User talk:Raymarcbadz

I can appreciate you trying to help but you need to read WP:OLYMOSNAT because the changes you're making are wrong. I used to think using the wheat color to indicate rounds that didn't happen was right too but then I actually read the manual of style. I don't want to get in an edit war with you over this but if you persist I will report you. You seem to know how to run wiki tables so let's not try to overwrite each other because we'll have enough idiots to deal with as the Games get closer. Torlek (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am too fan of olympics, but I see that for about days you update hardly pages has my big regret can you move forward faster thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminfandesjo (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I don't take too kindly to you undoing my removal of the forced column widths on these articles ([1], [2]) without any explaination in the edit summary. If you think there is a good reason for having them then by all means lets discuss it but the standard format for this type of article is not to do so as the results tables are already very wide in many cases without the addition of unnecessary blank space - Basement12 (T.C) 11:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary here does not count as discussion. I appreciate the amount of work you're putting in to update these articles but please stop adding these forced widths unless you can provide a good reason for having them - Basement12 (T.C) 11:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Serbia at the 2012 Summer Olympics does not have an edit summary. For a third time I ask you to please not readd the forced widths without discussion first, and certainy not to do it without the use of an edit summary - Basement12 (T.C) 16:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you apply them in all of the nations if you think that some rows have unnecessary spaces? I am already tired with editing and revising them. I spent weeks and days to do them. (T.C) 16:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

That's what I've been attmpting to do - I started with the larger nations first (GB, China etc) in the hope that others would follow my lead and adapt the other articles as they went but remember there is no deadline so I'll get around to doing them all in time - Basement12 (T.C) 17:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we use the width of 150 for the athletes? They look similar to those from the 2008 Summer Olympics. I wanted to do something different for this year's Olympics by adapting a table format for the results. (T.C) 17:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

The pages from 2008 and early don't specify a width - by specifying 100 or 150 it is often making tables much wider than they need to be. On tables (and articles) that are already very large and very wide the preference has always been to do whatever we can to reduce the sizes, hence all of the tables in the the manual of style don't use columns with forced widths. Doing something different is a good idea if it improves the format and can be rolled out across all nation articles for all Olympics but there is no need to change the format just for the sake of it - Basement12 (T.C) 19:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added the relay team members to the United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics. What is your source for that? I get all of the USATF press releases (actually I seem to keep proofreading them and sending them back for correction). I also checked the USATF site. There has been no announcement I can find of the relay team members. Yes, you and I can conjecture, but that's not what we should be definitively reporting on Wikipedia. We even have additional issue because the men's and women's teams select using different methods. And what about Allyson Felix? She didn't run the 400 but with a PR about a second faster than those other girls is certainly likely to be considered for a spot. I'm waiting for decisions in writing. Trackinfo (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added the source based on the 100 and 400 results. As I am telling you, that is not a hard and fast rule. You may be completely correct, or the selection people might throw you a curve. We should properly wait for the announcement. Trackinfo (talk)

Hi. I just wanted to leave you note and ask if you have a source that states there will only be four independent Olympians at the forthcoming London Olympics, as you stated with this edit. The thing is, the sources now cited in the article give a total of seven. I desperately want the numbers in the article to be correct, but they also need to be properly sourced. I'm not challenging the accuracy of the edits you made, but I think it would help us all if you pointed us toward wherever it was you heard that there were going to be four, and not seven as the London 2012 site and olympic.org states. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Olympians must have four athletes, three from the Netherlands Antilles and one from South Sudan. The other three athletes in the main site would come from Kuwait. These athletes were mistakenly placed in the IOA, and they should have belonged to the Kuwait team. As I found the source about Kuwaiti delegation, eleven athletes from this nation are competing in the Games, and not seven. You do not need to worry about the list, because it is still inaccurate. In a few days, the list of athletes will be official. The source can be found in the site: [3] Thank you! Raymarcbadz ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That's exactly what I was looking for. Gonna add it to the article now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were helpful with the above inquiry, I wonder if you might be able to point me toward a source that says there will be four Independent Olympic Athletes at the Games, rather than seven, which is what the London 2012 site and Olympic.org have led me to believe. A few users have changed it from seven to four several times without ever citing sources. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basement12 (T.C) 14:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the response I wrote and stop readding the templates - Basement12 (T.C) 17:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Olympics Barnstar
		A token of my appreciation for the hundreds, if not thousands of updates you've been making to the 2012 Olympic nation articles. Keep up the good work! - Basement12 (T.C) 17:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering what your thoughts are on the boxes containing "Did not advance". Earlier, you changed one of them to have the n/a style grey background, so I consequently changed the others to be the same. Now you have changed it back to having a plain background. Why is this? Should they all have blank backgrounds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airelivre (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, putting gray background for "Did not advance" becomes more confusing, as mentioned by Basement12, so we have to follow the same standard except for the "n/a" and "bye" in which we are using this background. (T.C) 18:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I reverted some of your changes, did not realise that. I came across the use of that "n/a|Did not advance" template a few days ago, and thought it was much better than a simple "colspan+Did not advance". God knows there was zero consensus four years ago, we had red backgrounds, green backgrounds, some beige backgrounds, sometimes italics, sometimes not. I still feel using the grey background and n/a template would be a general improvement this year, both information-wise and design-wise, but I'll follow consensus if it is against it. --JMDP (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it would be better if we put simple "did not advance". Someone warned me about changing formats for "did not advance", especially when you put background color or n/a template. It's better if you follow the consensus, just like what I did to other sports. --Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question : Do you really feel having "n/a|Did not advance" is confusing ? Three days ago on Basement12's talk you wrote the opposite : "Without color makes me confused". I'm just asking this out of curiosity, because to me, the grey background makes things less confuse, not more, so I wanted to know if I was the only one. --JMDP (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rules about "did not advance" are based on WikiProject Olympics guidelines. Here's the explanation behind the concern.

Per WikiProject Olympics guidelines the boxes should not be coloured. Adding the template to grey them out makes it far too easy to confuse with rounds that don't exist for that event; we need it to be clear that the athletes were knocked-out of the competition. Simply putting a centre aligned "Did not advance" is the way to go - Basement12 --Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now I see that I was not the only involved party on this, and now I see the background behind it. Well, clearly you guys in the project need to talk this out then, because the supposed confusion isn't really confusing to many of us. And if they are so worried that people somehow could not distinguish between the words in two grey boxes, than perhaps they can consider another subtle colour, because white is really not visually appealing in this case?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because you are confused with the template, but putting "n/a" in the template for "did not advance" seems confusing with the rounds that do not exist. I know that you misunderstood my statements, and I hope you fixed what is right from the consensus. Always read the manual. WikiProject Olympics guidelines. Thank you.--Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: ranks for athletics should be given within heats not overall (this is different to what we do for swimming) as qualifiers for latter rounds are decided by the fastest 'X' finishers in each heat. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 10:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to mention this too, the overall rank is not the correct one to use. Rudolph89^talk 11:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The column has always been "rank" - not "position in heat".Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how about field events? I was confused after I realized that the results would be based on their positions in heats. (T.C) 12:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Field events appear to use the overall rank, as you will see in the field event that they aren't split into heats and that "the top 12 athletes qualify" or something similar. That's different to some of the shorter track events where the first 3 or 5 of each heat qualify. Rudolph89^talk 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Track and field events have always ranked the athlete not by what they finish in the heat but by the overall position. The official website also has this. Thats why its called Rank. Brudder Andrusha (talk)

Read the first message again, Andrusha. And the note displayed in the key legend of the athletics. GB 2012 Summer. (T.C) 10:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Results have not always been listed as such, certainly not in Olympic articles. Knowing an athlete was 29th fastest overall in the heats is a useless statistic when qualifiers are decided by position within the heat and could potentially cause confusion as it's perfectly possible for an athlete to qualify ahead of another with a higher overall rank. What is needed is a key explaining that ranks are given within heats (e.g the one at Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Athletics - Basement12 (T.C) 14:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not confusing at all. The official website which is the source for rankings is clear an athlete qualifies for the next stage (round) of the event. In that case the table used is invalid and should never use Rank in its title. But of course rank is used for Field events. There must be consistancy and Rank should exactly be that - The position of the athlete within that round of the event. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Rank" does not always define an overall rank for all events. Like what User:Basement12 said, ranks for athletics should be given within heats not overall (this is different to what we do for swimming) as qualifiers for latter rounds are decided by the fastest 'X' finishers in each heat. The rules are cleared, and I think you ignored the styles they made. Thank you. Try to negotiate with User:Basement12 if you want to change the manual of style for the WP:OLYMOSNAT, regarding the qualification rules on track and field. (T.C) 16:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official results have a column for overall rank and place in heat. Since there is only one column "rank" that is used in the Wikipedia table, the value to use should be the place in heat as that directly relates to whether they qualify or not - that is the critical value. The same situation happens in the Rowing table, where the place in heat is used in the rank column, rather than overall rank.Rudolph89^talk 21:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basement12, and User:Rudolph89, here's the problem. It seems that many users don't care about your guidelines. Take a look at these pages. Poland at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and Iran at the 2012 Summer Olympics. I would say that these pages should be exceptional in our manual, because they have their own way on putting the styles, and results in the tables. Any comments.

Hello Raymarcbadz.

Thanks for your hard work on articles relating to the recent Summer Olympics. I have many of the pages on my watchlist, and it seems you are contributing in every single one of them.

One thing though; in your recent edit of the article covering Austria, you removed a comma in the lede. Actually, that comma should be there, according to WP:Basic copyediting, section Common edits, bullet point 9.

Thanks for your understanding.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raymarcbadz.

I can see on my watchlist that you are doing an absolutely fabulous job on wikipedia. You're carrying out a herculean task. Don't forget to take a break every now and then though. There is a life outside wikipedia, believe it or not. ;-)

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is time for you to improve your editing. Would you like to write a Good article? Then you have to get familiar with all this:

Mostly with the Manual of Style and also take a look to this essay: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Thanks for being here, but remember spending time in real life with real people. Osplace 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not remember writing this previous message. You are very prolific in writing articles, but stub articles. You should try to improve your writing, not in "grammar and conciseness", but in article structure. Here you have some examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Good Articles. Wikipedia:Writing better articles is a very good essay, please take a look of it. You should also take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, and be aware of what you are doing might not be ok (is not). What I want you to understand with this message is that may developt way better articles without conflicting with other authors/editors with this new knowledge. Osplace 15:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Osplace, Sorry if I just reverted your version, but based on your concern for the articles, I replaced stubs with under construction since we can't provide much information yet on the article which I have created before. Everything would be better if you add information in your sandbox, and then place them appropriately in the specified article. Remove stubs once the article has already been done and complete. Bear my patience because I'm currently working on the articles for the 2004 Summer Olympics national flag bearers. Thank you. Raymarcbadz 18:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to explain you in this edit that you have deleted, that this template means that someone is still working in the article. I already had changed the article and had editing conflicts with yours. I still do not know why you have remove the template since have no sense to do it, the article was kind of new and was ok to use it. I am replacing the template with the Template:In use, and please do not remove it, because I am working offline with this article. I already was working before with a related article, so I already had information about her. In the other hand, I hope my recommendations about your structural editing will be welcome by yourself. Thanks for paying attention, Osplace 18:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already read about your concern before I deleted your message. I didn't reject it. Okay. Hands down. Just put the template on the article if you're fully working and researching on the topic, but keep in mind that stubs must be removed once the information has been fully gathered. No problem. Raymarcbadz 19:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michelle Engelsman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after her retirement in 2008, Australian swimmer Michelle Engelsman was honoured for her "Speedo Services to the Australian Swimming Team"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michelle Engelsman. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind if I nominated Angelo Ciccone for DYK? Thanks, Matty.007 16:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Just put it in his talk page. Raymarcbadz talk 17:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The link is at Template:Did you know nominations/Angelo Ciccone. Matty.007 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Angelo Ciccone, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Angelo Ciccone lapped the entire field, but didn't win a point in the Men's Madison at the 2008 Summer Olympics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angelo Ciccone. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

hello, could you update the qualified athletes in each country these 2014 Olympic Games if you like it! thank you very much .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talk • contribs) 10:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason(s) why luge is kept separate by gender but other similar sports like Skeleton are not on the different country pages? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, we put both men and women together on one table if the luge group consists of a maximum of 6 athletes; otherwise, we'll split them into separate tables. Same rules applied for the Skeleton. Everything I mentioned can be found in the WP:OLYMOSNAT. Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with wiki policies so thank for helping me out! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also the table size reductions imo don't make too much sense for the countries with just one athlete. Let me know what you think. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the number of the athletes, we'll stick to the idea of reducing the table sizes to 90%, not only because we should be conformed to the style used for the nations' pages at the Summer Olympics two years ago, but also we'll be providing enough space for the results and other materials related to the nation's participation (e.g. pictures of athletes). Take a look at this example whose national team is consisted with just a single athlete, and please be familiar with the procedures and styles from the WP:OLYMOSNAT. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BTW the deficit part of the table is there to show the reader how far behind the racer was. This is also seen in the individual sports pages so I don't see why they need to be removed in the nation pages. So please do not remove it. Thanks! Also do ou have a source for Ukraine's figure skating team? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I just received the athlete's names in two pre-Olympic qualifying events, namely 2013 World Figure Skating Championships and 2013 Nebelhorn Trophy, unless there might be some changes with the roster. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are separating by gender for ccsking when we did the opposite for alpine. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my technique for the events with longer phrases is to keep the men and women separated so that they would be worthy enough to provide enough space for the results. Being puzzled, you might as well look at the example. Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so for the longer events we add the identifier at the top? Also why do we keep the genders separately? My preference is actually to have it separate, but if we don't for alpine then we shouldn't for all sports. On the other hand if we do keep it separated we should separate all the events. What about Luxembourg for ccskiing? Do I leave that? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Luxembourg, just leave it instead. All the nations with ccskiing, leave the men and women separated instead, and kindly remove the deficit column on the table. It's not necessary. For alpine skiing and skeleton with fewer athletes, we'll still maintain the one-table scheme for both men and women. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the deficit column from the nation articles. The goal of the article is to transcribe the results page individually per country and CCsking includes the deficit column. So please revert. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some important questions for you to answer. Why do you think that deficit column is necessary in the cross-country skiing for each nation pages? Do you think that those from the previous Olympics had made a fatal mistake for not having the deficit column in their pages? Your answer about the deficit column that you posted on my talk page seemed unconvincing and unsatisfied. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a) These nation pages are supposed to transcribe the results page onto individual country pages. Am I wrong with this assertion?

b) Which means the deficit column which is also included in the alpine results pages along with ccsking should be added to the individual pages. It is also not against WP:OLYMOSNAT. Furthemore take a look at these examples [4], [5] and [6]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Do you have an convincing arguent besides it being "unnecessary"? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will refer to your second answer. Yes, I have a convincing argument. I've seen your examples already, but not all nations pages share the same model that you improvised. Here's another evidence for this. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But others do. Which means there isn't a clear cut answer. I stand by my version but I am open to a broader discussion with others. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, others still do, but does the majority of all the nations competing at the previous Olympics use a similar paradigm that you created? Just go ahead with your broader discussion and let the consensus decide. Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not necessarily, we put both men and women together on one table if the luge group consists of a maximum of 6 athletes; " what if the athlete is competing in more then one event? Do we split if the events are over 6 per gender? (For ex. Bulgaria has 2 male athletes and 9 events in between them + a women with 3 events, do we separate or keep together?) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the events, we don't necessarily split the males and females. Just keep them together. But for the number of athletes, you have to do so for 6 athletes and beyond. One more note, no final column for alpine skiing, biathlon, and cross-country skiing, since they don't have preceded rounds before final. (referring to the sport in general, not the events). Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Ill merge Bulgaria into one. Also the final column is necessary to show it is the final, especially for those new to the sport. Besides it doesn't make a difference besides adding "final" over the table. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Also the table looks cleaner with the heading. There is no lead otherwise. Maybe you have another suggestion? Also its not against the rules.[reply]

The word "final" is already implicit in the column, but this doesn't mean that the final column must be placed there. For those new to the sport, they should think that all the columns placed in the table are already finals (no preceding rounds before that). Have you seen this one? All the results being placed there are finals, and no elimination process whatsoever. And of course, it doesn't make any difference. Adding "final" over the table seems to be your idea. I don't know why did you think it's necessary. I have nothing against your suggestion, or against the rules complied with the project as far as I'm concerned. If you have more concerns, post everything you have in the WikiProject:Olympics talk page. Keep in mind that I have other things to do in the real world. Thanks. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be implicit but the point is its not listed or visible. So it is needed to distinguish. Also why are you removing the dash in figure skating after being told three times not to do so? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the page for the United States? Instead of using the dash for each pair, they just simply break them. So if you want to do the format for the United States to make it similar to other nations' pages, you may do so. Let's see if other users would agree with your ideas. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just one article. Where they seem to have their own set of rules (for ex. speed skating). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I wanted to say that I admire all that you do for these games sochi, I too am a fan of jo, I note all skilled in paintings, you help me a lot, how y'auras t 'he qualified nations? what are the flagship? THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Juana Wangsa Putri, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2002, Indonesian taekwondo practitioner Juana Wangsa Putri won a silver medal at the Asian Championships and a bronze at the Asian Games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Juana Wangsa Putri. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ray Marc. You have been a prolific contributor of new articles about Olympic athletes, including a couple hundred about Olympic swimmers: [7]. Since the last Olympics, Template:Infobox swimmer and its associated formatting have been revised and updated to address a number of concerns and to ensure a more uniform appearance for all Olympic swimmer articles. (See the template instructions and examples of uniform formatting @ Template:Infobox swimmer.) Many of your Olympic swimmer articles were created before these infobox and related formatting changes were implemented. At present, about half of the 4400 articles that use Infobox swimmer have been fully converted to current standardized version of the infobox template and its uniform formatting, leaving over 2000 articles still to convert. To date all of the American, Australian, and Canadian Olympic swimmers (and most of the Brits) have been fully converted to the new standard, but it is fairly time-consuming work requiring 5 to 10 minutes per article. Three or four editors have been consistently working on this project for the past four months, and we seem to be on track to complete the process some time in the first half of 2016. It would, of course, be helpful if we had all of the existing Olympic swimmer articles fully converted before people start creating new swimming articles in advance of the 2016 Olympics.

All of that said, I'm here to ask for your help. Would you be willing to take responsibility for converting the swimmer articles you created to the current standardized infobox and related uniform formatting? If so, that would be a big help to WikiProject Swimming as we work our way through this. Please let me know. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirtlawyer, you can just simply call me Marc. I'm willing to help and take responsibility in revitalizing and refining the swimmer articles that I created. I'll do all of my best. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, are my hero. I'm guessing that your articles account for between 5 and 10% of the remaining total. If you could upgrade the infobox to current standardized and uniform formatting for the swimmer articles you created, that would be a HUGE help. Please let me know if you have any questions about the various changes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a question. Can you tell me what are the changes on the template, and the reasons behind it? I reviewed the template moments ago, and have seen some of the changes.Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc, I'm running out the door in a few minutes. I'll type a little summary of changes and the reasons for them later today. I'm sure you're not the only one for whom it may be helpful. Thanks for following up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just interested to know what your goal was when modifying a lot of Olympic templates such as {{2016 Summer Olympics men's football group A standings}} that was following most recent consensus and module standard for Module:Sports table. Qed237 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goal for modifying a lot of Olympic templates was to make them something exclusive only for the Games through styling and color-coding. I added the font_size parameter in the module to adjust the font sizes in the templates displayed on the NOC pages, and embed with a much different color in each row that corresponds to the styling applied from the previous Games. Refer to this link without the notes. Why? Is there something wrong with my edits? Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why do you commonly use green1 instead of the bg colors used in the templates from London 2012 for all team-based sports? And I used the abbreviation tool for qualification status? The status seems quite long to mention without the tooltip. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)All the colors in the module has been fixed to a MOS compliant standard and green1 should be used for normal qualification. Also the fs parameter I can not see how you think it works as there is no such parameter in the module. We dont have to make the tables as how they where four years ago, things change and they should be according to wikipedia guidelines. Qed237 (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fs stands for font-size. It has its own template. And I just added a parameter on the module regarding the font-size. You may search line #19 to see the code. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I dont know what you are talking about. There is no parameter called font_size in the module, you just added it as a parameter in the module call inside the templates but module does not use it. Qed237 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss and stop editing back the wrong content with not existing parameters again, or it may be considered disruptive. We need to figure this out first. Qed237 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's inside the Module:Sports table/WL and Module:Sports table/WDL. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more as you clearly test edited a highly visible module and made modifications without consensus. Please use sandboxes first. Qed237 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about a template for volleyball? Which module should I test first? Will do first on my sandbox. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the volleyball situation yet, I have planned to go over all tables soon but not had the time. Not sure what module is best there. Qed237 (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why do you place the entire phrase on the status instead of using tooltip inside the qualification header. For example (Advanced to quarterfinals, and not QF). Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions we had when creating this module (to find consistency over all sports and to avoid use of multiple templates to create a table) has led to the fact that most information should be shown and not hidden per wikipedia guidelines. As an example the extra column for qualification has been added (it previously existed on football/soccer league tables) because we should not only use colors because some readers are colorblind. To write it out works better for all readers independent on what plattform they use to read the content, and to have the full information does not hurt. However, I have shortened it as we dont need "advanced to" as that is fairly obvious. Qed237 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For testing the font size, I don't know how will I do it on my sandbox for Module:Sports table. The code looked more convoluted to put additional parameters upon viewing the ordinary module. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change something in Module:Sports table, the best thing is to first ask at the talkpage if a change is supported. Then you can copy the existent Module:Sports table to Module:Sports table/sandbox and edit that. Then when testing a table, copy it to your sandbox and change {{#invoke:Sports table|main|style=WDL to {{#invoke:Sports table/sandbox|main|style=WDL meaning that you call the sandbox instead. The same applies for the submodules but then you call WDL/sandbox instead of WDL and so on. Qed237 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking some more and it seems like a new submodule is required for the volleyball case with both sets and points. Currently we can handle one case but not the other. I am working on it, and looking for other similar tables. Qed237 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qed237, I need your help. Do you know where can I find the code for the pre-stuff of the Module:Sports table? Pre-stuff includes sorting the wikitable and adjusting the style. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what you mean. A standings table is a ranking list and should not be sortable and what style do you need to change? Qed237 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding the font-size. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well as I said I see no use for that and nothing in guideline to support a reduced size. Also, why have you created documentation for the sandbox? Qed237 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I might test the module on WDL and WL by adding some necessary changes to the code, since I can't place anything yet on the actual module for both. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are treading a very fine line with all these reverts. Adding men's and women's to the event column works fine to distinguish them. Please cease being so disruptive and only make these changes if/when there is consensus to do so - Basement12 (T.C) 15:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to revamp all of the NOC pages in London 2012 and Rio 2016 by adding men's and women's to the event column for all individual sports (except athletics, gymnastics, and wrestling) as soon as possible? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We dont need to do anything, and certainly not until there is a WP:CONSENSUS, there is WP:NORUSH. It's only needed where the gender tables have been merged (and don't have a (Wo)Men heading above them), which as has been said time and time and time and time and time (etc.) again isn't always necessary and doesn't have to be done everywhere. - Basement12 (T.C) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am aware of all these conditions and do not update unless the NOC has already confirmed these athletes. Also I only update Japan and South Korea judokas. I would appreciate being asked before having the updates reverted.

The All-Japan Judo Federation has already held a press conference announcing the judokas for the Olympics, and will send out a judoka for each weight division with the exception of the heavyweights. References:
http://www.100judo.com/post/japan-announces-team-for-rio-ono-is-in
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2016/05/02/more-sports/judo/inoue-determined-help-japan-keep-pace-judo/#.V0xXtiN9568

The Korea Judo Association bases Olympic qualification on the national tournament, not only rankings. I saw that someone wrote Wang Ki-chun as being the Korea representative on the qualifications list just because he was ranked the highest, but actually Lee Seung-soo was chosen because he won the national title. References:
http://www.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?idxno=2016051610022503209
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2016/05/11/0200000000AKR20160511142600007.HTML?06daf000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UocH4d0usRc

Regards, Pink-seoul-judo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When there is only one table with a handful of athletes (and only one athlete per event) we should be sorting by surname alphabetically, regardless of gender. To do anything else would suggest a somewhat sexist bias. Where we have multiple athletes per event, a good example being modern pentathlon events, it makes sense to do men's first then women (i.e. alphabetically by event) so that the event name cells can be merged - Basement12 (T.C) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I thought men and women on a single table should be arranged based on gender and alphabetical order. Why men and women should blend together by surname regardless of their gender? WP:OLYMOSNAT did not mention any of the rules regarding the concern on sexist bias. Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:OLYMOSNAT: "More than a single athlete in a sport category, whether individual, pair, or team, must be arranged alphabetically according to their last names". No mention of sorting by gender first, where possible we sort athletes alphabetically by name, gender is irrelevant. In some instances, e.g Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Modern pentathlon it makes sense to group men and women together even within a table, in which case we do put men first (M before W). There are also cases where we do this if there is a team (or mixed team) event included within a table e.g Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Badminton, essentially to avoid splitting individual events up. But, in simple cases where there is a single athlete of each gender they should be ordered by their surname - Basement12 (T.C) 11:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But how about athletes competing in boxing, fencing (except team events), judo, taekwondo, weightlifting, and wrestling? Aren't they arranged by weight, gender, or surname (unless two or more per event)? Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For badminton, do we have to split tables for countries with six or more athletes, or remain merged regardless of number? Sorry if I ask so many questions. It wastes time if we keep on fixing the table formats again and again without any further discussion. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really do ask a lot of questions.... As many users keep reiterating, each case needs to be looked at individually, we make guidelines but there are no hard and fast rules to be applied across the board and no need to "keep on fixing the table formats again and again". Technically in each of those sports, as the guidelines currently read, we should be sorting by surname even if that means going woman, man, man, woman, man, woman etc.. However, I can fully understand cases such as Australia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Taekwondo where there is a preference to group men then women, there that is probably a better way of arranging them. The changes I made were to very small tables in old, stable articles on completed Games, with only a single man and a single woman, in such cases there is no reason to deviate from alphabetizing by surname - don't go reading into that that you need to change a million other articles. Basement12 (T.C) 11:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I think WP:OLYMOSNAT needs to put more conditions on most of the guidelines regarding the headings and table formats for future use. The arrangement and structure of tables without any clear guidelines as of now are quite convoluted and unjustifiable. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions if we need to revitalize or revise the structure of tables on athletes across all sports (except team-based of course)? Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I think the guidelines as they stand are about as simple as they can get; back in 2008 when we created them the assumption was that there would always be outliers needing a bit of common sense/WP:IAR, we could probably spend all summer coming up with new examples that would require slightly different variants - they'll never be perfect. However, it might not be a bad idea to raise a proposal at WT:OLYMPICS that we always sort mixed gender tables by event first then alphabetically. It would be a simple addition to the guideline and is already implemented in many cases as we've discussed. I would suggest wording along the lines of

"More than a single athlete in a sport category, whether individual, pair, or team, athletes must be arranged first with all men's events grouped before women's events ("Men's" is alphabetically first), then (if applicable) by increasing event distance/weight category/etc. within each gender, and finally alphabetically according to the last names of the athletes."

If the change was made then the tables at Djibouti at the 2008 Summer Olympics would then be arranged as you were suggesting. I think any larger/more structural changes to the guidelines would be better left to a quieter period of editing. If you think that wording sounds OK I'll start a discussion at WT:OLY. - Basement12 (T.C) 12:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording sounds OK and much better. Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start a discussion at WT:OLY shortly then. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 12:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the athletics, do you want to group them by gender and then sporting discipline, or by sporting discipline and then gender? Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say discipline, what do you mean in this case, could you give an example? - Basement12 (T.C) 08:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You arranged the tables in athletics based on classification or discipline being displayed in a heading: track & road events, field events, and combined events (decathlon and heptathlon). No need for an example. I usually arranged them by gender. Raymarcbadz (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I'm writting to you because I had chance to qualify at diving to the Games. I just want to know how final, and how official is those article that you edit few days ago (Diving at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification). And what is the source, how do you get those informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANDy91 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop undoing my work. By replacing editable headers with a semi-colon, you are undoing the repairs to the formatting I have spent time doing. Without being editable, you are making this page far more difficult to edit, to accurately locate where you are out of one of the more complex pages on wikipedia. By adding the requirement to sort through this complex formatting, you will prevent most users from being able to figure out where to properly make an edit. By having a header, it reduces that potential for error. Trackinfo (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are very active on this page. You know when the actual Olympics get going, this will be very high traffic and will have a great deal of potential for formatting mistakes made by other users that you and I will have to clean up. Lets do things to make this easier for other editors, not further mask the ability to edit in more complex formatting. I would really suggest we find a way to clean up a lot of this complex code. When I have a concrete solution, I'll try to implement. Trackinfo (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trackinfo, I think you should discuss this as a whole at the WT:OLY, including your suggestions. This will easily further address to other editors. There are also guidelines regarding the use of headings on WP:OLYMOSNAT. Are you against the rules on cluttering? Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you want i can do the German rosters for the olympic teamsports. So you don't have as much work. ;) Kante4 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Kante. I appreciate it. And it's my birthday today, so I don't have available time to toil for more templates. Just follow the format on what I've done to US and other NOCs. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Will be doing the other ones later today... Kante4 (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymarcbadz,

I just wanted to say that I will take care of Sportsfan1234, I just need more free time on Wikipedia to allow it. If you want to start it, I could help you to support or write it.

By the way, 2 questions:

1- Shooting: Do you know if any shooters will be qualified from “other events” like the 2012 Olympics? Cause if you compare right now, there is not many qualifiers from other events vs 2012 Do you know when the final list by ISSF will be published?

2- Canoeing: Romania and Belarus have been suspended for doping; do you know if any of the quotas will be reallocated, cause so far Canada and New Zeland should have it. I dunno if you have news on this side. ICF said quotas would be reallocated by Monday but I don’t have any infos so far. Thanks and keep your good work (and also good attitude lol.)

Best regards,

TGG23

TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheGreenGiant23, thank you for your utmost concern. Yes, I'll be posting the shooters qualified for other events at a later date. And I know, this is a stark contrast from the previous Games with more than 100 nations, because four nations under the Tripartite Commission were permitted to send two shooters without any further explanation. The final list by ISSF will be published most likely at the end of the week. If not, a week before Rio.

I haven't checked what was happening on the re-allocation of quota places as a response to doping sanctions on Romania and Belarus that resulted to one-year suspension. From what I heard, France, Latvia, Italy, and Brazil accepted the spare berths. Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you learned that? Any mention of canoeing in Canada? TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Canada just recently added the women's K-4 500 m boat because Hungary had decided to choose double starters from other boats to the team that left some of the spots empty. Regarding the update on doping cases, I just learned through numerous sources, indicating that the other NOCs accepted the unused spots that were previously owned by Belarus and Romania. Raymarcbadz (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Pianoman320. Raymarcbadz, thanks for creating Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I tagged this article as needing references (it has none), otherwise it looks great. Thanks for the work!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Pianoman320 (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanations for your edits. If you look on the talk page there is another editor that agrees with combining the original table with a table showing the number of athletes that were rejected. The issue of doping has become central to the 2016 team. The team competition results cannot be evaluated without considering the doping issue. The reader must have a way to see which team's and how many athletes were disallowed to compete. This information should be presented in a table, so it is easily accessed, just like the information regarding the competing athletes. If you delete my contribution then I ask that you please make another table showing the rejections. Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rybkovich, I have just restored the table of competitors because some of its contents do not share the same format with the rest of the NOCs, and the headers are not even appropriately fixed (capitalization of the first word). Since we are mainly focusing on the athletes competing at the Games and those who are highly involved in doping, I think we should add another table showing the rejections of athletes. Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Rybkovich (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! About the ranking in the seperate events of the artistic Gymnastics. The rankings in individual events are what determines qualifications in those events, so they are relevant. (Also they double as the person's placement in that event if they did not qualify further.) However, I agree that the current table isn't sufficiently explanatory.

We could change this:

Athlete	Event	Qualification						Final
		Apparatus				Total	Rank	Apparatus				Total	Rank
		V	UB	BB	F			V	UB	BB	F
Emma Larsson	All-around	14.066	12.766 65	14.000 27	13.500 42	54.332	35	Did not advance

Into this:

Athlete	Event	Result	Qualification					Final
			Apparatus				Total	Apparatus				Total	Rank
			V	UB	BB	F		V	UB	BB	F
Emma Larsson	All-around	Points	14.066	12.766	14.000	13.500	54.332	Did not advance
		Rank	—	65	27	42	35

Do you have a better suggestion on how to incorporate rankings? Given that it's ranking, not points, that determines qualification in the events, it's very relevant to include it. -- Lejman (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea so far. Let's just use the old format of tables for the mean time. We can discuss these matters after the Games. But how about those competing as teams? Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a concern, admittedly :P We could possibly base it on the Equestrian table, it has similar issues. Here are two different examples made up based on US results:

Example One[edit]

Men

Individual Qualification and Team finals

Athlete	Event	Qualification														Final
		Apparatus												Total	Rank	Apparatus						Total	Rank
		Floor		Pommel horse		Rings		Vault		Parallel bars		Horizontal bar
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank			F	PH	R	V	PB	HB
Chris Brooks	Individual qualification	14.533	1	12.766	2	14.566	3	14.400	4	15.300	5	14.766	6	86.331	19 Q
Jake Dalton		15.600	5 Q	—		14.900	6	15.133	8	15.166	9	14.333	4	—
Danell Leyva		—		14.533	12	—		—		15.600	4 Q	15.333	3 Q	—
Sam Mikulak		15.800	2 Q	13.100	10	14.533	18	15.100	7	15.375	9	15.133	4 Q	89.041	7 Q
Alex Naddour		14.700	5	15.366	3 Q	15.000	9	15.100	10	—
Chris Brooks Jake Dalton Danell Leyva Sam Mikulak Alex Naddour	Team	46.100	1	42.999	3	44.466	2	45.333	2	46.275	1	45.232	1	270.405	2 Q

Individual all-around final

Athlete	Apparatus						Total	Rank
	F	PH	R	V	PB	HB
Chris Brooks
Sam Mikulak

Event finals

Athlete	Event	Points	Rank
Jake Dalton	Floor
Danell Leyva	Parallel bars
	Horizontal bar
Sam Mikulak	Floor
	Horizontal bar
Alex Naddour	Pommel horse

Example Two[edit]

Men

Qualification

Athlete	Event
		Apparatus												Total	Rank
		Floor		Pommel horse		Rings		Vault		Parallel bars		Horizontal bar
Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Chris Brooks	Individual	14.533	1	12.766	2	14.566	3	14.400	4	15.300	5	14.766	6	86.331	19 Q
Jake Dalton		15.600	5 Q	—		14.900	6	15.133	8	15.166	9	14.333	4	—
Danell Leyva		—		14.533	12	—		—		15.600	4 Q	15.333	3 Q	—
Sam Mikulak		15.800	2 Q	13.100	10	14.533	18	15.100	7	15.375	9	15.133	4 Q	89.041	7 Q
Alex Naddour		14.700	5	15.366	3 Q	15.000	9	15.100	10	—
Chris Brooks Jake Dalton Danell Leyva Sam Mikulak Alex Naddour	Team	46.100	1	42.999	3	44.466	2	45.333	2	46.275	1	45.232	1	270.405	2 Q

All-around finals

Athlete	Event	Apparatus						Total	Rank
		F	PH	R	V	PB	HB
Chris Brooks	Individual
Sam Mikulak
Chris Brooks Jake Dalton Danell Leyva Sam Mikulak Alex Naddour	Team	12.000 N/A 12.300 15.100 14.500						274.133
Team total		46.900	47.333	45.600	46.333	48.000	42.900

Event finals

Athlete	Event	Points	Rank
Jake Dalton	Floor
Danell Leyva	Parallel bars
	Horizontal bar
Sam Mikulak
	Floor
	Horizontal bar
Alex Naddour	Pommel horse

208.58.64.104 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see you reverted my corrections to the athletics table at Australia at the 2016 Summer Olympics. As per the official results, there are no quarterfinals at this Olympics. see 400m or 100m. The list of stages clearly says Preliminary Round (for 100m only), Round 1, Semifinals and Final. Given that no Australian competed in the preliminary round, it doesn't add any value to have an entire column of N/A and Bye, nor to mislabel the Round 1 as a Quarterfinal for the Women's 100m. The-Pope (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The-Pope, we'll discuss these matters in the WT:OLY after Rio 2016, pertaining to the use of rounds in athletics. For now, we'll keep the headers to follow the same format as the previous Games. We don't have much time to adjust the headers for the other NOCs, and we're trying all of our best to fill out the results. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to WP:V and not some mysterious everything must be the same as previous rule. It must be correct, not just the same as before, nor even the same as all other NOCs. The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to know why you removed the references I added to the article Latvia at the 2016 Summer Olympics. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's not necessary to put the references on the results. They can be found in the linked article of each event. And why marathon only? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the linked event was a redirect when I added the references. Why not marathon only? I can add how much I want. Perhaps you should use edit summaries? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already available. They have results. You may now check on the link. Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice" — John Templeton. Have a nice continuation. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you and Hautala had opinions on wether to list Judo rankings or not at Finland's 2016 Summer Olympics page. Given this, I would be interested in your input on this proposal on the topic. Thanks in advance! -- Lejman (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you obviously have opinions on this matter, please write your opinions on the relevant talk page. Some sports don't list official final rankings (examples being tennis, table tennis, and track distances in athletics). Others, however, do, and this includes Wrestling, Judo and Archery. Please discuss here rather than merely reverting. I've made the discussion post you recommended. -- Lejman (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, In Wrestling technical points are the score, not classification points. Classification points are not the score, they are given after the match to determinate how equal/unequal the match was and to rank the wrestlers who lost in the same round.

Classification points Classification points are credited at the end of each match in the tournament and serve as the primary tool for ranking wrestlers at the end of the tournament. Classification points are different than technical points, which are the actual points that wrestlers score during the matches themselves.

--Klõps (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical points, which are the actual points that wrestlers score during the matches themselves. can it be be said more clearly? --Klõps (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're different. In the Rio 2016 website, the scores of each match in the standings across the wrestling events are displayed under classification points. If we rely more on the technical points, then why do we need to have a legend? If you take a look at each of the rounds, their scores display under classification more than technical [8] Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rio website says 0–6. Ok I see what you are doing... but then it should say in the legend that the tables present classification points not the actual scores of the matches. Tech points decided the medal in the medal match, not the class points. In the case of one match class points are irrelevant. --Klõps (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you revert edits on various countries regarding tech vs class points. I have no strong opinion on either; I note that the Rio page presents tech points on the game's page, while they (quite self-contradictingly) present class points on the standings page (like [9], check the Finals, Repechages, etc tabs). Regardless of system we go with, we should make sure we present the same scores on the articles for the events themselves. As it stands, all event pages, like Wrestling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman 98 kg, present the technical scores only. -- Lejman (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If both of you are highly favored on the technical scores to be displayed in each NOC page, then why do we need a legend? Have you seen this one? Did UWW change the rules regarding the style of scoring? Remember wrestling criteria on the scores are entirely different than fencing, badminton, tennis, and taekwondo. In archery and table tennis, the scores displayed are based on set, not technical. For wrestling, scores are based on classification. I assure that Mohsen1248 knows the rules on the scoring. If you want to extend the situation, kindly discuss them on the WT:OLY. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rey, Your doing great with these Olympic articles. Just wanted to let You know why it took so long yesterday for me to understand Your point. Actually question is about relevance. Tech points are the score that decide the match result. Class points are decided by the referees after the match and their only purpose is to rank the wrestlers who didn't reach the medal matches. Referees just tick the right box.

In case of the medal matches class points are totally irrelevant. Class points are secondary ranking system. Btw it is the same if we would rank football results so that all the wins would be 3–0 and draws 1–1 what ever the real score were.

The legend is redundant anyway, as the class points determine themselves if loser had technical points or not, so marking the PP, PO, ST actually is doubling the info.

Classification points system:

5–0 Victory by fall.

5–0 Winning by injury, withdrawal, default or disqualification.

4–0 Victory by technical superiority, the Loser without technical points.

4–1 Victory by technical superiority, the Loser with technical points.

3–0 Victory by points, the Loser without technical points.

3–1 Victory by points, the Loser with technical points.

0–0 Disqualifications to both wrestlers

So class points score 5–0^VT written by words is – Victory by fall^{Victory by fall} Do you still think that class points are more relevant than tech points? --Klõps (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're still relevant ever since. Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument. You haven't given any arguments why the secondary classification points system should be used instead of the real scores. --Klõps (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What will you do if someone loses or wins by fall or if both opponents earned a draw? How will you score? Knockout, fall, superiority, or classification points? Why do you consider classification points as irrelevant? Do you want all of NOCs to remove the legend and replace with technical scores instead? Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Classification points are given regarding to the result of the match (result of the match is technical score). Match winner gets more class points and loser may also get one point if they had technical points, loser can never have more than one class point. Don't be confused by the name of the points. Classification points sound like they would be more important and technical points vice versa, but actually technical points decide the matches. Classification points are a tool to rank places down from the 7th place in tournament format... Classification points have nothing to do with deciding match winners, class points are just a tool for tournament classification. --Klõps (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But I'm just asking about if someone loses or wins by fall or if both opponents earned a draw? It's much better if we can just put both of them on the scores simultaneously (both technical and classification)? Or propose a new table to generate results containing both scores for transparency and clarity to the wrestling rules. What do you think? Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop with this disruptive editing. You are adding scores that are not on the top of each match result nor whats on the individual articles on Wikipedia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234, you and Klõps are giving me the same problem about the wrestling scoring. I'm fixing the scores of each NOC in wrestlingf, and then suddenly you will report me with so many complaints. Neither of you don't understand how to score a wrestler? How will you score them if there's a draw and the opponent wins by fall. What's wrong with both of you? I suggest that both of you must remove the legend in the wrestling sections for Estonia and Canada if you want to prefer technical scores, and not the classification scoring. Well, there's an ongoing discussion about wrestling in WT:OLY. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if someone loses or wins by fall?

Event pages mark them with superscript ^F Shariati 2^F–0 Popp. From here: Men's Greco-Roman 130 kg

or if both opponents earned a draw?

The rules try to exclude chance for draw, but if they do happen winner is decided by highest technical points awarded, cautions or by last tech point awarded. Wrestling rules by United World Wrestling page 23

In case of tie by points, the winner will be declared by successively considering:

- the highest value of holds

- the least amount of cautions

- the last technical point(s) scored

It looks like event pages only use bolding the winners score. Even the official pdf reports leave it for the reader to know the rules which wrestler won. Superscript ^W might be used 2^W–2

Classification points page 15 The loser is eliminated and ranked according to the classification points marked, except wrestlers who lost against one of the finalists as they take part in the repechage for the 3rd or 5th places.

Classification criteria From the 7th place, wrestlers of each category will be ranked depending on their ranking points, retirement or forfeit, injury or disqualification.

So for all the medal winners and finalists these classification points do not mean anything – totally irrelevant secondary rating system. --Klõps (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for adding race descriptions in event articles about Swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but I noticed the language is far from neutral in many cases. For example, [10] has phrases such as Kyle Chalmers stunned the vastly experienced field of sprinting superstars, Pieter Timmers rocked an astonishing 47.80, and Duncan Scott finished a fantastic fifth. And I found similar subjective phrases in several other articles from Swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics. In an encyclopedia it's better to let the facts speak for themselves, and let the reader decide whether an achievement is fantastic or not, for example by referring to their (lack of) previous achievements. Gap9551 (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gap9551, thank you for a quick, healthy reminder on the race descriptions in swimming. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, but I noticed that instead of discussing the concerns I voiced here, you reverted several of my edits in which I aimed to fix some of the above issues, while also apparently ignoring my edit summaries. Examples: You reinstated the fast-charging Sun even though Sun outsplitted Horton by only 0.01 on the final lap. You reinstated other point-of-view edits I removed such as incredible turn [11], relentless attack [12], and loaded field [13] (it is better to simply describe the achievements of those in the field). Those terms are not suited for an encyclopedia.

You reinstated sprint dorsal without discussion despite me arguing in my edit summary that "sprint" is debatable for a 52 second race, and also "dorsal" is not used as synonym of backstroke swimming. Also [14] Hosszú immediately passed the American at the final 25-metre stretch doesn't make sense as you just mentioned the turn in the previous sentence, and those locations are separated by 25 meter, i.e., not "immediate". Finally you reverted me adding a last name to your own version for no clear reason.

Again, I appreciate you writing summaries for these races. That is great work. But the tone should be neutral and not reflect any opinions we may have about the achievements, and we should discuss phrases we disagree on. Gap9551 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we misunderstood each other here and in your following edit. With reaction times I meant the take-over time (the few tenths of a second between when one relay swimmer touches the wall and the next leaves the block), because I thought you were referring to that with brilliant exchanges. Now I understand that by exchanges you probably meant the split time of the whole leg. Gap9551 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a semantics issue. I understand what you mean by their Olympic title defense in this event for the fourth straight time but technically they only defended it 3 times. Australia won in 2000, then the US in 2004-2016, for 4 titles in a row. So in 2004 the US did not defend their title, as they won it for the first time (not counting pre-2000). Gap9551 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you for notifying me about the corrections. If you're going to check the descriptions that I made in swimming from the previous Games (2000 to 2012), please do so. I'm tired of proofreading and I need enough time to fill out the descriptions for the remaining events. It's indeed a waste of effort for me. Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By all means keep writing these descriptions, as they are a huge improvement. I really hope I'm not discouraging you. Don't worry about them being perfect in every way; nobody's contributions (including my adjustments) are perfect right away, that's why on a wiki everybody can and should edit other editors' work. Without your work these articles would remain bare lists of results, so you're doing great work here. I just hope you don't mind me making the odd adjustment to it. Gap9551 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gap9551, thank you for encouraging me to keep writing. I know that you checked the descriptions in each event at the present Games, but kindly inspect the descriptions that I had already done from the previous editions, particularly in swimming. You may be unaware that all of them were written by yours truly, Hope it helps. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll have a look at some point. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop reverting back to your preferred version which includes similar words listed above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I am re-adding back my comments here. This is a collaborative effort here, and you are not assuming good faith when I fix some of the issues raised above by @Gap9551:. Why do you keep reverting? Can you please explain your actions here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's indeed a collaborative effort. Sportsfan 1234, how come I do not assume good faith? I have sources for citation and I've put race reports with sufficient details, in each event. What is wrong with my descriptions? I don't understand why do you keep on reverting again and again? It's so annoying. Gap9551 just made corrections in the race reports, and I appreciate them without any further reason. Sometimes, he just explained several key points to me clearly, concisely, and coherently. How about you? Do you have an acquired knowledge to the sport? One more thing. If you don't want to appear the word "Olympic" and weasel words in every description, please discuss on WT:OLY or set up an article that constitutes the rules on grammar and composition related to Olympics. (just a suggestion) You're trying to lose the importance of the word "Olympic", and make the descriptions more senseless and incoherent. Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sportsfan 1234. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Fiji at the 2016 Summer Olympics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Why are you removing perfectly valid prose in an article?? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly valid prose? Why some of the words in a single sentence, such as "match" and "win" overused all of the time? Is this allowable or are you just trying to limit somebody's vocabulary skills and dictionary tools by abusing deadwood and wordiness, or avoiding the "weasel" method? Be clever please. If you want sentences to be grammatically valid, try to polish them with varied words, or much better, rephrase the sentence. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that doesn't mean you remove the whole thing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'll report to the user who put the content and advise him on the grammatical structures, while doing his own proses. Thanks for the alert! Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymarcbadz. I couldn't help but notice that you are reverting almost all my editions on the XXX at the 2016 Summer Olympics articles. In all of those editions I used the Edit summary to give a brief explanation of my actions. Now, I've been noticing that you are, pretty much, reverting what I've done without giving any reasoning behind your actions neither in the summary nor in the talk page. If you want to give me the reasons behind your actions, I'll be more than glad to hear and discuss them, until then, I'll be reverting your editions to the aforementioned articles. Felviper (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Felviper, why some of the information that I placed before was misleading? How will the users know the reason for the nations being absent in a particular Summer Olympic edition, especially those who were boycotted at the 1976 to 1988 Olympics, or those who failed to register in any edition? How about the United States and XXX at the 2012 Summer Olympics articles? Much better if I can just rephrase the sentence to avoid hasty generalizations and misleading information. Thank you for your utmost concern. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymarcbadz. Thankfully you just gave two excellent examples, one of why I'm reverting that information, and another of how that information should be included. In this article, the paragraph said:

I erased the with the exception of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, because of its partial support to the United States-led boycott. part because it said that it was the nation's twelfth appearance at the Summer Olympics implying that the only time the nation was absent was in 1980, which is false because Paraguay did not attend any Summer Games before 1964. In this case you should either erase the info or write it in such way that it leaves no room for confusion (by explaining that it was the only time since the nation's first appearence or by explaining each absence of the games), and that second thing was exactly what you did. This is the new paragraph you wrote:

Perfect, it clearly explains the nature of that specific absence (Honestly, I think it is not the best idea to put this info on every XXX at the YYYY Summer Olympics, it should be only in the XXX at the Olympics article -the user reading that article wants to know about those specific games, not about that nation's full olympic history-, but you seem to have a lot of experince editing Olympic articles, so I'll leave it in your hands). However, you made the same mistake in this article. The paragraph was:

I decided to erase the Chad did not attend the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, and the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow because of its support of the African and the United States-led boycotts. for the very same reasons. Ok, the article explains what happened in 1976 and 1980, but what happened in 1936? Why wasn't Chad part of the 1952 games? Of course I know the answers, and any user ready to check a few links will know too, but the idea of every article is to try to be as clear as possible, and by being ambiguous and misleading by implying those were the only absences of Chad, the article is just not fullfilling its mission. As such, rephrasing the sentence (as you said) or eliminating the misleading information are the only practical options I see to avoid this.Felviper (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, Felviper. How about this one?

or

I just got these information from the aforementioned articles and applied them to several articles of the XXX at the 2016 Summer Olympics, and then you said that all three examples are incorrect, because either the information was misleading, or the sentences should only be allowed in the XXX at the Olympics. How about the countries that have attended in every edition of the Summer Olympic Games, except for one occasion, like the United States. The sentence for the Philippines was correct, while Paraguay and Bermuda didn't. I already put the nation's official debut in XXX. What else should I add or modify other than "This was the xxth appearance at the Summer Olympics", especially for those who have many absences in the past? Unless you want to leave them with only one sentence in general, or add a background section for a brief information about the nation (see this example). Some of them managed to expand their descriptions with the possibility of being nominated for "good article" category. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Why? Its the same with most of the GA xyz at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The IOC refers to CIV as Côte d'Ivoire [15] and TLS as Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (shortened too Timor-Leste) [16]. So please do not change the above module to your preference without a proper discussion/consensus please. Thanks. Primefac What are your thoughts on this? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here's the problem. Sportsfan 1234, I think you need to move the articles of Ivory Coast and East Timor to those with the names Cote d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste, respectively, instead. Changing the names of these aforementioned countries affected the infoboxes. Take a look at Cote d'Ivoire. There are so many unnecessary links in the infobox. Primefac, kindly fix the code for Cote d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the Ivory Coast pages was actually an issue with a different template; I've fixed that issue so there shouldn't be a proliferation of redlinks any more.

You both make interesting points. On the one hand, the IOC name in {{country alias}} is correct, and on the other hand the Wikipedia name matches COMMONNAME. I think that a proper consensus needs to be taken as to which name we use; start an RFC to determine if we use the common name or the official IOC name. Until then, with nothing broken, I don't think we need to be changing anything for the moment. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Raymarcbadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#SvG cleanup going wrong where some of your recent article moves have been questioned by User:Fram. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already read their messages. My gosh. They're attacking me, especially Fram and my relentless rival Sportsfan 1234. Thank you for the update! Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading these articles carefully? At the time you moved the Anna Illés article it had a 'Hungarian' team listing as a reference which was actually a list of the Greek team. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read and assess some of them if I have ample and free time. I'm busy working on the descriptions for the NOC articles at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Going back to Anna Illes article, I already corrected the link. Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for moving some. given the eye of sauron about, you might want to try checking each reference and using the find button - keep up the good work. Beatley (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I just realized there's an inconsistency between Template:Olympic swimming record codes and Template:Swimming record codes. Just recently, I resolved with another IP and the World Championships articles should use "ER", as it's the code used by FINA and listed by Omega Timing. Should there be a consistency here? Any reason other than sounding like "emergency room" that we deviate from a standard?

I've also posted to the other IP about this, and either its edits on Olympics pages need to be undone, or the code on the template needs to be changed. 24.17.207.180 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've somewhat violated 3RR, so I'd like to request that this edit be undone for consistency with Template:Swimming record codes, at least for now. unless you decide that that template need to be changed to "EU", which means hundreds of articles need code updating. 24.17.207.180 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymarcbadz. I noticed that you created the article 2000 Summer Olympics national flag bearers, but at the time did not include any sources. I was wondering what source(s) you used to create the article; in particular, I was looking for a source for Willy Kalombo Mwenze being the COD flagbearer, as I could not confirm this from any other sources. Thanks. Canadian Paul 14:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I used Sports Reference as a source for the athletes who carried their national flags in the opening ceremonies. Anything else, I could not find a legal source about the flag bearers in Sydney 2000, unless their names can be heard in one of the YouTube videos. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to recover the Winifer Fernández article? That one was very well sourced do not know what happened there, I could not verify myself most of them. Yes, thanks to all the editors that went involved in this massive and necessary clean up, but there must be some of them needing to be recovered. Thanks for answering, --Osplace 18:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osplace, looks like this one got missed. I've restored the page to Draft:Winifer Fernández. It looks okay from a quick glance, but please give it a proper once-over to ensure that it meets our standards before moving it back to the article space. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Primefac Thank you very much, I will check it before moving back. --Osplace 18:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Another article that would probably make the cut was Yoraxi Meleán, can you please check? --Osplace 19:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft restored. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Osplace 02:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac I have another SvG deleted BLP: Crismery Santana. Can you please give it a check, thanks. --Osplace 20:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one is a one-sentence stub with no suitable references. Might as well start it from scratch. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Understood, thank you very much! --Osplace 01:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some notes on my edits on a couple of talk pages. My main reason for changing is that the construct of "the third time done by a female in the nation's Summer Olympic history." reads really awkwardly to a native English speaker. If you want to keep that construction, maybe consider changing it to "the third time this was done by a woman in the nation's Summer Olympic history." It reads slightly better, IMO. Red Fiona (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, it reads slightly better, but you need to rephrase the sentence clearly to make it concise, because I've seen clusters of wordiness and redundancy errors in your edits for most of the NOC articles. Or much better, "the third time being done by a woman in the nation's Summer Olympic history." What do you think? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it needs a participle of be/was in there somewhere. How about starting a new sentence and "She was the third female flagbearer in the nation's Summer Olympic history." Any better? Red Fiona (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the third time being done by a female in the nation's Summer Olympic history" would be more appropriate. Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it's grammatically wrong, the "being done" bit. Or if not wrong, at least last used in English some time pre-the Victorian era. That's the problem. If you prefer it, that's okay, and I'll just stop changing it, but I wouldn't be surprised if other users changed it. (Don't worry, it won't be me. I accept that they're articles you've watchlisted so you'll just change it back.) Red Fiona (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]