Forum:Archive/2016 Pax Nova Games

From OpenGeofiction
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Filing cabinet icon.svg This discussion has been closed and archived.

This discussion has been archived for reference purposes. New or further discussion on this topic should take place in the appropriate forum on a new page.

Lamp Relay?

So I've been looking up the Torch Relay in the Olympics to develop sort of a Lamp Relay for the Geolympiad. In many cases, there was an international portion and a domestic portion. I was wondering if the nations I talked about on the main page would be interested in being part of the larger relay. I personally think it would be a good route that would bring the rest of the region into play, but if any of those nations wants to opt out that's fine. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2015 (CET)


If recent events are any judge, I'm going to guess that while I'd like to retain some of this, at least the pictures, this page would now technically be considered overwikification since it's technically referring to an individual occurrence of a sporting event. I didn't mark for deletion considering this wasn't technically a page I created, but it should probably be moved offline based on the standards recently set. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2019 (CEST)

I would not say a standard had been set. And going rogue either way does not help. There are too many factors to reduce it to a simple solution. Nowadays I read everywhere "overwikificiation" being shouted and I wonder if it is preemptive obedience. I thought the mentioned event was resolved with a relatively relaxed solution. It got escalated for personal reasons. I don't want to have an atmosphere of fear in the wiki.
But let's look at this very case: This falls in the category "orphaned global events". It suffers from red links and eternally unfinished lists, and even a bit of a roleplay element. If it were an article about the venues and the transport in-between, then even some decorative elements like results or other trivia would be ok. But this article's focus lies too much on unimportant things. If someone would condense the article to the essentials and a small amount of decoration, I would say "keep it". On the other hand I see it's naive to believe that's going to happen.
So my opinion is: Overwikification, not for the current atmosphere but for the hard facts regarding the state of the very page. Mendable, but unlikely to happen. --Toadwart (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (CEST)
I disagree with this being overwikification in principle, but I agree with Toadwart's assessment that it needs cleanup. It may be a major sporting event that is otherwise orphaned, but it's still valuable to the wiki if it focuses on what can be mapped. This means that it should focus on the venues, the implications and how it impacted the development of the host city, and possibly namedrop (only) a few key individuals who are major figures in the games. The latter is possible if the individuals have things named after them or can otherwise be honored on the map. Hypothetically: an important Freedemian swimmer, who maybe took the small country's first gold in (let's say) twenty years, might have the swim facility named in honorarium after the games; the swimmer might also be honored with a square or public venue. There would be other places for the name to appear on the map, thus making it valuable to mention in the article. The key is to make sure it is map-focused. Other cosmetic things are nice if there's not too much 'muchness.' — Alessa (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2019 (CEST)
Given the recent drama and stuff, I think it is best to consider a possible OGF sports wiki offsite, instead of writing sports articles here. Also about the problem of Geolympiads... like this, for example, Freedemia, the host nation changed. Should we actually consider having sports events being hosted at a nation which may one day go 'poof', decrease in influence or other factors? I am unsure if a smaller Freedemia is able to host the Geolympiad actually, otherwise, Singapore could have done it (at most a youth Olympics game in 2010 or other smaller scale regional games). The page can be fixed, but strip everything unimportant or unmappable; do that probably somewhere else like a Freedemian wiki. I wonder if this Geolympics can be moved to your new state though, a Federal States Geolympiad instead?--Happy mapping and God bleses you, ZK (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2019 (CEST)
I don't think an external wiki would make sense here. It does not solve the main issues with "global events". If there is an article with enough unique and quality content, I don't see much trouble, even regarding off-map stuff. But setting up results for 200+ events with 1000s of athletes does not make sense neither on-site nor off-site. It might be easier to sort the World Cups first as they have only one contest. But again they are orphaned as well. Unless admins set up a framework and appoint someone or a small group to sort it out nothing will happen. It's pointless to discuss the fate of a single page. There is an entire unresolved issue around them. It's pointless to discuss whether Freedemia's size fits a Geolympics as long as the overall issue isn't tackled.
If we are too lazy to tackle it and too respectful to delete everything, then we should at least put a warning box on top of those pages stating their state in eternal limbo and preventing new users from thinking this were a thing and having the same discussion over and over again. --Toadwart (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2019 (CEST)
I'm in agreement with Toadwart: an article with enough unique and quality content, relevant to stuff mapped is not a problem. If it was to have tables and tables of made up results & athletes then that would be where it tips over into overwikification. /wangi (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2019 (CEST)
Alright then. Then probably this can be worth keeping.--Happy mapping and God bleses you, ZK (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2019 (CEST)

Overwikification is a current topic. I do not consider articles like this as overwikification because:

  • Each Geolympiad article is/was/will be edited by different users (the owner of the host country), so, some users can create a so-much detailed article, others can create a not so much. There is not a standard way to create these articles.
  • Also, are events running not every year or season. If Geolympiad is happening since 1930, it does not means there was 89 events with their own articles, hhaha.
  • The same about World Cup. I created an article with all scores, but, as said before, it is not an article to be replicated every year/season. And the other host country owners does not need to write articles like me or like Ernestpcosby.

BMSOUZA (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2019 (CEST)

If you manage to clean up the (2014WC) article - or allow me or someone else to do so - I would agree. Get rid of most red links and stub markers, replace the teams with a template for easier maintenance and fill the western hemisphere spaces temporarily. Then it would at least be something one would more or less enjoy to read.--Toadwart (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2019 (CEST)
@Toadwart, feel free to do it! -- BMSOUZA (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2019 (CEST)

Update - Selection Process Closed

Quentinsburgh has won the competition. The 2016 Summer Geolympiad page will be developed by the winning user, Ernestpcosby. This page will assume a kind of archive status. Further comments should be placed above this line, in new sections. Please do not edit or comment below this line.--Luciano (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2015 (CEST)

Host choice

Does your city want to host the 2016 Summer Geolympiad?

Countries have submitted their bids in the table below. The proposal submission period is now closed.

Users are invited to "vote" for their preferred choice. When voting, you can take into consideration the quality of the infrastructure offered, the quality of the host city mapped, or your personal friendships and alliances with other OGF mappers or the quality of relations between your countries and the countries making the proposals.

How to vote? Use your "wiki signature" (by typing "--~~~~" under the city/country name in the Voting Section, below. Votes may be submitted until July 31, 2015. No new proposals may be submitted, but if you have submitted a proposal you are free to continue improving it or to lobby for your proposal in the Comments Section below.

Proposal Table

This table will be updated periodically to reflect the number of votes for each city.
Who will host?
Country Proposal Link Votes
Villa Constitución, Ardisphere withdrawn no voting allowed
Quentinsburgh, Freedemia Bid 13 votes!
Remiville, Belphenia withdrawn no voting allowed
Reback, Drevet Bid 0 votes!
Oyonnax, Ataraxia Bid 1 vote!
Bengonia, Darcodia withdrawn no voting allowed
Old City, Neo Delta Bid 9 votes!
Gata, Yury Bid 2 votes!

Voting Section

Here you should use your "wiki signature" to vote for ONE country. You may change (move) your vote if you want to reconsider your choice. For comments or observations about individual country proposals without committing your vote, using the Comments Section, below.

Quentinsburgh, Freedemia

votes here

--Sarepava (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2015 (CEST)

--BMSOUZA (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2015 (CEST)

-- This is a vote, I will say Freedemia should host the Geolympiad. BelpheniaProject (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2015 (CEST)

--Histor (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2015 (CEST)

--tom_m7 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2015 (CEST)

--Leowezy (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2015 (CEST)

--Joschi81 (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2015 (CEST)

--Oxalia (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2015 (CEST)

--Ernestpcosby (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2015 (CEST) Wasn't planning on voting for myself, but it's getting a little too close for comfort :P

--Antoon (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2015 (CEST)

--Paxtar (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2015 (CEST)

--Thilo (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (CEST)

--Pawl (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2015 (CEST)

Reback, Drevet

votes here

Oyonnax, Ataraxia

votes here

Wiwaxia votes for our close neighbor Ataraxia.--Demuth (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2015 (CEST)

Old City, Neo Delta

votes here

--Luciano (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (CEST)

--Deltanz (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2015 (CEST)

--Okiazr (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2015 (CEST)

--Asparagus (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2015 (PST)

--Rasmus Rasmusson (talk 20:40, 15 July 2015 (CEST)

--Boge (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2015 (CEST)

--Blakea (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (CST)

--Turnsole80 (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2015 (CEST)

--Aces California (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2015 (CEST)

Gata, Yury

votes here

--FBG (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2015 (CEST)

--Tâmyña (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2015 (CEST)

Comment Section

Villa Constitución, Ardisphere

comments here

Comment: The Ardisphere is already scheduled to host the Archanta Cup in 2016 and I'm not sure the country would realistically cope with having two sporting tournaments in the same summer. The Archanta Cup could be moved to the spring I suppose.--Sarepava (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2015 (CEST)

Heh... actually, I was aware of that. Actually, this bid was submitted without the intention of winning, but as a kind of "demo" bid, since I was setting up the process. I will work hard to make sure I bribe the right Geolympiad officials to ensure VC doesn't win. Anyway it's early in the process. I hope there are at least 4 or 5 other really good bids before we open the voting process scheduled for July 1. Meanwhile, I intend to focus on building more stadium infrastructure to support the Archanta Cup. I am planning some kind of a "sports infrastructure" page for Ardisphere.--Luciano (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2015 (CEST)

Comment: Scandal! The VC bid has been [withdrawn].--Luciano (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2015 (CEST)

Quentinsburgh, Freedemia

comments here

Remiville, Belphenia

comments here

No vote, just a remark: I can not imagine giving Olympic Games to a country where just 4 years ago one of the largest massacres in modern history took place. Moreover, as I understand it, Belphenia is now a theocracy where, among other things, extramarital sex is outlawed, which might be a problem for the Olympic Village. Will participating athletes have to fear nightly visits by the religious police, or will there be an exemption for foreign visitors? --Thilo (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2015 (CEST)

However, I can answer your question. Yes, local athletes, even foreign athletes who are unmarried will be assigned to government approved roomates and they will be monitored by religious police until the closing ceremony under Belphenian law. Belphenian officials are doing this to reduce crimes and for the "spiritual protection" of others since extramarital, same-sex marriages, and sex outside marriage is also illegal. That is why they want others to be safe from crimes such as rape and are concerned of others. BelpheniaProject (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2015 (CEST)
What does same-sex marriage have to do with rape? This justification seems very far-fetched to me. Anyway, thanks for explaining that athletes will be monitored by religious police, good to know as we cast our votes! And like Thilo, this is a comment and not a vote! --Demuth (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2015 (CEST)
Sorry, I messed up the last part in my last comment. I was trying to say "they only want athletes to be safe and are concerned of others". I'm trying my best to keep talking to Geolympiad officials about the same thing involving Belphenia losing the bid, but Belphenians will not be pointing fingers or anything else like it. BelpheniaProject (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2015 (CEST)
I can image quite a few countries' athletes would not be too keen on being assigned minders - in fact they might feel that the Belphenians are using this as a way of spying on their diets, training regimes and strategies etc. Karolians, by the way, wouldn't have this problem as we're all but barred from entering Belphenia over the Siikesilla and for being generally way too liberal anyway, so we'd simply boycott the games to save your border police some overtime. --Sarepava (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2015 (CEST)
Karolia is free to boycott the games to save the Belphenian border police some overtime, but that doesn't interest Belphenians. Just a thought. Unless... maybe Karolians can try their best to clear the inspections upon entering Belphenia legally, but expect mandatory inspections and the heavy presence of the State Tactical Forces. BelpheniaProject (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2015 (CEST)
Oh, I thought it was a vote. Like you and Thilo said, it's only a comment I got here and are not votes. I need to pay more attention. Thanks Demuth for telling me that. BelpheniaProject (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2015 (CEST)
Once again, just a comment. Freedemia solved a lot of the same issues your country is/was facing, not by making a dictatorship and making lots of extremely strict laws, but by imbedding our core values into the culture of our country. For example, while there are no laws particularly about some of the stuff you mentioned, family values and wholesome behavior are so embedded in our culture that residents and visitors know to respect it. It also helps to add alternatives so that people are so occupied with wholesome activities that none of these things are an issue. Maybe encouraging visitors/athletes to spend less time simply at the Geolympiad Village and go out and enjoy the other fun activities your city has to offer. Just a couple friendly ideas. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2015 (CEST)
Thanks. One question, why did you say Freedemia solved a lot of Belphenia's problems by not resorting to extremely strict laws? Did the officials talked to the Belphenian government about the matter? Belphenia nowadays is a theocracy, there are laws like it based on religious beliefs. Now Belphenia is in the Clear Heart period and maybe Belphenian officials and religious police will tell athletes and visitors to spend less time at the Geolympiad Village and spend more time at tourist attractions, water parks, and other fun activities Remiville has to offer and I'm still working on Belphenian culture. All tourist attractions and fun activities in Belphenia will run 24 hours a day until the closing ceremony. Should doing this will have an impact to the Belphenian economy? BelpheniaProject (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2015 (CEST)
I just meant as in some of the issues that have arisen now with this. Nothing bad meant. But to answer your second question, I do believe there would be a positive impact to your economy. Having people from all over the world come for the Geolympiad and then enjoy the other attractions should boost it greatly- and even once people leave, perhaps they might enjoy it so much that word might spread and tourism could pick up. Although 24 hours a day may not be necessary every day of the events. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2015 (CEST)
I wondered 24 hours a day would not be necessary, that can make the staff become extremely tired and can't get any good night's rest, and I'll take that advice. Oh well, time to build the Geolympiad village, tourist attractions, parks, and places where they have fun activities in the Remiville area BelpheniaProject (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2015 (CEST)

Reback, Drevet

comments here

Just a comment: I think Reback would make a great place for the Geolympiad. However, I was just wondering, is there enough space for the events? I see the Crystal Heights Race Course, the Reback Arena, and the convention center. I think Lake Reback would be a good place for the rowing and canoeing and such. You also seem to have great airport capacity. I was just wondering though- is that enough? Are there other venues you plan to include? I do think it's possible, though. There have been some pretty small areas hosting some Olympic games as well. Just my thoughts, and wishing you the best of luck!!!! --Ernestpcosby (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2015 (CEST)

Reback does need more stadiums anyway. We will construct some more regardless of whether we host or not. Logan230 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2015 (CEST)

Oyonnax, Ataraxia

comments here

Old City, Neo Delta

comments here

Please, do not forget to check and consider Old City's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympiad before casting your vote! I noticed some people have declared their votes even before all the cities have entered the competition. --Deltanz (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2015 (CEST)

I think would be bad if I retire my vote in Quentinsburgh because I really like that proposal, but in next host choice, if Old City participate, can get my vote because I like Old City proposal too... -- BMSOUZA 01 June 2015
As I am the one who created the Quentinsburgh Bid, I've decided to not vote at all, but I do have to say that I really like the Old City proposal. It looks like you've taken a lot of thought into it and done a great job figuring out how to make everything work. I would be glad to see you host, and I wish you the best of luck. :) --Ernestpcosby (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2015 (CEST)
Thank you for the nice words, folks! I myself also wondered whether I should vote, but as a member of the community, I decided to do it (although it looks silly voting for my own bid). Quentinsburgh has a very nice proposal as well, and I'm a big fan of Bengonia's, it is a hard decision, so I'm happy with any kind of result, really! --Deltanz (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2015 (CEST)

Now, I don't want to ruin this for anyone, and personally, I'm very well considering voting for Neo Delta's bid, but I should point out that Neo Delta is really far down in the Southern Hemisphere, so during the time that the Summer Geolympiad would supposedly be happening, it would be the middle of winter there. Of course, since this is OGF, there's plenty of ways to solve this, but I thought I should just mention it. --Asparagus 17:16, 3 July 2015 (PST)

Nowhere in any article so far do I see dates mentioned. It just says "Summer" so if the games would be in Old City then they would be in local summer, ie January or December. Problem solved.--Luciano (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (CEST)
Yes, I thought the same, but as Luciano clarified, I understood it as local summer, in the case of the southern hemisphere, from December till February. --Deltanz (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2015 (CEST)
Great! Deltanz, you have my vote! --Asparagus 20:52, 3 July 2015 (PST)

Gata, Yury

comments here

For me the town at the second place. --Histor (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2015 (CEST)

It looks well drawn --FBG (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2015 (CEST)

General Discussion

Logo and symbols

I made a logo for the Geolympics that I'm not sure if anyone might want to use. I made it for everyone's use, so go ahead! I tried to fit the word GEO into the classic Olympic logo. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2015 (CEST)

This is great! But it seems that the International Olympic Committee is extremely protective of their name and logo. To be on the safe side, I'd suggest changing "Geolympics" to "Geolympiad" and changing the five rings to four, to help OGF avoid a lawsuit:
--Isleño (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2015 (CEST)

Isleño is VERY correct, in this matter. Even as I was making my little draft logo, last night, I was thinking... "we need our own logo, I know the IOC won't like this." This is the logo I made, before seeing what ernestpcosby had done. It's based on our our Opengeofiction logo, a little bit.

--Luciano (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
Nice work combining the two logos, really creative! What if we reduce it to four circles and tweak the colors so they harmonize a little better? --Isleño (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
I vote for Isleño for Chief Designer for the Olympiad Committee --Demuth (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
I like Isleño's design too, but perhaps the rings can be interlaced? Pawl (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
Nice! --Demuth (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
Good idea Pawl. Here's how the logo might look in different contexts. With a very simple design like this, it's easy to make spinoff logos, like the "QGEO" in the middle poster or the four eagles on the right. Obviously the bid committees can make their own logos and posters... I just wanted to play around a bit.  :-) So feel free to ignore and create your own!  :-) --Isleño (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
... brilliant.--Luciano (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2015 (CEST)
Love It! Can I use the Quentinsburgh poster, at least until I can update my own? --Ernestpcosby (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2015 (CEST)
I like the Remiville poster! Can I use it in my articles? BelpheniaProject (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2015 (CEST)
Thanks for the kind words! Obviously you are free to use or modify these images however you like. If the other bid cities want a poster I can make one for them too, although I've just started a two-week vacation in a remote place with outrageously crappy Internet, so I can't do anything until I get back. Cheers! --Isleño (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2015 (CEST)
I did attempt to make a possible logo for the Reback Geolympiad Bid if they want to use it.

Not as good as Isleno's posters, but I thought it worked well with the logo --Ernestpcosby (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2015 (CEST)

I can't help but think that it's ironic, but the mascots and logos we came up with just for this fictional event look better than half the real mascots and logos used in the Olympics :) I looked up real mascots the other day and was surprised by some of them. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2015 (CEST)

Awarding past games

Posted this already in the user diaries page, but thought I'd post it here too:

Looking at how all future countries got blocked out of participating in the World Cup, I don't think we should create articles about past Geolympics right now. Instead I'd propose a series of rolling "contests" starting with the present and going into the past:

  • 2016 Geolympics (summer) - 1 July 2015
  • 2016 Geolympics (winter) - 1 Sept 2015
  • 2012 Geolympics (summer) - 1 Nov 2015
  • 2012 Geolympics (winter) - 1 Jan 2016
  • 2008 Geolympics (summer) - 1 Mar 2016
  • 2008 Geolympics (winter) - 1 May 2016
  • 2004 Geolympics (summer) - 1 July 2016
  • 2004 Geolympics (winter) - 1 Sept 2016
  • etc...

--Isleño (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2015 (CEST)

I strongly endorse this idea.--Luciano (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
Thanks... another benefit is that people who don't win the 2016 games can keep their infrastructure in place and bid for 2012, etc. --Isleño (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
Great idea, I endorse as well --Ernestpcosby (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2015 (CEST)
Me too. BelpheniaProject (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2015 (CEST)

How often are we going to do this?

I was just wondering over what intervals of years we are going to do this. Since this IS OpenGeoFiction, I don't see any problem with holding the Geolympiad every year or two, since nobody has to worry about costs or anything and four years is... well... a long time. I was thinking that maybe it would be a cool idea to have the Summer Geolympiad every two years and have the Winter Geolympiad or the OGFIFA World Cup every other two years. Does anyone else have any ideas on this? --Asparagus 17:39, 3 July 2015 (PST)

My current thinking, in line with Isleño's proposal, above, is to hold "retroactive" competitions for earlier Geolympiads, working back in time. So as soon as this 2016 bid is finished, we can work on 2012. Then, when that's finished, we move on to 2008 (Tarott, Kalm, already has a very strong bid prepared for 2008). Then just move back in time. There are lots of options, and even if we did a new one every month, we have a few years' worth of activity. Older bids will actually be more difficult, because we will have to take into account not just the infrastructure but the subsequent historical evolution of the infrastructure in the bidding cities - i.e. an olympic park from the 1920's might not even be an olympic park anymore, but it might have transitioned to an industrial facility or a government complex or just a regular neighborhood with an interesting history.--Luciano (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2015 (CEST)
I disagree this idea, Asparagus. At least about OGFIFA World Cup. Ok, OGF is not Real World, but we wait anxiously (correct word??) a Olimpiada or World Cup. If intervals are smaller, can become banal. -- BMSOUZA 03 July 2015
Ya, I read the discussion about past Olympiads, but I was referring to future Olympiads. I was thinking that perhaps we could do this every two years instead of having to wait every four years, since this seems like a really good community article where a lot more people are involved. I guess we should see how this one pans out before we decide on this, but just food for thought. --Asparagus 21:06, 3 July 2015 (PST)
I understood that your question was about the future. But my point is that if we focus on filling in past olympiads, one per month, it will be several years before we need something new to worry about. My hope would be that people could be just as involved in allocating past olympiads as allocating future ones. It has the additional advantage of helping people develop coherent histories for their countries, in a way that integrates with other countries. So I don't see the decision about future olympiads to be an urgent one.--Luciano (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2015 (CEST)
Alright, this seems reasonable. --Asparagus 21:51, 3 July 2015 (PST)

But one more question - how do we figure out the results of each event in the Geolympiad? Do we all decide on the results, or does someone use some sort of simulator? I never really figured out how we did it for OGFIFA... --Asparagus 21:20, 3 July 2015 (PST)

Heh. The way it was done for OGFIFA was, in my personal opinion, a very terrible way: it was a "free-for-all" "first-come-first-served" - people put the results they wanted for their country, and it was like a Thanksgiving-day sale at Wal-Mart or a Baltimore Riot, as people raced down the aisles taking what they wanted. Anyway, this had the advantage of being very simple to implement. For the olympiad, I don't think we have a clear idea as to how we will determine results. My personal feeling is that it is up to the person who wins the bid to decide the overall approach to that - they become the author of the article about that event. But good score-generating simulators exist. I think it's going to have to evolve over time.--Luciano (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2015 (CEST)
Ya, I kinda found that as well, not that I'm much of a football/soccer fan, but I did want to have something to do with it and I didn't know where to start. I had this idea for the Olympiad where every country participating could get a certain amount of "points" at the beginning of each Olympiad depending on their population statistics. With those, everyone could put their points towards certain events that they want their country to do well in, and it would work like drawing plastic chips out of a bag. Those who put more points towards an event have a higher probability of winning a medal in that event. I don't know of any program that does this directly, but I think it's possible to program Microsoft Excel to do that. How does that sound? --Asparagus 22:00, 3 July 2015 (PST)
"Olympic" means a certain definition: the half of the 8 years, who are in 2922 days (nearly) 8 years and 99 month (real month). The more better cyclus for this is 19 years. This junction between year and real month was the basic of antiques luni-solar calendars. So I think, that all 4 years for olympic games has certain tradition.
As planed let us choose one host country for the olympic games in the past every month.
To the OGFIFA-winner list: As in reality, some countries are more interested at such list as others. I think the condition, to have in the map some football-infrastructure and in the wiki some words about the football in a certain country can be enought reason, to take places in this list. Or to get no place in the list, if there is nothing in map and wiki.
In reality winner are only Brasil, Italy, Germany, Argentinia, Uruguay, England, France and Spain (8 nations). In the OGFIFA-list we have 10 winner nation (if I count correctly) and some free places. --Histor (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2015 (CEST)
What I was referring to with the Excel thing was how we are going to figure out which countries win which medals in each sport, which is something that should be a lot more difficult to do if we do this on a free-for-all basis.
As for the number of winning OGFIFA countries, this is OGF, so I don't see why we should always have the same countries winning the World Cup. But then again, the country I live in (in the real world) is at 109th place on the FIFA rankings right now, so I can't really say much... --Asparagus 13:32, 4 July 2015 (PST)