Talk:List of gymnasts

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of gymnasts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Surname?

I suppose, that Li is the first name and Xiaopeng (also Ning) is the last name. If it's wrong, correct the changes, that I've made, please. Cmapm 11:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Li is the last name. It might be a very common name in china. anobo 09:51, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

I've fixed this. Cmapm 15:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

USSR

There was no countries like "Russia", "Ukraine", "Uzbekistan", etc., during the existence of the USSR. There were Soviet Republics Russian SFSR, Ukrainian SSR, Uzbek SSR. Should we change entries like "USSR/Russia", "USSR/Ukraine" to "Russian SFSR", "Ukrainian SSR" for gymnasts, who competed in that period? Cmapm 12:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest leaving the links as is, for the following reasons:

Most anglophones do know the SSRs by the current names (Ukraine, Belarus, etc.) and changing them might be confusing.
Some gymnasts, such as Boguinskaya, Galiyeva, etc. competed for the USSR before 1989 but also competed for their respective Republics afterwards when they were indeed official countries, so in these cases the country names are accurate.
Some of the gymnasts who competed solely for the USSR now identify and operate in official positions for their Republics (example, Tourischeva, who is an official for Ukraine). In these cases, the country names are accurate too.

I'm sorry I didn't see these questions sooner. Thanks for your help with these articles!! Namaste, Mademoiselle Sabina 07:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Yes, all your points are reasonable and now I also think, that names should be left as is.

No any need to be sorry at all! I've asked so many questions here in Wikipedia, especially in the last few weeks, that I've forgotten about most of them :) And only my watchlist reminds me about them from time to time :) Cmapm 08:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on descriptions

Should years be provided here? E.g. in List of Chinese people they are not provided at all and in List of Russians they are provided only sometimes and mostly for those, who died. Maybe they could be temporarily provided for "red links" only? I think, that more important inf. to be included is whether a person was Olympic/World Champion. I also think, that "(byear-dyear)" is more commonly used format, than "(b. byear-d. dyear)" Any comments? Cmapm 09:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous vs unknown

I've just removed recently added Natasha Lisagor, the only references I found to her on the web is [1] and a mention here. I believe, she's not famous, but rather unknown. I could be wrong, then, please, provide more sourced inf. about her. Cmapm 20:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

I was looking through this page today. The list of gymnasts is getting very, very long. It's incredibly awesome that so many pages about these awesome athletes are appearing, but I wonder if this list might be cumbersome for some people to scroll through.

I notice that most of these gymnasts belong to some category: "Russian gymnasts," "Canadian gymnasts," etc. Perhaps instead of providing the long lists of names, we could provide links to the category pages? The disadvantage would be that WAG, MAG and rhythmic would all be together, but it would also tell a reader quickly if there was a page about their favorite gymnast. Any thoughts?Mademoiselle Sabina 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the structure of this article is becoming a problem... But if we just list categories, the article will be almost identical to Category:Gymnasts by nationality. I am personally thinking of other variants:

Renaming the list to the new name: "List of gymnasts" (or splitting it into "List of artistic gymnasts" and "List of rhythmic gymnasts"). Many such lists are alphabetical, examples: List of golfers (the most nice IMHO), List of football (soccer) players, List of male boxers, List of male tennis players; exception: by country - List of cricketers. See Category:Lists of sportspeople for more similar pages.
The most radical decision: to delete all the content and make the article look like boxer, diver, fencer, footballer, skater, etc. Base: the only additional to Category:Gymnasts by nationality info, the current list contains are birth/death years.
Mixed variant: rename the article to "List of gymnasts" and make the article "Gymnast" look like e.g. skater.

I personally would currently prefer the third variant, i.e. split the current article into "List of artistic gymnasts" and "List of rhythmic gymnasts", make each of them look like List of golfers and make the article "Gymnast" look like the article skater. I don't think, that this would be the best however - because it would be long too, but at least it would look like other similar pages... Anyway, that's what I think... Cmapm 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the vague hope that you're still watching this discussion, I'm going to be bold, and do this... -- Ratarsed (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this list exclude Acrobatic Gymnastics?

Surely, since it is a list of Gymnasts, then it is a list of gymnasts? Why the exclusion of Acrobatic gymnastics? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to remove the restrictive heading and add the people form this discipline to the list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Took the bull by the horns and removed the restriction. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Format of entries

In the newly added section on male acrobatic gymnasts I have experimented with layout, I believe that each gymnast's FIG record should be present / referenced. I am undecided whether to do it with group-named references of to use a table format. Fortunately it isn;t hard to convert to a table if desired, so I am leaving it for a while until either I have an opinion, or others reach a consensus, should they choose. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table is more maintainable despite table markup being evil. It is also more reader friendly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working slowly and steadily towards the table format, but help would be appreciated. This format insists on citation in at least the FIG record, so enhances the article greatly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Progress towards table based layout

Collapsed progress reports, click 'show' to expand →

A number of tables are now complete. This is detailed work and only so many can be done in an editing period. Slow and steady progress towards the overall goal is the key to success. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table widths now standardised at 75% (edit summary says 80, but I mistyped. Considering making column widths standard too, but that can be done at any time. We need more tables to see what the appropriate and inappropriate widths are. Some fields can cope with word wrapping, others simply cannot. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making progress down the female artistic list. Got very cross eyed with Romania and Russia. Taking special care to insert notes to cross reference the USSR folks who have competed for the separate nations. That is slowing progress somewhat. I may cheat and do some smaller countries for a break! Considering pruning the picture overload for the USA. They seem overly well represented pictorially. The layout will determine that, because I don't want picture creep into the next nation's pseudo-section Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the female Artistic ones are now in tables. Many redlinks have been purged per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Those that remain I will not be deleting. Up to other editors to pick up that challenge. Very little will happen to this article from me over the weekend. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some oddities with Canada today. The list contained loads of people who appear not to be gymnasts at all and never were. Those are removed. Part of the excellence of performing this exercise is the ability to remove oddities like this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danger of errors. Cross eyed now, so slowing down for the day. It can't be done in one go and a little delay doesn't matter Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today's efforts have been purely preparatory. This is a true slog. But we are at least half way now, perhaps more. Today the USSR/Russia gents have been dual representation 'noted', which will make it easier to entable them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of this list are like swimming through mud. It's chock full of poor quality entries, and needs a lot of detective work to track ske of the oinconsistencies down. I doubt I'll manage to fix them all. Slow progress today because of that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 tables remain to be formatted. 55 have been done so far. I wish I hadn't counted now. It seems such a long way to go. So it will take a few more days. I have a nagging thought in the back of my mind that only a certain number of templates may be included in a page without Mediawiki software objecting. If that should happen I think we will need to split the list by discipline. If that happens I will take the simple bold step of just doing it. The FIG records, while not 100% accurate, are too valuable a resource to leave out. Adding them has been the entire purpose of this exercise. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giving more priority to the Rhythmic Gymnasts since these are the area of interest to an IP editor who does not yet seem to understand that redlinks are not currently appropriate and the article requires table format. I'm hoping that leading by example, plus these notes will convince them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11 tables remain to be formatted. So a fifth of the tables remain. It's slightly more than that n terms of athletes or actual work, I think. I'll finish Rhythmic before finishing the Artistic folk. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythmic ladies are now all in tables. That is quite enough for one day! A few awkward artistic men to go! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five tables remain. small progress today, my apologies. Of course it would go faster with other folk playing too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a marathon operation but the article is ow 100% in table format. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations/References

Unless I am mistaken, the FIG record for each gymnast is likely to be sufficient reference. {{FIG}} is very useful here. It's a simple process to find records for each gymnast and enter them: one uses this link and enters as much or as little information as one has. The only time consuming and laborious element is handling existing entries. We do need to make the effort to have a correctly inclusive and cited list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed a couple of problems in the first Canadian list. Some FIG records are absent, at least one disagrees with the Wikipedia article for the gymnast for date of birth. Each is noted in the text. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of redlinked names

I am unsure about the redlinks. Part of me wants them in there to encourage other articles. Part of me thinks these are unlikely to be notable. However the majority of the redlinks are in a less well followed category of the sport, so they may well be notable, just not yet with articles. I'm running across them because they have been added en masse recently, and they stick out because they are out of alphabetical order. Since I'm quietly changing the entire list to a tabled and referenced format these folk stick out like a sore thumb. But what to do? De;ete them or include them? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that, per wp:listpeople, the redlinked, zero-RS-ref entries should be struck with a reference to wp:listpeople. Though of course anyone can re-add them, in accordance with the strictures of wp:listpeople, at a later time. Nice work on the list, btw!--Epeefleche (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, though it would be nice to see additional views. I think the approach anyone converting a simple text portion to a table should consider is to remove those where they are overwhelming in a table and to retain those which are a sprinkle. Since any solution is likely to be imperfect this seems to be the smallest imperfecton right now. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of other views I have removed the greater part of the redlinks. I've chosen quite arbitrarily to keep those I have already converted to tables. The editor who added them did a lot of work and, as we know, that work is preserved in the history (this note is for them really), but they were also not added even in alphatbetical order of surname, so they made the job of converting the list to tables appalling. So, if they are to come back, two things, please:

Alphabetical order of surname, please
Please take the time and trouble to put then into a table

This is a longer slog than I expected. I'd love some help! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The removed GROUPS section

I think there is some confusion. The list is a list of gymnasts. While I understand that a group is a sub discipline of their chosen sector, it is a categorisation too far. If I've accidentally removed some notable gymnasts by removing the section please feel free to re-add them, but, please, as individuals. The list is, surely, intended simply to list those folk who are notable, by major discipline and by nationality. Their own articles are the place to go into the sub disciplines they choose to compete in. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A further reorganisation is tempting (now with added RfC!)

I know it is declared more usual to enter an RFC in its own section, but this discussion requires more light shone upon it from a wider population of experienced editors. This is not a dispute. We are seeking the best route forward for this list. Matters under discussion include, but are not limited to:

The grouping or regrouping of the athletes by nation and then by discipline rather than by discipline and then by nation
The extension of the table structure with additional columns
The issue that the list is so long as require a split in the future, and thus any structure should reflect, presumably, ease of future splitting

Attempts have been made to include in the discussion the relevant Wikiproject and editors previously active in the article, so far with limited success. Thus the RfC is created to request a substantially broader set of opinions so that the article will reflect the best standards of providing a useful source of information for the casual reader of Wikipedia. If your thoughts extend the matters beyond the short list above, please feel free to extend the discussion, though restricting it in this request to the formatting and layout of the article and its contents, please. Other matters are welcome, but would probably broaden the scope of this particular discussion too widely, and render it hard to reach a conclusion.

There are some main sections below this RfC section. If it is felt they should be included within the section structure of this RfC please feel free to add or merge them to it. We need to attempt one conversation rather than fragments Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion

Currently the list is ordered by discipline and by sex of the gymnast. I wonder whether this might not be better ordered by nation, grouping the discipline on a nation by nation basis. In the absence of comments to the contrary I may well take this further reorganisation on. It's not particularly arduous to do, but I feel a further set of bold edits without any warning or discussion might be a step too far. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I abandoned this idea. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is too bad, I think it is a great idea and would be willing to help you with it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. Perhaps it would be worth it to offer two versions of the page. List of gymnasts (by discipline) and List of gymnasts (by nation). Technical 13 (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with twin lists is maintainability. One will always be out of step with the other, unless bot managed. If you feel like having a crack at listing them by nation instead of by discipline I can see no obvious objection. I can see that as a precursor to considering splitting into individual national lists, thus morphing this into a list of lists (akin to a category, but list and categories are not mutually exclusive). So, let me start with a proposal here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to look into it a little. I wonder if there is a way (I think there is) to be able to create two lists using transcluded subpages so that editing one will automatically (kind of) edit the other. I'll make a sandbox in my userspace and test the idea... Technical 13 (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've finally started working on this... Take a look at User:Technical_13/SandBox/Gymnasts/discipline and User:Technical_13/SandBox/Gymnasts/nation and let me know if you think this is on the right track... I can either scrap this idea, add a few more examples to make it clearer, or complete the process in the sandbox (then we can move it). I need some feedback before I go any further. If you want it further segregated by gender, now is the time. Right now, both genders for the same discipline and nation are grouped... Technical 13 (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I had failed to consider male/female as a grouping. Extra eyes are always good. I think, now we know it os possible we need a decent number of contributions to the proposal, below, to determine what is genuinely required, don't you? I don;t think we need to go the full RFC route, but I have notified the relevant Wikiproject and previous significant article contributors. Your own view is as important as mine and everyone else's, so do, please, express an opinion. My own favourite is the proposal as it stands, modified by however we decide want to handle their sex. Obviously my view may not carry the day, but I think we need to take a view on the topic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timtrent and User:Epeefleche, do you think that background colors in the tables distinguishing gender are sufficient (personally, I think so), OR do you think having their own sections/blocks is needed (I really don't)? Also, note that all of the disciplines and nations technically "could" be merged into one long table with the way I set it up so that nation and discipline are on each line in a sortable table. Gymnast enthused decision, I'm "just" the tech guy... ;) Technical 13 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am incompetent with colour schemes. To me they look fine, good, excellent, but never, ever, ask me to choose a colour. I'm not a gymnastics enthusiast either. I just bumbled into this article. I'm an article enthusiast. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for reorganisation

Proposal that this list be re-organised into national order with disciplines within nations rather than the present form which is nations within disciplines. By doing this we can prepare more easily for the day when it is appropriate to break the list into a list per nation.

If the proposal is supported a matter for discussion is to merge the disciplines into a single table, with a further (sortable) column for discipline or to leave each discipline in a table of its own. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More How we deal with the sexes of the athletes is open to discussion as well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the main proposal to reorganise the list into national order. Also support the merging of the disciplines into a single table and the addition of the extra column. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can the proposer perhaps give examples (both pro and con if they exist) of such lists in other sports? And a sense as to, in proposers research, one approach or the other is found more? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, no, I cannot. I think we need, simply, to take the proposal on its stand alone merits. "Will this enhance the reading experience when reading the article?" is the first question to answer. I believe it will, you may believe differently. then "Is it likely that the article may be split into 'nation by nation' articles in the future?" My belief is that it will because the individual nations will become too long otherwise. Having them ready grouped will make the split far easier. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, at these point, have a view. But I may be influenced by any common approach, in similar articles. One goal at wp is consistency. I've not checked articles, but working from memory I think there are probably examples both ways, and I don't recall off-hand without checking which approach is more prevalent. And I can see arguments both ways. You may want to request input from someone who works on a number of sports, such as user Tonythetiger. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall make that approach. I have also noted this discussion on the WP Gymnastics talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow... I hadn't even really read this section until just now. If you look at the parent section, I've already started creating a new template for these that will allow segregation by discipline and nation (and separating more by gender is possible, although it should be decided before I continue creating the database). Using this layout I've started, it is easy to have up to four separate pages (one for nation, discipline, and gender in no particular order and finally one "God" table the mixes everything into one) that will allow the reader to break the page up however they like. Using my above layout/system, regardless of which version of the page they view, clicking the respective "edit" link will take them to a universally transcluded page used on all of the versions and update them all at once. If this system is liked, I would be happy to improve it and recreate it in other places that it is deemed useful as well. Tim has given some input as someone that landed here Special:Randomly, but I would like to hear something from someone that is interested in this athletic. Perhaps if I echo some of the recent content editors of the page... Pinging... User:Timtrent, User:Yappers1000, (not sure if it works with IPs, but here goes) User:188.86.255.14, User:207.255.8.31, User:Colonies Chris, User:Epeefleche, User:Rtrac3y, User:Oana Predesc, User:Mosmof, User:Cplemerson... Okay, that takes us back to everyone that has edited since the beggining of August last year. Technical 13 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I arrived here via creating Edward Upcott, which I took to DYK status, much to my pleasant surprise, following him through to his partners and then other Acro gymnasts. What links here brought me here, and I found the article was in a parlous state, neither formatted well, nor up to date. I've been watching developments in it and have seen that we will, soon, hit a Mediawiki boundary for the ability to render a huge number of templates in a single page. That leads me to this preparatory proposal for re-organising it, because it will have to be split at some stage. Additionally other nations will need to be added as their athletes become notable, and the missing disciplines and sexes will also need to be added. Nations also change name, status, or divide from other nations. Whatever we do we must do with the flexibility to handle this, and be easy for any ordinary editor to handle.

I, too, would like to hear from a content expert or two, which is why I have put a message on the Gymnastics wikiproject talk page. In the (current) absence of their interest I think we simply move ahead as competent Wikipedia editors and reach a conclusion that feels good for and is right for the encyclopaedia. Many editors edit in areas where they are not experts. I am one such. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using my new sectional template system, we can eliminate the Template:FIG at least on these pages (I think it looks horrible to be honest, but I didn't want to "change everything" and that is one of the few pieces of the page as I originally saw it), if not entirely. I could also incorporate the Template:Flagicon so there are no extra calls to that. Technical 13 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see my name was mentioned here - I made a few corrections some months back. Looking at this article again now, I wonder what its purpose is. How exactly would a reader find this article, and what use would they make of it? As another editor questioned above, does it really provide anything useful to a reader over and above the existing categories? If you're looking for a list of gymnasts from a specific country, or trying to identify a specific gymnast from a known country - the Dominican Republic, say - you can just go to Category:Dominican Republic gymnasts. Arguably, having the date of birth in this lists does help with identification, but that's the only reason I can think of for keeping this list at all. If the entries routinely included a photograph, those could be useful as a search aid, but the current ones don't seem to be there for that purpose, they're merely decorative.
I find the FIG links useful, but too big and gaudy... I think a simple FIG linked to the gymnast would suffice. Technical 13 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be kept nonetheless, I would make two suggestions, bearing in mind that the article is really a form of index, or search aid. Firstly, there's no need to have the FIG reference at all - that link is available from the athlete's own article for anyone who really wants to look at it; and secondly, the flag/country wikilinks have no value - no-one's coming to this list to learn about Belarus, for example, they're just using the country as a way to identfy the athlete they're after. If they then want to learn more about that athlete's country, the link will be in the athlete's article. The {{flagu}} template can be used to show the flag icon and country name without creating a link. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flags are there because a question was asked of an MOS expert after an editor introduced them to the Rhythmic section, and they suggested they be present (see elsewhere on this page).

The FIG records are present as a matter of relatively recent history. There are no particular feelings either way.

The "list vs category" discussion often arises on Wikipedia. Usually that resolves as "Both list and category are valid". Rarely one is preferred over the other. The list is as useful (or not) as other lists, so we are working, currently, on the premise that it has a value. Using that as a frame of reference we are seeking to improve the structure of the list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I feel this is a useful list (and I'm "just a tech guy" that could care less about athletics). Your comment about the flag icons probably should have been in the below #National Flag icons section, but I'll respond here with my question (and you can move both C&Q down there when you come back to A it). Does it hurt anything to have the icons be links? I'm not opposed to removing the links if needed, but I find them useful myself. Perhaps a compromise would be to create a section in the lower-left corner of the sidebar that acts as a legend offering links and not linking the individual people? Technical 13 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting removing the flags, I was suggesting removing the associated wikilink to the country. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what you were suggesting, and I think the links are useful. I think that would link per country in a "legend" style box in the lower-left corner would suffice though (I don't know every countries flag, so some id is nice). Technical 13 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is for later. Let us handle the potential reorganisation as our primary focus and deal with the detail level after that. It may prove not to be necessary to solve this issue. I am ambivalent over the link, it is useful but inessential. I think we are digressing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical - further clarification: I also wasn't proposing to remove the name of the country from next to the flag icon - just to not wikilink it. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than a little disappointing that the RfC has not resulted in a single comment so far. Obviously the article has no general interest(!), but I think we should let it run to term in case it brings any ideas to the fore and a full consensus can be created. If nothing further happens in terms of discussions then we need to sort it out 'locally'. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad, but not surprising to me. Where did you leave links and notes that this RfC was taking place? Perhaps we could leave a few more scattered around? Technical 13 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Bot has picked it up, so I gave it a chance. Now I've added the Village Pump. I also used the talk pages of those I h=judged to be editors who are active in the article. I think Wikiproject Gymnastics, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to comment but this article is a bit confusing why not keep it simple and have:

Gymnast	Country	Discipline
Jade Barbosa	Brazil	Artistic (female)
Georgia Bonora	Australia	Artistic (female)
Adam Buckingham	United Kingdom	Acrobat (male)

Perhaps have dates of birth to make it a better finding aid. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generic lists are boring

Dear folks, generic lists like this one are boring. Users won't know the reasons why some gymnasts are included and other aren't. Plus, it provides very little information on the gymnasts.

I prefer more specific lists of people. Taking a few examples from other sports, see List of Formula One drivers and List of NASCAR drivers. Those lists show relevant results of the competitors, which can be sorted. I've done similar lists in the Spanish Wikipedia.

So, how about a similiar list based on List of Olympic medalists in gymnastics? The same could be done with World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, Artistic Gymnastics World Cup, European Women's Artistic Gymnastics Championships and Pan American Games competitors. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of large number of redlinked gymnasts

I'm growing concerned over the addition of a substantial number of genuine nonentity gymnasts. Many FIG records show simply that they exist, and that they have competed in nothing special, won nothing special. The is especially true of the Rhythmic discipline.

I believe that we need to take the clear view that there is no place for a redlinked person on this list unless they are genuinely notable, and simple do not, yet, have an individual article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I'm not sure how we would do that. I do not believe there are any bots currently written to complete such a task (and it makes me wish I knew Python better to write one). This means that the only way to accomplish this is to arduously go through every redlink one at a time, see if any other pages link there and goggle each person. My question then, is how do we want to explain why some people have good links, some have redlinks, and some are just bolded with no linking at all. I'm thinking saying, "Well, that bolded person isn't important enough to be linked, not even to a page that doesn't exist yet," would come off as overly offensive to some. I'm thinking that there should obviously be the links that go to actual pages, and then the rest should all either be redlinked, or all be not linked at all. Then it is as simple as they have a page or they don't. Just my thoughts on it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It requires an inspection of the FIG record. This contains sections for their achievements, recorded in a decently and officially neutral manner. Though it can be classed as a primary source it is one of the primary sources that are usually deemed to be valid as sources. The problem is that it is a horrible job. I have no difficulties in stating that 'John Gymnast is not yet notable and does not yet belong in this list'. The difficulty is the policing of the redlinks. Some are genuinely notable, of that I am certain. And there is no obstacle whatsoever to redlinks existing for such people. It is desirable. It prompts the creation of articles. But Jane Inept Schoolgirl-Gymnast also has an FIG record, and there should be no place for her on the list. So in part it requires strong article monitoring for goof faith but mistaken edits, and in part sifting to remove the chaff form the wheat. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was once discussion (that I initiated) with regard to perhaps building a bot for the task, which did seem possible. In short, I believe that redlinks on such lists, that lack appropriate RS refs, should be deleted. Our guidelines support that. See wp:listpeople and wp:v (and often wp:blp).--Epeefleche (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not oppose their removal. An FIG record of itself is insufficient to prove notability. Only genuine notability can do that. Notable achievements documented in the FIG record are, for me, sufficient to demonstrate that a redlinked name should remain pending their article. Lack of achievements means that they are, in Wikipedia terms, a nonentity, and should go. I am ambivalent when a nation has then no notable entries. For some nations it may be that having a gymnast at all is notable! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to remove the great swathes of redlinks. I'm doing it nation by nation for my ease and the ease of finding things in the article history, saving and checking format as I go. I've chosen to remove entire nations where all athletes are redlinks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the following editnotice for the page to seek to inform and enforce the non-redlinked concept:

Attention editors

Please do not add any members to this list unless there is already a Wikipedia article on the athlete you are adding here. This list may only contain athletes who already have their own Wikipedia articles. All other entries will be removed. Simply having an FIG record is not enough, the athletes must all be inherently notable If they are notable but have no article yet, please create that article first, and only add them here once that article is live.

The final notice may vary slightly because of admin discretion on creation and application. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Flag icons

I'm aware that they prettify the article, but are they within policy? We need it to be self consistent. I've asked for clarification at the Village Pump's policy section Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the discussion on VPP will come back with an answer that they are allowed by the policy because they are accurately (assuming the correct flag is being used) representing the country to which the gymnasts are from. There are already templates for this, and it wouldn't take too long to go through and apply them to the appropriate sections. (Really wish I had WP:AWB rights on this wiki... Soon enough I shall.) On the flip side, if I am wrong and they say they shouldn't be there, it wouldn't take too long to remove them all with AWB either. We can put in a request to someone with AWB permissions to do it if I don't have access by then. Technical 13 (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this area I think we need to await guidance. I agree it to be relatively simple to handle, but we need advice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance from Wikipedia:MOSFLAGS#Appropriate_use shows that this is a wholly appropriate deployment. It will thus be worth the effort to change the remaining country names to the flag icons. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the short discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table's "Date" column

Hey, I'm wondering, what exactly is supposed to be in the "Date" column? From the little bit of background I have done, they seem to mostly coincide with the date of birth for the gymnast. Is it supposed to be just their birthday, their lifespan (b-d), or the dates they are recognized for as a gymnast (which year/years they won an award or something)? Some clarification here would be helpful in the development of the new template/table/multi-page thing I am working on... Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the DoB in the original poorly formatted article, plus DoD if they have died. Some had them, others didn't.They are sourced often from the FIG record, sometimes elsewhere. I simply extended those who were not previously dated. It was a bit of a marathon. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that it should be just the date/year that they are notable for the event. Their birthdate and deathdate should be reserved for their article. Any disagreements there? Technical 13 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we defer this discussion until the re-organisation one has run its course? Once that is clearer then anything else can be done. One thing to consider while we (presumably) hold fire here is that the birth and death dates are interesting, but the active years give us the vintage of the achievements. However one then has to define 'active' since some go on to coach at high level. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External link farm

New to this article and a bit confused to see it is full of external links to sportcentric, most articles dont have external links shouldnt these be references. Not sure if the gymnast has a linked article it really needs a reference either. Oh and do you really need a link to FIG on every line. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I raised this after coming to see the RFC but it a bit of a wall of text and didnt notice that some of these points have been raised, although it is difficult to see what is actually being suggested above. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article does its current best. The issue is to determine the future best. Sports Reference (etc) is a useful resource. So is the FIG. That latter record is pretty much officially the performance record of the athlete, so including it, albeit in a better manner, is valuable as a quick reference. I have a very different definition of link farm from you. I think no-one can accuse this article of being one. It uses the sources that can be found as references, after all. Fiddle Faddle 21:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK but as somebody who has not seen this article before today it looks like an index to the FIG website not to the rest of wikipedia which it should be. The FIG and similar should be linked from the gymnast article otherwise this could be renamed List of Gymnasts on the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique website which is what it looks like. As far as I know references are not usually raw external links. MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the FIG link section is obnoxious... I have some ideas for shortening it and I'll look it over again to see if I can add more relevant information to the list. I still think that the template and table method I have in my userspace will be the way to go, but I'll admit I'm extremely biased.. :P Technical 13 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your userspace stuff looks OK if you could do something about the fig bit. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've shortened it a bit. I'm thinking of setting a width for the whole table, but you should get the idea of the data. I'm wondering if a "medals" column would be good? Technical 13 (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of gymnasts. 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) 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of gymnasts. 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) 13:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of gymnasts. 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) 10:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of gymnasts. 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) 15:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Alexandra Agiurgiuculese Assoluti 2016.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we clarify "notable gymnast"

There are a couple gymnasts that I think should be on here but I don't know if they would be considered "notable" or not. Could we perhaps write a definition at the top clarifying what is considered a notable gymnasts or not? I think this would make it easier for readers to understand why these gymnasts made the list. I also think by doing this, it would make adding edits to the article easier. NotSaraEdmondson (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Too Long

Looks like this article has been tagged as Too Long. It might be worth splitting this into these separate articles (as the number of gymnasts keeps growing for all disciplines). The most straightforward split, I think, would be:

Women's Artistic Gymnasts
Men's Artistic Gymnasts
Rhythmic Gymnasts
Trampoline Gymnasts (both male and female gymnasts in one article – can be split at later date if it gets too long).

This page can then link to each split article. Mypurplelightsaber (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]