Talk:2022 Winter Olympics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Doping cases

What is the best section to mention the Valieva affair and the doping cases (two so far, Hossein Saveh Shemshaki and Valiantsina Kaminskaya)?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Generally in Olympics coverage anything even mildly controversial is put in the "Controversies and Concerns" section/article Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics. I know that not how we generally do things when it comes to the Olympics for some reason it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I still haven't seen anything added about the Valieva situation and am wondering if anyone is working on this? SidneyHearst (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We have discussions underway about carnitine and hypoxen on the Valieva talk page, here. Carnitine is not an approved drug for heart patients, healthy people or athletes (it is a dietary supplement), while hypoxen has a dubious research history in Russia, discussed here. Media sources are incorrectly describing these agents as "heart drugs" when there are no WP:MEDRS sources to indicate any health or anti-disease benefit; they are simply supplements unlikely to provide any effect or benefit for athletic performance. Zefr (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this could go into Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics, and a smaller section here as a summary.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Why the wingdings icons in sports section?

The icons server to be more confusing than anything else. A little tiny typeface icon doesnt help me tell the difference between the Luge and Skiing, just makes me wonder what they are trying to convey (the stupid symbols). People with older browsers probably cant even see them, and older adults can't tell the difference between Play / Stop symbols much less the difference between winter sports in a 8x8 over simplified wingdings. This is ultra-minimalist dingbat symbols that muddle clarity of the article. 1 vote to Remove them. 63.146.82.250 (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do some teams have one less member?

Perhaps not the place to ask. But, in some team events, teams have a different number of members. Take the Alpine Skiing team event for example: Austria & Norway had six members, while Germany had only five members. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well in alpine skiing its 2 male 2 female and 2 reserve max. Perhaps Germany only had 1 reserve member while Austria & Norway had 2 members. Swaggalicious (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• If an event consists of several runs, and replacements are possible (such as for example in the figure skating team event), different teams can very well have different number of members.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I see, just wanted to make sure, we weren't missing members. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2022 Winter Olympics Closing Ceremony fireworks.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

athlete total discrepancies

How much effort do we want to put into making the totals 'correct'? The trouble will be that they won't agree with NOCs sourced statements for a variety of reasons, and the official site is sometimes ambiguous or unhelpful. Some of the issues are: source was before reallocation finished, athletes filling multiple quotas (freestyle skiing and curling), alternates being added into totals (ice hockey), extra athletes being used (ski jumping and nordic combined).18abruce (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Typo fix?

There is a typo in section sports, section new events, on the first sentence. It should be permitting instead of permittimg. I don't have the permission to fix this issue, so could someone do this? Thanks!

 Done Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead - Medal performances

The lead is to summarize the key points of this article. I fail to see how listing 5 different NOC's and their medal performance qualifies as summarizing. I think summarizing the top performing country along with the hosts is sufficient for the lead, with everything else falling into the medal table section. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Norway finished at the top of the medal table for the second successive Winter Olympics, winning a total of 37 medals, of which 16 were gold, setting a new record for the largest number of gold medals won at a single Winter Olympics.[3] The host nation China finished third with nine gold medals, marking their most successful performance in Winter Olympics history.[3]" -- According to the medals table, the ROC (Republic of China) came in second with a total of 32. 107.127.46.54 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Lead section inclusion of a summary of the Controversy section

A significant amount of Talk page discussion and reverting has focused on the question of whether or not to include a summary of the subsection of the article dealing with Controversies in the lead section. The RFC is to determine if consensus among editors is that article should or should not include a summary of the Controversies section in the lead section, and what form it should take if consensus is that some version of a summary of the Controversies section should be included in the lead section.

Option (A): The lead section should not include a summary of the subsection on Controversies in the lead section, since the article is ostensively about the sporting events taking place at the Olympics.

Option (B): Include a neutral version of a summary of the subsection on Controversies which does not single out any of the nearly two dozen Controversies currently listed in the subsection on Controversies.

Option (C): Include a version of the summary of the subsection on Controversies which lists the human rights issues and Ugyur controversies as examples of the many Controversies currently taking place at the Winter Olympics.

Option (D): Other options.

Editors are requested to await the conclusion of the RFC before adding further edits about Controversies into the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments below

Comment Editors may place their comments and selection of options below. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Lol, is this a joke? You appear to be suggesting that there is only one neutral option. I would retract and rewrite entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Firstly, I would like to inform ErnestKrause that their unilateral edits do not constitute a consensus. The sentence, as well as their edit summary, reflect something along the lines of "Editors are requested to await the conclusion of the RFC before adding further edits about Controversies into the lead section.". The fact that they attempted to enforce a version that has been hotly contested prior 1 is a violation of the rules they are calling upon. It is requested that they do not repeat the same.

• This is also a Loaded RFC, since it clearly assumes what a "neutral" version is. Apart from this, this is a Poorly made RFC owing to the fact that this does not reflect the different stances adopted by the editors currently, neither does it offer proper options, nor does it properly structure the options in a manner that is unambiguous. Due to the options given forming a central part of any RfC, this renders this RFC unusable.

• In all, this RfC is entirely without merit and short of massive restructuring, should be considered null and void. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• What??? What is a "neutral version"? What are the "other options"? Why does option A have a reason, and the others not? What is the basis for the assertion that this article is limited to sporting events? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC and procedural close. The nominator spectacularly fails to open this with the brief and neutral statement that is required of a WP:RFC. We cannot presuppose that only one option is neutral in the text of the RfC prompt—doing so results in this being a loaded question. This RfC should be procedurally closed. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• I've removed the RfC header as editors questioned the neutrality of the opening statement, which was not ammended. Isabelle ^🔔 01:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Tense

Someone needs to go through the article and put verbs into the past tense. Currently I see things like "Five ice events will be held" and "Bing Dwen Dwen is the mascot". Good thing it's semi-protected so I don't need to go to that trouble myself. (grin) --184.144.97.125 (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done (at least most of them). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please Add Officials Endangering Halfpipe Athletes to Sporting Controveries

https://sports.yahoo.com/beijing-winter-olympics-2022-outrage-swirls-over-halfpipe-event-050648631.html 2602:306:33C9:77E0:A5A3:C65B:8E86:7B83 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeeeesus! It's an outdoor sport, and they're complaining about the weather? No way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. HiLo48, it has received enough coverage to be noted here.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine invasion

"China asked Russia to delay Ukraine war until after Olympics, U.S. qfficials say" [1], [2]. Shouldnt this be included in the article? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would be directly related to the 2022 Winter Olympics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add Fanny Smith’s Ski Cross Relegation to the Long List of Sporting Controversies

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/beijing-winter-olympics-2022-swiss-ski-cross-racer-sounds-off-after-controversial-review-denies-her-podium-124802659.html 2602:306:33C9:77E0:A5A3:C65B:8E86:7B83 (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Why? If we included every athlete unhappy with a judging decision, it would fill every sports article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This whole thing might be better covered in the article Freestyle skiing at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Women's ski cross. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)