Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Track and field sub-categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:It is both appropriate and important for several reasons:

:* Completeness and Consistency: Every country that has participated in the Olympics deserves a standardized and complete record. Including medal tables, even if they are all zeroes, maintains a consistent format across all olympic-articles.

:* Recognition of Participation: Participation itself is a major achievement, especially for smaller or less wealthy nations that face significant logistical, financial, and political hurdles. Listing these medal tables honors their involvement and shows that their athletes competed on the world stage, regardless of outcomes.

:* Encyclopedic documentation: An official record should document facts without bias. Omitting a medal table could imply that the country’s participation is somehow only legitimate, if they win medals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Between Josh's view directly above, and an alternative view on the idea it's "mocking" (I would instead suggest that having a column for medal count could be interpreted as a "we believe you'll get one so here's a place to list it when you do"!), and the fact it's status quo at the moment, I think it's the easiest way to present the information. Willing to hear more views otherwise, though. Kingsif (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes, we should always list all participation, even if it does not result in any medals. To add to the above, imagine a country like France or something somehow not receiving any medals in the future. Would we leave the year off, while showing the rest? No that wouldn't make sense. We would list the participation with zero medals. This is not difficult to understand. The table being a medal table is perhaps is a misnomer, it's more of an overview of Olympic participation, but it absolutely should have a row for each Games the country participated in, with our traditional spans for non-participation and participation as/as part of another NOC. Jmj713 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are currently [https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?namespace_conversion=keep&show_disambiguation_pages=both&labels_no=&max_sitelink_count=&page_image=any&wikidata_item=no&negcats=&manual_list_wiki=&cb_labels_any_l=1&before=&maxlinks=&categories=Nations+at+the+Summer+Olympics+by+nation+and+year&templates_no=&cb_labels_no_l=1&labels_yes=&referrer_name=&outlinks_no=&active_tab=tab_categories&ores_prob_to=&interface_language=en&language=en&output_compatability=catscan&after=&combination=subset&source_combination=&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&cb_labels_yes_l=1&manual_list=&edits%5Banons%5D=both&common_wiki=auto&search_max_results=500&max_age=&wikidata_source_sites=&ns%5B0%5D=1&search_query=&sortby=none&depth=10&show_soft_redirects=both&subpage_filter=either&project=wikipedia&doit= 3,165] "Country at the YYYY Summer Olympics" articles, and I would like some help to update them to conform to the post-WP:NSPORTS2022 era by including relevant biographical details of athletes listed that may not have enough SIGCOV found yet to have their own articles.

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

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

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

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

:You have no consensus to do this. It's effectively merging biographies into these articles like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladesh_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics&diff=prev&oldid=1296572306]. You're effectively quoting this as if it's an accepted policy as WP:COUNTRYATOLYBIO when it's not. Pinging @FOARP, @Let'srun, @Svartner, @Geschichte, @JoelleJay LibStar (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{hr}}

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

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

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

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

::Thanks, hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 1/6: {{hidden ping|Abishe|AdlerOk|Aeron_Valderrama|AF4JM|Agmonaco|Akhil7Cena|Alexikoua|Allied45|Allthegoldmedals|AmaryllisGardener|Andromedabluesphere440|Andrwsc|Another_Believer|Aridd|Arne_Müseler|Auth0RiTy|Ayrton_Prost|AxG|B20180|Basement12|Bbabybear02|Bearas|Benjamin112|Bob_Ramsak|Canuck85|Carom|Chantella28|Chichibung|Codyorb|Coppercanuck|Darwinek|Davey2010|David_Biddulph|Decafdyke|DENAMAX|DitzyNizzy|Drat8sub|DSparrow14|Eclipse13|Edged|Edin75|Evanh2008|E1tiger|Faycal.09|Figureskatingfan|Filipid011|Francois-Pier|Gap9551|Geschichte|GDLenny123}} --Habst (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 2/12 (switching to 25 at a time now): {{hidden ping|Carom|Chantella28|Chichibung|Codyorb|Coppercanuck|Darwinek|Davey2010|David_Biddulph|Decafdyke|DENAMAX|DitzyNizzy|Drat8sub|DSparrow14|Eclipse13|Edged|Edin75|Evanh2008|E1tiger|Faycal.09|Figureskatingfan|Filipid011|Francois-Pier|Gap9551|Geschichte|GDLenny123}} --Habst (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 3/12: {{hidden ping|GhostOrchid35|Good888|Griff88|Habst|Hamma085|Hansenløver|Hansmoehansen|HawkAussie|Hektor|Hey_man_im_josh|Highfields|House_Hippo_Truther|Huaiwei|Igordebraga|Inspector_Semenych|Ivaneurope|J36miles|Jahamian876242|JamesAM|Jantompkins|Jevansen|JGab12|Jonas_kam|Jonel|Jpeeling}} --Habst (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 4/12: {{hidden ping|K._Annoyomous|The_Kardiac_Kid|Kasper2006|Keith_Edkins|Kevinalewis|Kingsif|Knope7|KnowledgeIsPower9281|Ktkvtsh|Lamassus|Lejman|Lettler|Lordseriouspig|Luccis|Lucky102|Lukens|M.C.|MattBinYYC|Matthewrb|Metro_man_27|Mr.crabby|Nardisoero|NativeForeigner|Nav~enwiki|Neville_Longbottom}} --Habst (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 5/12: {{hidden ping|Nick_C|Nimrodbr|Oahdi|OhKayeSierra|Omnis_Scientia|Oncamera|Paninigenie|Parutakupiu|Pasaban|Paulbrock|PavleV129|Pbrks|PCN02WPS|Pelmeen10|Phileasson|Phikia|Phosphor|Prayerfortheworld|Preschooler.at.heart|Presidentman|PrinceofPunjab|Ravendrop|Reade|Redhill54|Reywas92}} --Habst (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 6/12: {{hidden ping|Riley1012|Rockysmile11|Rodney_Baggins|Sahil0411|Sainsf|Saulopro|Scorpion0422|Sellyme|Sillyfolkboy|Sjones23|SoAnactoria|Spongie555|SounderBruce|Sports2021|SSSB|Stepojevac|Stvbastian|Subman758|Swaggalicious|ThaddeusB|Thalaja|Tone|Toreightyone|Trackinfo|TracyFleuryFan}} --Habst (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 7/12: {{hidden ping|Ultratomio|Ukexpat|UnqstnableTruth|Untitledmind72|User24202|Wallie|WEBDuB|WikiEdits2003|Wolvescantread|World|Xeltran|Yellow_alligator|Yellow_Dingo|Yogwi21|97079|Alistairjh|Amanuelbayu|Andyroo161|APNOneTwo|Atom105|Abdullah_Al_Manjur|Beautheimpala|Baseballa449|Bernstein2291|Bill_william_compton}} --Habst (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 8/12: {{hidden ping|Binbaksa|Bluap|Bluehooloovo|BRD-98|Camyoung54|Cbradshaw|Chicgeek|ChicXulub|Chrishmt0423|CLWE|Cmapm|CzechOut|Dajes13|DanteAgusta|Dazaifukid|Deletion_Quality|Donlammers|Dwperrin|Ebacci_EN|EditorSeto|Ekaterina_tony|El_Greco|Elephantsandbacon|EliteArcher88|EvertoExcel}} --Habst (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 9/12: {{hidden ping|Farmercarlos|Felipe_Menegaz|Ferraridude100|Flaming|Fox334|Fungbregas|General_Eisenhower|Globetrotter51|Goldfinger820|GreenB.live|Guntherman|H1nkles|HandsomeFella|Hecato|Iantheimp|InformationContributor11|IrishDragon|Jao|Jared|JDBear|Justie19|Kaffe42|Karthanitesh|Kolindigo|Ktw1988}} --Habst (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 10/12: {{hidden ping|Leeds_United_FC_fan|Lemonflash|Life684|LuigiTheVII|Maddiekate|Mannschaftskapitän|Master_of_Puppets|Mattressman09|MichelleLobster|Microwave09|Mipchunk|Miszatomic|Mpjmcevoy|MrYIndeed|Mtmelendez|Murshedi009|Mynameinc|Naturista2018|NBA_Fan44|Nipsonanomhmata|Nirvana888|Oicsen|Ooouah|Parslad|Pedrocampelo}} --Habst (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 11/12: {{hidden ping|Pedrovitorh2|Peter_Konnecke|PhilipTerryGraham|Pink-seoul-judo|Pratyya_Ghosh|Presto|Qed237|Rebskii|Rin_tin_tin|Rohith_goura|Roux|Rselby1|Rudolph89|SargentIV|Scholarly_Breeze|Sean|Shin368|Solar-Poseidon|Sue_Anne|SuperSonicUnleashed|Swimmer88|Thesimpsonsguru|ThinkLordUK|TollHRT52|TriggeredMLP}} --Habst (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Hidden pinging WP Olympics members part 12/12: {{hidden ping|Valrith|Vibhave|VLaiquendi|Wesley_Wolf|Wine_Guy|Winged_Fist|Xiehan|Yanjipy|Yinglong999|Zé_da_Silva|Znamkar|یوشیمیتسو}} --Habst (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lean support I think there should be discussion on how to do it, but when I improved the Haiti at the 1936 Summer Olympics article, I included brief information about its only athlete - including that which is directly relevant to his participation. Something similar to that, which contextualizes who they are and how they've ended up at that Games, how they prepared, anything, I think is valuable coverage for the scope of [Country] at [Year] [Games] articles in general. I will always support that kind of inclusion - and it may be a better way of including biographical information on AfD'd stubs than by adding whole sub-sections for mini-bios that are formatted as standalone bio articles. I also see the suggestion above, for a 'List of Olympians' type listicle, which would presumably (like List of Characters in X) have main links for those with articles and a brief bio for those who do not. I also like this idea. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Kingsif, it looks like you expanded that article with a lot of great info related to Ambroise's activities surrounding that Olympics. This is something that is already encouraged by PAGs. However, habst is trying to formalize bloating these pages with sections containing entire deleted biographies, sourced primarily or even entirely to stats databases, and including a lot of arbitrary stats-based info that has no relevance to that Olympics. JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::While I agree that dumping mini-bios, in a bio format, into these articles is not ideal, my !vote is as much a reaction to the rest of the discussion as the specific proposal. The overall idea of retaining what information we can for these athletes, at an article where such belongs, is one I support (my opening statement was that it certainly needs discussion, which I hope this project will proceed with), and it felt like the prevailing view above was almost "the bios were deleted get over it" - which I felt would close off any near-future discussion. Kingsif (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Lean oppose I was pinged too. Conceptually I like having a repository for information about any Olympian. I prefer a stub article rather than ganging it onto another page. And we should build in some structural integrity to such a stub article so it is not easily attacked and deleted with little notice, because unfortunately there is a cast of malicious editors who get their jollies out of deleting content. Initially I thought Habst had intended a link to the "nation at" article, which would be a good solution when we have absolutely nothing other than documentation of their participation. But when we have actual content, this is an interruption to the flow of a "nation at" article. Imagine if we had a team of 30 players and only a description of their game at the Olympics and nothing else. Each of those individuals could link to the article about the account of the game, that account could be housed in a 'nation at" article but probably more appropriately at the game within the tournament. If all we had was birth dates and death dates, that could fit into such a repository. So a "nation at" article would be a last resort over preferable other locations.Trackinfo (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This is some weird undue coverage of content totally irrelevant to the topic. When reading about Austria's performance at the 1900 Olympics, I do not want a whole section giving a partial biography of the least notable person on the team. A description of Cornelius von Lubowiecki's actual participation could be included at Austria at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Athletics, but the fact that he set a personal best three years later has absolutely no place in this article. The fact that he's not notable enough for an article (and I absolutely maintain that mere participation, particularly in the early games, does not guarantee notability or the need for an article) does not mean that this guy who didn't even show up to his event has so much more prominence with his birth year and activity than any other athlete who did better at the 1900 games. Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with the above. If they are not notable enough for a standalone article, bad luck. But this should not be in those articles. Kante4 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Where should the content be, then? If someone is the most accomplished athlete in the history of a nation, there should be content about them somewhere on this site. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Tbh, i don't know. It just looks weird to scroll through the Austrian article linked above and then there is a segment about a competitor. And if that is done for every competitor that has no article, it gets "messy". Kante4 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• What about doing it in a note format, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libya_at_the_1980_Summer_Olympics&diff=prev&oldid=1295453111 this]? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Better for sure. Not sure how it would look if it was done for more competitors (could be getting quite big aswell at the bottom then). But like said better than having a whole infobox and an article there for one person (or more). Kante4 (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Notes shouldn't be a dumping ground for primary-sourced irrelevant biographical details, either. That just bloats the page in a different way. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :: Is explaining that, "before so-and-so competed for Libya at the Olympics, he also was a medalist at this major international tournament" really irrelevant though? I don't think so. Having a handful of brief notes at the bottom of the article isn't really "bloating the page". BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::If the only indication that that achievement is important in general, let alone important to understanding X Country's participation at Y Olympics, is its appearance in some database and an editor's assumption that it must be relevant, then it is in fact not DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::: What are you saying is needed to indicate that an achievement is "important"? It is not difficult to connect that e.g. being the only medalist at an international tournament in any sport ever for a country is important for that country. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::It is absolutely difficult to make that connection when we have zero indication that it is considered important by that country, or that anyone has even characterized that achievement in such terms ("only medalist at an international tournament..."). And it is especially difficult to argue that that achievement is encyclopedically relevant to a page on a country's participation in another event. JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Footnotes are for details or clarification that are relevant but perhaps don't fit the flow of the paragraph. In the context of the 1980 article, this is totally irrelevant trivia about the person and absolutely inappropriate here, otherwise notes sections would be longer than the articles themselves to list other competitions they went to. Even just the birthdate like that is out of place. — Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Being the "most accomplished" at something is not even close to being an inclusion criterion. These people are already mentioned in the list articles, they do not need to be covered more than that. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• You're right, that's why they don't automatically get kept. But they still should be covered to an extent somewhere on the site, and more than merely in a long list of other competitors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :No, they should not, because we do not have the appropriate sourcing to support that information nor is it BALASP. Leave it to the database sites. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• : Wikipedia is not made unbalanced by giving a small bit of content to people who are their countries' greatest athletes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::You continue to assume that "greatest athlete" is a meaningful distinction, or even a characterization made anywhere outside of your opinion, to anyone in those countries. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::: Do you have anything to indicate that Africans do not care about sports or the top African sportspeople? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::What a bad-faith mischaracterization of my argument. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::If there's enough sources discussing them as being the greatest athletes, then they'd likely still have articles. Regardless, articles about a country's participation by year, if not WP as a whole, do indeed become unbalanced if they're stacked with information about certain individual athletes beyond their performance at those games. These kinds of articles are welcome to have more prose about how their athletes did in those respective sections in addition to tables, but they shouldn't become bogged down with extraneous things just for the sake of having biographical content about them. — Reywas92^Talk 18:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Arab_Emirates_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics&diff=1296603448&oldid=1288231089 This] isn't a "small amount of text". LibStar (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::: The vast majority of attempts to add content to Olympics articles have not been that size. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Just because you think the information should be kept does not mean that it automatically should be. There are other places for that information to exist, and wikipedia is not everything. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :: Throwing out "wikipedia is not everything" is not useful to this discussion. Why do you think the greatest athletes in countries' histories do not deserve to be mentioned anywhere on this site? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Because no one has bothered to publish anything of substance about them and our only sources are database entries of their results! It's original research to call them "greatest". Sorry, but if they're not written about, then maybe they're not actually that great with respect to how Wikipedia works, and not every country is necessarily going to have many Wiki-notable athletes! Related to the African country with the footnote format you linked above, perhaps Sport in Libya should be expanded to mention its "greatest athletes", but putting non-Olympic biographical details into Olympics articles doesn't make sense to me. — Reywas92^Talk 04:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::No offense, but the attitude in your first sentence here strikes me as you're not particularly good at gathering sources. The article I mentioned above, Haiti at the 1936 Summer Olympics, had an informal deletion discussion in part because people were asking why the only competitor didn't compete and couldn't find any sources. Look now and you'll find news reports, a later interview, about it. Daniela Larreal was deemed too much of a stub to run at ITN RD initially, because of lack of sources - and only mentioned one Olympics participation, natch, as it was initially lazily mass-created during that Olympics - but now reflects that yes she was considered her nation's greatest Olympian until Rojas came along. If someone is good at finding sources, there will be something on pretty much every 21st century Olympian. And maybe not enough to sustain a whole bio, but enough to give some non-stat info somewhere. Kingsif (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I recently created a template to automatically calculate the total number of medals (gold, silver, bronze, total), highlight the highest number of each color in bold, and make the header sticky at the top of the screen when scrolling.

The style is retained as before with additional options such as displaying the Olympic Games flags and dual rankings of gold and total (like the USA).

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

Example of an excerpt from Germany at the Olympics records with setting host for 1936 Olympics.

(also full examples for the Medals in Summer of Germany and United States an be seen here: User:Miria~01/sandbox3)

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

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

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

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

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

:Gold

:medals

:and

:Total

:medals

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

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

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

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