Jump to content

Talk:Great Britain at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rowing

[edit]

In the rowing section wouldn't it be more logical to group the sculling events first, followed by the sweep events, eg. SS, DS, LDS, QS, P, F, LF, E rather than mixing the two types of rowing based on crew numbers?

My name is Dean by the way, although I usually contribute anonomously to both this page and the GB 2016 Paralympics page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.63.244 (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem sensible to use the same order as at Rowing at the 2016 Summer Olympics. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would if they were at all consistent! That page and the qualification page use three different line-ups. The one currently used on this page, the one I've suggested (see the contents page of the qualification page), and a variation also based on my suggestion but with the lightweights events after the open sculls and sweep events (see the medalist table on Rowing at the 2016 Summer Olympics and the qualification table on the qualifications page). Either of the latter two alternatives seem more logical than crew numbers to me. Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.63.244 (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in every Games

[edit]

The lede says GB is one of four countries to compete in every Summer Games "alongside Australia, France, and Greece". Switzerland is normally added to that list - it depends a bit on how you treat the 1956 Games in Melbourne. Quarantine regulations meant the equestrian events were held in Stockholm in June, where the Swiss won a bronze medal. Then the Hungarian Uprising in October was brutally repressed by the USSR so the Swiss boycotted the Melbourne leg of the games in November. So it depends a bit on what you define as participation, but the fact they won a medal in 1956 makes it hard to argue that they didn't compete at all.Le Deluge (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medal and performance targets table

[edit]

Could anyone explain to me what the "Performance relative to target range" column of the table in the "Medal and performance targets" section means? I'm struggling to understand what the column means, and what the ticks and crosses mean, I would be very grateful if someone could explain this to me, thank you!  Seagull123  Φ  20:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it as 'Target missed, met, or exceeded' Is that better? I think the two empty columns should either be filled or deleted though. I'm not sure what 'non medal targets' means. G-13114 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the lesser sports will have a target of making finals or hitting a certain performance mark. Not sure I particularly like having the targets there, definitely not the big crosses and ticks - other country articles don't have them, and we don't have big ticks and crosses against companies that miss their financial targets. Le Deluge (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@G-13114 and Le Deluge:That column makes sense now, thanks! The table is quite large and could probably be done better as prose, without going into the exact medal targets for all sports which GB is competing in, and like you said, Le Deluge, probably isn't even necessary.-- Seagull123  Φ  14:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "Non medal target" refers to. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the column. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the table could do with a key to what the asterisk for sailing and tennis means. I assume it means that medals for Dempsey and Murray are guaranteed but their competitions are not yet completed, but it might be useful to make this clear at the bottom? --Bcp67 (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medals by Sport

[edit]

I think the Medals by Sport list should also show all sports where no medals have been won, to show the sports where GB is not performing at medal level, either because there are no competitors/qualifiers for the event or because the competitors failed to reach a medal position. This is not to denigrate the athletes of these sports, but to highlight the sports where additional help should possibly be given to help people get up to medal standard. Ânes-pur-sàng - À la perchoine 07:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Similarly I think it would also be helpful to have separate columns within the table for male/female medallists for each sport douts (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medals by gender

[edit]

I would agree with its inclusion in the tables. Ânes-pur-sàng - À la perchoine 19:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've never used a Talk page before, but as it was suggested... Previous Team GB pages (see Beijing 2008 and London 2012) do not have a "medals by gender" table. I do not feel it's necessary and think page format should match the previous Games' pages. Muinimula (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the question of whether or not it was present in previous team GB pages is irrelevant, since our collective aim is to make each page as good and as informative as possible. The question we should be asking ourselves is, therefore, does a "medals by gender" table improve the article? I believe it would do, although it might possibly be better placed within the existing table of "medals by sport" (see my comment in the above section). I also believe that, whilst time-consuming, it wouldn't be too difficult to insert similar tables into the articles for previous games, if the consensus is that they do improve the articles. douts (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a danger of cluttering with too many boxes. I'm not too sure why we need the 'medals by gender' one. Why does it matter what gender they are? We might as well have a box for 'medals by age range' or 'medals by height' if we're going to have that. Also, I would be in favour of removing the 'multiple medalists' box and formatting that information in the same way it was done for the 2012 Olympics article with a dedicated section. G-13114 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I feel the "medals by gender" table is redundant and give no useful information, and the multiple medalists table should be separated out as in the format of the pages I listed previously. Muinimula (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Muinimula on both counts. 'Gender' table seems pointless and arbitrary. Also the multiple medalist format seems better, more informative in the other olympic pages, and a natural add on to the medalist list, not an add on to the 'by day' and 'by sport' summaries Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the 'medals by gender' and the 'multiple medalists' boxes, and I've reformatted the latter as a stand alone section with more information as in the 2012 article. I think it's an improvement. G-13114 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

This article needs a much better overall overview as compare to the 2012 article it's lacking in info. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:90DA:38E:D8D8:9097 (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Incorrect bolding in introduction

[edit]

According to the WP:LEAD style guideline, one of the common mistakes to be avoided is: "In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear". As this article's title is absent from the first sentence, then no bold style should be used in the first sentence.

I tried to apply this rule in this edit (note the explanatory summary), but was reverted by User:G-13114 in this edit (note the summary). Does anyone else have an opinion - should we apply the guideline here, or not? -- de Facto (talk). 20:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 6 external links on Great Britain at the 2016 Summer 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. 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) 13:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Great Britain at the 2016 Summer 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. 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) 22:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sport funding table

[edit]

I just reverted some sock vandalism. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Great_Britain_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics&diff=819685035&oldid=817173909 became collateral in this. Since it has no source and it's a contribution from an IP, I won't put it back myself.

Anyone more familiar with the subject is welcome to dig up a source and put the table back. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Britain_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1198932239"