Talk:Ice hockey at the Olympic Games/Archive 1

1980 mistake

The match between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. was not the gold-silver game, but the one before it. Did not the U.S. then defeat Finland for the gold, and the Soviets winning the Bronze? --Chr.K. 00:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

They didn't do a tournament style back then, there was a "medal round", and the medals were awarded based on standing. Therefore, the US-Finland game wasn't a "gold medal game" in the sense that we know it today, but rather the game to see if the US would finish atop the standings. When we beat Finland, we clinched the top spot. Had we lost, we would've ended up with the silver. Anthony Hit me up... 17:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The USA win over FIN gave us 5 points (TWW). URS ended up with 4 points (WLW), SWE with 2 (TTL)and FIN with 1 (LTL).Joel225sp 06:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Combined USSR/Russia results?

what is with the medal table??? 37 medals for teh ussr/russia?

Fixed Jizz 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit - This medals table is fucked up more than that. USSR+unified+russia is wrong and the unified team are missing. It's really confusing with multiple entries for the USSR and Czechoslovakia and Germany. I'm going to tidy this up and remove combined entries.Jizz 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit2: It's wrong, you have to put USSR+unified+russia together. (see official tables at olympic.org)

I seriously doubt, if such tables are available there. Rankings of nations by medals won aren't officially recognized by the IOC. Generally, I believe, that UT, USSR and Russia should be distinguished, at least because they had separate IOC country codes: EUN, URS and RUS respectively. Cmapm 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There are NO tables at olympic.org [1] that combine these NOCs together. Search the database for medal winners in ice hockey (by team) and you get specific medal winners for URS, EUN and RUS. Look at the medal tables for each games, and you'll see the appropriate NOC for each games (URS: 1956-88, EUN: 1992, and RUS: 1994-2006). The anonymous editor above clearly has an agenda and is pretending some "official tables" exist and prove this point. They don't. Andrwsc 21:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest adding number of country's participations at the Olympics into the medal table. Because,although Canada is higher in the rankings now, it participated more times than, say the USSR. Cmapm 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions, I have removed the combined USSR/Russia row in the medal table and added years to the countries that have changed. I used Winter Olympics medal count as a model of how to present this. Andrwsc 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Noticed another error. Germany's first medal was won before WW2 and so should be counted as "Germany" and not "West Germany" Jizz 20:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, good catch. This is consistent with Winter Olympics medal count, Andrwsc 21:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have had to add the dispute tag to get admin attention. We're past the 3 revert rule. This topic was debated to death on Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions, and the consensus was clear. Revisionist medal standings are fairly obvious NPOV violations. Since medal tables are always contentious, I might suggest that we delete the medal table altogether, and simply use just the by-Olympic results table. It's short enough that a reader can add up the totals as they choose. Andrwsc 21:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only. IOC & other organizations haven't official standart for such kind of tables. All such tables in Wikipedia aren't official & are presented only for the information. More information in table it is better. Therefore I have added the combined account for some countries in this table and have left as the account for UT, USSR, Russia, Germany, GDR, FRG, Czechoslovakia and Czech separately. Russia is a officially recognized by UN and by IOC as successor of the USSR for all things, including sport too. Unified team of Germany 1952-1968 is successor of Germany 1896-1936. GDR and FRG now one uniform country and their medals now the general. My variant of the table is more detailed and has more information. 88.152.202.122 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a POV issue, as has been debated in great amounts on Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions. Have you read that page? I realize that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but you can't decide for yourself that you don't like a particular standard or guideline and blatantly ignore it. I will add some footnotes to the table to try to help this situation, but your solution is clearly confusing. I have requested administrator intervention; please stop reverting or you will be blocked and/or this page protected. Andrwsc 20:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Russia is the successor of the USSR, but it's not the same state. See e.g. the IOC website (results database) - Russia, Unified Team and the Soviet Union are clearly distinguished. Cmapm 01:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes in general are irrelevant and confusing IMHO - what about addition of similar ones to all articles with Olympic medal count tables for overall confusion, heh? :) Besides, for the USSR the footnote contains mostly irrelevant inf. Should we add tons of other footnotes - for all qualifiers for all Olympics? It would be the total nonsense. Cmapm 01:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote those footnotes, but I agree with you - they are irrelevant and confusing. I only wrote them as an attempt to placate User:88.152.202.122 who persists in changing the medal table to suit her/his whims, in opposition to the agreement reached at Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions with respect to medal tables. Since she/he has reverted yet again, with no explanation, I presume the effort was wasted. Andrwsc 19:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

When he/she reverts without any explanations we are free to revert back as did Jizz. Cmapm 19:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get administrator attention. The same user is vandalizing a handful of other pages too, also using various sockpuppet user names (e.g. User:Alexr23. For example, she/he is changing the 2002 medal counts to subtract from Canada and add to Russia so that Russia is "ahead" in the table, and has also vandalized a figure skating result to put a Russian ahead of an American (1996 World Championships). That tells me that it's not just a point of view issue here (i.e. should we tabulate URS/EUN/RUS together or not?) but outright vandalism based on some hatred of Canada and the US. Andrwsc 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He/she also introduced the same "multiple-confusing-entries-table" to the Ice Hockey World Championships some time ago. I'll also check whether he/she "added some medals" to Russia/USSR. I leaved a notice on the talk page, but hockey tournaments are over and nobody seems to take care of the article :) Knowing that he/she is just a vandal, I'll go and change the article back myself in a while. Cmapm 01:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, he/she "adjusted" medal count there. For 1976 he/she moved Czechoslovakia on the 2nd place and the USSR - to the first and changed tables "properly". Now I agree, this is a vandal! Cmapm 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am non a vandal! OK I wrong about Russian and American figurist(1996 World Championships), but about this table and the 2002 olympic medal counts I am not wrong! Russia is a officially recognized by UN and by IOC as successor USSR. OK Russia is not the 100% same state, but Russian Olympic Committee сontinues to consider and add her medals to USSR and Unified Team of CIS medals. Unified Team of CIS was 100% team of former USSR! Many countries have changed the names, however it does not mean that their medals have disappeared and do not pass to their successor! Wikipedia it is free for eddit and this information only have more data. IOC & other organizations haven't official standart for such kind of tables. Therefore it can be changed. It is not a false information. It is simple more details for data. I do not delete, and opposite I leave the personal information for these countries, only I add the generalized information. IOC & other organizations haven't official standart for such kind of tables. If them haven't official standart, Wikipedia haven't official standart too and its form should be free! Therefore it can be changed. I am not based on some hatred of Canada and the US. I have not some against them! According to Russian Olympic Committee, Russian Ministry of Sports, all officials Russian sites, Sports Almanac and many other sources it is correct for Russia. Russia win 6 gold, 6 silver, 4 bronze and total 16 medals! For Russia these sites are the most exact!User:88.152.202.122 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

May be you are not a vandal, but you introduce factual errors by almost each of your edits. For example, check your sources first and see, who was the World Champion in 1976 - all known to me say it was Czechoslovakia, not the USSR (USSR was 1976 Olympic Champion, but not World Champion).

And once again: 1.USSR consisted of 15 republics, not only of one - Russia 2. USSR and Russia have separate IOC country codes URS and RUS, even USSR NOC and Russian NOC are not the same - USSR NOC ceased to exist in 1992 and Russian NOC was formed on 1991. 3. Your inf. is confusing and is not simple and clear - e.g. one can think, that USSR jointly with Russia won x medals, plus USSR alone won y medals.

And after all, please, provide exact links to sources, where Russian and Soviet medals are summed up in one table - e.g. I explored Russian NOC website (http://www.roc.ru/) and didn't find anything similar to that. Cmapm 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are not adding "more details"; they are adding misleading and confusing information. When you include totals for different NOCs twice, the totals don't add up. It is fairly obvious that you are adding a non-neutral point of view to these tables. Our job on Wikipedia is to present information with a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In this case, it means that we tabulate counts for each NOC code individually. It is clear and unambiguous. URS, EUN and RUS are different NOCs (as are TCH, CZE and SVK, and as were GER, EUA, FRG, and GDR). By combining them, you are interpreting the data instead of presenting it as it is. Your interpretation is different from that of other editors. The only way to satisfy everyone is to leave the interpretation to the reader. That is why a neutral point of view is so important to Wikipedia, and that is why these table must be clearly, logically, organized by NOC code only. Again, our job is to report historical events, not to provide opinion on them. Andrwsc 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK you are right the World Champion in 1976. USSR NOC ceased to exist in 1991, not in 1992. USSR and Russian Olympic Committees not different National Olympic Committees. It is formally change (replace) one to other. It have different NOC code codes, because the organization has replaced a name. For an example: Burma had a NOC code-BIR, now when Burma has replaced the name to Myanmar-the code was replaced also to MYA, but it does not mean that their medals have disappeared and do not pass to their successor! We have many such examples. It concerns also the USSR and Russia. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only. Russian National Olympic Committee does not recognise global ranking,therefore you can not see such table in site http://www.olympic.ru/ , but you can see history and results of Russian Olympic Teem in this site http://www.olympic.ru/ru/olympics_5.asp and you will understand all, that Russian Olympic Committee сontinues to consider and add her medals to USSR and Unified Team of CIS medals. Such tables with combined USSR, CIS and Russian medals you can see in many sources: Sports Almanac, in the book of records of Ginness and many encyclopedias. Other National Olympic Committees of former 14 republics of USSR do not do it. It all concerns also to Germany. It is logical and should be clear that after reunification of Germany and unification National Olympic Committees of Germany of a medal the won by FRG and by GDR-summarize, instead of have disappeared or are not count. About my inf. is confusing and is not simple and clear - e.g. one can think, that USSR jointly with Russia won x medals, plus USSR alone won y medals- you are wrong - In brackets dates are written and any little bit competent person will understand it! I was right too about 2002 Winter Olympics Games According to Russian Olympic Committee, Russian Ministry of Sports sites and many other sources it is correct for Russia. Russia win 6 gold, 6 silver, 4 bronze and total 16 medals! For Russia these sites are the most exact! User:88.152.202.122 18:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to respond to your vandalism of the 2002 games results first. I have shown you the discrepancy between the IOC results and the www.olympic.ru web page. Two Russian cross-country skiiers were disqualified for doping offences and stripped of their medals. You continue to state that this source is "most exact" "for Russia". Does that mean that Russia does not recognize the IOC's punishment of those athletes? Or does it mean that you blindly follow their web page without realizing that it may be out of date? Either way, your stubborn refusal to consider any other information tells me that you do NOT have a neutral point of view, which is essential for Wikipedia editing. That is also my point with respect to your continuous vandalism of the table on this page. By presenting different combinations of medal totals, you are introducing a non-neutral point of view. You are trying to interpret the raw data. These combinations introduce political bias. They are disrespectful to the citizens/supporters of the other nations involved (e.g. TCH+CZE is extremely disrespectful to SVK, which has a very good hockey team, and combining URS+RUS is similarly disrespectful to the national teams of BLR, KAZ, LAT, UKR, etc.) At Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions, the (long) debate concluded that we will show unambiguous counts only, so as to avoid these complications. You continue to disregard this agreement by stating that Wikipedia is free for editing. That argument doesn't work here: Wikipedia is not a free place to express a non-neutral point of view. Andrwsc 19:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that article, but there isn't any table. Besides, this your statement:"you can see history and results of Russian Olympic Teem in..." doesn't imply this one: "Committee сontinues to consider and add her medals to USSR and Unified Team". For example, see a similar article on history of Belarus at the Olympics at the NOC of Belarus site (http://www.noc.by/html/games/1952-1994.html). On both websites is written "Russia/Belarus won..." for Olympics after 1992, "CIS won..." for 1992 and "USSR won..." prior to the 1992. So, all three teams are clearly distinguished there. Nobody claims, that Russia/Belarus didn't won any medals being a republic of the USSR, but medals were won by the USSR team, there was no separate "Russia" or "Belarus".

And once again, please, check your sources, according to all known to me, Russian NOC was created on November 21 1991 and NOC of the USSR was disbanded on March 12 1992. Cmapm 19:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In http://www.noc.by/html/games/1952-1994.html not write "Russia/Belarus won...", in this article write " in United Teem won". In http://www.olympic.ru/ru/olympics_2.asp , http://www.cosokr.ru/default.php?s=okr&did=22 ("12 марта 1992 года Олимпийский ко­митет СССР объявил о своем саморос­пуске, а его правопреемником стал Всероссийский олимпийский комитет") http://www.olimp2006.ru/encyclopedia/20051222/50006496.html , http://www.moscow2001.olympic.ru/rom/noc/okr1989/index.html?l=r write Russian NOC was created 1.12. 1989 and 9.03.1992 as the independent organization replaced NOC of the USSR! User:88.152.202.122 19:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you admit, that you were wrong to say, that NOC of the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. I meant on the page of Russian NOC is written "Russia won..." and on that of NOC of Belarus is written "Belarus won...". I meant "created as a country's OC". In 1989-1991 Russian NOC was the republican NOC of the Russian SFSR, besides, it was "juridically registered" on November 21 1991, therefore, it seems, that it was established rather in 1991 than in 1989. And were is written, that "правопреемник" means, that all USSR medals, including won by Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Moldavian etc. athletes, are since then counted for Russia? Cmapm 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The medal table was deleted altogether to resolved our dispute, are you satisfied now? I am not, but I agree with Andrwsc, that this was the only right way to resolve the dispute without going into a long process of various "mediations". Cmapm 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should interesting content be deleted for the sake of one person? This is an encyclopaedia and information should not be removed to satisfy nationalistic users. I think the table should be restored to the version not containing the combined results. Jizz 21:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed back. Yes, it's too interesting to be deleted. But this discussion is very time consuming for me. I wanted to scan some coins to upload into other articles but instead spent half a day in this pointless discussion. And although I think, I've beaten most of person's arguments, he/she continues the constant revert war :( Cmapm 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that it was added back again. I don't think it should have been deleted, but I did it in a (wasted) attempt to resolve this dispute. I will keep trying to appeal to this user's logic, but I'm not hopeful. Andrwsc 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cmapm "правопреемник", if you do not know mean "правовой наследник" и логически это означает да на твой вопрос о медалях! Как и во всём приемнику или наследнику переходит всё, что принадлежало предшественику! Почему ты выступаешь против давно известного всем Россиянам, что Россия правопреемница СССР во всём, включительно и спорт! Я живу заграницой и не умераю любовью о России, но её заслуги не уменьшаю, а ты Россиянин и выступаешь против достижений своей страны! Я могу понять не российских участников этой дисскусии которые могут заблуждатся, так как не умеют читать русские источники информации, но тебя понять я не могу! Посмотри любые репортажи РосТв и почитай любую обобщающию книгу о спорте, книгу рекордов Гиннесса и даже Оксфордскую Энциклопедию. Во всех их медали России прибавлены к медалям СССР. Даже канал Евроспорт, когда вёл трансляцию фигурного катания и перечислял российских чемпионов, то начинал с чемпионов которые стали ими в СССР. В белорусском сайте написанно 1956-1994 достижения единой команды, а с 1994 только белорусской! Российский НОК был создан 1 декабря 1989 года и зарегистрирован 21 ноября 1991 пода в Министерстве юстиции РСФСР, как НОК республики СССР, а не как самостоятельный. После распада СССР и обретения Россией статуса суверенного государства Олимпийское собрание России 6 марта 1992 г. избрало первого президента Всероссийского олимпийского комитета. 9 марта в Лозанне МОК объявил о временном, условном признании национальных комитетов всех бывших республик СССР, в том числе и России. 12 марта 1992 года Олимпийский ко­митет СССР объявил о своем саморос­пуске, а его правопреемником стал Всероссийский олимпийский комитет. 13 августа 1992 года Всероссийский олимпийский комитет был переиме­нован в Олимпийский комитет России (ОКР). В сентябре 1992 г. 101 сессия МОК объявила о полном признании Олимпийского комитета России, как самостоятельного члена МОК и наследника СССР.User:88.152.202.122 22:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First, please, speak in English to be understood by all users. I don't want to reply to you personally. Second, polite Russian people say Вы to unknown person, not ты. Third, it seems, that you violated 3RR, I'll read more on this now. Cmapm 22:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Я не хотел обижать вас лично говоря "ты", так принято общаться в русскоязычной версии! Если я обидел Вас этим то простите, а на русском я написал чтобы Вы меня поняли на все 100%. Вы тоже нарушили 3RR, но я не обвинял вас в этом. Я не пишу ложную информацию. Да у меня были ошибки и я их проверил и устранил, но по поводу СССР И России я уверен что пишу на все 100%. Я вас не понял, что вы имели ввиду, когда написали что не будете мне отвечать. Я что бандит какой-то или хуже других юзеров- им вы отвечали. Они также утверждают что в Солт-Лейк-Сити у России отобрали две медали в лыжах, но это не так. Да две спортсменки были дисквалифицированы за применения допинга и отстранены от дальнейших выступлений на определённый срок. Было подчеркнуто что уже заработанные медали у них останутся! Они много раз обжаловали, что они не употребляли допинг во многих спортивных судах и протестовали против решения об их дисквалификации. Решение этих судов досих пор не оправдало их, но официального решения лишить их медалей не было.User:88.152.202.122 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to speak "behind backs" of users, who don't understand Russian. I've just underlined that on my userpage. That's all. Cmapm 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to reply to Alexr23/Roitr/User:88.152.251.104/

User:88.152.202.122 (and any other sockpuppets you are using) in English, because this page is in the English Wikipedia namespace. You are free to speak in Russian on ru.wikipedia.org pages, but it is incredibly rude to do so here. The irony is that in your "private" comments to Cmapm, you reveal your true motivations to everybody! You appeal to Cmapm as a Russian to not speak out against Russian achievements. That implies that you believe that the simple medal table is biased, and against Russian/Soviet achievements. The rest of us disagree; we believe the simple medal table is the least biased way of presenting this data.

That is the whole point of this dispute, yet you fail to address it. One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is that it maintains a neutral point of view. I have highlighted this page for you several times already; I implore you to read it and understand what it means. Our jobs, as editors of Wikipedia, are to present verifiable facts, without interpretation or bias. That is why the widely agreed-upon consensus for Olympic medal tables is to simply to tabulate them as they were awarded, by the NOC represented by each team at that time. That's it. Any interpretation is left to the reader to make for him/herself. That's what a good, valuable encyclopedia does.

The next point I wish to reply to is in your second message, with respect to the medals originally awarded to Larissa Lazutina and Olga Danilova of Russia. You agree with me that they were disqualified from the games, but you also claim they were allowed to retain their medals. This is not true. It took about two years, but they were required to return their medals. Please read the press releases from the IOC here and here (bottom left of page 2) Please pay attention to where it says all medals are hereby withdrawn (in the first press release) and ... request the Russian Olympic Committee obtain the medals and diplomas from Lazutina and return them to the IOC.' (in the second article). These facts are clear - do you still deny them?

The last point I wish to make here is your vandalism of the 2004 Summer Olympics medal count page. You keep changing the gold medal count for Russia from 27 to 28. What is your justification for doing so? With respect to the 2002 games, you persist in placing the Russian Olympic Committee as the highest source. However, if you look at [http:/www.olympic.ru their web page] and click on the Athens 2004 button, you see a page that shows 27 medals. Your inconsistency here speaks volumes. It tells me you are a mischievious vandal, and not a well-intentioned editor who researches his/her data before placing it on Wikipedia. How can you point to the ROC as the best source in one case, and disregard it in another.

Please consider what I have written here. I have spent a lot of time to make my case to you, and I hope it is not in vain. I hope you read the pages I have asked you to, and reply to my questions & comments with this information in mind. Andrwsc 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrwsc First of all thanks for your attention and the information. Well, you can be right about 2002 games, but in a site ROC is written, that these decisions are protested and till now are in proceeding. I not knowing why IOC have changed the table when action of proceeding still is not ended, as under all laws while action of proceeding is not finished - decisions of the previous instance are frozen. Therefore in that clause I shall write two tables:

1. Results right after the end of games

2. Results with correction (updating) after disqualification, doping scandals and annulled won medals

The next point Olga Danilova win in Cross country skiing at the 2002 Winter Olympics:

1.Gold in 10 km (5 km + 5 km) free pursuit

2.Silver in 10 km classical

Total one Gold and one Silver medals

Larissa Lazutina win in Cross country skiing at the 2002 Winter Olympics:

1.Silver in 10 km (5 km + 5 km) free pursuit

2.Silver in 15 km freestyle mass start

Total two Silver medals

Total for two Russian women one Gold and three Silver medals.

After all combined from first table - 6 gold, 6 silver, 4 Bronze with minus one Gold and three Silver medals (total 4 medals) and add two silver and one bronze won by Julija Tchepalova after after disqualification and doping scandals (total 2 medals) - this mean 16 total medals minus 4 take away medals plus 2 added medals equal 14 total medals - 5 gold, 5 silver and 4 bronze, but on a site of IOC it is written erroneous data and the sum of medals for Russian Teem - 13 total medals - 5 gold, 4 silver and 4 bronze.

The last point. About combined total medals for USSR and Russia. It is not my personal point of view. It is point of view of ROC, Russian Ministry of Sports, Russia TV and all Russian official organizations. This point of view write too in english Sports Almanac, in the international book of records of Ginness (written on english) and many encyclopedias, including Oxford. Also there the information is written about Germany. For a consensus I also shall write in this clause two tables:

1.Medal table by name of the NOC represented by each team at that time. 2.Combined Medal table by team and by name of countries in past time, in present and their successors. Any interpretation is left to the reader to make for him/herself. Thanks for attention and also I hope for the consent.User:88.152.202.122 13:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Information on Germany is still wrong, when did they win any silvers? I'm not sure whether two tables is the best way to go but is preferable to the constant revert war you keep instigating. Also, please don't blanketly say that all of these sources (Guinness, Sports Almanac etc) follow your favoured convention because it is dubious without any links/citations to back your claims up. It also doesn't help when you include fictional encyclopaedias such as "Oxford". Perhaps you mean Britannica but you would surely know the title if you had bothered to research your claim. As has been said before, the combined entries were suggested on the Olympic conventions page and was voted down, why should you be allowed to ignore this decision because you want your country to be top of the table?

If you want to take this to its logical conclusion then Canada was nominally part of the UK (or at least subject to UK laws) until 1931 or indeed 1982, should pre-1931 (or 1982) medals for Canada be combined with the UK's? And what will happen when/if another former Soviet state wins a medal (eg. Latvia) will they be allowed to have a combined tally with the USSR's medals? And surely the other members of the CIS should have a place on the table as they helped win the gold in 1992. Having a combined table introduces a whole host of complications and it seems obvious that your want for a combined table stems from your wish for Russia to be #1 rather than to have a "fairer" table. Jizz 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't want my country to be top of the table. It is not logical for Canada. Canada always had independent NОC. It was not accepted in not one decision of IOC or UN where is spoken, that Canada successor of the UK. USSR and Russian Olympic Committees not different National Olympic Committees. It is formally change (replace) one to other. It have different NOC code codes, because the organization has replaced a name. For an example: Burma had a NOC code-BIR, now when Burma has replaced the name to Myanmar-the code was replaced also to MYA, but it does not mean that their medals have disappeared and do not pass to their successor! In ROC site write: "Российский НОК был создан 1 декабря 1989 года и зарегистрирован 21 ноября 1991 пода в Министерстве юстиции РСФСР, как НОК республики СССР, а не как самостоятельный. После распада СССР и обретения Россией статуса суверенного государства Олимпийское собрание России 6 марта 1992 г. избрало первого президента Всероссийского олимпийского комитета. 9 марта в Лозанне МОК объявил о временном, условном признании национальных комитетов всех бывших республик СССР, в том числе и России. 12 марта 1992 года Олимпийский ко­митет СССР объявил о своем саморос­пуске, а его правопреемником стал Всероссийский олимпийский комитет. 13 августа 1992 года Всероссийский олимпийский комитет был переиме­нован в Олимпийский комитет России (ОКР). В сентябре 1992 г. 101 сессия МОК объявила о полном признании Олимпийского комитета России, как самостоятельного члена МОК и наследника СССР." Russia is a officially recognized by UN and by IOC as successor USSR. In 09.1992 101 session IOC has declared a full recognition of Olympic committee of Russia, as independent member IOC and the successor of the USSR. About, that Russian Ice hockey Team successor of Soviet Ice hockey Team you can see on official site of Federation of Ice hockey of Russian Federation http://www.fhr.ru/Article.aspx?id=34 on article "History of domestic hockey".

2. About Information on Germany is still wrong - you right. I shall correct it.

3. "Oxford" - is not fictional encyclopaedias. The Big Oxford Encyclopaedic Directory 2000. Copyright@Helicon Publishing Ltd. Crown copyright information is reproduced under licence from the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 42 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford, OX1 2EP.

4,About book of Guinness, buy it and look itself. I cannot show you the book on this site. About Sports Almanac see http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0105242.htm, in this site write Multiple winners: Soviet Union/Russia and Canada (23); Sweden (7); Czechoslovakia (6) Czech Republic (4), USA (2) - for Ice Hockey World Championship. See also http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0115207.html - for All-Time Winter Olympics Medal Standings. It have 1924-2002 two tables: one in a top and second in a bottom of page. In second table write Combined totals by USSR/UT/Russia and by Germany/ UT of Germany/E. Ger/W. Ger

This and many other sites similar to this clause I did not write. Now you can see, that it is not my personal point of view or my whim! I hope for the consent.User:88.152.202.122 16:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a comprimise to have the same format as that almanac you link to, that is to have the table without combined totlas and then just below it a table where combined totals are shown only. It seems a bit redundant to have two tables with most of the information the same. Jizz 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish Tt1/Alexr23/Roitr/etc. would see that the second table is NOT aesthetically pleasing! I think she/he has missed this point all along -- it is extremely awkward, confusing, and possibly misleading to show the counts for URS, RUS and EUN individually, and the counts for URS+EUN+RUS in the same table. Those totals are double counted. Even when she/he added the second table, it still had those rows listed twice. Arrrgh. I took a look at that almanac page, and I think it is basically just the same idea as the footnotes I added in a previous edit, but in table form. Although I still think it is a terrible idea to start creating combined medal totals, I have restructured the table to look like that almanac format, in an attempt to resolve the dispute. I can accept this version; I will not accept multiple complete tables nor multiple redundant entries entwined in the same table. Andrwsc 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't follow the discussion for few days, but I'm against the second table at least in the current format. It doesn't look too bad for now, when other former republics didn't earn any medals. But it surely can change "dramatically" in the future, furthermore, even now it may encourage users to add similar tables into other articles, where medals were won by other former republics. Have you thought, what would such tables look like there? Cmapm 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In an earlier draft of that part of the table (which I didn't save), I had the following:

Soviet Union +  Unified Team + Russia + Belarus + Kazakhstan + Latvia + Ukraine

Czechoslovakia + Czech Republic + Slovakia

Germany + West Germany + East Germany

The point I wanted to make was exactly that - it could get extremely ugly when all the successor nations are listed. In the interest of keeping this aesthetically acceptable, I reduced it to the nations that actually won Olympic medals. And, realistically, the only other nation that has a chance to win a future Olympic medal is probably Slovakia, and adding SVK to that second line won't make the table any worse than it is now.

I still think this is the wrong thing to do with a medal table, but it is preferable to any of the other options I've seen, and certainly preferable to an ongoing edit war. Do you think we can remote the {{disputed-section}} tag now? Andrwsc 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cmapm How many time I can for you be spoken, that other former republics USSR do not pretend to be successors of the USSR and also they are not recognized by any international organization as the successors of the USSR. Russia has been on the contrary recognized by all international organizations as the successor of the USSR and I specified one million sources. Therefore you are not right when speak that it not well in relation to other former republics USSR and to do the combined tables - correctly! For Germany this question is even easier, as GDR And FRG were anew united in one uniform country and other countries cannot pretend for medals won by two Germanies and modern Germany will simply generalize them! User:88.152.202.122 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you miss one key point of our argument. When these nations were separate, they had more athletes & teams collectively in the Olympics than when they were united. Although unlikely, imagine if RUS, LAT and KAZ won the hockey medals in 2006. No other "nation" could have fielded three teams! Although not in hockey, this is exactly the situation with other sports. In bobsleigh, for example, each nation could have 2 teams. In the 1968-88 years, Germany therefore had 2x FRG and 2x GDR teams competing, and combining their results would be an inappropriate comparison with the results from SUI, ITA, AUT, etc. That is (at least) one reason why the Wikipedia Olympic community decided on Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions to not combine medals. Andrwsc 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In some things you are right, but now Germany the uniform country and former Olympic committees of two Germany now too are incorporated in one committee and their medals are combined. Therefore inappropriate comparison with the results from SUI, ITA, AUT or others here does not matter. The fact remains the fact and we cannot disagree with it and only to accept as existing.User:88.152.202.122 17:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? (incorporated in one committee and their medals are combined) Where? Not on Wikipedia. There have been arguments for GER-EUA-FRG-GER as one continuous total, but I have never seen an agreement to add FRG and GDR together. Andrwsc 17:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction section

I'm just wondering why the intro section to the article was deleted. I thought it was appropriate and the deleter did not state why it was cut out. --claes 14:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Combined NOC results, yet again

I see that another anonymous editor (or perhaps another sockpuppet) has re-instated the confusing multi-NOC totals at the end of the medal table. These totals make no sense here, and are very inconsistent with all the other Olympic sport pages, which do not have this treatment. My question for the editor is why he/she feels it necessary to single out ice hockey this way? Alternatively, I would suggest that the editor make a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics to make a similar change for all ALL appropriate pages. This presentation of medal results on Wikipedia needs to be made everywhere, or nowhere. Otherwise, it stinks of POV. Andrwsc 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I аbsolutely agree with you. This presentation of medal results on Wikipedia needs to be made everywhere, or nowhere. I think that my variant with NOC totals should be on all Olympic pages. It does not do the information confusing.It's only adds more extensive data.--88.152.54.147 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the correct thing to do would be to make a proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics and/or start making the changes to all the other "Sport at the Olympics" pages. If no action takes place within the next few days (i.e. the ice hockey page remains the only one to have this treatment), then I will revert again. In the meantime, I will leave this page alone. I hope you agree that consistency must be one of the cornerstones of an encyclopedia. Andrwsc 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One other comment -- although the footnotes are wordy, I prefer this version than the previous version that combined totals from multiple NOCs with no written explanation. I think this revision of the table is the least confusing of all the different attempts we've tried here. Andrwsc 18:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Medal count

Hmm. So why the combined table of medals, instead of separate men/women tables? To make Canada look stronger?:) Seriously this needs to be changed. Women's and men's events are to be separated, they're not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.245.194 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games (once again)

I would like some input on the article because my goal is to take it to FAC soon and have it as the TFA at some point during the 2010 Olympics (preferably the opening day so that stability won't be as large of a concern). These are my concerns right now:

1. What does anyone think of the formatting of the page? It used to be with info on the format of the two events, then a huge history section ([2]). However, I felt there was a lot of repetition in there because many of the things were related. So the current version merged everything together and split it by Events > men's/women's tournaments > [various games] (I also added a rules section).
2. Should anything be added to the rules section? (perhaps a small section on doping rules?)
3. Should a "status of professional players" section be added? I almost added one, but I felt that it worked better in history because some of the other statements are supported by it.
4. Is there enough on the rules and actual running of the tournaments?
5. Is it too focused on Canada? It's true that Canada did dominate the tournament for a long time, but some may claim there is a bias towards Canada in the article. (although I think I have devoted just as much time to the Svoiets and US during their years. I'm not as sure about Sweden, the Czechs or Finland)
6. Does the article at some points tread too far from the Olympics and more into IIHF/World Championship territory?
7. Should more info on the women's tournament be added?
8. Have there been any hockey related doping issues that should be mentioned? I think José Théodore ran into problems in 2006, and Dick Pound is always running his mouth about how drug filled the NHL is, but should these be mentioned? Perhaps a small section on doping could be added to "rules"?

So any and all comments and opinions are welcome. Any comments on the format would be particularily useful. This is the "[sport] at the Olympics" for a current sport to make it to GA, so it could be used as a template and others could be modeled after it, which is why input would be nice. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In my limited experience with the FAC process I have noted some trends in what the FA reviewers are looking for. I'll give you my thoughts here and then go through the article with your questions in mind. This will likely take me most of the day intermixed with real life so bear with me. Here are my general thoughts on FAC and what the reviewers are looking for:

• First keep in mind that these are usually not subject matter experts. You may get a hockey fan who will jump into the review but for the most part they have interests in other things.
• MOS compliance is huge. They will go through your article with a fine toothed comb making sure every aspect complies with the MOS (hard spaces, hard dashes, punctuation in the photo captions, location of photos in a third-level heading, the list goes on). You won't be able to catch everything before you nominate it. The reviewers have an encyclopedic knowledge of the MOS so just fix what they suggest.
• Be active on the talk page, make fixes as quickly as you can.
• Prose is huge as well. These editors are the types to write, "there should be a comma between this and that" rather than just jump in and put the comma there (which would be much easier). It's maddening but that is what it is. If your prose is not tight to begin with then they could demote it right away. Be sure to have a thorough prose review by a disinterested editor before you put it up. I recommend submitting it to WP:PR or at least have some good prose people here at the project sift through it. I'll be happy to help in this regard. The GA review is a good start but FAC is a whole new level, it should be reviewed a couple more times at least before being nominated. Especially having it reviewed by Peer Review will add credibility to your nomination.
• It's all about consensus. One or two objects doesn't derail it but work hard to address their concerns in the hopes that they'll change their minds.
• References. Make sure every reference is credible. I haven't checked your references but common references that they frown upon are infoplease.com, ask.com, any travel guides, blogs, and an over-reliance on webpages vs. books. Books, journals, newspapers are viewed much better than web pages (unless it's ESPN or CNN or Sports Illustrated). Even so make sure you have a good number of books if possible in your references.
• Photos should have no clean up tags and Fair Use rationale should exist if necessary. Also make sure the photos are topical and add to the article.
• Reviewers will start messing with your article, I had reviewers taking out photos and adding other ones, which really bugged me, but you kind of have to let it slide.
• Comprehensiveness is an issue. Be sure your article is comprehensive but does not get too detailed. See Summary Style for helpful hints in this regard. I think most of your questions above are related to this issue. Just keep in mind that this is only one of a series of issues that they consider very heavily.

In closing the article is supposed to reflect the very best articles in Wikipedia. This is a tall order, but a worthy goal to attempt to acheive. This article, if passed, will set the template for all other "[sport] at the Olympics" articles to follow. In that regard it is important that we get one to pass so that we can format every other article to that one. I'll go through your article and answer some of the questions you have. Good luck. H1nkles (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 1 format

This is really subjective, one person will find it intuitive and comprehensive, while another will completely disagree. I think the format is fine. I think there are things that could be added but as far as a breakdown of the information, it flows nicely. I would consider further breaking down the women's tournament section. You have the men's tournament laid out over several periods. I know the women's tournament is still very young but I think to be consistent with the men's section you should have a summary of the process the IOC took to make the women's tournament and then break out the three tournaments from 1998–2006 in their own subsection. It is also more equitable to our female readers. I haven't read the article yet, just looking more at the format overall. Sections could be added but I'll address that later in your list of question. By the way there are several books on women in hockey. Here are a couple of examples, [3], [4], and [5]. I haven't read these but they should be a start.

Does the Miracle on Ice warrant its own section? Being an American, of course I would biasly say yes, but I want to be sure nationalism doesn't creep in. It has been listed as an epochal moment in hockey and Olympic history, but is it viewed that way from an international stand point? Would a British, or a Russian reader roll their eyes at the fact that this event gets its own section while the 1936 or 1952 upsets of Canada gets barely a mention (for example). I don't know how this event is perceived around the world, any comments on this would be instructive. H1nkles (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the section could be trimmed, but I think it warrants an extended mention. The IIHF named it the top international hockey story (it should have been the Summit Series, but oh well), and how many Winter Olympic-or even hockey-events have had several films made about them? It's section could be merged, but the section before and after it were a tad long, so I felt it would work as a stand-alone section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Good thoughts there, it does break the sections up nicely, I'd leave it, I was just trying to be overly critical. H1nkles (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Update I shortened the section and removed some of the less necessary details. [6] Better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Another update: I split the women's portion into sections though I haven't expanded it yet. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 2 Rules

I think your information on the qualification breakdown for the 2010 Games should go under the Future Tournaments section as it is more specific to the 2010 Tournament rather than an overall qualification rules topic. The qualification rules seem fairly fluid from one Games to the next. Is there any reason for that? What were the qualification rules prior to 1976? That will be a glaring question in the minds of reviewers, can anything be added?

Add imperial conversions to the rink dimensions for the early Olympic hockey tournaments.

Steroid use rules would be a good addition given the hot topic that steroids are right now.

You wikilink rink twice in subsequent paragraphs, once is fine. H1nkles (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Update I have added a small section titled "banned substances", it is mainly made up of examples of positive tests because as far as I can tell, the IIHF follows the WADA code with very few of their own rules worth mentioning. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 3 Professionalism

The issue of professionals at the Olympics was incredibly contentious through the 1980's. I think a section discussing this from the Hockey stand point would be constructive. The 1992 Dream team in basketball paved the way for professionals in other sports to play. I like your synopsis at the beginning of the "NHL Era" but a greater look at the history of professionalism as it relates to hockey would be good. The amateurism rules started to relax upon the retirement of Avery Brundage, he is turning over in his grave at what the Olympics have become. I will be making comments later on regarding references but I wanted to say that you're going to need more books, and a section on the history of professionalism in Olympic hockey might be a good place to add some book references. Here's a good source that I've used for other articles, [7]. H1nkles (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do think a section would be helpful, but my concern is that debates about professionalism have been spread out over so long and some of the incidents mentioned (ie. the American team in 1948, the Canadian withdrawal in the 70s) help to support the sections they are in. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, you would likely have to pull those references out of the history section and put them into a professionalism section. It is a shame that Canada was out for most of the 70's, that really was a detriment to the sport. I still think a separate section on professionalism debate is warranted. H1nkles (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Maybe I'll leave my examples where they are and move the rest to a new section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 4 Rules part 2

I think my statements above address this question. The interplay between the IIHF and NHL rules is a bit cumbersome but I think a necessary part of the article. You do draw heavily from the NHL, are there any other hockey leagues that have influenced the IIHF? You want to be careful not only with it being too nation focused but also too North Americancentric (my own wording). Are there European professional leagues or Russian leagues, that operate more like the Olympic tournament or have influence IIHF rule changes?

Another addition would be to look at how the qualification rules changed after the 1948 debacle between the two American hockey teams that both claimed to be representing the U.S. This must have been addressed in some way. This could be discussed in your pre-1976 qualification rules paragraph.

This source, [8] would be a good one to help bolster credibility in this section. It goes over a case in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport regarding eligibility to compete for a national team. It interprets the IIHF by-laws on this issue. Side bar - it relates to Evgeny Nabokov (and I'm a Sharks fan) so it's of particular interest. The link above does not give the final decision, pages were omitted, but this link [9] (see the top of p. 243) gives a synopsis of the decision (which it calls a landmark decision regarding player eligibility). H1nkles (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 5 Canada-centric?

I'm sorry my friend but this section is going to hurt. Feel free to disagree with what I'm about to say, as a non-Canadian, I feel it is very Canada focused, especially the first half of the history section. Here's why and what I would do about it:

• Start by removing the names of the clubs that represented Canada. It's unnecessary detail that would fit in an article about Canadian Olympic hockey history but not here.
• Second, you give the tournament outcomes from a Canadian perspective, "At the 1932 Winter Olympics, the Winnipeg Hockey Club won the gold medal, but became the first Canadian team to not win all their games." and, "The Canadian Toronto Granites became one of the dominant hockey teams in Olympic history. They outscored opponents 110–3, with Harry Watson scoring 36 of those, and won Canada's only medal of the Games."

• Well, the last part about winning the only medal of the Games (which is a remnant of an ealy version of the article that I forgot to take out) and I suppose the first one can too, but I think the bit about being the most dominant team can stay.

• Agreed, no question it was the most dominant team, and the most dominant hockey nation for decades. H1nkles (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Third, find more international photos, six out of the twelve photos are of Canadians or have a Canadian focus.

Oops, I didn't see the other photos further down the article, seven out of seventeen photos.

Easier said than done. I used what I could find. If there are any images out there that I missed, then by all means add them, but I simply used what I could.

• Fourth, the debate about whether Canada should have won a bronze at the 1964 World Championships is not topical to this article, and provides more fodder for those who feel the article is too focused on Canada. I would rewrite the entire 1964 Innsbruck entry. This quote really makes the article look Canadian focused, "The 1964 Games also marked a turning point in Canadian Olympic hockey history." If this were an article about Canadian Olympic hockey history then it would matter. No other Olympic year explains why a team didn't do well, "...but Canada, represented by a national team rather than a club..." I would then cut everything after, "However, at the time the Olympics...." I know that hurts but it would make the paragraph much more international.
• Another example of Canada-centric writing is, "The first open World Championship was held in 1977 in Vienna, Austria and saw Canada return with a team largely consisting of active NHL players" What about other countries, did they return with teams comprised largely of active NHL players?

• Don't know, but noting that the Canadian team included NHLers compliments the preceding sentences.

• Sorry but the lucky loonie story again compounds the problem. If a lot is cut out of the earlier portions of the article, then this could be left in as a nice side bar, but if not then it again is more ammunition to fail the article on NPOV grounds.

• Well, I almost didn't add it but a Google News search for "Olympics" and "Loonie" gets 342 hits so I figured some mention of it was warranted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• No question it's notable, I remember hearing it even down here. I'm just saying that looking at the article as a whole, it's another Canadian reference that could be removed to help balance the article out a bit. It's just a thought. H1nkles (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No question Canada plays a central role in Olympic hockey history and should be mentioned heavily in an article about the same, but as it currently stands you may have some trouble with NPOV issues. I would take a hard look especially at the early parts of the history section. You do address other powerhouses, like the Soviets, but it's not the same as the Canadian references, especially when it comes to secondary (more obscure) information such as the names of the Canadian clubs that played in the early Olympics, the 1964 World Championship controversy and the Lucky Loonie story. H1nkles (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I addressed many of your concerns in this edit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 6 Topical?

I think for the most part the article stays on topic. I would question statements like, "The Soviet Union competed in its first World Championship in 1954. They defeated Canada 7–2 in the final game of the tournament and won the gold medal." This just isn't very germaine to the topic or really add much to the article. Is it bad? No I don't think so. It just strays a little bit. Now considering that every Olympic Tournament from 1920 to 1968 was also the World Championship justifies its mention in the article. I would go through the article and critically look at each mention of the world championship and IIHF and see if it adds to the article in any way. That will very likely do the trick. H1nkles (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

I'll make these final comments for now regarding the overall impression of the article. As stated above you'll need more book references. I've put down a few, but that was after only a cursory glance, I'm sure there are others out there.

• Check the credibility of Slam Sports! and Utah Athletic Foundation, be sure you can support their inclusion in the article.

• Slam! is run by the Canadian Online Explorer, which itself is part of Sun Media. Many of the articles in it are the online postings of newspaper articles.

• That's fine, just be ready to answer the credibility question. Also check the Utah Athletic Foundation. I think it's hosted by the Utah travel agency (if my memory serves). I'm not advocating removal but just be ready to defend their inclusion when the article goes up for FAC. H1nkles (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is note 2 a book? If so you need to provide publisher, date, isbn, location, accessdate (if you got it online).

• I got it from a different article. I'll see what I can do (tomorrow). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• You'll have to really go over the prose. The FAC reviewers want to see less rather than more, don't say in 15 words what you could say in 10. When I have more time I'll go through and try to help tighten that up.
• Not sure about the two warm up photos toward the end of the article. I don't think they really add much, especially having two of them.

• I tried to include as many photos of different nations that I could to avoid potential bias concerns.

• Don't punctuate photo captions unless it's a complete sentence. That's an MOS issue I got dinged on.
• Also no left aligned photos in third-level headings. Why? No clue, it apparently messes up something in the programming. It's another one of those MOS issues that I had no idea about until the article went in front of the firing squad.

• Isn't it just left-aligned photos directly under a header?

• That could be it. H1nkles (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Check wp:DASH I don't think dashes can have spaces between them, this occurs a couple of times in the lead.

• I didn't see anything in that reference to what I said so forget it. H1nkles (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think you need to bold the title in the first sentence of the lead. I've just seen that in almost every article I've read. That would require a rewrite of the first sentence.

Finally I hope you take this review as it was intended, to help make the article better. I know there's a lot here and I certainly don't expect you to agree with everything I've said. I have appreciated your insight in the articles I have worked on and I am trying to return the favor. For now good luck and I'll return to finish up the questions you asked and provide some prose edits as time permits. H1nkles (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're review is much appreciated, thank you. I will try to address everything I haven't yet replied to, but it will be tomorrow or later. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Updates

The article is coming along nicely. I like the revamped Rules section. It is much more comprehensive. The amateurism portion is especially good.

• For future tournaments the last paragraph is two sentences about the upcoming Sochi Games. You raise the issue of the NHL collective bargaining agreement and whether or not NHL players will play in these Games. You indicate this may not happen unless it is agreed upon between owners and players. Since the paragraph is fairly short would it be possible to expand it with some comments on where ownership and the player's union are at on this issue? It would be a shame if the NHL backed out of the Olympics. Is there any indication of where the two sides are leaning? That would help expand this paragraph a bit, as it currently sits, it's pretty "stubby" (I classify a stub paragraph as one sentence, this one is two sentences).

• I'll see what I can do. I don't know if NHL involvement is really in jeopardy, I think it just hasn't been negotiated yet. I think I saw a recent article about it too, so I'll see if I can track that down. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I like your write up of future tournaments, it's expanded well.
• Breaking down the information in the women's section is fine, nothing new needs to be added just formatting it like the men's section.
• I have only really looked at the new sections, so I'm assuming that the issues of amateurism and the NHL negotiations were moved from the old sections into the Rules section?

• Not everything. I left some of the minor issues in the history section. I also did not move the 1948 American team issue. I felt that the entire section about the 48 games relied on it, so it worked better where it was (for the same reason why the 1936 issue with Canadian players on the British team isn't in the "player eligibility" section). So, the amateurism section just details events of post-1970. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• With the new information you may want to take a look at the lead again. I don't think you need to have examples of rule changes in the lead (it's a bit too specific for the lead). I would instead mention Hockey's work against steroids.
• Another question I had as a Hockey ignoramous, is why does the format of each tournament change from one Olympics to the next? Most team sports keep the same format (pool play, x number of teams per pool, y number of preliminary games, etc.) but it seems as though the hockey tournaments are in a constant state of flux. Even the rink dimensions change from one Olympics to the next (something you'd never see in Basketball for example). Do you know why this is? Is there a source that could explain why the hockey tournament is always changing its format? Just another thought to add to the article.

Overall it's coming along nicely. I'd strongly recommend nominating it for Peer Review and get a completely objective review from very experienced editors. You may also want to throw it out to the Hockey community and get their input, just for more eyes looking at it. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• You may want to move this sentence, "Several players have tested positive for banned substances." in the Banned substances section above the table rather than keep it below. It fits better above since below it's stating the obvious.
  • Done.
• This sentence is a stub paragraph, expand or combine with previous paragraph, "In 1986, the IOC voted to allow all athletes to compete in Olympic Games starting with 1988,[111] but left it to the individual sport federations to decide if they wanted to allow professionals.[112]" It's in the Use of professional players section.
  • Done.
• Ticky tack fix but ref. 140 has both p. and pp. for the page number. Also 144 has p. and p. Only one is necessary. You should probably check all the cites to make sure they're formatted correctly.
  • Done.
• If you found any of your books on google books, then you should include the URL so that reviewers and readers can go to the books for verification and research.
  • Done.
• The text is good, the new table adds to the section.
• Formatting in the 1998–2006 section is a little weird. The left-aligned photo in the previous section is just a bit too large and it pushes this sections title over. At least that's how it looks on full view on my browser, it could be different on yours.
  • Fixed.
• Here's another suggestion, take it or leave it as it would mean a lot of work - wikilink the countries to the specific Olympic Games referred to in the context. For example changing, "Soviet domination continued at the 1968 Winter Olympics" to "Soviet domination continued at the 1968 Winter Olympics". It would mean a lot of work but the articles do exist and if you want to go through the article and add those it may be beneficial. Or it will create too many links and be distracting. I won't blame you if you say no it's just a suggestion. If you do it though you'll have to do it for the entire article, gotta be consistent. I note that you do wikilink some of the countries to their national hockey team.
  • We'll see. I might do it when Have time.
• There was a suggestion on the Olympics community page to trim up the Miracle on Ice section. Any consideration of that?

I think that's it for me. Keep pushing and triming and editing. The tighter the article the better chance it has of passing. H1nkles (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I already did trim it down a little, is there anything else that you think could be removed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing specific, I was just responding to the comments of a British editor. I would be a bad one to comment on that as I am admittedly biased in that regard. H1nkles (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New Section? Venues

I intend to create a list or lists of arenas that have been used as venues for the World Championships and/or Olympics. Should it (or one of them) be located here or should the topic get its own article? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit trivial? There is already a list of locations for the World Championships here, but I'd consider a list of actual arenas to be no more important than, say, a list of referees of WC matches. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well when a major tournament happens in a venue, it becomes a defining characteristic of that venue which seperates it from others. See, for example: 2012 Summer Olympics venues, List of Formula One circuits, List of The Open Championship venues, or {{Commonwealth Games stadia}}, or the suceession box for the FIBA Basketball Final venue at the bottom of Saitama Super Arena. And more to the point, see List of National Hockey League arenas, Category:World Hockey Association venues, Category:Western Hockey League arenas, or {{KHL Arenas}}. So you might think it's trivial, but clearly there is a huge body of this type of thing on WP, it would seem odd to not have it a list for the very important Olympic and World Championship venues, while keeping all the others. Can you think of a good reason while this is a special case? Or can you convince the WP-ocracy to delete all of the ones I listed? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between a golf course or racing track and a hockey rink. Race tracks and golf courses all vary in their composition while hockey rinks all have to follow regulation size. As for the WHL (or any other major junior or pro league) arenas, in those cases, those venues are the actual homes of the team rather than the site of a few games. The actual arenas are a very very minor part, and I don't see why a seperate page needs to be started (and before you suggest it, you should not add a list here. This page is already extremely long). And I don't see why you need to be so nasty, you made a suggestion and I stated my opinion. Let's leave petty accusations ("can you convince the WP-ocracy to delete all of the ones I listed") out of this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I did not intend to be nasty in any way shape or form. I simply highlighted the similarity to other existing materials on WP. I then pointed out that since those exist without any problem either: 1) we should have similar content for hockey, 2) you should prove that this is separate case, somehow different from the others, 3) we should delete them all. My comment was supposed to point out how impossible it would be to delete all that content because WP editors, like any group, have vested interests, and many would object to deleting that content. I do not believe that you have conclusively proven that the hockey championships are different in any significant respect from the other case. Allow me to demonstrate: You said There's a huge difference between a golf course or racing track and a hockey rink. Race tracks and golf courses all vary in their composition while hockey rinks all have to follow regulation size. That's not true, as hockey rinks can deviate from the standard size, they may follow the IIHF standards, or the NHL standards, and they can vary substantially in seating capacity. The point is they are chosen on the basis of their characteristic, and not every rink could host the world championships. You said: As for the WHL... arenas, in those cases, those venues are the actual homes of the team rather than the site of a few games. This is also true of the FIFA World Cup, or the Summer Olympics, but they have a whole categories full of content on the subject: Category:FIFA World Cup venues navigational boxes, and Category:Summer Olympic venues. I think I have proven conclusively that the content is appropriate for WP, but I am prepared to compromise on the foramatt. Would you object less to templates, categories, or secession boxes, that display the same content? Would you be interested in helping me create them? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I think perhaps we should start with category, as a child of the new Category:Sports venues by competition I just created. That combined with a suceesion box, like the one alread used for Frozen Four venues, would do just nicely. How does that sound? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was that while arenas vary, the most important part, the ice, does not. If you start a category, I have a feeling that someone (not me) would eventually cfd it. The IHWC are not as notable as the Olympics or World Cup and someone would probably say "why not a category for the world figure skating championships or KISS concert venues?" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not figure skating? OTOH, KISS concert venues are covered by the articles that describe the tour, see Revenge Tour (Kiss Tour), Kiss My Ass Tour, Kiss Farewell Tour, Kiss Alive/35 World Tour, and, here's the real kicker: List of Kiss concert tours! I kid you not. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Results

Would it be possible to add overall results and standings for each Olympics? I realize you can use the links in the Infobox, but wouldn't having results add to the article? Also, perhaps adding medal counts to the table in the Statistics section could be useful. Jmj713 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The final rankings of every nation for every year can be found in the "Participating nations" section, which is even sortable by year. And is a medal count not already included? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have been asked by Scorpion to take another look at the article as it makes its final run up to FA candidacy. My comments will be here and I will try to do minor ce as I find it.

• In the lead you usually want to have the title of the article in bold in the first sentence. Double check that at WP:LEAD but I think that's right.

• It's a convention, but not a requirement. I couldn't think of any boldable title that didn't sound very forced.

• "the typical tournament", recommend you take out "typical", unnecessary wording.

• Done.

• In the second half of the first para of the lead you have four sentences that start with "The", consider rewording to create more flow and creativity with your writing.

• Fixed.

• Personally I don't think you need to list every nation that has won an Olympic hockey gold medal in the lead. Bit too much information for a summary of the article.

• It's more for balance than anything. I felt that every gold medal winning nation should get mentioned in the lead, otherwise the nationalists (see the section below) would complain. That's the same reason why I also made sure to mention all of the big seven (as well as Germany).

• "However, an agreement was reached" reached between whom? The NHL as one party but what is the other party? NHL Players union, IOC, the various NOCs?

• That is explained more in the body of the article, I think in the lead it would lead to repetition to say "between the NHL, IOC, IIHF and NHLPA".

• While I'm thinking of it you may want to look into the medal image you have in the "Use of professional players" section. It was in the Olympic Games article but an image expert felt it was a non-free image "hiding" as a Fair Use image. Just an FYI. H1nkles (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, what's the problem with it? I took it myself, so I don't see what the problem is. Thanks for your comments so far. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ha funny, goes to show that image experts may be a little too zealous at times. No sweat. H1nkles (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think the objection is based on the derivative nature of the work. The design of the medals is subject to copyright. Taking a picture of them doesn't remove the original copyright, so the photograph is not free—it's subject to the medal designer's copyright (as well as Scorpion's CC-BY license, which is not a problem). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm continuing my peer review per Scorpion's request.

• "(along with several other winter sports)" consider removing this statement as it makes the prose a little awkward with tense issues. Not incorrect prose necessarily just awkward. Also it doesn't really add to the intent of the statement.

• Done.

• "had committed to participating", consider rewording to "agreed to participate", it's more direct and concise.
• This sentence, "Five European nations had committed to participating in the tournament and the managers of Antwerp's Palais de Glace stadium refused to allow the building to be used for figure skating unless ice hockey was included." appears to be two separate ideas, consider breaking into two sentences.
• I'd remove this sentence, "The first World Championship held as an individual event was in 1930." It's superfluous information and is a bit confusing since you say before it that the Olympic tournament counted as the world championship until 1968. I understand that you're refering to non-Olympic years but on the surface it appears contradictory and to the casual reader it will be confusing. Not to mention it's off-topic anyway.

• Done.

• "in the Winter Olympics program as of the first edition" consider rewording like this, "in the first Winter Olympics program". It's more concise.
• Is there a better wikilink for this: German? You link to the country at year winter olympics in the others, why not this one?

• Done.

• Same question with this link: Canada. H1nkles (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• In that case, the Winnipeg Hockey Club was representing Canada, so I felt it was a better link to use.

• I think you should take this statement, "although no Canadian team had participated in 1947" out. I know what you're trying to get at but it contradicts the subject of the sentence, which is that the Czech teams were steadily improving. It also subtly puts a shadow over other country's accomplishments, which isn't really necessary.

• Done.

• Same link question here: Canada's team. I'll stop asking the question as I see there are more links like this. You get the idea.
• "for the second consecutive year", do you mean second consecutive Olympics? Or second consecutive world championship? The use of the "year" is confusing here.
• Canadian centricity may be an issues in your description of the 1964 tournament. Why is it significant to this article that Canada should have won the bronze in the world championships?

• Fixed.

• I've made some MOS edits adding hard dashes and hard spaces and delinking country names. Per WP:Link you don't need to link country names. You should probably run the article through an MOS compliance check to make sure these little issues are all cleaned up prior to nomination.

That's it for now, more to come when I have time. H1nkles (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Medal table

Scorpion0422 and all of you guys who does great job editing this page, do you think we can adjust the medal table the same way we did it in the List of IIHF World Championship medalists? It will make the table more accurate and correct that way.

I base my arguments on the fact that International Sports Federations (including IIHF) consider Russia to be a successor to Soviet Union and that Russia has inherited the statistics and medals from USSR. By doing so we will synchronise all (or most of) the medal tables in the Ice Hockey project. Andreyx109 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case the IOC is the governing body, not the IIHF. The IOC tends not to comment on the issue, they say that the country rankings are for statistical purpose only, but the wikipedia convention in this case is also to list all of the nations seperately. If you want to try to change this, then I suggest proposing a new guideline and taking it to WP:OLYMPICS, because a lot of pages are affected. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Scorpion0422. I will get an official reply from IOC on this matter and then will propose the change in the WP:OLYMPICS. Andreyx109 (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just go away, or, I don't know, try doing something useful? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion0422, Its not very polite!:) I am doing a useful thing, I want Wikipedia to show the correct information, there is no better source for correct info than IOC to find what is the correct and what is not. Andreyx109 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, let's get something right, what you want is to make the Soviet Union/Russia look as strong as possible in these statistics tables. Which is why you don't seem to care about the Czech Republic, or trying to merge the Russian & Soviet national team pages. Also, I don't think you've actually bothered read any of the articles, you just want to skew the statistical tables. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion, you are in breach of Wikipedia policies Harassment and No personal attacks. I don't protect interests of one single country, or one nationality, whether its Czech Republic or USSR, or West Germany, or you name it, if I see that there is some information which needs to be clarified I will work on it. That’s what I do, and it is not my problem that it does not agree with your PoV. We need sources to support claims, and that’s why I have contacted IOC. I don't make the facts, nor Wikipedia does it, we get facts and put them here, depending on what the official source says. Andreyx109 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that why you originally demanded that all medal tables be removed, but now that you have proof, you're trying to plaster it everywhere? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let's comment on the merits vel non of the proposal, not the motivations behind it. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true, and it wouldn't annoy me as much if he would just admit it. Instead, he's acting like he's some kind of truth saviour or something. Why not copyedit the page for me? That would be useful. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. All the reliable sources we have for Olympic medals (not just ice hockey, but all medals) do not combine URS with RUS, TCH with CZE, etc. For example, the sports-reference.com Olympics pages (written by members of the International Society of Olympic Historians) simply total by the National Olympic Committees that were represented at the time. The IIHF's approach to their world championships does not apply to the Olympic Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Andrwsc. I realise that IIHF might not be the best source for this (we can argue about it, but no point). So I have already contacted the IOC for this purpose, and they are governing body in this case, we have to work from their point of view. I'll propose the change in WP:OLYMPICS based on the OIC reply. Andreyx109 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing what response, if any, you get from the IOC. Scorpion and Andrwsc are right that the IOC generally doesn't say much about national medal lists besides disclaiming any official status for them and that the other sources don't combine Olympic medals from different nations, though. And that's really what I think matters more than whether we, as editors, think they should be combined. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank for your comment Jonel, I really appreciate it. I will try to do my best to get the official IOC stance on statistics. We can then discuss it. I realise that some sources list some countries separately, and some combine them, so there are disagreement among available internet sources, I want to clarify it and that is why I've decided to contact IOC, as they are the one who ideally should give the final and correct point of view on it, and the one which really matters. Andreyx109 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We already know the IOC's stance. You will not find any medal table on their website that spans multiple Games, and the per-Games tables they have (such as 2008) all carry the disclaimer: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only. If consensus here is that only the IOC's position should count, then summary (multiple Games) medal tables should be completely removed. But current consensus is that the way we already present these tables matches the method used by reliable secondary sources (such as ISOH published material), and that's perfectly appropriate for this encyclopedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrwsc, I've replied to you in WikiProject Olympics. I will try to summarize what I#ve said there. IOC doesn't publish medal tables, but they keep all the statistics (including medal won, records etc), and the question is who inherited all these statistics and membership rights of discussed countries. I think we need to wait until the IOC replies, until then this discussion is pointless. Andreyx109 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And as I replied there, there is no such concept as "inherited statistics" with respect to the IOC. Medals won by competitors from URS, TCH, FRG, GDR, YUG, etc. in past Games are still recorded as such. Since the IOC does not publish any summary results (medal totals) that span more than a single Games, they don't have to worry about how to combine them. The only instances where an old NOC is "replaced" with a current NOC is for name changes (i.e. Ceylon to Sri Lanka, Taiwan/Republic of China to Chinese Taipei, etc.) I don't know what you mean by "membership rights", but the Russian Olympic Committee, for example, was created in 1989 and recognized in 1993, so clearly is a unique NOC from the Olympic Committee of the USSR. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As correctly noted in other discussion, until there is a statement from IOC we don't make any changes and we don't assume anything. So lets wait for IOC response. Andreyx109 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here as well. Statistics on medals are kept by media outlets and various NOCs as previously stated. The IOC expressly shuns this practice and so I would be incredibly surprised if they weighed in at all on this request. I know that the editors of this article have imminent aspirations of nominating it for FAC and it would be unfortunate to hold this nomination for an indefinite amount of time while we wait for the IOC's response. I agree with Andrwsc that it is a bit constraining to only accept the IOC's stance as that would require us to shed all statistics that are not expressly supported by the IOC. I recognize that the IOC's word would carry a good deal of weight in this argument, but frankly I'm very skeptical that the IOC will respond and if they do, that it will be of any substance beyond what has been previously quoted on their website. I would propose that if the community does wish to wait on the IOC's response that we set a time frame such that it will not handcuff this article indefinitely. On a personal note, the ramifications for combining the USSR and RUS medal statistics reaches far beyond this article. The shockwaves would be felt all over the project and would require an immense amount of work. Not that I shun the work, but yikes! H1nkles (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

H1nkles, Thank you for your comments. I am not aware of procedures for a FAC nomination. However, as far as I know medal count table change requires a minor edit (well, in this article it is), and so I was wondering that maybe it can be nominated for FAC as it is now. It is obvious that there are some sources in support of the current version.

However, if in the near future we receive an official reply from IOC and it will be different from what we have now, we'll raise this question again not only within scope of this article, but within the Olympic Project as whole, and then we'll decide how to act. Overall, I think that article looks great. Does it sound fair to everyone? Andreyx109 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The only catch your proposal, Andreyx, is that a fundamental requirement for FA consideration is that the article be stable. See here under section 1(e). Stability, as interpreted by the FA community, is beyond no edit wars, but means that there is no significant content editing going on or pending. While the changes to the table would be easy to make, it does represent (in my humble opinion) a significant content change. Personally I think the dispute should be resolved prior to nominating but I'm just one voice. H1nkles (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that I should wait until all disputes are resolved. Which is why I find this so annoying because like you said, it is highly unlikely that any IOC response will take any kind of position, but you never know. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to get a response from IOC as soon as possible, I've sent them an e-mail already and I'll fax them my enquiry. I hope we'll hear from them soon. I am sorry that I’ve caused nomination delay. Andreyx109 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I got response from IOC, I quote:

.... as per Rule 58 of the Olympic Charter (p.104), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognize global ranking per country; the medal tables are presented for information only on the IOC website on a Games by Games basis ..... So I think that the article can be nominated for FAC now, there is no need to change any tables. I appreciate your comments and patience. Good luck with FAC nomination. Andreyx109 (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Andreyx, thank you for checking and getting the response quickly. Hopefully this will resolve the issue and we can all continue to work for the betterment of the project. H1nkles (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

More medal table

I am reviving this argument, because I believe that two separate tables should exist, one for men and one for women. While looking at other sports at Olympic I saw it implemented in different ways. In one way it is combined, and in soccer, and basketball (both are really strong team sports by themselves) they are separate. Therefore, there is no consistency in this question. My arguments for separation are: 1. They are separate disciplines with completely different qualification system, even though in the same sport. 2. The total makes it harder to find out men's or women's overall results by country (you have to subtract from the overall total the individual results by year), whereas in separate tables to find total you just add two numbers. 3. Due to the popularity of men's ice hockey on Olympic games (arguably the most popular event on Winter Olympics) there should be special attention to this kind of matter. I would appreciate any constructive participation. Thanks.--Ssashok (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been 24 hours since I started this topic. Because there were no replies I assume that either nobody cares, or nobody disagrees, so I am going to revert to the separate tables.--Ssashok (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a very good assumption. You know that at least Scorpion cares and disagrees with you. Making your comments in an old section of the discussion page, halfway up the page, while everybody else is commenting on more recent sections at the bottom of the page isn't an effective way of getting attention to what you're saying. I, at least, never noticed your comment above here.

As for your points:

1. They are not separate disciplines. Floor volleyball and beach volleyball are separate disciplines. Men's and women's events are not separate disciplines. Different qualification systems don't really matter in terms of medal tables, either.
2. We already have the lists of winners in men's and women's events. This is a large article, and there really is no need for separate medal tables. Furthermore, Scorpion went to the trouble of making a table that showed both men's and women's as well as overall; that's the absolute most space that should be devoted to what should be a very cursory summary of results.
3. Popularity of certain events also doesn't make sense as a distinguishing criterion. Should we have separate tables for sprints as opposed to long distance running events at the athletics pages?

Again, I'd like to emphasize that this is a long enough article already without having two separate tables. Having separate tables would also be a major change to the format we use for all of our Olympic sport articles. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't respond because I was taking a few days off. I agree with everything Jonel said. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ISLANDERS27 08:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Inbox problem

The link for the 1920 tournament goes to figure skating, and I can't figure out how to fix it. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It was about time someone fixed it. -- ISLANDERS27 08:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Uneven coverage

The coverage of historical Games is very uneven in its depth: 28 years are covered in one section, and then 20 years (6 Games) in another section, which is scarcely longer than the section covering 1980 alone. In addition, the article seems at times to try to mention everybody, with the result that it is 122 kb long. Perhaps this article should be split into a "how it is now" article and a "history of" overview, with more references to separate detailed articles. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Different olympics have differing amounts of notability when it comes to hockey. 1980 is perhaps the most notable olympic games when it comes to hockey. Which is why it would have the most coverage. Seems completely reasonable to me. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1920 games also has a whole section, not just the 1980 games. I don't think the criticism is valid. As for splitting the article, that might be a good idea. I think the whole story of the "Big Red Machine" and how they developed the programme could be covered in more depth. We might want a men's history and a women's history, not just one. Because the women's history would be just lost in the amount of coverage of the men's. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not easy to try to cover all the basics, while still giving even coverage to all of the major nations so that other users won't scream bias. Basically, I used stories covered here as a measuring stick. There really wasn't a lot of eventful things at the first few tournaments, other than Canadian dominance, the British upset and a few controversies, so I figured I might as well trim the 1924–1952 section down. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is good as is, I meant no disrespect. If there is more content that is notable, then it would be fleshed out in a 'History of' article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Table Confusion

Why are the statistic for sucessor states (ex. Czech Republic for Czechslovakia) given separately from their predecessors?

Why are men and women medal tables combined? These are different sports.

They are seperate because all olympic sports seperate them because officially the Olympics do not combine medals from one olympic games to the next. As for why the tables are combined its because this articles is about ice hockey period not one or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)