Talk:Canada at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Top 8

What is this, MySpace? This is ridiculous. There's absolutely no notability associated with finishing any lower than third. Smells like overcompensation to me. And if by "every Canadian article has them," you mean the 2004 one does, then yes, "every Canadian article" has it. Which still doesn't make it right. I'm taking it out again (and from the 2004 article, too). Nosleep (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do some research first before saying no other articles have them: Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Canada at the 2002 Winter Olympics, Sweden at the 2006 Winter Olympics, China at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Japan at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Finland at the 2006 Winter Olympics, France at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Slovakia at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Bulgaria at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Croatia at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Belarus at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Austria at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Belgium at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Czech Republic at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Italy at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Latvia at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Norway at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Poland at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Russia at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Ukraine at the 2006 Winter Olympics and more. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well for one thing, I was referring to the summer articles. For another, none of those articles should have it. Ten people agreeing to be wrong doesn't make them right. Nosleep (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and one person saying it's wrong doesn't make it right either. Top 8 finishes are pretty notable and I see no reason why they shouldn't be listed here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What color medals are awarded for 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th places? Nosleep (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, with a 'controversial' removal of information such as the one you have completed, you should have first let it open for discussion. So far, you're the only person who thinks this should not be included on the page. With myself now to go along with Scorpion, looks like it's two against one on the vote. Please don't just be doing this to try and prove a point, as your "What color medals are awarded for 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th places?" statement implies. What exactly does that add to the argument? The fact is, anyone who competes in the Olympics is notable, so saying that a top 8 finish isn't is rather absurd. Heck, a top 10 finish in any Olympic event is pretty impressive. A top 8 finish will typically receive significant coverage (I could find you MANY sources for each of these top 8 finishes), the first aspect of WP:N. You stated that "For another, none of those articles should have it. Ten people agreeing to be wrong doesn't make them right." You make it seem like you are all-knowing and clearly whatever you say goes. Well around here you have to reach a consensus when making significant changes. And right now, you don't have one. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that I think having the 'Top 8' indicates who went to the finals or not and is a very useful thing to have. BlackDiamonds (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider this a strong and adamant +1 in support of keeping the top eight finishes category as per its notability. I'll be watching this discussion if more support is needed. ~ chicgeek ^talk 09:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am deeply offended by your invoking WP:POINT. That was exceptionally rude and uncalled for. I've done no disrupting of Wikipedia. What "point" are you accusing me of trying to make, anyway? Second of all, look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#I'd like an independent ruling on this. Everyone who's commented there, aside from Scorpion, has expressed an opposition to this, so it's hardly "2-1." There is a definite consensus developing. But as I said there, if the consensus proves to go against me I'll stop (and you'll notice, I've stopped for the moment as well). If the consensus is to put "Top 8" finishers in articles, I trust you two will be the first to start adding the hundreds of names that will thus belong in articles such as United States at the 2004 Summer Olympics or Germany at the 2006 Winter Olympics or the hundreds upon hundreds of other articles there are? Nosleep (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this debate about "notability"? How about looking at it from a long-term historical perspective (to quote WP:Recentism), or simply as an issue of presentation? There is marginal value in repeating results that are more completely provided on the same page. I see little encyclopedic value in the redundant section near the top. And what will you do when the rowing and canoeing finals start—those events only have six lanes... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion

There are problems with applying a "top 8" across all sports. In addition to the rowing and canoeing events I mentioned (finals are top six), I should also point out that many events with elimination tournaments do not make a distinction for quarterfinal losers. I have seen several official reports for past Games where these are listed as "5th–8th place", instead of a four-way tie for fifth. How would you propose to handle that? The bottom line is that I believe this kind of information is best presented in the summary of each sport's section. I don't disagree that it is useful to see a list of finalists, but I strongly disagree with the way in which it is presented. I would much prefer to see a line of prose text at the top of the swimming section, for example, like: Canadian swimmers had finalists in three individual events and three relay events, but the top finish was a fourth place by Mike Brown in the 200 metre breaststroke. This accomplishes the same thing, but by placing commentary like this inside individual sections, you can account for per-sport differences. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This lively argument has turned sour quite fast and it does seem that people are for removing them. Would you be opposed to getting rid of the section, but adding a small table, like this one, that summarises top 8 finishes? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The table looks fine, but the mass of wikilinks beneath it is ugly as sin. Who is going to browse through that? It's a terribly unreadable list. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Campbell

Someone keeps adding a paragraph about Gordon Campbell attending the games. I keep removing because:

1. Why is that notable? Lots of politicians attend the games.
2. Mentioning him because Vancouver is hosting the 2010 games is a pretty loose connection.
3. This article is about Team Canada and its performance at the games, and Campbell has nothing to do with that.

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not add it, but given Stephen Harper's absence it would have merit to note high-level politicians who do show up. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Campbell attended the games and it's quite notable because Canada is the host country of the next Olympics, when they host the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia. -- SNIyer12 (talk), 20:07, 16 August 2008.

So are you also going to mention every other Vancouver official and person relating to the 2010 Olympics as well? It might be notable for inclusion in Campbell's article, but this is about Team Canada's performance, not politicians who are trying to get some media spotlight. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Two persons should be mentioned, the same two as are listed under "Attending Heads of State (Opening Ceremonies)" - David Emerson and Gordon Campbell. These represent two of the three levels of government involved in the Vancouver Olympics. No other Canadian official attended the opening ceremonies (at least in an official capacity), so none other need be mentioned. - Tenebris

The "remain calm" statement

I do not think this belongs here for the following reasons:

1. This is going to get outdated soon because Canadians will eventually win medals. Once the games are done, if Canadians don't win medals, THEN something should be added.
2. In 100 years, or even a month from now, who is going to care what Stephen Harper and Chris Rudge's message was after a week one drought?
3. It really doesn't say anything other than "remain calm", which isn't appropriate here. It's a quote that doesn't add anything to the article and really doesn't belong in the lead.

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to see your country stuck at zero, and I actually looked here to see if there was any reaction to the non-performance, so the reference was useful for me. If Canada actually wins a medal, then remove it. If they stay at the same pace, then replace it with a stronger reference to the inevitable response to the "goose-egg". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Carol Huynh & Men's Pair

Carol just won Canada's first medal by winning her semifinal match in freestyle wrestling. TBD gold or silver 70.51.11.210 (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Carol had the first assured medal, and first gold, second medal awarded.

Men's Pair sweep rowing Frandsen & Calder - first actual medal, a silver, beating Huynh by not much in precedence timing.

70.51.11.210 (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tonya Verbeek wins Canada's third, a bronze in freestyle wrestling.. following shortly from the silver and gold won ... 70.51.11.210 (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)