Talk:Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I added a link to the CBC athlete bios, so anyone who has free time on their hands lets add some pages about all the Canadian athletes. --Funkmaster 801 16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Medal format 2 Medals 2.1 Gold 2.2 Silver 2.3 Bronze 3 Top Finishes? 4 Renner broke a pole, then the Norway coach gave one 5 Biggest upset? 6 Dale Begg-Smith in notes section

[edit] Medal format

Yesterday I changed the Canadian medals section to the format used for all other nations:

[edit] Medals

				Total
Canada	1	1	1	3

[edit] Gold

• ‘’’Discipline (i.e. Alpine Skiing)
  • Event (i.e. Men’s Downhill): Athletes name (and optional) in a time of X:XX:XX or with a score of XX:XX

[edit] Silver

[edit] Bronze

Today someone reverted the edits to another format. I brought them again into the standardized format and hope that there won’t be further vandalism.

[edit] Top Finishes?

Why do we need to have the Top 8/10/whatever finishes as a section? What is the "cutoff" for such a list? It seems to me that listing the medal winners only is sufficient for the table at the top of this page, followed by detailed results on a per-sport basis underneath. This follows the same format as the vast majority of Olympic pages that have been completed in Wikipedia. If we do a complete job in the results section, then a "Top X" summary is somewhat redundant and lengthens this page unnecessarily. A list of medalists is still appropriate to summarize, of course. Andrwsc 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? We used it for the 2004 Olympics. Top 8 finished is what is used in most major Olympic books, so should be the cut-off used. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with top 10 as opposed to top 8. Who cares what it's been in the past. It probably "lengthens the page" about 3 lines. Bigdottawa 13:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've started work on the Olympics WikiProject (starting with the "Canada at the xxxx Olympics" pages), so my perspective here is one of consistency. There isn't a "top 8/10" section in the generic template, just a medal table followed by per-sports results. Plus, different sports have different placings, so it's difficult to have a "top X" that covers all sports equally. For example, the swimming finals have 8 swimmers, rowing and canoeing have 6 lanes, short track speed skating has 4 or 6 in the finals (plus 4 or 6 in the B finals), women's hockey is only an 8 team tournament, etc. It's also going to be difficult to find the top 8/10 for some of the older games. That's why I'd prefer to see the top X placings only shown in the "Results by Sport" section, not redundantly summarized above. As for "who cares what it's been in the past", well, remember that we're making an Encyclopedia, not posting to a message board or blog. Consistency is extremely important. The hundreds of Olympics pages being written should follow the common templates. Hey, I'm not proposing that we delete any data, but just present it in a consistent, easy to read manner. Andrwsc 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "Top 10" is problematic, due to the reasons that you described. Sue Anne 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that there is a problem. Top 10 is a number that is used more often, and sure, there are only 8 teams in women's hockey, but I don't think it matters so much. This is an encyclopedia, and I'm sure people that use it are looking for information, rather than consistency. They need information, whereas consistency matters little to most users. ~Scorpion0422 16:09 (EST), February 15, 2006

[edit] Renner broke a pole, then the Norway coach gave one

I suggest that we indicate the incredible gift by the coach of the Norway team of a male pole to Sara Renner in the cross country skiing, allowing her to finish second when the Norway's team is fourth.

I went ahead and added a note about that in the Notes section at the bottom ~Scorpion0422

[edit] Biggest upset?

My knowledge of this sport is limited, but I'll go out on the limb and say that the QF elimination of Canada's male Ice Hockey team was one of the biggest upsets in the 2006 Winter Olympics, right? Granted they lost to another top team, but nevertheless... Maybe this article would be the appropriate venue to elaborate some on the topic? If I have my facts straight, this was a huge [negative] deal for Canada. Regards, Redux 04:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling it an 'upset' would imply that Russia was clearly considered a lesser team, which is not the case. It's a disappointment considering what Canadians expect from their best players, but an upset it is not. Aottley 13:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But wasn't the Canadian team considered the strongest, and favorite to the title, at least in theory? It seems to me that Canada was expected to have some sort of "edge" over the other top teams, and that they were expected to be able to beat the other main teams, such as Russia, the US, Sweden, etc. And losing in the QF, that is, out of the so-called "medal zone", that was probably a big negative surprise. In any case, this could be mentioned in this article. Redux 14:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not an upset, but I suppose it should be mentioned that for the first time in a long time (At least since 1980), Canada will not be battling for a medal in men's hockey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.15.126.81 (talk • contribs) .

Interesting piece of trivia. It's as I said: this situation could generate an interesting topic for us to elaborate upon, regardless of how much of an "upset" (which it wasn't, as I'm told) the Canadian defeat in the QF might have been. Redux 00:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Begg-Smith in notes section

Is there anything in the notes section that isn't said elsewhere in the article? It sounds a bit snarky. Andjam 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think it needs to be rewritten to make it less snarky. I've been working on moving the items that are directly related to a certain discipline into that discipline. And, I will probably incorporate any general "notes" into the intro. I don't know when I'll hit it, but I'll probably move that one up on the priority list and take care of it tonight. Sue Anne 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)