Talk:Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Qualification

Removed "Individual Events qualifying"

I have removed the Individual Events qualifying sections from the page (note this was a listing of the number of people from each country that has swum a qualifying time); the time standards remain on the page. There will be a good number of qualifiers in each individual events, with some countries have more than the 2 total entries/country allowed. To have a listing by event would clutter the page. The qualifying sections for the Relays and Open Water events remain, as those are tied to specific events and confined to the 16 (relays) and 25 (Open Water) entrants allowed. -Hooperswim (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but the list is giving information (and really if clutter is your main concern it shouldn't be removed). Another suggestion I have is splitting it into two parts (one for men and one for women). Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are listing numbers: they aren't qualifiers, they aren't team members, they aren't entrants (and from your system, they will not including the Universality qualifiers). Also, FINA has historically never published such a list of performances that qualify. You appear to be creating a source, presumably from the World Rankings which is problematic because the World Rankings will have more meets in it than those designated for Olympic Qualifying as well as 2 separate World Rankings will be needed (and checked for duplications between years). Also, just because a swimmer swims a qualifying time, it does not mean that they will swim at the Games: each nation has its own qualifying standards and systems, and then there's also the 2-entrant max per nation limit that will also factor in, not taking into consideration people who qualify in multiple events but will not swim them all. Also, both in the lead-up to 2008 and currently, FINA has not been terribly great at listing the actual meets where qualifying times can be swum (e.g. as of last week September's All-African Games were not listed as a qualifying event, and they most likely are a qualifier). A list such as being attempted is bound to be inaccurate, difficult to maintain, and ultimately not wholly reflective of the entrants. Time would be better spent identifying who met the qualifying times standards for the 2008 Games and putting it there.... - Hooperswim (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The rankings list the swimmer and if they have qualified for the Olympics, that is why its being listed here. Take a look. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The numbers listed are quota places, as identified directly in the FINA rankings (which have a filter for OQT results). So this information has been communicated directly by FINA. In my opinion, this is in line with how other sports are treated (e.g., Shooting), where qualifiation is not directly tied to an athlete, but to an NOC, and the athlete must meet certain criteria in order to be nominated. As long as someone manages periodic updates, I see no problem here. MrYIndeed (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

For swimming, the qualifications are tied to the athlete, not the NOC nor even the national swimming aquatics federation. However, the NOC and national federation have says in who actually goes too. As for the page, itself, it is a lot of extra information that until after the competition won't really be accurate. And according to the results already posted (on the FINA site), the numbers are already incorrect (e.g. in the men's 100 free: France already has 4 swimmers who met the OQT on the same day, Australia has 4, Russia has 3--yet all 3 are only showing 2 as having met the OQT). Perhaps the list is being limited to 2 because of some attempt at matching the limits to Olympic qualifying? However, then this isn't a listing of the number of swimmers who have met the OQT.... - Hooperswim (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite obviously, the list gives the maximal number of OQT athletes a NOC would be allowed to nominate at the moment. You have a point that the qualification being tied to athletes is not reflected at the moment. Of course one could list the individual athletes instead, but that would then really be a nightmare to maintain. But keep in mind that qualification is also tied to the NOC in swimming, due to the two-athlete-cap. This is not purely athlete-based. Is there a reasonable alternative on how to treat this? MrYIndeed (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a listing of the total number of people who have met the qualifying time (independent of country) is a good thing to have, eventually. A listing of which countries have maxed out their qualifiers, when it is not even a list of who will be entered, is not something that should be tracked particularly since it can be inaccurate. And people will qualify for events through the secondary time standard, as well as through Universality placing. Better to track down the breakdown of qualifiers from 2008 than keep current track. Hooperswim (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

British #s need updating (4/5/12)

Greeting. The allocations for Great Britain on the page need to be reviewed. The British swim team was named last month (mid-March), and barring one swim-off in one event, is set (other than pick-ups). There should not be unnamed numbers for Great Britain on the page (there are); and at least one swimmer who is on the British team isn't listed (Liam Tancock, 100 back). Please update -- Hooperswim (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)