Talk:United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics

What should we include

So what should we include on this page. I feel that is should be only that athletes and possibly the alternates. For the alternates most of them are probably fine. The exception might be the gymnastic alternates as I do not believe they are officially part of the olympic delegation. I am not sure if this is true of any other of the sports. Let me know what you guys think. Otherwise I will keep the page limited to just athletes and alts. (Happyax (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

hmmm, interesting, why shouldn't the gymnastic alternates be on there? My understanding is that since the article is titled "United States at teh 2008 SUmmer olympics", everything related should be on there. (Dw0505 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

So the reason is because the alternates are not considered part of the US olympic team. I believe in some of the other sports the alts are considered a part and get to march in the parade of nations. (71.199.186.24 (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Toward a complete list of events

The first paragraph says that the US is fielding teams in 27 sports. By my count, we've listed somewhere between 19 and 25 events, depending on how you count them. I hope we can get a complete list soon.--HughGRex (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I listed all the sports (I think) . Even though it says it's 27 out of 28 sports, the aquatic sports are split into 4 different sports, which accounts for the 30 events listed on the page. The only sport US will not be competing in is handball. --Dw0505 (talk) 1:51, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Team sports

Should team players be organized in alphabetical order like field hockey or by position like soccer? We did it by position in 2004, but not in 2000. --Jh12 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating Articles on Olympians

I think it would be a worthwhile project to try to create articles for more of the American Olympians on this page who are currently red links. It would really increase the value of this page. I've created a handful myself already. It's not too hard, even if you don't have prior knowledge about an athlete. The official websites of the national team/committee in each sport usual have bio pages with good info. --JamesAM (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding number of US athletes

Things may have changed, but the official number released by the United States Olympic Committee on July 24, 2008 is 596 athletes: 310 men and 286 women.[1] I would think the actual number of athletes would be lower, not higher, given the withdrawal of athletes like Gary Russell. Also note that it's highly unlikely the US would have more athletes than the host country China: 639 according to the Xinhua News Agency [2]. I think some of the higher numbers thrown around may be including coaches? Anyway, feel free to bring new references and please enjoy the games!--Jh12 (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps discrepancies in number can be attributed to the difference between the number of athletes in an Olympic delegation and the total number of people in an Olympic delegation including officials, support staff and athletes?72.27.25.85 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my thoughts exactly. I was thinking especially of coaches or officials, since I would image the support staff would actually be even greater than about 50 people. Either way, 596 is the number of athletes submitted by the USOC to the Olympic Games, and it's been cross-referenced by CNN, AP, AFP, ESPN, and every news agency I've searched for. Again, the only thing important in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. If there are multiple reliable sources that clearly indicate the number of athletes was changed from 596, I invite anyone to submit them. --Jh12 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure one way or the other but does that count all the alternates who had to be used? I know the US Men's Gymnastics called up several emergency alternates. Were alternates part of the original count? Adam McCormick (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternates merely replace existing athletes, so the quota of Olympic slots remains the same. And in many cases (Davenport singles, Russell bantamweight, etc.), alternates cannot even take over because the original athlete dropped out too late. Those slots are simply forfeited. The NBC broadcast of the opening ceremony indicated a delegation of 647. I have found no source that says this is the number of athletes. There is, however, USOC, AFP, AP, BBC, CNNSI, EPSN, NBCOlympics featured blog, Xinhua --Jh12 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Women's 4x100 Freestyle

I'm a bit confused. I would think a 4x100 race should list 4 people but the Silver medal listings show 6 for the 4x100 women's 4x100 freestyle and the Swimming section shows 5. Which is right, if any? Manassehkatz (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Olympic guidelines, the entire swim team of six gets the medals, even though only 4 swimmers actually swim in the final (see [3]). If there's mistakes in the table, that must be me. I converted the entire lists to tables myself, so I might have made mistakes or left something out. Please help correct them if you can. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is consistent now. Thank you. Manassehkatz (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

swimming : where is the...

where is the 4 x 100 m medley relay listed ? kernitou talk 05:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, the original list of team members on the page didn't include them, so I didn't even know there was such an event. Please help update and correct the page if you can; it's a whole lot of stuff to keep track of. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor spelling issues

Per WP:ENGVAR (An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.), as this article is strongly connected to a nation with a particular form of English, words such as "saber" and "meter" should be spelled as such in visible links (and any other words that are spelled differently in other forms of English need to be spelled in the American style). Being that this article is enormous, I haven't looked through all of it (though I will shortly). Let's try to follow this is any further usage. Nosleep (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Overall Medals

The daily overall is completely wrong, having an extra gold and missing 2 silver, which will also throw off the individual day counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.156.172 (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you know the correct medal counts, please help correct them. --Jh12 (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I should be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.142.91 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I still question the long-term usefulness of the chart itself, but the totals are currently correct according to the official results tables for 8/9 8/10 8/11 8/12. Note that the official results for 8/12 are missing the Equestrian Eventing Individual results (clearly listed as 8/12 here: [4]), where the U.S. won a third silver for August 12. --Jh12 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep on the USA page to keep consistancy with other countries medal pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.142.91 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why my edit blanked the page

I just added a gold to the medal counts, and then almost the entire article was gone? Sorry. I am mystified why that happened. I didn't delete anything. Nosleep (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all right, random stuff happens. I've restored the page and will check for any issues. Thanks for updating, --Jh12 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Roster Templates

This may be a silly question, but why do the basketball templates have the "v-d-e" buttons when they are built into the page, not actual templates on their own? Averyisland (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably ask the creator of {{FIBA roster header}} Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronological Order vs. Official Order

Should the table use chronological or official order found on the Olympic pages (Gold, Silver, and Bronze)

• I support the official order because to me it seems easier to ensure that all medals are added correctly. To me I won't care in what specific order the medals were won next year. --88wolfmaster (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget about it. I'll just restore it back to normal and leave you guys be.--88wolfmaster (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal Count rankings

I noticed that there has been some back on forth in editing on how Nation rankings are counted. It's probably best to go by how the IOC or other governing body of the Olympics tallies the medals (such as the American OC). If they do not keep an official tally, then the official Olympics website would be the next best option. An explanation can also included if there is any disparity. Tedmoseby (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Large teams winning medals

Let's not put every name from the women's soccer team (and eventually the basketball teams and probably the men's volleyball team) in the medal table after they win gold or silver, and instead just wikilink to the soccer or basketball or volleyball sections on this page. The table already scrolls a bit with the rowing eights rosters, let's not have it scroll any more with very large teams. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

When adding the women's water polo team, I linked to its national team page United States women's national water polo team with {{sortname|United States|women's national water polo team}} as the listing in the medalist table. The problem is, that kind of arbitrarily sorts the names into "women's", "men's", and in the case of baseball "national". I'm not really sure how else to do it. --Jh12 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I followed that for women's soccer and men's volleyball when I updated for those sports. I think that's an okay way of doing it - the only thing is I'm not sure those pages have a breakdown of who played for the team when (and thus, the facility for a reader to find who won a medal this year in whatever team sport). But I suppose that's more a matter for those articles than this one. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Heat Ranks

The convention for the rank in track athletic events is to record the position in the heat, this is different than for e.g. swimming or field events where the overall rank (vs all heats) is given. This is because qualifiers for the next round are decided differently in the two sports. In swimming qualifing competitors are decided only on a time basis, so if, e.g., heat 1 is is faster than heat 2 it is possible that all the competitors from heat 1 and none from heat 2 would get through to the next round. However in track athletics qualifiers for the next round are decided by the first X athletes in each heat getting through, i.e. at least X athletes from every heat will get into the next round. Therefore if you are adding results for a track athletics event to the page please be sure to record the position of the athlete in their heat only. Cheers Basement12 (T.C) 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think some of the confusion is that they have a qualified by right and qualified by result [5] It just seemed that with exceptions, the top overall performers in the field advanced. --Jh12 (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms section

We should add a criticisms section. Specifically, which athletes support the war in Iraq? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.186.56 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be at all relevant to the team's olympic performance. Basement12 (T.C) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Medals currently suspect to change post being awarded

should their be any footnote/asterisk added for medals that are being reviewed; my specific reference is to the women's gymnastics medals that may be affected by inquiry into china's athletes age that may lead to disqualification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.158.115 (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There definitely should be if there is a great likelihood of medals being changed: like the doping cases in Shooting 10 m air pistol and Heptathlon. In this case, I think the investigations are still in the preliminary stage, so I'm not sure how useful such a note would be. If the International Gymnastics Federation says they have confirmed the use of underage athletes, then there will definitely be a note. --Jh12 (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no impending likelihood that the Chinese babi---I mean, athletes, are going to be stripped of their medals. Therefore, no asterisks on this (or that) page. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello. I added a paragraph about the notable US Olympic athletes, specifically Phelps, Torres, Luikin and the team golds. I was initially going to add only Phelps, but felt that the other athletes should also be noted in the introduction. Now the problem is who to mention and who to leave out. I figured since Luikin's gold in the Individual all round is a big deal in America it should be mentioned, as was Dara Torre's age and 3 silvers. I mentioned the team golds, but did not mention the redeem team moniker for the Men's basketball team. Tedmoseby (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Coughlin and also added references. Tedmoseby (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

I think the "summer" in the title is superfluous, and unnecessary. Unlike past years, Olympics are held in 2-year intervals now. The summer and winter Olympics are not held in the same year anymore. With that in mind, the need for the word "summer" in the article title is unnecessary. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics is probably the best forum for that discussion, as it would apply to hundreds of articles. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting references

Reference (1), from the USOC, states that the United States participated in 30 events, all but Men's field hockey and team handball. Reference (6), from Xinhua, states that the U.S. participated in 27 of 28 events. Obviously, both of these numbers cannot be correct. The article currently reflects the Xinhua count of 28 events, but also notes that neither the men's or women's handball teams qualified. As it stands right now, the article doesn't match either of the references, since it doesn't mention the missing men's field hockey team (as noted in the USOC reference), but it says that the US didn't field men's or women's handball teams, yet participated in 27 of 28 events. Which set of numbers is correct, and how should we resolve the discrepancy? Horologium (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reflects the IOC method of organizing events by "sports" (see the 28 listed at 2008_Summer_Olympics#Sports) and the Official Olympic Programme. Note for example that all Diving, Swimming, and Water Polo events are counted as one sport: Aquatics. The article is correct: the U.S. participated in 27 out of 28 sports. Although the men's field hockey team did not qualify, the women's field hockey team did. Handball is the only sport the U.S. did not participate in. If additional clarification is needed, we could change the sentence to read "sent 596 athletes to Beijing (310 men and 286 women), and competed in 27 out of 28 Olympic sports" or something similar, but the numbers according to the IOC should take precedent over anything from the USOC or the Beijing Olympic Committee. --Jh12 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think I might have been the one to add the references for that sentence. I believe I put them there primarily to reference the number of U.S. athletes: 596 athletes (310 men and 286 women). If it needs to be re-worded or another reference added, feel free to make suggestions or modify it. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any sort of actual split proposal?

I notice the {{long}} has been there for over four months, and there has been no discussion here on what to do about it. I'm not saying the tag is misplaced (this, currently, is the fourth-largest article in all of Wikipedia), but what are we going to do about it? It doesn't really seem that there's much of anything we can do, in which case the tag is kind of pointless. Consider China at the 2008 Summer Olympics. It's 59KB smaller than this article, which might sound like a lot but I don't really think it is when one article is 337KB and the other is 278. It's currently the fourteenth-largest article in all of Wikipedia. It has no {{long}} tag. So I submit that we need to either formulate some kind of split proposal or, in the interests of responsible tagging, take it off. WP:SIZE states that an article should ideally be 30-50 KB in size - anyone actually think that's possible here? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm still undecided. Firstly, it should be noted that this article follows WP:OLYMOSNAT and is therefore similar to almost every other Olympic Committee represented in Beijing. In a previous discussion with a prominent WP:OLY member at User_talk:Basement12#United_States_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics_too_big, there seemed to be opposition to creating dozens of small subpages. An option that will reduce the size of the article would be to remove all of the individual game summaries from team sports (baseball, basketball, soccer, etc.) and have a single summary table like I have done at United States at the 2008 Summer Paralympics#Wheelchair_basketball. The information would still be available on the individual event pages; one would simply have to search for all of the U.S. performances. Unfortunately, even if that reduction was made, I think the article is actually supposed to be expanded. Some of the GA review comments for Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics and United States at the 2008 Summer Paralympics call for additional prose to concisely summarize the performances in each sport, and I agree that statistics alone are insufficient for capturing the story of the United States at the 2008 Olympics. I've even thought about splitting the article completely in half with sports from Archery through Soccer on one page and Gymnastics through Wrestling on another. I simply haven't figured out what to do yet, and it's why I requested suggestions from the IP that originally tagged this article, with no response. --Jh12 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I leave it to WP:OLY, as I'm not a regular contributor to that project more than a month every two or four years, to decide how they best wish to lay out pages distinctly under their purview. I think prose summarizing each sport is reasonable, as is chopping the page clean in half. The results tables are indeed redundant to the event articles. There comes a point, though, where we need to decide to do something or not. I guess I don't have a strong opinion, either. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 08:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that we shouldn't make several subpages. If other similar articles don't get subpages, it's not about bias, it's about a need to split. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely under consideration. I agree that at some point, we're going to have to do something (I admit I was leaning more towards the removal of individual games or a halfway split rather than a lot of smaller subpages). Right now I'm not quite sure aka bold enough to make a split but I wouldn't object if one was made. Before anyone does it, though, please as a courtesy post a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics. If this article is split, it's likely other articles of similar size could be split in a similar fashion --Jh12 (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd do it, but the idea of splitting this huge article seems a bit intimidating. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend a split into a sub article for each sport and providing a link to each of those articles following the lead using the pictograms and a brief caption. I think that could actually look quite attractive. Then, in this article I would provide a prose summary focused on medalists' exploits and major happenings, perhaps alphabetised e.g. Header 1= "A—C: Archery to Cycling" etc. When we think of what future generations will want to see here it's the big happenings, not the preliminary results and people who finished 43rd overall. What do other people think? Will people support me if I go for something which is essentially a radical change of what this article currently is? I would hope for a move away from the lists (moving them into sub-articles e.g. United States Archery team at the 2008 Summer Olympics) and moving into prose accompanied by the medallists table. Any recommendations/suggestions? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure that you mention this proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, even if just to link to this discussion. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Righty ho. I will do. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, things should look more similar to the prose of the swimming section across the board when I'm done. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure that I like the idea of splitting any of the articles in this series into by sport sections, it would seem like too much granularity to me. Even if this were only done for the two really long 2008 articles, USA and China, we'd go from two long articles to more than sixty shorter ones, a trade I don't really like (but others certainly may). Let's face it, this WP has nearly 10000 articles already, and a by-sport-by-nation split has the potential to make that a lot bigger quickly. Perhaps the main article could be, as you suggest, with medalists and prose describing each sport, with links in each individual sport's section linking to a separate United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Results (or some title to that effect) page in which the results tables for all sports are placed. Given the size of the article, this could even be in two results pages, split alphabetically. I'm not particularly fond of this idea either, but the longer articles are definitely somewhat troublesome to read. I just have to find a way to reconcile this with the fact that I think the articles should maintain a consistent style for all NOCs and OGs, and that a handful of recent articles for large nations shouldn't look totally different from smaller or older ones. It's a tough call, but that's just my two cents, for whatever it's worth. Edged (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think that sounds like a reasonable idea. While I can see that there are many difficulties with spinning off into a million and one articles, there is a clear dichotomy of what content this article has and what it should have. I think the results idea is a good one and while listing and splitting alphabetically seems like a strange choice, the only other ones I can think of are by date of performance (who remembers anyway) and on a per article basis. I think we could incorporate my row of linked pictograms idea with the results page idea, just some links would leap to another article. In my opinion it's better to push ahead with a slightly odd idea rather than stick to a solution which no one is fully happy with (like now). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would support breaking the article down per your recommendations. Being a visual person it's hard for me to conceptualize how the article will look until it is done. I agree that something has to be done to reduce the length. It bogs my computer down when I load the page, which makes me concerned not only about its length but its size. I know this will be unpopular but what about trimming down the flag icons? That has nothing to do with the length of the article but more to do with the article's size. Some flags I identify as being superfluous are the American flags for every player's club on the men's and women's basketball team along with every coach as well. I know this maintains consistency with the football (soccer) table that has flags for every club but it just doesn't seem necessary for the basketball tables since only one player out of 25 plays on a team outside of the US. Any thoughts on that? H1nkles (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a decent idea but, I have to say, I don't think it'll put much of a dent in the 337kb page size. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, I think to really reduce it the article will need to be broken down a bit. I know that its current size will hinder its promotion to GA and certainly to FA status if that is the aspirations of the editors. H1nkles (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep this a single article to be consistent, but I could accept a split. Reading the article again, I will only support any split if by alphabet: Archery-Football and Gymnastics-Wrestling, or similar. It should NOT be put into individual articles for every single sport. Although it would only apply to the largest, that would be unnecessary and set a terrible precedent. A prose/table split is also bad - readers don't want to click back and forth for all of the information. Reywas92^Talk 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Reywas92 here, having the prose and results tables in separate articles is a bad idea. Individual articles for each sport also wouldn't work, the number of articles would soon get out of hand resulting in thousands of very small pages with very little content as i'm sure a case would be made for having a separate article for each country for each sport. Basement12 (T.C) 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, what do you make of a proposal to:

• (a) split off the results into the three alphabetically ordered articles listed above
• (b) keep the medalists table in the main
• (c) create a new section in the main with a prose summary of the most major events, perhaps chronologically ordered (e.g. major medals won and records broken)
• (d) change this article from a results-oriented one to one focused on the activities of US at the 2008 Olympics as a whole (expanding info in lead about trails/preparation/opening ceremony etc)

Note that prose in the main does not mean we couldn't have further descriptive prose in the spun off articles. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(a)One problem i can see occuring is that dependant upon how they are named football/soccer and athletics/track and field would appear in different alphabetical pages, for consistency across all articles that may get split (US, China, GBR etc) the IOC names (athletics and football) should be used with maybe a note put under the other names. As a rough estimate I think the splits come after diving and softball if we go for 3 new articles?

(b)Agreed

(c)Agreed. Chronologically sounds a good idea in principle but may end up a bit disjointed if the prose constantly switches between different sports, also what constitutes "major" could be problematic as its very subjective; though reporting every gold medal would be too much. Perhaps a by sport approach noting the medals won in each sport and the names of multiple, repeat or WR setting medallists would be better?

(d)Whilst a bit of expansion on these areas if fine the focus of all the 'Nation' at 'Year' Olympic articles is on what they've done AT the Games, any detailed info on trials should probably be a different article. Basement12 (T.C) 17:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Split Too long as is. Need one article per sport, unless someone has a better idea.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

One idea could be to move the overly detailed medal section to another article, and leave only a summary here. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

36 or 37 gold medals?

The total gold medal count is listed as 36 gold medals but for some reason I've counted 37 gold medals:

• Swimming: 12
• Track & field: 8
• Gymnastics: 2
• Fencing: 1
• Shooting: 2
• Cycling: 1
• Volleyball: 3
• Equestrian: 1
• Rowing: 1
• Wrestling: 1
• Basketball: 2
• Sailing: 1
• Tennis: 1
• Soccer: 1

+ ________________

= 37 not 36.

There's an error somewhere in that list.

Tawanasharmeka (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212225054/http://www.ussoccer.com:80/articles/viewArticle.jsp_7962633.html to http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_7962633.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724063225/http://usocpressbox.org/usoc/pressbox.nsf/d6eb1e6a70ba4f240725656800617649/f32747a75f1473c18525744c007d9e92?OpenDocument to http://usocpressbox.org/usoc/pressbox.nsf/d6eb1e6a70ba4f240725656800617649/f32747a75f1473c18525744c007d9e92?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080911022843/http://www.aiba.org/documents/site1/World%20Championships/2007/2008%20Olympic%20Qualified%20Boxers.pdf to http://www.aiba.org/documents/site1/World%20Championships/2007/2008%20Olympic%20Qualified%20Boxers.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080914041556/http://www.aiba.org:80/default.aspx?pId=976 to http://www.aiba.org/default.aspx?pId=976
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080914041516/http://www.aiba.org:80/default.aspx?pId=1305 to http://www.aiba.org/default.aspx?pId=1305
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081006163854/http://ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_7143429.html to http://ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_7143429.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. 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/20080824065549/http://results.beijing2008.cn:80/WRM/ENG/INF/BB/C73/BBM400928.shtml to http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/BB/C73/BBM400928.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080826142148/http://results.beijing2008.cn:80/WRM/ENG/INF/BB/C73/BBM400102.shtml to http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/BB/C73/BBM400102.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002214535/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/regulations_olympics_beijing_2008_en_6198.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/regulations%5folympics%5fbeijing%5f2008%5fen%5f6198.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112191005/http://en.beijing2008.cn:80/news/sports/headlines/artisticgymnastics/n214415760.shtml to http://en.beijing2008.cn/news/sports/headlines/artisticgymnastics/n214415760.shtml

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) 06:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. 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://www.webcitation.org/5io2mee9h?url=http://teamusa.org/news/article/2744 to http://teamusa.org/news/article/2744
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/BB/C73/BBM400928.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/BB/C73/BBM400102.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.beijing2008.cn/news/sports/headlines/artisticgymnastics/n214415760.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080815044633/http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/Schedule/SO.shtml to http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/Schedule/SO.shtml

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) 16:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)