Talk:2012 Summer Olympics medal table

Olympics List‑class High‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Awards List‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Medal Table Formatting

inb4 SORT BY GOLD/TOTAL/PER CAPITA wars

Anyway, I noticed that the wikiformatting for the medal table was more complicated than the table in 2010 or 2008. It's so much more complicated that, as someone who worked on both those medal tables in real-time, I would feel uncomfortable editing this table. If there are advantages to this formatting, that's great; otherwise, I think it would be simpler to go back to the old medal table format. Kingnavland (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially the same. You would update the medal totals the same way. The extra 'stuff' are rowscopes to comply with new MOS/Accessibility (see WP:DTAB for tables introduced since 2008/2010, so, no, the table format should not be changed back, as it would go against MOS. It really isn't anymore complicated. Ravendrop 01:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, will read up. Appreciate that it's easier for those using screen readers. Kingnavland (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the two years since Vancouver, the WP:FL standards have gone up. Basically, the table of a medal table going through FLC now should look like the table on 1980 Winter Olympics medal table, which meets current FL standards on table markup. (I'm fairly certain the will be going to FLC shortly after the games, and this type of work is easier to build from the start, rather than at the end.) Courcelles 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody edited them down the old format; wasn't me, I promise. Should we keep it in this format until the end of the Games and then convert? Kingnavland (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably not. It is so much easier to do it properly the first time, than to convert it later. It is updated essentially the same way, it is in no way more difficult. Ravendrop 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing to do might be to let it ride until tonight, and then switch everything over at the conclusion of today's events. Kingnavland (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding bronze medal wins

Just quick questions. Should bronze medals be added right after bronze medal matches? Or should we wait for silver and gold to be also determined? Nightfall87 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we would wait until the event is completed to make sure that medals aren't duplicated. That's been past practice. Kingnavland (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And since wikipedia isn't a news service, immediate reporting of every medal isn't necessary, or even the goal. Accuracy is. So, the best bet is to wait until the event as a whole is over and all medals for it have been awarded. Ravendrop 14:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this should be added to comment. Although someone already did that. :) On the other matter. Should we also keep list of concluded events for the current day? Not just last one that is added to the list? Nightfall87 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Past practice has been to get rid of the event in the list after it's been added to the medal table; although I would be okay with adding a "concluded events" section just above the active events. Kingnavland (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand the point of having an inaccurate medal table, is bizarre. Arthur7171 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2012

Bronze medal counts

can someone tell me how right now there are 2 more bronze award than other medals?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.135.232 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article states, "In boxing, judo, taekwondo, and wrestling, two bronze medals are awarded in each weight class." I assume that this is the reason. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and Protection

Two - and a half - somewhat unrelated queries:

1) What are the sources people use while updating? I use BBC Sport and the London 2012 official site.
1b) I believe editors should add an edit summary mentioning - clarifying - their edit.

2) Should the article be protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTN7i (talk • contribs) 14:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, those, plus NBCSports; 1b) Yes, that is best practice, but good luck. 2) I think that has been practice in previous years. Kingnavland (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every edit should get an edit summary. It's a good general practice. It's a particularly wise practice here, because an edit summary would make it clear which event results are being added. --JamesAM (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 Summer Olympics medal table

I think creating a seperate template is a stupid idea. After all, what's the point of this page if there's a template as well? Besides, no other page makes use of the full medal table anyway (and if they do, they shouldn't). Sure, the main page uses a smaler table but the updating of this and the main Olympics page will only go on for a few weeks. After that, any advantages the template offers are moot.-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This table is up-to-date as of...

How would people feel about taking that out of the hidden text and putting into visible text right above the table? I feel like we'll get fewer duplicate edits if ignorant users are aware that the table has already been updated. Kingnavland (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. At the top of the table, there should be a statement that says something to the effect of "This table is up-to-date as of ...". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This table currently has no value without an As Of date and time - please add it ASAP - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.225.97 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ability to sort columns

Why are there no ascending/descending sorting arrows on the columns for Gold, Silver, and Bronze? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arrows are there, but you can't see them. Which, I agree, is not particularly helpful. Kingnavland (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched it to use Template:RankedMedalTable, as per 2008 - this seems to make the arrows display. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's much better! Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June?

Above the table, it states that this is accurate as of June 30, when July is meant. I cannot edit it because of the protected status of the article. 131.225.23.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YES. Please amend the "up to date as of ...JUNE" It's July!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillicomm (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greasemonkey script

If it's of any use, I've knocked up a user script that converts the London2012 medal table to wikitext. (I am supposed to be working, but this is more fun than generating EDI files.) Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 10:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rank Numbers wrong

The Rank numbers are wrong. China and the USA are tied for 1st. Japan is ranked 13 when they should be 3rd. Please repair. 97.81.50.48 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]