Talk:2006 Winter Olympics medal table

Show only countries that have won any medals

While it currently looks good to have all the countries at the games listed on this page, I think it will make it awkward to update the page - especially since there will be frequent daily updates, I expect. For example, all of the countries who haven't won a medal yet will need to have their rankings updated almost every time a country wins its first medal. I suggest that as of the first day of competition we trim this back to the countries that have won any medals at all. The home page for the 2006 games has the list of NOCs with flags, and that one page ought to be sufficient for the "big list of countries". Andrwsc 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That was the plan when I created the page. I just put on random coutries as placeholders, and people seem to have added to it--Funkmaster 801 06:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added a few more obvious placeholders (GER, AUT, SUI, FIN, etc.) for the same reason, but that seemed to have escalated into a "how could you forget my country" contest.... Andrwsc 18:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedia has a table that gives credit to countries who have not won a medal. Maybe we should have ONE MEDAL table and one HONOURABLE MENTION table....Absurdity--Caponer 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Misreported medals

I suspect that earlier today, a misguided person took Russia's loss, and Canada's victory in the Women's ice hockey group A games as medal victories. Thanks to the person who fixed it up. Berzerker 01:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Medal order

I know it's the IOC standard to list countries by gold medals, but isn't that a bit silly? It doesn't mean WP has to do it. It's especially odd to see on the front page that the US leads in the medal standings when Norway has 7 medals and the US only has three. Could we perhaps revise this chart to put total medals first, with ties broken by numbers of gold, silver and bronze? 70.49.124.76 06:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Oslo! Whilst the Scandinavian bit of me has great sympathy for your proposal, the common-sense bit of me says keep it as it is. It is the standard way of presenting such info, and a non-standard Wikipedia approach could be confusing. All the required info is there if readers want to compile their own charts.--Mais oui! 06:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is of any sympathy, American newspapers and media generally use the total metal count method you suggest. I personally prefer it as well. However, since the olympics are governed by the IOC, and they use the gold-rank method, that's the way it's going to be. I came to this page tonight half-expecting both methods used. When the olympics are over, I suggest we post two tables (using both methods), with the gold-order method first, as, once again, that's how the IOC does it. -newkai | talk | contribs 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know the US did it that way! Well, considering this intelligence, I've changed my mind: let's do it both ways, now.--Mais oui! 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

See Yahoo!'s medal count. 68.73.56.16 21:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's the way American newspapers and media generally do it at all. In fact, Yahoo!'s Medal count and MNS both order them in the same way that Mais Oui proposed, with the medal count taking precedence over the metal color: it is called a metal COUNT, after all.--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose to weigh the medals given. I find it silly that "1 Gold/0 Silver/0 Bronze" beats "0/3/5". But I also dislike "0/0/9" being higher rated than "5/3/0", for example. Personally, I'd suggest calculating a "score" as something along the lines of "5*Gold + 3*Silver + 2*Bronze" (primes). This would make "0/1/1" higher than "0/0/2" and "1/0/2" the same as "0/3/0". Well, you get the idea. Yoghurt 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

One advantage of the IOC method is that it requires no addition or multiplication. The IOC is not immune to arithmetic errors, as Anders Haugen can testify. The IOC method is popular in Australia, as it put Australia ahead of its homophonic rival for part of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Andjam 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer showing the country who won the most gold metals first. It highlights quickly the number of the best athletes in the world. The country that wins the most gold medals is generally regarded as the winner of the Olympics. In the old days, you would check to see whether the USA or the USSR was winning the most medals.

So, a country whose sportlers won just one (gold) medal has better sportlers than a country that had 6 silver and 3 bronze medals? -- Yoghurt 01:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The country with 6 silver and 3 bronze are probably a bunch of chokers. Andjam 03:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The list also sorts itself out if two countries have the same medal count. For example, if countries have 3 gold medals, than the list is then sorted in terms of silver etc.

Finally, note that in each event there are twice as many medals which are either silver or bronze medals as gold.

Accountable Government 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we compromise by doing what the official site does, which is also listing a ranking by total medals afterwards. I would do it but don't have the coding ability. 67.68.249.224 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to do it any other way than how it is. Now, it's listing by order of countries with the most “best athletes”. I think that counting the total number of top three spots is arbitrary. Counting total metals makes just as much sense as counting total top two finishes, or top four finishes, or top five. Sure we’d be harming countries with a lot of silver and bronze, but doing it by total medal count hurts countries with a lot of fourth place finishes. Doing it by gold is the only fair system. -Arctic.gnome 03:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course one can argue about almost any possible way of ranking the achievments of the athletes in the Olympics. Of course a gold is better than a silver and a silver is better than a bronze, but... is a gold medal worth the same in every sport? In skiing, the same athlete may win more than one medal, whereas in ice hockey, only one team together can win the only gold medal there is. Taking everything into account, I think we'd better stick to tradition and rank first according to won golds, then silvers, then bronzes. It is not a good system, but I don't think we will be able to agree on one better. John Anderson 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put in a vote for making it by total medals rather than by gold. Right now (2/25), Estonia (3 medals) is ahead of Norway (19 medals), by virtue of the Estonians winning 3 golds and the Norwegians 2. But I'm hard pressed to say that Estonia's had a better Olympics than Norway.--Mike Selinker 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Update rates

Are updates done after each event, or after the end of each day? Andjam 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one who updates this page, but I view it often and I believe that it is updated very close to actual time. So any information here is probably no more than an hour or two old, depending on what events are being played currently. --Jared 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Listing what events

Could we maybe list which events each country has won medals in (and, if possible, who won them)? It would be nice to know, and would be very possible for anyone who has a source which lists them. Hell, I'll do it if someone can get me a source. I do, though, suggest we do it quickly if at all, to keep the work minimal--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is all found on the individual country page. -- Elisson • Talk 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, it's not worth it. It's also not in keeping with the format of previous olympics. I probably should have looked at those pages, first.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Medal images

If we're going to have images of medals rather than "gold", "silver" and "bronze", should they have a hole in them to reflect the medals being used at these games? Andjam 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice thought, but they're already pretty small and putting holes in the middle of them could make them pretty cluttered looking. Also, in 1994 IIRC they used crystal medals with metal inlay and I don't think 1994 Winter Olympics has little crystal icons for the medals. -Drdisque 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor mistake on my behalf

I think ive messed the coding up Sorry!82.24.72.42 18:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

DSQ of Olga Pyleva

Due to the positive anti-doping test, Olga Pyleva (RUS) has been disqualified and losed his silver medal. I think that Martina Glagow (3rd, GER) is promoted to the 2nd rank, like Albina Akhatova (RUS), from 4th to 3rd rank.

Already been accounted for. [1]. Sam Vimes 20:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Norway Silver and Bronze

Why are Norway's silver and bronze medals (six each) bolded? So are the six gold medals for the United States. Is this some kind of Satanic code or a gripe about the United States winning a disproportionate amount of gold while Norway only seems to win silver and bronze this time? :) Norway has won the most medals (13) so far, but only one gold. The United States has struck more gold than any other type of medal.--Sir Edgar 08:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. They show who has won the most of each type of medal - as it says above the table: "the greatest number of medals in each category is in bold". I think it's good for showing who got the most in each category, but then again, I'm Norwegian... Sam Vimes 08:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Annoying updates

It is extremely annoying that some editors do not update all three medals of a competition, but just a single medal. This leads to much more work to correct all the missing medals. Therefore I have added a temporary “Update Rules” line on the main page. noclador

Sorted by Language

Why? Why oh why?

What does this section even mean? What significance does it have? Why does anybody care? 69.199.249.113 19:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also to say Switzerland is a German speaking country is like adding Canada to the English speaking countries. Saopaulo1 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with that? French doesnt count anyways so it has to be english....--198.99.244.32 17:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ranked by Metal Types

Is there a better way to say this, like Ranked by Position? JQF 19:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Help!

While making sure this page is up to date is quite important, the two major pages to this category (Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics) currently need attention. Please see their respective talk pages for a summary of things that need to be done. Use this page as a guide when editing those pages. Thanks for your help! --Jared 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

After looking at this page again, I was going to comment that I really like the way it has evolved. It seems that every Olympics, the same arguments show up over and over about the medal order (IOC rules vs. total medals), or even about the formatting of the table ("why is xxx listed in bold?"). The solutions on this page are very clear. Well done! My next thought was that we should really go back to all the other Olympic medal table pages and apply the same treatment. I will volunteer to tackle some of those when I can. Might I suggest that we try to adopt the following convention: on the main pages for each games (e.g. "2006 Winter Olympics" or "2004 Summer Olympics", we have an abbreviated medal table of 10 NOCs only, using IOC rules, but link from there (as is the current practice) to a wiki page of the complete tables, using both sorting methods. I do not think we want to have two tables summarized on the main games pages. Andrwsc 01:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: we need to update past games tables to follow the format we have here, where the link from the NOC name leads to the "NOC at the xxxx Olympics" page instead of to the page for the country name (which is a rather useless link, if you ask me). I imagine the use of some templates will be helpful/necessary. Andrwsc 01:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Last column

In each of the two tables, there's a column that states how the country would rank by the other method. To me it looks redundant and unsightly. Andjam 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• True, the last column of the first table was more useful before the second table was created, but now it's just redundant and could probably be removed. Maelwys 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I've fixed the first table. I'm not certain what to do with the second table, so anyone else can fix it if they like. Andjam 05:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Not Use The "POINTS" System to be more objective?

Basically we award 3 pts for each gold won then 2 pts for the silvers and 1 pt for bronzes

many almanacs uses this system

Example, as of today, Norway has 1 gold thats equivalent to 3 pts, 6 silvers=12 pts, 6 bronzes= 6 pts, The Grand Total will be 21 Pts.

Unites States has 6 golds= 18, 3 silver= 6, 1 bronze= 1 total= 25 pts

Russia had 5 golds= 15, 2 silvers= 4, 4 bronzes= 4 total=23

just a suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 18 February 2006 71.107.255.46.

We're going by the standards of the International Olympic Commitee, I think it's by far the best way to follow the IOC. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

actually the IOC does not recognize any medal standings, IOC does not uses any standards maybe their website is but officially they do not recognize medal tallys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.255.46 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 18 February 2006.

Even still, it's been discussed above that it's best to follow suit with the official website. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's false. The IOC most definitely recognizes medal standings. That's why they put them on their site. They just don't condone using those standings to rank countries.--Josilot 17:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we should make a note on that

The IOC does not officially recognize any medal tallies or standings

It must be mentioned that the IOC "does not officially recognize national medal totals, nor recommend using one way of assigning medals by country over another. The original Olympic charter forbade a medal count that included a ranking per country". All medal counts published by the media are unofficial; so is the one above. (I have an article to prove)

we should point this out.

--update from the above comment--

The "Torino 2006" official website uses the said system but not the official website of the "IOC" (I already checked it out) If there is, Its for informational use only

The system used in "Torino 2006" website is no better nor worse than the ones used at NBC or ESPN or BBC etc.

Which means the claim at the beggining of this article is FALSE. IOC does not use any system.

And the original Olympic ideals forbade professionals from competition, so I don't see the point of bring up the original Olympic charter. Baron de Coubertin never wanted a Winter Olympics either, but look where we are today. [2] Unless you can present your sources, such claims are unverifiable and cannot be included on Wikipedia.

ask the president of the IOC and he will tell you all. This is not even debatable.

If you review the medal standings from past Olympic Games at the IOC wesite (say Athens, Salt Lake it uses said system of Torino. --Madchester 06:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is Im pretty sure its for informational use only.

heres another info,

"The refusal of the IOC to recognize the ranking list goes back to the emphasis given to it during the Cold War, when the USA and the Soviet Union attempted to overpower one another in the number of medals."

from http://www.fhw.gr/olympics/modern/en/history/h101.html

Once again, you require verifiable sources for inclusion on Wikipedia. The link provided shows no references as to where the writer obtained his/her information. --Madchester 07:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not like Im giving you ureliable sources. CNN? Foundation of the Hellinic World? I mean if they give flase information about a known fact then they gonna be sued or something right?

Again, if you dont believe me make your own research about it. and see it for yourself. This is not debatable.

OK, to end all this.

From IOC "Official" website states:

"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information" -- at the bottom of a medal tally.

only."http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/table_uk.asp?OLGT=2&OLGY=1924

Oh please, since when CNN is a reliable source of information? --Kvasir 08:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look here: http://www.torino2006.org/ENG/IDF/MDL/MDL_Big.html

That's the official site for the 2006 Olympics. At the bottom, it says "The Olympic rules lay out that the Final Rank should be based on the overall number of gold medals won." The only reason they say that they don't recognize any rankings is because they want to promote the idea that the games are about peaceful competition, and they don't want to publicly assert that one country is better than another country, or something like that. A quick look at any official Olympic site though will show you that they do use the gold-first method, so that is what Wikipedia should use. The statement that the IOC uses this method should be kept, because not only is it apparent that they do use this system based on all of their medal tables, but it is apparently in the Olympic rules. King nothing 2 23:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Better way to tally

I think Canada should add one gold to its tally for each member of the women's hockey team. That would put Canada in number one spot. And the fact I'm from Canada has nothing to do with my opinion.  :-p CalgaryWikifan 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha good call. The same reason why only top 8 place finishes are included here in the table to put USA closer to the top. Usually, people use top 10 as the cut-off. This table at the top is so tailored to show top US ranking. I'd suggest use alphabetical order too, Canada would then come up on top as well, after sorted by all pieces of medals won of course. Ok to be fair to the US we'll use the Italian spelling to rank so the US (Stati Uniti) won't rank as low as the Ukraine. :P --Kvasir 08:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. I am a proud Canadian, and am the one who added the top 8 finishes. 8 is the number I used because that is the minimum amount of positions any sport has at the games. Every sport can theoretically have a 8th place finisher, while 9th and 10th, no. -- Earl Andrew - talk 11:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that my hard work in determining the top 8 placements not be removed without a good reason. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I think the reason it was removed, for now, is because some people think that a medal count should only count medals, not top 8 finishes. A vote is going on to let the community decide which is correct. Go here to vote and provide input: Wikipedia:Olympic_conventions#Medal_counts_should_include_ONLY_medals_and_not_Top-8_placements.--Josilot 17:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Ranking System

The article mentions that the "Rank by Total" is the system used in Canada. But at least on Radio-Canada's website, the "Rank by Medal Types" system is used (http://www.radio-canada.ca/Turin/TableauMedailles). I don't know what ranking systems other franco-canadian media uses, but I would think they use the same system as Radio-Canada. Therefore, I would propose that the article should say that the "Rank by Total" is the system used in the USA and in ENGLISH-Canada. Blur4760 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Or just say "most American and Canadian media" 128.230.245.65 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a good proposal too. Blur4760 00:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a good proposal. I don't know of ANY Canadian media that use the "Rank by Total" system. The CBC English site uses Rank of Total Medals, not Rank by Total and it's the same data as used for the French site as mentioned above. If you're going to say "most" you'll have to prove it with a count of the major news outlets. --Walter Görlitz 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost here. In what way differs the system the CBC uses from the one described in the article as "Rank by Total" with these precise words?:

The "Rank By Total" table shows the country's rank in terms of total number of medals won. For ties, the number of golds is taken into consideration next and then the number of silvers. If, after the above, countries are still tied, equal ranking is given and they are listed alphabetically. This is the system used in the U.S. and Canada.

To me that seems to be exactly what the CBC does, unlike Radio-Canada. Blur4760 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I believe we're saying the same thing. In my mind Rank by Medals is the second chart, Rank by Totoal is the third. --Walter Görlitz 19:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the sentence now to say "most American and Canadian media". Even if I better had some kind of proof for the "most", I think it's better than the current version, which implies that the "Rank by Total" is the standard in all of North America, albeit without any proof. Blur4760 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on CBC's The National, the programme presents the "Gold Medal Ranking" first, followed by "Total Medals Ranking". On CBC Newsworld's The Hour, it uses the gold medal ranking exclusively. --Madchester 04:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Cannot find missing medals

The total list gives more than those above, but I cannot find any differences. 84.59.73.227 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the anon user is referring to, since right now i see 70 of each medal in all tables.. but there is a curious point that should be clarified in the article: an extra 5th place finish.. this is probably result of a tie, and so the event in which the tie occured should be mentioned. Mlm42 13:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorted vs. ranked?

Why in the top list, where it is listed in gold medal order first, are countried "ranked", but in the second list, of total medals, countries are "sorted"? Shouldn't there be some consistency on this? I much prefer ranked. 70.28.107.177 20:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and made the change. If there are objections, we can discuss them, but for now, I think this is the best. 70.28.107.177 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

North Korea and South Korea are Competing as Korea not as South Korea

the metal count lists them as south korea, it should be "korea" as both north korea and south korea are competing as one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.184.237.195 (talk • contribs).

• Actually, it's listed as South Korea because they are competing seperately (North Korea simply failed to get any medals). They did march in the Parade of Nations together under a single flag as a show of unity, but they're competing seperately under their own flags. Maelwys 22:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, North Korea is competing as DPR Korea, and can be viewed here: Democratic People's Republic of Korea at the 2006 Winter Olympics. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

France

France protested against Sweden in the men's 4 × 10 km relay Cross country skiing. First to FIS and then to CAS. Can Sweden loose the bronze medal if that protest help, or what will happen?

User:J 1982

Rank by Total in American Media

Someone had changed the description under rank by medal total to "seldom used in few American and Canadian media." I can't speak for Canada, but you'll be hard pressed to find US media that doesn't use the rank by total. Here are just some examples:

• Gannett: Runs about 100 newspapers and a dozen local TV channels.
• Advance Publications: Runs 30 newspapers.
• The Associated Press: The world's largest news organization. The New York Times and Washington Post link to its metal count on their websites (unsure what they use in their print editions)
• NBC: The TV station that broadcast these olympics. Not in the mood to check, but I'm sure ABC, CBS, FOX, and others used this system as well.

Basically, if you used just about any US media, you got rank by total. I'm not saying this should be the number one method used in this article (because the IOC "provides" rank by metal). But this method should seriously not be called "seldom used!" -newkai | talk | contribs 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Someone seems to have taken my edit too far. Blur4760 20:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger.

Speedy delete Olympic medals. I suggest we remove the merger tag and place a speedy delete on the other page. I know the author had good intentions, but the same information can be found on this page and the olympic medallists pages. I feel bad that the work would have to be deleted, but there is nothing to merge from there that is already here. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreeed. Speedy delete Olympic medals. --Walter Görlitz 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

what's wrong with a simple redirect to Olympic Games? Mlm42 11:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess that's what I meant. Delete the content, but redirect it to another page, namely the Olympics Games page. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 12:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Delete and redirect. Blur4760 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Diploma count"

I realize it's against Wikipedia policy for some reason to display diploma counts, so I'll post the deleted content on the talk page so that those who are interested can still see the data. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the 1984 Olympic Games, olympic diplomas (officially known as victory diplomas) have been awarded to the first through eighth-place finishers. The following is a complete table showing the distribution of these diplomas for the 2006 Winter Olympics. There are various ties, which are noted below. Numbers in bold indicate which country has the most finishers of a given placement.

Rank	Country				4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	Total
1	Germany	11	12	6	8	8	9	11	7[3]	72
2	United States	9	9	7	7	3	10	15	8[4][5]	68
3	Austria	9	7	7	6	3	2	3	6[6]	43
4	Russia	8	6	8	6	5[7]	7	4	4	48
5	Canada	7	10	7	13	8	4	4	4	57
6	Sweden	7	2	5	3	4	4	0	5[8][9]	30
7	South Korea	6	3	2	1	1	0	0	1	14
8	Switzerland	5	4	5	2	5[10]	3	9	5	38
9	Italy	5	0	6	3	10	3	7	8[11]	42
10	France	3	2	4	5	5	7	0	3	29
11	Netherlands	3	2	4	3	2	3	1	2	20
12	Estonia	3	0	0	0	1	0	0	3	7
13	Norway	2	8	9	10	8[12]	6	5	3	51
14	China	2	4	5	2	3	2	2	1	21
15	Czech Republic	1	2	1	1	1	5	2	2	15
16	Croatia	1	2	0	1	0	1	0	0	5
17	Australia	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	6
18	Japan	1	0	0	5	1	4	5	6	22
19	Finland	0	6	3	2	6	2	2	1	22
20	Poland	0	1	1	0	2	0	3	2	9
21	Belarus	0	1	0	2	2	1	2	2	10
22	Great Britain	0	1	0	1	3[13]	0	0	2	7
23	Slovakia	0	1	0	0	2	0	0	2	5
24	Bulgaria	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	2	5
25	Ukraine	0	0	2	0	0	1	2	2	7
26	Latvia	0	0	1	1	0	1	3	0	6
27	Hungary	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	2
28	Spain	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
29	Slovenia	0	0	0	0	0	3	1	1	5
30	Liechtenstein	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
31	Kazakhstan	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
32	Lithuania	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
33[14]	Moldova	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
34[15]	Israel	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
35[16]	Denmark	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1[17]	1
Total		84	84	84	84	86	82	84	86	674

1. ^ Men's Curling Germany tied for 8th place.
2. ^ Ladies' Downhill United States tied for 8th place.
3. ^ Women's Curling United States tied for 8th place.
4. ^ Ladies' Downhill Austria tied for 8th place.
5. ^ Women's Curling Russia tied for 5th place.
6. ^ Ladies' Slalom Sweden tied for 8th place.
7. ^ Men's Curling Sweden tied for 8th place.
8. ^ Men's Curling Switzerland tied for 5th place.
9. ^ Ladies' Slalom Italy tied for 8th place.
10. ^ Men's Curling Norway tied for 5th place.
11. ^ Women's Curling Great Britain for 5th place.
12. ^ Moldova's next highest placing was a 21st place finish.
13. ^ Israel's next highest placing was a 22nd place finish.
14. ^ Denmark had no other placings.
15. ^ Women's Curling Denmark tied for 8th place.

Vandalism

The medal count table appears to have been repeatedly vandalized in the last few weeks. I've reverted the table to a version as of about a month ago, which on cursory inspection appears to be correct. The vandals moved the countries in the table around.Syntheticzero (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was only one vandal. [18] The rest of it was caused by users trying to fix the standings, but not doing it properly. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/winter06/index}}
  • In 2006 Winter Olympics medal table on 2011-05-26 02:19:14, 404 Not Found
  • In 2006 Winter Olympics medal table on 2011-06-14 12:47:08, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 Winter Olympics medal table. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408104152/http://www.databaseolympics.com/games/gamesyear.htm?g=46 to http://www.databaseolympics.com/games/gamesyear.htm?g=46

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) 14:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)