a note "IOC does not recognise global medal ranking" Do you agree with this? In this way it would explain that the IOC website NOT the IOC organization itself uses the said system.207.200.116.68 22:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

I find it unfortunate that you have so little faith in web editors. Have you had a bad experience with them? You are putting too much burden on them. Take it easy on them. They're just trying to do their jobs. I would call the IOC and see if I can get this information from them offline, but their office is in Switzerland so the only information from them that I have that is easily accessible to me is their website. I understand that you think that the web editors have shamed their organization by putting up this chart that the organization doesn't endorse. The fact is that is not true. The web editors have nothing to do with the content of the site. Since you are having a problem with this, I suggest that you research the topic of web development.--Josilot 22:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As I expected this conversation went nowhere. We just going to have to agree to disagree. and No, you misunderstand I don't think the the web editors SHAMED their organization. You are missing the point again. Its quite laughable that you said that. but I meant no harm. I think you are taking this simple matter more complicated. I do not need to research on web development because this is not we are talking about here. The simple points are The IOC does not have any system or scheme or guidelines that ranks countries by medals whether it is official or unofficial period and it is a known fact. Saying that IOC "the organization" "USES" a system on the articles would be false. That is my MAIN point. forget about everything, It is all about what the IOC "the organization" and what they officially believe. I'm calling for a far more objective administrators here because I strongly believed that I am making a point and the only one who is being objective here even if it is in the littlest word. I keep on suggesting a comprimise and you would not respond. Ive asked you a simple question but then you tried to spin over and over again it turning this simple thing into I dont what... and you keep evading or ignoring my main points that I keep brininging up. No offense I know you are good person but that is just what I noticed. Because you know what this thing we are talking about is really simple matter, I really dont understand why is it so hard for you to understand? Or are you avoiding to understand it? Could you help me find a higher authority here so that they could review our discussion and decide what should be done? Bec. no offens but I think that our conversation just turned into a war of ego.207.200.116.68 23:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Wikipedia has a policy for dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes for more information.--Josilot 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

To 24.127.191.241: you should not be editing comments in this section that were responded to by other editors if you plan to seek conflict resolution, as this may skew the results. Please, if you have more comments to make, make them below.--Josilot 07:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to make another attempt in explaining this again in a different angle so I could make my self clearer.I will try to be straight to the point as possible. Basically the problem stems from the wordings of this simple sentence : "This follows the system used by the IOC"." I want to point this out word by word. FIRST, In this sentence the word "SYSTEM" is denoted by the medal count rankings of countries, the Gold priority system, which is explain and presented in the article. If we define "System" in this case it means: a complex of methods or rules governing behaviour or procedure or process for obtaining an objective. SECONDLY, the word "USED". If we define this it would just mean: simply the act of using, very self explanatory. Third the "IOC" and we are talking about "The Organization" itself here. Now, an important fact is that the IOC does not recognize global medal rankings the "System". Question: How can they (IOC the organization) use a global ranking system (whether it is a gold ranking or the total medal ranking) if they do not recognize or have not established or practice any "system" at all in the first place? So the sentence "This follows the system..." is a contradiction to the fact. I hope this made my point a bit more clearer.207.200.116.68 09:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Participating NOCs section

People keep adding that Cameroon and Puerto Rica have an athlete participating in the games, I have checked the site, and this is not true. Anyone else have any comments on why people keeping adding these two nations? - Nick C 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see either on this list. Crunch 21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Calendar Bullets

The big black circles look ugly. Anyone care to change to something more visually appealing ? I changed the circles to a '♦' but it was changed back to the circles. sikander 01:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok apparently the diamond doesnt load on the mac. sikander 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please someone HELP I was unfairly BLOCKED!!!

A user known as madchester blocked me for reason I don't know. Maybe because I simply don't agree with him/her. Although I strongly beleive that I am presented a very valid argument. And I am not vandalizing. We had some discussion under the section "The IOC does not officially recognize any medal tallies or standings." He/She keep on insisting that the IOC uses a medal count system, which I already prove on our discussion that it is entirely false. I kept on reitirating to him/her that only the EDITORS of the IOC website uses this and NOT the IOC organization itself. I tried to comprimise with him/her about it and edit as "This follows the system used by the IAAF and BBC and used on the IOC website" and adding a note "IOC does not recognise global medal ranking." But he/she just simply blocked me and change it back to what he/she thinks its right and putting back the name IOC on citing about the organization who uses the system. Any other adminitrator out there that could help me with this? I suggested that we should make a concensus regarding this. 207.200.116.68 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

I've put a notice on WP:AN/I for you. -- Jonel | Speak 03:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that blocking was fair in this case, but really since the issue is still under discussion you should not be resolving it as you see fit until a consensus has been reached by the community.--Josilot 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me on notice. So how can we make a concensus on this? And for the user madchester I need your explanation why you blocked me? I need your reply on my recent comments and please read it carefully point by point (English is not my first language so my grammar are often horrible)207.200.116.68 19:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)vo

[Remainder of thread merged into The IOC does not officially recognize any medal tallies or standings --Josilot 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)]

Medal Sorting

Hi. My newspaper sorts the countries in order of most medals to least medals. Why doesn't this page? SECProto 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia sorts the medal ranking by IOC standard which is from the most number of gold medals, instead of the total number of medals the country gets, and so on. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This page sorts the countries using a gold medal priority, the same sort that is used on the International Olympic Committee website as seen on this page for the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City: [11]. Also, there is further discussion of this above on this page under the topic The IOC does not officially recognize any medal tallies or standings.--Josilot 04:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

kk thanks. I thought i had looked at the categories, but i see now that this is addressed about five or six other times :P SECProto 14:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article seems to sort the medals according to the stubborn will of one or two editors who insist that the format used by the IOC editors is "correct" or a "standard," even though almost all media around the world and most readers and sports fans intuitively understand that "medal count" means most overall medals not most gold medals. Crunch 03:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A vote is currently being held to determine how wikipedia will display medal rankings. Please go here to vote and to let your opinion be heard by more people who may not be reading this chat. Wikipedia:Olympic_conventions --Josilot 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Flags on Ice and Swimming Pools?

Does anyone know how they project the flags on the ice and in the swimming lanes at the Olympics? Are they viewable in the arena also or do they use a green screen technique?

At Athens 2004 the flags in the swimming pools were projected in the TV. they were not viewable from the arena. You tell this because several time the swimmers stared while the flags were still there and the swimmers went through them.

I dont know what the case in for Torino 2006. I have been a speed skater for many years now and I'm guessing the Olympic ovals have the flags projected on the ice.

I presume it's the same image processing technique used to mark the 1st down lines during american football games. Cburnett 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely from video editing. In the CBC broadcast there is no such flag-on-ice projection. The Athens Games was probably the first time those flag projections were used on the pool when I watched the CBC coverage and I was wondering the same thing myself. I am impressed though with the replay with Alpin skiing when they superimpose the athletes from two different runs and compare their performance frame by frame. --Kvasir 06:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, they definitely aren't using a green screen to project the flags, as this implies that the arena has a large green rectangle under the ice, which they don't. Green screen technology uses green as a neutral color that can be easily removed and replaced in editing, while here they are adding the images of the flag without a neutral background. I believe Cburnett has it right when he says that the technology is similar to the technique used to mark the 1st down line in football.--Josilot 06:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The company that does this is SportVision. They explain the technology, with some examples from Speedskating, on their web site. It's neither video editing (it's actually done live) nor green screen (obviously the ice is not green). Another company Virtual Media Services (originally Princeton Video Imaging, I think) uses similar technology, but more for advertising. Crunch 04:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer Crunch. I checked out the Sport Vision site and it was very interesting. I also loved when they superimposed the skiers on the downhill events mentioned by Kvasir. That was an amazing use of video footage! I guess you can do some amazing things when you have between 7 and 10 hours of time between prime-time coverage in the states and live coverage in Torino! Thanks, Dean - Fort Collins, Colorado

Archive?

Should we archive the talk page, because it's page length is getting up there. Or should we just leave it at its current length, since the Olympics will only be going on for an additonal week? --Madchester 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Long as it may be, there is still some pretty important stuff here. We should probably wait until the Olympics are over before we archive. Should be ok with one more week... though we've been talking up a storm on this page ;o) tiZom_(2¢) 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Results tables

I've noticed that there is no real standardization for results tables among various sports. Some evnts have the time behind column, some don't. Some have top ten, top eight, top fifteen. Some have seperate articles for results (with just medals on the sport page). Is there any point in standardizing this or are we just going to leave it as is. --Anderal 23:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what we ought to do on these pages is just put the medalists on the main page (Biathlon at the 2006 Winter Olympics, for example, and then put extended results in the event subpages. Unfortunately, there is really no standard set forth in previous Olympics... tiZom_(2¢) 23:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Something like the Athletics and Swimming articles at most Summer Olympics then? See Athletics at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Brief description, highlights, medals-by-country, table w/ medallist names and links to events, qualification rules, suchlike on main page. As much detail as anyone could ever possibly want on the event subpages. (previous ones tend to do that for disciplines with large numbers of events or where there is a lot of information available) -- Jonel | Speak 00:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I had not actually looked at the biathlon page but it looks like a perfect example of what I am talking about. Just put the basic results (medalists with times) on the main page and put complete results with run times, difference and any other breakdowns on a seperate page. the other thing I noticed is that in many instances the headings are different. Personally, i would propose that we use the headings used on the "official" results tables (such as time back instead of difference etc.) --Anderal 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've a few questions about the results tables, and they basically all boil down to: How detailed should they be? For example, in the official results for Alpine skiing, it breaks down each individual run into 4 intervals. Is that important enough to be included, or would each run time be enough? Also, please take a look at Biathlon at the 2006 Winter Olympics - Men's individual. The final results are in the top table, and the rest of the tables just show the results as they came in (and ordered by whoever was winning at the time). Is that entirely necessary? tiZom_(2¢) 00:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say as long as the basic information is at the top of the page and the extended stuff is on an event subpage rather than, say Biathlon at the 2006 Winter Olympics, it's fine. -- Jonel | Speak 00:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And also, Anderal, which official results tables are you using? I'm using the ones on www.nbcolympics.com, and they have that last column titled "DIFF" ...Reason I ask, is that the NBC results are horrible difficult to convert to wiki format, and if you've got something better, I'd like to know about it! tiZom_(2¢) 00:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that a decision should likely be made on an event by event basis. As to your particular query, I see no reason to include intervals. To me, personally, that seems excessive. That being said, I do think that all run times should be included for events such as luge, skeleton and bobsled. I've been using torino2006.com but I've been manually putting in information. FYI, their heading for difference is time back which I personally like better. --Anderal 00:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done a seperate results table for Men's Singles Luge. This is what I consider the perfect set up for all results tables and what i would like to eventually convert them to. Feedback appreciated. --Anderal 03:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I'd go with "Time back" instead of "Time Back" just to follow WP's avoidance of title case. And perhaps ordinal numbers rather than cardinal ones (though that would be a fairly major departure from the rest of our articles). Great work. -- Jonel | Speak 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'd rather that the nations were flags and codes (i.e.

Armin Zöggeler (ITA)), rather than having them as full columns. Sam Vimes 07:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up chat

Would anyone mind if I clean up this talk page, merging the parts of Please someone HELP I was unfairly BLOCKED!!! that don't pertain to the anon's blocking into the The IOC does not officially recognize any medal tallies or standings section, and removing the unnecessary line breaks in the anon's posts? I think if he/she plans to involve a third party, we should at least have the conflict be as easy to navigate as possible.--Josilot 02:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do. Recommend you put it in a subsection of that section, as it's already fairly long. Reading the anon's comments is difficult enough without them being scattered all over the place. -- Jonel | Speak 05:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Josilot 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. So how can we get a neutral (No Bias) mediator with credibility? We should have at least 2 or maybe 3. Sorry I am new here so I really do not know how things work here.207.200.116.68 07:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)vo

I don't understand why you're dragging this out, especially when no other users have voiced a complaint. As a more efficent alternative, I've set up a straw poll on this talk page, to see what the opinions of regular editors are. It would be best to sign up for an account so you are more easily accessible, so that other users don't have to guess which IP you'll be using at a given time. --Madchester 08:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, But is there a much higher athourity here that could mediate instead of relying on regular editors? I mean some might just vote multiple times with their alias or by their multiple accounts to favor their views. Sorry I just had that experience from other website I go throug. And I always sign my name as vo207.200.116.68 09:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)vo

The use of sock puppets (i.e. multiple user accounts owned by the same person) to vote more than once in the same poll is against wikipedia policy. If you have reason to suspect that this has occurred, I encourage you to report the offense to a mediator.--Josilot 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, let me be the first to tell you, an arbitrator or other higher authority will not even listen to your arguments unless you can prove that you've tried to resolve the conflict by lesser means by appealing to the community (such as in a straw poll). The use of straw polls is generally a good way to get a larger number of editors involved in the dispute than would have been with just back-and-forth arguments.--Josilot 10:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll: IOC medal count disclaimer

This is an straw poll to gauge opinion on how the disclaimer on the IOC's role in the medal count should be presented. This poll will accept votes and comments for the next week or so (up to February 27, 2006). Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~) under the method you support; additonal comments are appreciated.

I know it's pretty long, but please read the The IOC does not officially recognize any medal tallies or standings and someone HELP I was unfairly BLOCKED!!! sections toroughly and carefully before voting . And I ask you to be objective as possible. Thank You24.127.191.241 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Current method: Specifies that the IOC uses a medal ranking system, but it is not officially endorsed by the organization. Medal rankings are presented for informational purposes only. [12]

Support the current disclaimer; the IOC has been using such a ranking system for decades by convention, if not officially. The IOC uses the system shared by the BBC and IAAF to produce medal rankings for distribution and historical reference. --Madchester 09:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong support for the current wording. The IOC presents a medal count for informational purposes only, which applies to the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. Current wording of the disclaimer is needed, and adequate.--Josilot 10:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Support as the alternative seems downright false to me. --Anderal 17:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Support. This sounds pretty accurate to me. The IOC issues medals and keeps track of who won those medals, via things such as tables on websites. They simply don't want to recognize a ranking system that officially designates a country as the "best Olympic country ever," or anything along those lines. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative method: Specifies that only the IOC website uses a medal ranking system and that the IOC organization does not recognize any medal ranking system whatsoever. [13]

Given the fact that the IOC does not recognize any medal rankings at all this would make this statement false "This follows the system used by the IOC, IAAF and BBC."

Presenting or using it as information, which the current method seems to imply is different from the IOC "organization" actually using or exercising a particular system.

The main problem with my opponents is they think that if the IOC "uses it as information" then, we can claim that they use it. They ignore the fact that the article is refering or, indicates of, to "using" A particular "system" and not simply providing, or using, an "information".

If you read the context of the article it clearly implies that the IOC organization actully employs A "system" on how to rank a national medal tally which is completely FALSE as proven in their official website.

24.127.191.241 20:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)vo

I do not even think this straw polls is credible. First my opponenet madchester are the one who started it. That itself is Bias. Madchester was even the one who blocked me unfairly that is why I am using multiple computers now to voice out myself.

Secondly, Josilit (another opponent) adviced me not to edit the article until a agreement has been reached and I obliged YET he/she the one who keeps on editing the article as he/she saw it fit.

I called for a neutral higher authorized third party. And I already suggested that such straw polls is PRONE to FRAUD because people would just use their "Aliases" or other accounts to favor their views.

So I do not think that it will resolve in this way. I really felt that I am being bullied just because I am just annonynous or new user here. I really felt that they think they know better than me and knows the subject matter better because they have an "accont" while they didnt even know that the "IOC does not recognize national medal tallies" until I informed them to that. And I felt that I am really arguing with their ego rather than to their objective views because they would not even let me comprimise on the most simplest sentence change!!! I am not sure if one of them was the authors of the questioned article but most probably they are because they defending it stubbornly to death.

In that note, I feel that this is getting nowhere and this is not worth my time anymore. However My trust on Wikipedia has been lowered. (ALL are just my opinion I do meant to offend anyone) 24.127.191.241 21:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)vo

I just want to take a moment to address several of your claims. First, the fact that madchester took the initiative to appeal to the community in the form of a straw poll is a great idea, instead of just looping our debate over and over again. The point of a straw poll is to get opinions from more editors than just the ones involved in a debate, so by definition it will almost always be started by one of the debaters. Secondly, my edit to the article had to do with fixing the disclaimer, not unjustly biasing the page. Third, in wikipedia there are several steps that must be taken before a higher authority will listen to your claims, and one of them is to appeal to the community using such devices as straw polls. Fourth, as mentioned above, using multiple user accounts (i.e sock puppets to vote multiple times in the same poll is against wikipedia policy, and measures will be taken to punish people who are guilty of this offense. Fifth, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from signing up for an account. We refer to you as "the anon" because you haven't. You claiming that we think we're better than you because you don't have an account is silly, since this could be fixed by taking 60 seconds of your time to sign up for an account. Finally, your efforts have not been in vane. Because of you, there is now a disclaimer on the page that says The IOC does not endorse a medal ranking per country, and provides one for informational purposes only. You succeeded in getting that disclaimer there, and it was more than enough to have ended this debate days ago. It is you that is being extremely stubborn. I might say that I have been quite courteous during this debate, and if someone disagrees with me and thinks that I am being stubborn, let me know. It is unfortunate that your trust in Wikipedia has been lowered because of this incident. However, Wikipedia is a community effort, and sometimes that means that people who have different opinions sometimes have to compromise, and I believe we've tried to meet you halfway by adding the disclaimer in the first place. I urge you to rethink your views on wikipedia, it is improved through the efforts people like you who fact check pages and find something wrong.--Josilot 22:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I am sorry if I offended you but that is just what I felt and opinion,

Yes you put on the disclaimer but it something you saw it fit. The disclaimer I tried to suggest is the disclaimer they use on the IOC "Official" website. Secondly, the ONLY and the simplest request I been bringing up was the removal of the IOC "organization" name in the organizations who uses the system we are talking about in the article. Let say we agree on this part (for the sake of argument OK). You believe that they use a medal ranking system unofficially right? BUT Since this is an "objective" Encyclopedia I think we ought to consider first, what the IOC "officially" believe rather than crediting their "unnoficial" views (as you saw it) Cretting their "oficial views" is much BETTER in crediting their "unofficial" view especially if the article is trying to be objective. I am bewildered, bewildered why is it so hard for you to do this since the whole thing is uneccesarry anyway.

Sorry, I know we are just going in loop again, Is just when I write something I just write you know. Anyway, I am also sorry that I lost my trust on wikipedia by this incidnce but that just what happened. I will no longer contest this again because like I said it is not worth my time anymore. But thanks for at least understanding some of my points if not evrything, good night and good luck editing.207.200.116.68 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)vo

Additional comments or suggestions

I applaud your attempt to resolve the conflict through the use of a straw poll. Hopefully it can garner enough support to resolve the issue one way or the other.--Josilot 10:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to do a straw poll, it makes sense to only allow "votes" from unique registered users, no? Crunch 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already informed that particular anon. user to sign up for an account, so that other editors can communicate with him/her more easily. --Madchester 15:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now there is a Wikipedia:Olympic_conventions page where several conventions are being voted on in one place. I think that this straw poll should be moved there for two reasons: 1)It would get much wider exposure, and 2)This debate, when settled, will affect more than just the 2006 Winter Olympics, which is what this talk page is for. In fact, once a solution is found, it will apply to all Olympic pages. Therefore it belongs in an Olympic Convention section.--Josilot 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Weather, delays and reschedules

Has anyone been keeping track of the rescheduled events delayed by weather? I would like to see a section on that. Probably after Calender. Some events were reordered like in Alpin skiing, some skiier had to redo their event. That has got to affect some of the athletes i'm sure. --Kvasir 08:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping track, but I know at least one or two of the skijumping events were postponed due to weather.--Josilot 08:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The rescheduling is included where relevant with the results. I don't think it deserves a separate section. If entire events were cancelled, that would be a different story. Crunch 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Medal Count Bias

If the United States is 2nd on the full chart, the more official chart, why then is the United States placed below Austria in second position on the 10 place chart? Don't appeal to alphabetical order. Haizum 03:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is partly to do with alphabetical order. On the full table the US is placed above Austria because it has had more athletes finish in 4th-8th places, although they have the same number of gold, silver and bronze medals. The top ten table only records the medals, so the two countries have identical results, meaning they are shown in alphabetical order - which is both neutral and traditional.

Alternate methods of sorting are the number of medals per head of population (which would put Austria ahead by a significant margin) and number of medals per number of athletes competing at the games. I don't know how many competitors there are for each nation so I can't tell you who would be on top by that measure. Thryduulf 09:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the info. Haizum 03:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the Austrians

Anyone been following this emerging story about alleged doping charges against the Austrian ski team and a banned coach showing up in Turin and is being pursuited by Italian police? Definitely worth a mention. Also a subsection for doping under Olympic problems purhaps. --Kvasir 07:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Their ski federation has now admitted impropriety: [14] - this definitely deserves a mention. Radagast 15:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Broadcasting

I would like to thank Wikipedia for having the "Broadcasting" section. Now, I don't have to go flipping through the channels to see if the Olympics are on. Thanks again!

                                                    Sincerely,
                                                           Weather Man 15:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to medal count

I dont have the real numbers so I can't fix it, but the table shows the US in third place. This can't possibly be the case. You need to fix this before a libel suit gets filed. The US hasn't lost in the medal count in forever, and it can't possibly be the case now. It seems to me that a persistant team of vandals (Probaly from Germany or Austria, based on who the vandals say is winning) is engaged in a targetted, deceitful program. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.229.197.48 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

Er... [15] is the official (notrecognized,forinformationalpurposesonly) count, which looks the same as our count. Any way you slice it, the US hasn't won as many medals as Germany. -- Jonel | Speak 02:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That website is nothing but anti-US crap. Biased news sources can not be recognized by Wikipedia. It's probably hosted by Europeon websites, who would want to lie about germanys medals in order to attempt to discredit the US. Look at Wikipedia's total medal count, all time. The US has over 1500 more medals then anyone else. 2nd place is the soviet union. No still-existing country has even 750 total, we have 2500 total. There is no way that any lies about the US being behind in Torino are true. To say they are is anti-US propaganda spilled forth and can not be trusted on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.229.197.48 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

Uh guys, The US is actually doing pretty good in this winter olympic. The US has never really been consider a "powerhouse" in winter olympics. Traditionally its really been the Germans, Norwegian and the Russians are the ones who leads these games and other cold countries up there in Northen Europe. So, Third place? that is actually pretty good considering they were also third place overall last time eventhough the US hosted it. And they actually winning more medals than ever before (maybe because they added a lot of sports since then) But traditionaly The US were actually averaging from 5th to 6th place maybe 4th But I think it has been a long time since they top the overall medals in the winter olympics. So do not be suprise that the US is not topping the medal charts. (actually I am suprise that they are on third place). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.55.48.132 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

please don't feed the troll, just ignore him. Boneyard 09:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

CNN Poll

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23390.exclude.html

CNN Poll Question: Have you been surprised by the U.S. performance at the Winter Olympics?

--> What winter Olympics? 36% 14799 votes

Yes, expected better 32% 13225 votes

No, it's about what I expected 27% 11101 votes

Yes, expected worse 5% 1956 votes

And such people act as the world police when they don't even know what's outside South Dakota and sunday school... BTW, Torino is NOT in Canada, but Jesus is in Torino! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) .

The response generating the highest percentage is probably more of a joke response. Besides, this is trolling. Please refrain from insulting others on Wikipedia per the no personal attacks policy. — Scm83x ^talk

11:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sssh, quiet, the Curling finals are about to start. >:) Wahkeenah 11:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the "What winter Olympics?" was meant to mean "I haven't paid any attention to the Olympics," not, "I don't know what the Olympics are." Crunch 13:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this thread. Please do not change it back. This sort of attack will not stand, period. First, I agree with Crunch on the meaning of the question (and answer). Second, I find it curious that the anon who started this thread to accuse people from the US of not knowing what's what seems to have forgotten that "Torino" is called Turin in English. Redux 21:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Low ratings

is it an actual olympic problem that americans aren't that intersted in the games this time? i find it a kinda typical location to place this news. Boneyard 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. In order for the games to remain relevent they have to be observed. This showcases the supposed 'best of the best' and lately, over the last couple decades, the worlds interests in the olympics has been waning rather fast. The IOC is pretty much scared to death about the whole issue. Stands half-filled present a major image problem for them, because cities competing to host must build all the facilities and such on they're own, at a cost of hundreds of millions to the city itself, as much as a billion dollars all together (Transportaion costs for spectators, cost of extra security and custodial personell and such). If the games lose the television battle, they fall even farther out of the limelight, stadium and ticket sales fall, and suddenly.... *whoop* no one wants to host the games anymore. Low ratings for the winter games has always been an issue (No one outside of scandinavia cares enough about the biathalon to deal with time zones (stay up late/wake up early enough/fly somewhere) to watch the events. But the summer games are hurting from lack of competition. Basketball? You see better competition in the NBA. Baseball? I actually really liked Olympic Baseball (All the countries had different strategies, in MLB they all strive trying for about the same 'perfect team') and then they pull it. Running isn't a spectator sport. And the worlds most watched sport isn't in the Olympics. That would be (American) Football. (Too be fair, the only game watched elsewhere in the world is the Super Bowl. A regular season game gets precisely the same attention in England as a Manchester United-Real Madrid game gets in America. That is, none at all.) Now, granted, most who tune into that are expected to watch not for the game, but as Chuck Smeeton, an Austrailian covering the event says, 'the spectacle', the Olympics have no 'big draw' event like that. Why? The games cater to stupidity. Simpleness. People don't really enjoy simple games. There's no strategy. Why are Soap Operas and Aaron Sorkin written shows popular? They're complicated. It takes intelligence to follow them. American footbal usually takes 8 to 10 coaches to a team to run well. Baseball requires 6 and a manager or two. Speedskating? 1. Skiing? 1. Same reason that Soccer hasn't caught on in the US. It's a kids game. Simple. Sure, it's great in Latin America, Africa and such. There quite a large portion of the population has other things to worry about. Like "Where's my next meal going to come from?" and "I wonder how long THIS President will last?" It started big in England when they were going through a similer low point, and remains strong because of European Loyalty. But most major industrialized nations? Too simple.

This has gotten considerably longer then I had intended. Anyway, the answers yes. -AKMask 05:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

very long and very odd indeed, you really are calling soap operas compilcated shows? Boneyard 09:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do the Winter Olympics all of the sudden face problems when Americans aren't interested in them? There are plenty more people in the world watching the Games and no, they won't host the Games in the US every other time. So deal with it! Just because the Games don't fit the American timezone this time they have problems? Many people learn the results during the day from the Internet or from the radio. There is not much point watching them later on prime time unless they want to see how their athletes won and lost. TV ratings don't really correlate to the general interest in the Games. Here in Canada, the newspaper front pages across the country have been devoted to winning medalists since the Games started. Believe me, people in this part of North America do follow the Games. --Kvasir 07:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues related to Torino -- 1) Low American televison viewing. This is nothing new and not related to the time difference. Viewing was low when the games were in Salt Lake City as well. I think this is due to the fact that Americans have a lot of other entertainment options and NBC pre-hypes a set group of only American athletes. American viewing audiences aren't aware of any other athletes from the US, let alone athletes from any other countries. As soon as Michelle Kwan dropped out, Bode Miller fizzled and Apollo Anton Ohno didn't repeat his gold medal wins on day 1, they tuned out. The "Olympic Show" didn't match the storyline NBC wrote. It didn't matter that other athletes, American and otherwise, did great things. NBC devised a pre-set storyline and that's the complete wrong way to promote sports. 2) Ticket sales at many of the live venues have also been down which is attributed to high ticket prices and more readily available televison broadcasting from worldwide networks and the ability for people to take full advantage of mature technology like the Internet, VCRs, cable, satellite dishes, DVRs, etc. I also think the swtich in 1994 that offsets the winter and summer Olympics has hurt interest in the games. The Olympics used to be a once every four year event, now that it happens ever other year, it's not as big a deal to a lot of people. So in answer to the question, the answer is it is an Olympics problem when television viewership from the US is down and tourism, which would includes a fair number of Americans, is also down. The Olympics is a spectator event and depends on in-person and on-televison spectators and when the wealthiest and one of the most populous countries shrugs their shoulders, that's a problem. But it's not entirely the Olympic organizer's fault. Crunch 12:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the Winter Games have seldom been a big draw in the USA. There just isn't all that much American interest in Curling and Biathlon and the various repetitious sledding events and so on. You have cited the exact problem, that is, that NBC tries to pre-manage the story in order to justify their huge expenditure. Decades ago, the Olympics (especially the winter games) were in their proper perspective on TV. Remember the 1972 winter games? Many of the events were held live even if they were during the day when the soap operas were on. They often got low ratings, but that was expected, and it was also a relatively low investment. NBC has painted itself into this corner. Wahkeenah 13:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Were the '72 Sapporo Games actually shown live? I believe Eastern Standard Time is 14 hours earlier so if it were soap opera time on the American east coast (say 2 pm) it would have been 4 am in Sapporo. Correct me if I'm wrong. According to an article in today's USA Today, the Sapporo games got a 12.3 ratings in the USA and Torino 12.4. Lake Placid '80 is the all-time high at 21.6 and Innsbruck '76 didn't do too bad either at 19.4. Here's the article online USA Today 2.24.06 10 suggestions to boost the Olympics but I don't think it has the ratings chart. Crunch 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the '72 games were shown live, and I exaggerate a bit. But they had broadcasts going on at breakfast time in America. Wahkeenah 00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm sure you're reporting from memory, so good point. Crunch 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the article for Dick Ebersol, the man in charge for producing NBC's Olympic coverage, claims that NBC and NBC alone is responsible for the current presentation style for the Olympics in the U.S. I swear that the same style was used when ABC was the U.S. home of the Olympics and Ebersol is continuing in the tradition of Roone Arledge, the man who produced ABC's telecasts. I think even back then, they were mainly pre-taped, and a big reason it got ratings was because there weren't as many ways to get results as there are today. Note that the famous Miracle on Ice was shown on tape, even though it did take place in the U.S.. ErikNY 14:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Miracle on Ice was shown on taped replay. I recall watching a news crawl line on a weather cable channel (before The Weather Channel came along) as being the only obvious way to get the results "live". Perhaps they got burned with their daytime coverage in 1972 and decided to go with taped coverage exclusively. Of course, going way back (relatively speaking), the Summer Games of 1960, as I recall, were shown via film on ABC's Wide World of Sports the following weekends. In those days, TV didn't have all that much on-the-spot coverage, it was still a lot like the newsreel days. Also, the Summer Games of 1984 in L.A. had some taped coverage of some significant events. Wahkeenah 14:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, though, Lillehammer in '94 got fairly high ratings. It was both in a far-away time zone and produced by CBS. Make of that what you will. Crunch 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That was because of the Nancy Kerrigan-Tonya Harding story. The night of the long program, if I recall correctly was the hightest rated night of tv in the U.S. in the 1990s, despite being pre-taped. ErikNY 14:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can people commenting on this try to remember they aren't on Planet America? US indifference and low audiences in Italy do not mean the end of the Winter Games. Yes there are a lot of poor people in China, India, Brazil, etc. but the sheer size of the economy means there is still worthwhile money there (and by Scandinavian standards there are some extremely poor people in the USA). And finally, in 2004 the Superbowl had 95 million viewers (89 million of whom were in the USA). It was the fourth most watched sports event of the year. The Euro 2004 final Football (Portugal v Greece) had 153 million. The other two events in the top three? Olympic Games ceremonies. Men's 100metres comes just behind the Superbowl. Oh, and if you did it for last year, the India vs Pakistan cricket ODIs would beat the Superbowl too if anyone bothered taking proper numbers. So don't pretend the audience figures for sports aren't there worldwide (and I bet Twenty20 cricket will be in the Olympics before baseball gets back in). Average Earthman 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the topics of this discussion was 1) why are Americans not watching, since it was NBC, an American broadcast company that spent the most money on the games and 2) why were ticket sales down, which is not really an American-centric issue. And 3) , is this a topic worthy of mention in the 2006 Winter Olympics article on Wikipedia. I don't know if it has much to do which whether people in the US or elsewhere in the world watch the Super Bowl or World Cup Soccer or other athletic events on television or in person. The largest national TV audience (numbers of people with television sets) is in the US and NBC paid millions to get these people to watch. They didn't watch. Is this notable? I think so. To discuss this is not being American-centric. It's just observing a fact. Crunch 16:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the first comment it's "is it an actual olympic problem that americans aren't that intersted in the games this time? (sic)". Which I took as "is it a problem for the IOC" or "is there a problem with the Olympics themselves". The Superbowl comment was in response to AKMask's extremely UScentric claim that American Football is the world's most watched sport. (By the way AKMask - baseball is a little girl's game called 'rounders' in the UK. Cricket is far more complicated and India and Pakistan love it, so stop being rude about 'poor countries'). Average Earthman 08:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone ever thought that maybe us non-Americans (like 80%+ of the world) aren't interested in how interested the Americans are...--HJV 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's not about who's interested or not. It's about the story of an American company spending a ton of money to get people, mostly Americans to watch the games and then not having them watch it. And the story of the Olympic organizers, mostly in Italy, expecting to have a lot of people show up in Torino and then having a whole lot less people show up. That's possibly an intersting topic even if you are neither American nor Italian. Crunch 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Both these events have been reported in Norwegian newspapers over the two Olympic weeks. Sam Vimes 21:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, it's never a good idea for a single network to own exclusive rights to transmit anything (Winter or Summer Olympics, World Cup, whatever). That's usually a recipe for disaster. Without competition, you get all the problems that have been exposed here. The only monopoly acceptable should be the board game. Redux 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I was even more surprised no American networks carried the Closing Ceremonies live. At least of the NBC channels we receive here in Calgary, Canada. --Kvasir 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As an American, I can say authoritatively that the reason I paid the games less attention than I otherwise would have is that they invariably put the final part of the showcase event for the event on fairly late. If they had ended their coverage each night at 11pm ET (the normal end of prime time for the big three networks) instead of 11:30 or midnight, I would have been more inclined to stay up and watch. Most people are not going to stay up later than usual every night for two weeks and if you weren't going to be awake to watch the conclusion of an event, why watch the beginning? NBC goofed big time on their scheduling. They either should have limited their primetime to the normal three hours or added the extra time from before 8pm ET instead of after 11pm ET. If they'd done that I know of at least one household that would have watched more of the Olympics. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem was that the Americans have no nationalised network like the CBC here in Canada that is more focused to enforce the national identiy by bringing home important sporting events like the Olympics than to achieve higher ratings by showing popular sitcoms and reality TV. The CBC has primetime re-cap starting at 18h00 local time until 23h00. That's five hours every night devoted only to the Olympics in addition to live coverage started early in the morning til all events for the day in Italy. For sports that started even earlier in Italy (middle of the night here in Canada), TSN carried some of the events live. Overall I was very satisfied with the Canadian coverage of these Games. --Kvasir 08:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

this discussion has gone way off track, my only remark was if the ratings of the game in america should be under oplympic problems. im fine with mentioning it here, but the exact place for it seems odd. Boneyard 11:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more of an NBC problem than an IOC one. Not the IOC's fault that there aren't any great new US personalities with wonderful marketing opportunities coming through from the games. Average Earthman 08:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jackass marres Closing Ceremony

What was that all about?? Are we going to factor that in our article? Redux 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Closing Ceremonies article for sure and maybe under Olympic Problems section in this article. I will review the tape to see what his shirt says. --Kvasir 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that we were going to have a separate article for the Closing Ceremony; I thought that everything was going to be handled here. Here's something the commentators from "my" network said: seems that the moron only yelled the slogan of the Turin Games, that is, not likely a political statement of any [misguided] sort. Redux 22:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I belive it was another one of the goldenpalace.com stunts. Crunch 03:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a separate article 2006 Winter Olympics Closing Ceremony currently being worked on. There is also a 2006 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony article. Speaking of goldenpalace.com, I've seen them in many of the skating events. They positioned themselves quite well on the stand so that their banner would always be in the sight of TV camera when the skaters come around the corner or at the start line. Any complaint against them particularly for the 2006 Games? --Kvasir 03:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "complaint," but I'm not sure what the rules are about bringing banners into venues. On TV it lookd like people were waving all kinds of flags and signs, so it probably was not against the rules. But the guy who jumped the stage at the closing ceremonies is probably in trouble, as is the streaker who jumped on the ice at the curling match. Crunch 04:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the logic of why Ricky Martin was singing in English in Italy? --Bushido Hacks 05:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the Italian connection either. Puerto Rico wasn't even at the Games. --Kvasir 08:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There's really no logic. In those ceremonies, we usually see the host country focus on its culture, its music and so on. The Italians even played YMCA (instrumental). Some Italian friends of mine have attributed this to a certain "cultural subservience", as they put it. Redux 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words Italy has surendered itself to Americanization? --Bushido Hacks 21:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the case, yes. I believe it was Umberto Ecco who said that the Italy of today, in terms of national culture, " is going through a prolongued drought and lives off the past". I wouldn't want to start a discussion here about whether or not he is right, but it was a little depressing to see them play YMCA at the Closing Ceremony of the Turin Olympics. Redux 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Why did the opening and closing ceremony producers think that 1980s American disco music was appropriate in any way, shape or form. It was particularly bizaare to see the dancing clowns doing the YMCA dance and then an immediate switch to soldiers raising the Greek flag. Crunch 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe part of the point for the closing ceremony was to have comical breaks just when things getting serious. The roadseller being chased by swiss guards running through the middle of the choreography several times during the program was one example. --Kvasir 07:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that objective was quite clear, and it is valid. The problem was the musical setting. Couldn't they have done it using Italian music? By doing what they did, I suppose we got the impression that the Italians meant something like we've got nothing worthwhile in this country that isn't at least 300 years old, so we'll just throw in some Village People stuff, which everybody likes. I'm sure they could have looked a little harder and found something, anything, Italian that they could have used. But they didn't want to, which is regrettable: the Opening/Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games are a huge opportunity to divulge a country's culture, language, attractives, etc. to the world; why on Earth would the Italians use Village People songs in their Closing Ceremony? Redux 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Gold Medals Section

Jin Sun-Yu is listed under the category for males' most gold medals, and is female.

Similarly, Ahn Hyun Soo is listed under both males and females, but is male (and of course, not both)

Some newbie added the extra words in the subsection headings, and they have since been removed. --Kvasir 04:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't There a Nigerian Alpine Skier?

I don't see Nigeria in the country listing, but I swear I remember a Nigerian skier from the opening ceremonies. 24.199.113.148 08:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No there wasn't. It's not listed on the Torino2006 site either. Maybe you were thinking of Algeria. --Kvasir 08:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the only African alpine skiier was from Madagascar. Regards, Redux 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a French-Algerian woman skiing for Algeria as well. Widening the African skiers list, there were entries from Kenya and Ethiopia in cross country. Average Earthman 09:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ethiopian athlete never got to competing though. He got pinched for doping before his event even took place. Redux 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

and was allowed back in short before the games, with some others, there was something with that test er such. i do believe he competed, i saw some short newsclip about it. Boneyard 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Robel Teklemariam, from Ethiopia, participated in the Cross Country 15km Classical and placed 84th. Sue Anne 19:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The last I had heard was that he had been barred. I do remember that there was something fishy about the circumstances in which he had been suspended. Good to hear that the mistake was rectified in time. Redux 21:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Medals by Discipline

How do you count disciplines for the German medal count? Even the Germany at the 2006 Winter Olympics page only lists 7 disciplines in which the Germans medalled. They medalled in Biathlon, Bobsleigh, Cross Country Skiing, Luge, Nordic Combined, Snowboarding, and Speedskating. That's 7, not 9.

Pictures?

Tons of potentially useful images here. [16] Are these images available for use in Wikipedia? It says it's for journalists and magazines, ie: media. What about Wikipedia? If they can be used here please advise what kind of copyright tags to be used. Thanks. --Kvasir 09:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Per the website:

The images of the photo gallery are available for journalists, for editorial (newspapers and magazines) use only. For any other use please contact us.

Should we contact them? And if we did, would their permission be good enough for WP? tiZom_(2¢) 19:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think that we do not qualify, because putting a picture on Wikipedia enables it to be used under GFDL for other downstream users. It would be safest to contact them. You can see Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for text you can use to get the copyright owners permission. Good luck, Johntex\^talk 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Medal Sweeps?

What does a medal sweep mean if a couuntry is listed having ony won, say, 4 out of 6? Isn't a sweep, by definition, winning all of the medals in a given single event? -- Don Sowell 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweep means all. I've fixed it. -- Jonel | Speak 20:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why only gold medal winners at team events? It's still a sweep when both men and women team win a medal in an event given one entry per nation. It is impossible to win all 6 medals in team event. The most a nation can do in team event is two. --Kvasir 06:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Except in Bobsleigh, which is a team competition, in which most of the participating nations had two teams (Germany 1 and 2; Switzerland 1 and 2 and so on). Theoretically, the same nation could have won gold and silver/gold and bronze/silver and bronze (and combinations between different events) in both the two-men and four-men competitions, as well as the women's two-men (I mean, women) Bobsleigh. That makes six medals, although never the entire podium. Regards, Redux 17:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why bobsleigh is not to be included. Already said that in the disclaimer that only team sport with one entry per nation would be considered. --Kvasir 19:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Torino.jpg

Image:Torino.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Olympic medal record
sport-1
	year-1	event-1
	year-2	event-2
sport-2
	year-3	event-3