Talk:Judo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Martial arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles Olympics Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. France: Paris This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Hello there,

I suggest that we should remove the content of each table of a bodyweight category, including the references used, until the list becomes final and irrevocable. The current list of qualified judokas keeps updating every week and month and the names per category and continent change over time. What do you think? Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. The information is available and I see no reason for it not to be displayed, when it is verifiable. Why shouldn't we display display the current picture of the qualification race? A discussion could be had about whether it should be more strongly stated that information displayed does not represent final list of qualifiers, but that doesn't mean the list should be removed altogether. CLalgo (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list final? How do we sure who will qualify for each weight category? Do you want to update this article regularly? Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list as not final, as I've stated myself. I can and willing to update it when new verifiable information makes itself available, as I have so far. Even if the answer was 'no', that wouldn't be reason enough to removed information correct to its time of publication, as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Information on this site as always correct as to the point in time the sources it was taken from were published. CLalgo (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be honest. The list is UNCONFIRMED on the summary. Only France is confirmed as a host nation. Let’s remove the summary section for now and focus on the updated list. We will highlight the row once the judoka is officially selected. You may refer to the this link. Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CLalgo, Do you want this article to be fully detailed and more thorough unlike the previous edition? I have noticed that you have loaded a large pile of references for each part of the article, including the tables. Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "unconfirmed"? The information shown on this article is fully sourced and correct for its time. Do you want the article to more strongly state that its lists are provisional? If so, you have no objections from me. That said, it is still no reason to remove information from it.

As to the article's level of detail: Yes, I would like for it to be more detailed than previous versions were, as Wikipedia is a work in progress and could and should be improved upon. The pile of references is there per

WP:V, that states that All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.. CLalgo (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"Unconfirmed" means they are not yet confirmed as official judokas for Paris 2024. Remember the list will change throughout the qualification period, especially the continental places. Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we should restructure a table displaying all the names of judokas eligible to compete in Paris 2024. We will highlight the colored rows when they are officially selected. Any thoughts? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the current structure. Once a judoka has secured their place in the games, their name will be highlighted. If your meaning is different, I didn't get it. CLalgo (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this

WT:OLY so other users could suggest instead of us arguing in an edit war. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not understand what you wish for me to see. CLalgo (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the sample? I doubt you have checked or viewed the sample. You keep on contradicting my suggestions honestly. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are provisional. Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits? Before you restore some of the content, make sure to check the other parts of the article especially with the description. From what I’ve seen before, it was poorly legible and contained grammatical errors. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits as they have removed whole sections and section-tags, besides changing the text. I'll make this gesture, as you have fairly asked, and undo this edit in parts. CLalgo (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are disruptive and two editors have told you this. Please stop. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymarcbadz: The format you have changed some of the tables to have been reverted. Please explain why it should be used instead of the current one. Who does it improve the article? What does it add? @Sportsfan 1234: feel free to join the discussion and answer these questitons too. CLalgo (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you restore the qualification summary of this article. I would like to specify some key points.

• All tables should be standardized and arranged in alphabetical order, not according to IOC code (a major no-no).
• Never mention "Russia" in the country list. The NOC are suspended by the IOC because of doping corruption scandals and its instigation in the war against UKRAINE. Instead of "Russia", we replaced the name "Independent Olympic Athletes".
• Why did you put solid border left lines in each column? It seems too fancy to look at. Have you seen the other qualification articles before? Failure to understand what I've said means that you DON'T CARE.
• @Sportsfan 1234 and I already fixed the table for standardization.

Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want to make it the tables more detail-oriented; hence, I restructure the table to make the list easier for updating. Please remember that the list will update until the qualification period has ended. We have just finished the 2022 season. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CLalgo:: If you continue to contradict our suggestions, we will officially move this article into a DRAFT. THIS IS FINAL. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymarcbadz: to your points:

• All tables should be standardized and arranged in alphabetical order, not according to IOC code (a major no-no). — Fair enough. no objection from me.
  
  
• Never mention "Russia" in the country list. The NOC are suspended by the IOC because of doping corruption scandals and its instigation in the war against UKRAINE. Instead of "Russia", we replaced the name "Independent Olympic Athletes". — If "Russia" is the name used by to source of information, that is the name the should be used in the article. We have to follow
  WP:OR
  , that states: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
  
  
• Why did you put solid border left lines in each column? It seems too fancy to look at. Have you seen the other qualification articles before? Failure to understand what I've said means that you DON'T CARE. — The solid borders don't appear "in each column", be separates the men's division from the women's and the team to ease table reading. this technique is used in several places across Wikipedia and you are welcome to adopt it if you think it gives a more "fancy" look.
  
  
• @Sportsfan 1234 and I already fixed the table for standardization. — Please, do not change article format when a a discussion is ongoing. I've restored original format. Talk. Explain you viewpoint. Don't war.
  
  
• I restructure the table to make the list easier for updating. Please remember that the list will update until the qualification period has ended. — Actually, the format you are trying to force is the one that will be more labor intensive to keep update. The current article is 100% autogenerated when an update to the qualification race is published, including citation archiving and all. Updating the article when it is in the format that was before your edits is as easy as can be.
  
  

Again: Please, stop warring and stop with the disruptive edits. Talk. Explain yourself. Don't bully, force yourself and act one-sidedly. The article was up and updated before your arrival. I'll be happy to have your help improving it, but please, stop warring over it. CLalgo (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But remember Russia will compete as "Independent Olympic Athletes", "Russian Olympic Committee", or vice versa. We will find out the verdict from IOC soon if Russia will compete in Paris 2024. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source stating that? If so, great! We will use and act by it. Otherwise, we have to follow by our available sources, per

WP:RS. CLalgo (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there a reason that the un-damaged content shouldn't be restored? This version, maybe? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeblas: Bbb23 said it is a case of WP:WRONGVERSION. I am, of course, not objective on the matter and agree with you, even after smiling while reading that article. CLalgo (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything from Bbb23 here. m:The Wrong Version is clearly not a legitimate policy or guideline, so I'm not sure I understand your response. Can you provide any clarification? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeblas: The full protection was the result of an edit war. Except in rare circumstances, which I don't believe apply here, we do not restore a particular version when the article is locked because doing so would be taking sides in a content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's just that the current version is full of referencing errors, since the hasty reversions dropped the reference definitions previously in use in the article. Since the warring parties are blocked, it doesn't seem like there will be a diplomatic resolution. What is the path forward? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the parties was blocked and now no longer is, but I see what you mean about the referencing errors. Until now, no one's mentioned that, or if they did, it flew right over my head. The easiest way of curing that is to undo the last edit removing the table, but there are other versions that could be restored that would also have no such errors. You're at least not part of the original problem. Any views on which version is "best" while the issues are discussed here and a consensus is (hopefully) reached?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WT:OLY. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. Please refer to this page: [1] Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymarcbadz: This article, dating to 5 February 2022, is irrelevant to our case. The article details the status of Russian athletes heading to the 2022 Winter Olympics. Only seven months later, on 21 September 2022, have the International Judo Federation suspended Russian and Belarussian athletes from competition ([2]). That suspension was in effect until January 2023, that is, it is over by now. CLalgo (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CLalgo: They did not specify the date. The IOC did not lift the sanctions yet for Russia and Belarus. Are you expecting them to compete under their own flag? Raymarcbadz (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CRYSTALBALL policy states in the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" section that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future.". CLalgo (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

International Judo Federation Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published on 21 September 2022 ([3]):
The Executive Committee of the International Judo Federation decided today, 21st September 2022, considering the current international circumstances and in order to ensure the protection of all athletes in the sport of judo, to not allow the participation of athletes from Russia and Belarus in international judo events until January 2023.. CLalgo (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Because of the referencing errors introduced in the article by Raymarcbadz's last revert, I have undone their edit. As stated in my edit summary, this should not be seen as an endorsement of any version of the table. That still needs to be resolved by the usual methods of
  dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Raymarcbadz: Thank you for spotting the alphabetical ordering mistakes at the table. The bug was fixed. Feel free to find and correct any mistakes I might have missed. CLalgo (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I have prepared a cleaner code of the qualification summary table in judo. Do you have any suggestions or thoughts about this version? Thank you!

Code

{| class="wikitable olympic-summary sortable" id="judoNOC" 
{{Olympic judo qualification summary top}}
|-
{{JudoNOC|nation=ALG|year=2024|accessdate=6 January 2023|timestamp=20230105151952|archivedate=5 January 2023|W63=Q}}
|-
! Total: {{table row counter|id=judoNOC}} NOCs
{{Olympic judo qualification summary end
| total-M60 = 23
| total-M66 = 24
| total-M73 = 27
| total-M81 = 28
| total-M90 = 23
| total-M100 = 29
| total-M100+ = 22
| total-W48 = 27
| total-W52 = 26
| total-W57 = 31
| total-W63 = 25
| total-W70 = 26
| total-W78 = 19
| total-W78+ = 22
| total-MT = 13
}}
|-
! References
{{Olympic judo qualification summary references|accessdate=5 January 2023}}
|}

Visual

NOC	Men							Women							Mixed	Total	Ref
	60 kg	66 kg	73 kg	81 kg	90 kg	100 kg	+100 kg	48 kg	52 kg	57 kg	63 kg	70 kg	78 kg	+78 kg	Team
Algeria																1	[1]
Total: 1 NOCs	23	24	27	28	23	29	22	27	26	31	25	26	19	22	13	352
References	[2]	[3]	[4]	[5]	[6]	[7]	[8]	[9]	[10]	[11]	[12]	[13]	[14]	[15]	[16]

References

Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymarcbadz: First, thank you for bringing the suggestion up for discussion before implementing it. Second, what is the virtue of the proposed format? how is better or easier to edit than the current one? As I see it, it uses the newly created {{JudoNOC}}, {{Olympic judo qualification summary top}}, {{Olympic judo qualification summary end}} & {{Olympic judo qualification summary references}} templates instead of editing the article itself. Is it needed? After saying that, I do need to mention that I do not object to making these changes. I even quite like the {{JudoNOC}} template. The {{Olympic judo qualification summary references}} will have to be changed, though. If it will only be used in this article, it shouldn't be in a separate template, unless generalized. CLalgo (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CLalgo: I will further reply to your comment regarding the new format.

What is the virtue of the proposed format? – to more efficiently update the list of those qualified for the Games at a particular moment by editing accurate details (adding NOC, changing the number of quota places across all weight categories, adjusting the continental quota lineup within the definite timeframe); to edit the table with a much cleaner code (the current code of the qualification summary table is cumbersome and complicated)

Is it needed? Yes, especially when you update the table weekly or periodically. You don't need to compute the total number of NOCs and quota places per NOC manually. The {{JudoNOC}} template will help you update the table quickly instead of glancing at the more complex code over a longer duration.

If it will only be used in this article, it shouldn't be in a separate template, unless generalized. Should I remove the content inside the references template?

Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymarcbadz: As I've previously mentioned, I, as the only one to have updated the list so far, do it by an already written code. That is of course not a valid argument on my part, but for me a change will create work, not save some. That is why "computing the totals" doesn't seem like a problem to me. That said, I do like parts of the templates, especially for NOCs with few qualifying judoka. There are some changes that are a must in my view, in any case:

1. {{JudoNOC}} must support archived sources.
2. {{Olympic judo qualification summary references}} has to support general archived sources, not just hard coded sources, to have a valid argument to exist.

CLalgo (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What valid argument should I put? I need any technical help regarding this matter. For the archived sources, I will work on editing those. For now, maintain these templates. Changes will be made the soonest. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, per

WP:TPO: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning ([4]). Second, per Bbb23' warning, please do not implement format changes to the article without a supporting consensus. Third, Do not order me or any other editor what templates to edit. CLalgo (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've already added the code for archived sources, kindly view the changes. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please do not implement format changes to the article without a supporting consensus Yes. The question is, when? Or are these templates applicable to the summary table impossible to happen? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let us have this discussion in one place, not two. Another editors has responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics § Judo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification — Suggested new format, so let's keep it there. Next time, it will be better to open a discussion at a single talk page and post invites to it on the others. CLalgo (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]