2006 Winter Olympics medal table is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
While it currently looks good to have all the countries at the games listed on this page, I think it will make it awkward to update the page - especially since there will be frequent daily updates, I expect. For example, all of the countries who haven't won a medal yet will need to have their rankings updated almost every time a country wins its first medal. I suggest that as of the first day of competition we trim this back to the countries that have won any medals at all. The home page for the 2006 games has the list of NOCs with flags, and that one page ought to be sufficient for the "big list of countries". Andrwsc 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that earlier today, a misguided person took Russia's loss, and Canada's victory in the Women's ice hockey group A games as medal victories. Thanks to the person who fixed it up. Berzerker 01:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's the IOC standard to list countries by gold medals, but isn't that a bit silly? It doesn't mean WP has to do it. It's especially odd to see on the front page that the US leads in the medal standings when Norway has 7 medals and the US only has three. Could we perhaps revise this chart to put total medals first, with ties broken by numbers of gold, silver and bronze? 70.49.124.76 06:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer showing the country who won the most gold metals first. It highlights quickly the number of the best athletes in the world. The country that wins the most gold medals is generally regarded as the winner of the Olympics. In the old days, you would check to see whether the USA or the USSR was winning the most medals.
The list also sorts itself out if two countries have the same medal count. For example, if countries have 3 gold medals, than the list is then sorted in terms of silver etc.
Finally, note that in each event there are twice as many medals which are either silver or bronze medals as gold.
Accountable Government 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we compromise by doing what the official site does, which is also listing a ranking by total medals afterwards. I would do it but don't have the coding ability. 67.68.249.224 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are updates done after each event, or after the end of each day? Andjam 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we maybe list which events each country has won medals in (and, if possible, who won them)? It would be nice to know, and would be very possible for anyone who has a source which lists them. Hell, I'll do it if someone can get me a source. I do, though, suggest we do it quickly if at all, to keep the work minimal--jfg284 you were saying? 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, it's not worth it. It's also not in keeping with the format of previous olympics. I probably should have looked at those pages, first.--jfg284 you were saying? 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to have images of medals rather than "gold", "silver" and "bronze", should they have a hole in them to reflect the medals being used at these games? Andjam 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice thought, but they're already pretty small and putting holes in the middle of them could make them pretty cluttered looking. Also, in 1994 IIRC they used crystal medals with metal inlay and I don't think 1994 Winter Olympics has little crystal icons for the medals. -Drdisque 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think ive messed the coding up Sorry!82.24.72.42 18:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the positive anti-doping test, Olga Pyleva (RUS) has been disqualified and losed his silver medal. I think that Martina Glagow (3rd, GER) is promoted to the 2nd rank, like Albina Akhatova (RUS), from 4th to 3rd rank.
Why are Norway's silver and bronze medals (six each) bolded? So are the six gold medals for the United States. Is this some kind of Satanic code or a gripe about the United States winning a disproportionate amount of gold while Norway only seems to win silver and bronze this time? :) Norway has won the most medals (13) so far, but only one gold. The United States has struck more gold than any other type of medal.--Sir Edgar 08:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely annoying that some editors do not update all three medals of a competition, but just a single medal. This leads to much more work to correct all the missing medals. Therefore I have added a temporary “Update Rules” line on the main page. noclador
Why? Why oh why?
What does this section even mean? What significance does it have? Why does anybody care? 69.199.249.113 19:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also to say Switzerland is a German speaking country is like adding Canada to the English speaking countries. Saopaulo1 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whats wrong with that? French doesnt count anyways so it has to be english....--198.99.244.32 17:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better way to say this, like Ranked by Position? JQF 19:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While making sure this page is up to date is quite important, the two major pages to this category (Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics) currently need attention. Please see their respective talk pages for a summary of things that need to be done. Use this page as a guide when editing those pages. Thanks for your help! --Jared 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In each of the two tables, there's a column that states how the country would rank by the other method. To me it looks redundant and unsightly. Andjam 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically we award 3 pts for each gold won then 2 pts for the silvers and 1 pt for bronzes
many almanacs uses this system
Example, as of today, Norway has 1 gold thats equivalent to 3 pts, 6 silvers=12 pts, 6 bronzes= 6 pts, The Grand Total will be 21 Pts.
Unites States has 6 golds= 18, 3 silver= 6, 1 bronze= 1 total= 25 pts
Russia had 5 golds= 15, 2 silvers= 4, 4 bronzes= 4 total=23
just a suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 18 February 2006 71.107.255.46.
actually the IOC does not recognize any medal standings, IOC does not uses any standards maybe their website is but officially they do not recognize medal tallys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 18 February 2006.
Then we should make a note on that
It must be mentioned that the IOC "does not officially recognize national medal totals, nor recommend using one way of assigning medals by country over another. The original Olympic charter forbade a medal count that included a ranking per country". All medal counts published by the media are unofficial; so is the one above. (I have an article to prove)
we should point this out.
--update from the above comment--
The "Torino 2006" official website uses the said system but not the official website of the "IOC" (I already checked it out) If there is, Its for informational use only
The system used in "Torino 2006" website is no better nor worse than the ones used at NBC or ESPN or BBC etc.
Which means the claim at the beggining of this article is FALSE. IOC does not use any system.
ask the president of the IOC and he will tell you all. This is not even debatable.
If there is Im pretty sure its for informational use only.
heres another info,
"The refusal of the IOC to recognize the ranking list goes back to the emphasis given to it during the Cold War, when the USA and the Soviet Union attempted to overpower one another in the number of medals."
from http://www.fhw.gr/olympics/modern/en/history/h101.html
Once again, you require verifiable sources for inclusion on Wikipedia. The link provided shows no references as to where the writer obtained his/her information. --Madchester 07:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not like Im giving you ureliable sources. CNN? Foundation of the Hellinic World? I mean if they give flase information about a known fact then they gonna be sued or something right?
Again, if you dont believe me make your own research about it. and see it for yourself. This is not debatable.
OK, to end all this.
From IOC "Official" website states:
"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information" -- at the bottom of a medal tally.
only."http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/table_uk.asp?OLGT=2&OLGY=1924
I think Canada should add one gold to its tally for each member of the women's hockey team. That would put Canada in number one spot. And the fact I'm from Canada has nothing to do with my opinion. :-p CalgaryWikifan 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions that the "Rank by Total" is the system used in Canada. But at least on Radio-Canada's website, the "Rank by Medal Types" system is used (http://www.radio-canada.ca/Turin/TableauMedailles). I don't know what ranking systems other franco-canadian media uses, but I would think they use the same system as Radio-Canada. Therefore, I would propose that the article should say that the "Rank by Total" is the system used in the USA and in ENGLISH-Canada. Blur4760 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a good proposal too. Blur4760 00:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit lost here. In what way differs the system the CBC uses from the one described in the article as "Rank by Total" with these precise words?:
To me that seems to be exactly what the CBC does, unlike Radio-Canada. Blur4760 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the sentence now to say "most American and Canadian media". Even if I better had some kind of proof for the "most", I think it's better than the current version, which implies that the "Rank by Total" is the standard in all of North America, albeit without any proof. Blur4760 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on CBC's The National, the programme presents the "Gold Medal Ranking" first, followed by "Total Medals Ranking". On CBC Newsworld's The Hour, it uses the gold medal ranking exclusively. --Madchester 04:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The total list gives more than those above, but I cannot find any differences. 84.59.73.227 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what the anon user is referring to, since right now i see 70 of each medal in all tables.. but there is a curious point that should be clarified in the article: an extra 5th place finish.. this is probably result of a tie, and so the event in which the tie occured should be mentioned. Mlm42 13:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the top list, where it is listed in gold medal order first, are countried "ranked", but in the second list, of total medals, countries are "sorted"? Shouldn't there be some consistency on this? I much prefer ranked. 70.28.107.177 20:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the metal count lists them as south korea, it should be "korea" as both north korea and south korea are competing as one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.184.237.195 (talk • contribs).
France protested against Sweden in the men's 4 × 10 km relay Cross country skiing. First to FIS and then to CAS. Can Sweden loose the bronze medal if that protest help, or what will happen?
Someone had changed the description under rank by medal total to "seldom used in few American and Canadian media." I can't speak for Canada, but you'll be hard pressed to find US media that doesn't use the rank by total. Here are just some examples:
Basically, if you used just about any US media, you got rank by total. I'm not saying this should be the number one method used in this article (because the IOC "provides" rank by metal). But this method should seriously not be called "seldom used!" -newkai | talk | contribs 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Someone seems to have taken my edit too far. Blur4760 20:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Olympic medals. I suggest we remove the merger tag and place a speedy delete on the other page. I know the author had good intentions, but the same information can be found on this page and the olympic medallists pages. I feel bad that the work would have to be deleted, but there is nothing to merge from there that is already here. --J@red [T]/[+] 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeed. Speedy delete Olympic medals. --Walter Görlitz 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what's wrong with a simple redirect to Olympic Games?Mlm42 11:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Delete and redirect. Blur4760 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it's against Wikipedia policy for some reason to display diploma counts, so I'll post the deleted content on the talk page so that those who are interested can still see the data. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 1984 Olympic Games, olympic diplomas (officially known as victory diplomas) have been awarded to the first through eighth-place finishers. The following is a complete table showing the distribution of these diplomas for the 2006 Winter Olympics. There are various ties, which are noted below. Numbers in bold indicate which country has the most finishers of a given placement.
Rank | Country | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | Total | |||
1 | Germany | 11 | 12 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 7[3] | 72 |
2 | United States | 9 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 10 | 15 | 8[4][5] | 68 |
3 | Austria | 9 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6[6] | 43 |
4 | Russia | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 5[7] | 7 | 4 | 4 | 48 |
5 | Canada | 7 | 10 | 7 | 13 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 57 |
6 | Sweden | 7 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 5[8][9] | 30 |
7 | South Korea | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14 |
8 | Switzerland | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 5[10] | 3 | 9 | 5 | 38 |
9 | Italy | 5 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 10 | 3 | 7 | 8[11] | 42 |
10 | France | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 29 |
11 | Netherlands | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 20 |
12 | Estonia | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 |
13 | Norway | 2 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 8[12] | 6 | 5 | 3 | 51 |
14 | China | 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 21 |
15 | Czech Republic | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 15 |
16 | Croatia | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
17 | Australia | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
18 | Japan | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 22 |
19 | Finland | 0 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 22 |
20 | Poland | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 9 |
21 | Belarus | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
22 | Great Britain | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3[13] | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7 |
23 | Slovakia | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
24 | Bulgaria | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
25 | Ukraine | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
26 | Latvia | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
27 | Hungary | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
28 | Spain | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
29 | Slovenia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
30 | Liechtenstein | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
31 | Kazakhstan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
32 | Lithuania | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
33[14] | Moldova | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
34[15] | Israel | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
35[16] | Denmark | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1[17] | 1 |
Total | 84 | 84 | 84 | 84 | 86 | 82 | 84 | 86 | 674 |
---|
The medal count table appears to have been repeatedly vandalized in the last few weeks. I've reverted the table to a version as of about a month ago, which on cursory inspection appears to be correct. The vandals moved the countries in the table around.Syntheticzero (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 Winter Olympics medal table. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]