Talk:United States at the 2010 Winter Olympics

Apolo Ohno

Apolo Ohno should not be listed as Apolo Anton Ohno. He no longer uses his middle name. Can someone please update his name in the sort lists? I'm not sure how to do that with the coding used. Hcurtis (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to use the name by which he is commonly known, per WP:COMMONNAME. A quick news search shows that "Apolo Ohno" gets 146 hits over the past year, while "Apolo Anton Ohno" gets 520 hits over the same period. Whether or not it is his current preference, he is still most commonly referred to as Apolo Anton Ohno. Wine Guy~Talk 05:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A Google search doesn't count. On the broadcasts, the Anton is omitted. AmericanLeMans (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for the sake of precision the only thing that matters on this page is what the official IOC listing of his name is in this competition: Apolo Anton Ohno [1] --Jh12 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Rosters

It seems redundant (and an unnecessary addition of space on a very long page) to have team rosters in addition to the competition tables which name all of the US athletes. Bobsleigh, Figure skating, and Snowboarding are a few examples of sections where the rosters could now be removed. This doesn't apply to team sports (Hockey, Curling), the rosters are necessary there. None of the past United States at the XXXX Olympics articles have this redundancy. Wine Guy~Talk 02:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there's been no response, I'll be bold and remove the rosters from sections where all athletes are listed in the result tables. I'm leaving bobsleigh for the moment since Kohn's brakeman is still TBA. If anyone strongly disagrees, put them back in and we'll discuss. Wine Guy~Talk 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The rosters were removed from United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics once the Games got started. I don't like removing people's work, but per the previous years this article is primarily a results page. One day we might consider having a separate article for the qualification process, but for now the tables should be removed, especially the individual rosters --Jh12 (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, removed several rosters. I left the one's in sections where there are still gaps in the results table. As those result tables are filled in, the rosters can be removed. I agree with you on disliking removing people's work, especially tables which can be a time-consuming pain to create, but they've served their purpose. Wine Guy~Talk 07:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bold Names

I noticed some of the medal winners (Spillane, Ohno, Celski, Wescott) were bolded, while others (Vonn, Miller, Mancuso) are not. Is there a standard here to follow? And, if possible, a reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.151.114 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the bolding for medal winners seemed to be a convention in the 2008 Summer Olympics article and I've been bringing it forward whenever I edit. Other editors have not quite been following that example. I don't know if it's official or not, just trying to keep the articles to a consistent style. Torlek (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, bolding the names of medal winners in the results table is the guideline according to WikiProject Olympics; see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Olympics/Manual_of_Style_(Games_summary_–_Nations)#Medalists_2. --Jh12 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Medalist Table - Date column

Per the WP guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Olympics/Manual_of_Style_%28Games_summary_%E2%80%93_Nations%29#Medalists), should we have a date column in this table?--64.91.151.114 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a date column on the right side of the table. I've added the month ("2/") so that it's more clear what the numbers in that column are. The year should be self-explanatory. Wine Guy~Talk 18:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted the original comment without checking the guideline. The suggested standard format does not have a date column, see WP:OLYMOSNAT#Medalists. I'll remove the column presently. Wine Guy~Talk 18:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but why was the date column removed? It was useful if you have not watched the coverage and want to see a breakdown of medals by day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.255.100 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just mindless application of a completely arbitrary guideline rule. I for one think that the date colummn is highly useful and on the article I edit I intend to revert any removal of the date column as unhelpful regardless of what some rule-wonks think is "correct". Debate me on the issue, and I may yield to your better arguments. But I see nothing in the guideline that justifies and/or explains just why a date column should not be there. --87.79.136.19 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think the entire guideline set needs discussed because there didn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion when it was set up two years ago and I would like to hear the original author's rationale. It's probably better to wait until after the Games to start that though. Let the chaos settle down before we make everything even more chaotic.Torlek (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the date readded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe having the date column is fine. The guideline is helping to standardize a really large number of articles and tables, but like any Wikipedia document it's also a work in progress. I think there was some hesitation about the historical purpose of having the dates, but if you look at the GA-class articles like United States at the 2008 Summer Paralympics and Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics, they all have the date column. Thanks for all the hard work everybody, --Jh12 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see how it is useful while the games are going on. I'll re-add it and we can discuss the merits of keeping it after the games are over. Wine Guy~Talk 07:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can also discuss the merits of removing it after the games are over. --78.34.108.35 (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How's about this: we can discuss the date column after the the games are over. Wine Guy~Talk 08:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. --78.34.108.35 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, re-added. I went back to the 2/XX format instead of February XX because spelling out February forces 2 rows for each entry, which is not, IMHO, ideal. Wine Guy~Talk 08:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You may not think it is ideal, but the MOS says this way is not acceptable. I will change it to an acceptable format again.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The MOS says whatever we decide it says. May I remind you that this very thread was started because someone thought that the absence of a date column in the MOS example table means that date columns are somehow "forbidden" and must be removed. Also, you are wrong. The MOS says not a single word about "correct" date formatting, and even if it did, it would need to provide an explanation for it, not just say so. And I say that although I do agree that a format like "Feb. 25" is much preferable over anything else. Spelling out "February" just because the example table in the MOS is formatted that way is mindless and stupid. With all due respect.

Also also, Wine Guy doesn't know a lot about basic formatting, it appears. Otherwise, xe'd be aware of non-breaking space characters. --87.79.143.161 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I must have been suffering a caffeine imbalance at the time. Wine Guy~Talk 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When discussing the Olympics manual of style I believe it was decided that the date column was an added bonus and should be included if possible (in preference to a seperate medals by day table). Whilst easy to do for Games as they are occuring the task of including dates in the thousands of articles relating to early Games would be massive, if not impossible, hence it was not included in the guidelines. As for the month a simple note above the table, as in Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics#Medallists, stating that all dates are February would be a solution. Basement12 (T.C) 11:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The manual of style has been updating to recommend inclusion of dates where possible. - Basement12 (T.C) 11:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre-planning?

How about we add in the events these athletes are going to compete in this upcomming week, which then it would be easier to edit the article!BLUE_DOG^TN 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

9 Golds

I've heard the States got a 9th Gold. Can someone edit that in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.119.106 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Wine Guy~Talk 01:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wheat?

The color in the boxes that designates a non-applicable even, run, or scenario is currently using the color "wheat." It seems kind of a bit much to use a color that stands out like a sore thumb. I think we should change it to #ddd, as many other items on Wikipedia use the same. I doubt this is the right place to discuss it, but I don't know exactly where I would bring this up. Here is my example:

Men

Athlete	Event	Run 1	Run 2	Total	Rank
Will Brandenburg	Combined	1:56.28	50.78	2:47.06	10
Ted Ligety	Super-G	1:31.70			19
	Combined	1:55.06	50.76	2:45.82	5
	Giant slalom	1:17.87	1:21.24	2:39.11	9
	Slalom	DNF
Bode Miller	Downhill	1:54.40
	Super-G	1:30.62
	Combined	1:53.91	51.01	2:44.92
	Giant slalom	DNF			DNF
	Slalom	DNF
Steven Nyman	Downhill	1:55.71			20
Marco Sullivan	Downhill	2:07.76			60
	Super-G	1:32.09			23
Andrew Weibrecht	Downhill	1:55.74			21
	Super-G	1:30.65
	Combined	1:55.23	52.35	2:47.58	11
Tommy Ford	Giant slalom	1:19.10	1:22.05	2:41.15	26
Jake Zamansky	Giant slalom	1:19.85	1:22.50	2:42.35	31
Nolan Kasper	Slalom	50.66	52.51	1:43.17	24
Jimmy Cochran	Slalom	54.94	DNF

It looks a lot better and doesn't drown the medals out. --99.182.252.92 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091025194336/http://www.vancouver2010.com/ to http://www.vancouver2010.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)