Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1984 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:29, 28 October 2010 [1].

1984 Winter Olympics medal table

Featured list candidates/1984 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise. Here's the 10th list of the Winter Olympics medal table series up for nomination. Not much to say at this stage. Review all the way! Parutakupiu (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't see anything wrong with the list. The only thing I would like to put in the article is to add a note that (although it was Yugoslavia's first medal) it was also the first time since 1928 that the host did not win a gold medal. It only happened in '24, '28, '84, and '88, which is sufficiently rare enough to worth putting it in. Nergaal (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, and for that info. It didn't come across my mind before. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I found no problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

I really can't express how much I hate these maps as lede images. I don't like maps as the lede in any article, but this one is really boring and useless. If you want something in the MOS, conveying information by colour alone is in contravention of WP:ACCESS.

The article is called "medal table" and refers to countries in the medal table. What representation of countries that depicts the medal table do you want? I have no idea why does wikipedia have to be so politically correct as to end up handicapping articles by not allowing such maps because 10% of the people can't get them. The point of wp:Access should be to help those 10% without diminishing the value of the article. What is next? Don't allow FX's when a reading of the article is not available because x5 of the people can't read? Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having the map does diminish the article, that's the point. I can't tell the silver nations from the nations that didn't participate, and I'm not even colourblind. You seem to be the advocate for these maps, so tell me this. How does this article improve by showing people where Switzerland is? Besides that, the map is unlabeled! If you don't already know where the various countries are, it is just a blob of colour. Courcelles 23:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll give you that knowledge of the world map is kind of necessary to appreciate the use, but the solution would be then to put a legend with the ISO code of the countries in question. On the other hand, having an infobox image of a medal given to the Olympics, other than being nice, does not improve the quality of the article; it does not aid in anything. I still think having a map for people with general geography background (essentiall everybody with some college degree) to "read" is more useful than having a random medal picture. Nergaal (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean I have to remove all maps and wait for Nergaal to come and tell me to put them back? We never quite reached an agreement on this. I actually let the medal images stay, but what about other Games fow which we don't have medal images? No lede image? Really, help me on this.

Then we adapt. There's always something we can use for images, without resorting to a map (that actually doesn't look like anything at this scale). Courcelles 23:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then make the image 2x. Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is something that this image does that helps the article regardless weather you like maps or not: it shows what nations participated but did not get anything Putting countries like Iceland or China that did not win a medals in a text form would be incredibly boring; the image fixes that. Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that information is in 1984 Winter Olympics, though unsourced. And, no the image doesn't do anything of the sort- the map is not labeled! Courcelles 00:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you both think of this compromise? Parutakupiu (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Courcelles been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For the first time, since its debut at the 1972 Winter Olympics, East Germany " Huh? The GDR competed in 1968 Grenoble separately from the FRG. (Though they did compete in Cortina, Squaw Valley, and Innsbruck together.)

Doh, you're right. I mislooked that. This was written way before the 1968 list where I actually state that. Corrected now. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Austrian athletes failed to secure more than one bronze medal," "Austrian athletes secured only a single medal; bronze in the Men's downhill alpine skiing event," as the current wording does not actually mean the bronze was their only medal, rather that they only had one bronze medal, saying nothing about their silver or gold totals.

Well noticed. Fixed that. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "compromise". It is a really neat idea. It might be better to unhide the map and move it after the table (before the see also section). Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, use www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1984/or1984w.pdf (pages 89-90) to reference NOCs. Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right-o. How about now? I had to reduce the size of the photos so that they wouldn't mess up the map. Even so, I had to add a break before the map section. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! If you can, you might want to increase the size of the yellow and red circles, but otherwise it looks good. Nergaal (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support The map is beyond useless, and I hope to never see another one, but the list is otherwise fine. Courcelles 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (apologies if I'm going over old ground, just trying to catch up...)

" A new event was contested: the women's 20 km in cross-country skiing" reads a little isolated. Perhaps it's just me but I fancy putting that into context, maybe just saying that new events are periodically added, and maybe how, and maybe say when the last time one was added before this? Just for non-experts...
- I think that should be something that would go well in higher level articles (Cross-country skiing at the Winter Olympics; or 1984 Winter Olympics). Even so, I added that "Compared with the previous Winter Games, a new event was included in the program...", which may not change much but it stresses the info. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why alpine skier isn't appropriately linked?
- Linked. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"On the opposite end," - I'd prefer "In contrast".
- Replaced. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"were a historical best" well, presumably they were respective historical bests, not singular, but if you insist on singular, then it should be "an historical best".
- Pluralized. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jane Torvill -> Jayne Torvill.
- Doh! Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure See also for "Torvill and Dean" is needed. Can you provide a decent (maybe piped) link for it in the last para of the lead?
- Nah, removed... Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not keen at all on leading 0's in reference date days, e.g. "09 October 2010".
- Wow, didn't even notice those. Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Hope it satisfies you. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably get this wrong always, but the lead image is a map which uses only colour to designate things, does this really meet WP:ACCESS?
- That is beeing discussed despite, no conclusion been reached by the disagreeing parts. I'm gonna implement the compromise layout (which had been in a userpage of mine) where I took that map from the lead section, enlarged it and labeled every participating country, so that at least we know what countries won (or not) medals. OK, colors are still only used to identify medal types, but where do we draw the line? If I use patterns to discriminate medals, it would look awful. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll see what the new image looks like. I understand that it may look awful to meet WP:ACCESS but one of our criteria is a compliance with WP:MOS... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A solution would be to just group the entries in the legend by color and say what the color means. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~Remove comma after "For the first time"? There's also something similar in the third paragraph.~~
- Commas removed. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The last reference should have an indication that it's a PDF.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems with the list. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 10:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.