Jump to content

Talk:2008 Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.223.104.222 (talk) at 23:38, 9 August 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It has been proposed below that several sections of 2008 Summer Olympics be split into new, smaller, and independent articles.

Discussion to support or oppose the move is present on this talk page, under the heading "Split proposals". If, after a few days, a clear consensus is reached, please split the sections to the new pages and remove this notice.

Former good article nominee2008 Summer Olympics was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Archive box collapsible

Sports

Should we edit Foorball to says Football(Soccer) since the majority of viewers to this page are American. I clicked thinking this was American FOotball not soccer. Add this for less confusion.

Spelling of English Alphabet on Official Website of the Beijing Olympics

Why, seems to be, the Chinese are true friends of American (wrong) spelling? Why they don't follow Hong Kong spelling? In Chinese Hong Kong they know better!

Should be I.E.: Equestrian Centre instead of Riding Center 

                Colour instead of Color
                Centre instead of Center
                ... and many "mis takes" more...
In american english (the most common form), the spellings are different than in british english.

Why, pls. the Chinese prefer America? Namely U.S.? What about Chinese Hong Kong, India, Bangla Desh, Pakistan, many African Coutries, Cyprus, Malta, Ireland and U.K.?

Where is the protest against this poor americinglish?

A pity that China seems to know the poor American only. Forgot culture of English???

Where is the protest against surgeon who remove big part of your brain?
Seriously: Get over it. And American English is far closer to Shakespeare's English than contemporary British English is. Not that it matters. Main point: American spelling makes more sense in an international context: take away the -ous from humorous, and you get the noun -- just one of many exs.; but British punctuation is superior in most respects. A combo would be actually best. PeterH2 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

En francais: C'est dommage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.209.176 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Australia as well...Zvyx (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU IDIOT! They use American English because of how popular the U.S. is! Can you leave at that? And American Spellings are not "Wrong" they are different, like African people, and English People, they barely look anything alike, but they get along despite their difference.

What are you talking about Burgerman?? If the language is ENGLISH, it comes from ENGLAND. It is annoying to keep seeing people on the Internet use the American flag when there is a link to an ENGLISH translation, when an AMERICAN speaks ENGLISH during the opening ceremony of the Olympics, and when ENGLISH things are constantly reffered to as being AMERICAN.. such as Football, the Internet and oh,... the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

How dare the Chinese use Amerenglish!

Fuck you

When all of you are done violating wiki's rules by making personal attacks; I'd like to state the English used at the Olympics is the Queen's English, that is the kind of British English used in every English speaking country bar America. Rotovia (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar

There used to be a very helpful calendar here, similar to the one in the 2010 olympics. Where'd it go? Host of the first ever Webkinz Suvivor! The UberNerd! (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I want to know the same thing. I was the one who made it, and then someone must have taken it down. Granted, it was big and bulky, but someone should put a calendar section back in, at least describing the calendar of events and linking to the actual calendar. Jared (t)  00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The calendar was removed in this edit, presumably because the editor didn't like it being transcluded from another live page. I've been bold and restored the calendar, this time with a proper merge. Bluap (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the calendar table in a collapsed box? I think it's important enough info to be always visible, no matter how bulky it is (it's not transcluded from another page, so it can't be a matter of decreasing article weight). Parutakupiu (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the unhide collapse field. The List of NOC was also unhide. Anyone know if the "List of NOC" is supposed to be 100% the same as the "Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics" template at the bottom? If so, why do we have two of the same tables?? Benjwong (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. Although it has always been a custom of WP:OLY to display all the nations participating in the text of the article. I'm not sure how to resolve this, though, because what you say makes sense. Jared (t)  20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the calendar table out of the main table in which it was nested, since there's no reason for the latter to exist anymore. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally put both the calendar and the list of IOCs in collapsible boxes since they take up a fair amount of real estate. They might be OK with the article as it is currently, but they article is going to expand considerably once the Olympics actually start, at which point having these tables pre-collapsed might be better Bluap (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! It's back! Thanks to whoever put it back, it's much better now. spider1224 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on past calendars, I've started to "bullet-out" events in each row. See User:Jared/sandbox1 for the version that I am talking about. I think it's a great way to link to each event that is to be contested. In theory, 302 bullets should be in the chart, but that is nearly impossible to do with cells like Athletics where 7 finals are contested in one day. Does anyone have a fix to this, so that bullets can exist there? Maybe a 3-2-3 pattern, or something. Also, I have yet to finish the table, so if anyone wants to find the other dates, please be my guest! Thanks! Jared (t)  14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea. Perhaps the solution to the problem would be to place a single bullet in each box (not only finals = yellow), linking to a page with information about the events per sport per day. 62.90.151.249 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've put your calender. It looks a bit bulky, if you ask me.. please consider my suggestion. 62.90.151.249 (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is probably more aesthetically pleasing, because 6 bullets per cell might be a little overkill, but maintaining pages per sport per day is something WP:OLY has never done, and something that would take a lot of work. I do believe it makes more sense to have 302 bullets in the table, so that at any one time during the Olympics, anyone can see and get more information on all of the event finals being contested that day. Certainly if there is consensus to return the table to just numbers I won't put up a fight, but I really do think this is best. Jared (t)  14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be too much work. We already have the tables made (in the "Competition Schedule" section of the " *** at the 2008 Summer Olympics" articles) - it's just a matter of creating some 300 articles... Like you said, this option is more aesthetically pleasing, and it also would allow one to follow preliminary competitions as well as finals. We'd also have to link the different events in the table to the appropriate event page. Alternatively, we could create pages only per day ("#th of august at the beijing...").62.90.151.249 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is best - having one page per competition day, and keeping the bullets the way they are. I began making the links from the "Competition Schedule" tables to the event pages. I've also created a "The 6th of August at the 2008 Summer Olympics" sample article (I could use some help with that, thanks..) Almyajid (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either leave the calendar or move it but please get rid of the stupid discussion box about it on the main page. It makes everything look so tacky. 132.228.195.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting in Finland

In addition to being shown on YLE TV1 and YLE TV2 (as are the proper names of the channels, not YLE1 / YLE2), tv coverage will also be on YLE FST5. If we also include radio, coverage is additionally on YLE Radio Suomi and YLE Radio X3M. If someone could update this, it would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.219.114 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

Benjwong, would appreciate if you could please explain why my edits to 'controversies' regarding media access were reverted. These were cited to today's NY Times, so obviously it is an ongoing concern despite BOCOG's announcements, and as evidenced by the IOC member's quote, this is not a minor controversy.Spinner145 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hei guys I was reading about the controversies. Yeah there were demonstrations about human rights but don't forget that torch relay also initiated some Chinese to fight aganist certain western medias such as cnn, (e.g anti-cnn.com) and the French president. My point is that, there are two sides to this thing. One is those demonstrators of human rights, and the other side is those who are aganist those demonstrators. This article needs to be more balanced by including those who are aganist those demonstrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.161.119 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're proposing here. On the portion about the torch relay I think it might be a good idea from an NPOV perspective to mention the large numbers of overseas Chinese who demonstrated in support of the '08 Olympics along the relay route. On the other hand, Chinese protests of Western media coverage seems a bit too tangential. I think the best we can do for the 'controversies section is to set out what the controversies are in the most NPOV way possible, but given length limitations we won't be able to fully explain all points of view. Let me know your thoughts--happy to hear any suggestions you can offer to improve NPOV on this section.Spinner145 (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Beijing Olympics Newsstand

Full News Coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Enjoy non-controversial news coverage. Updated 24 hours a day. May the best athlete win! --Isavesmart (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq re-admitted

Please, someone who is a native speaker of English, please modify the article, list of participating countries and following paragraph, since Iraqi athletes will be able to participate in the Olympic Games (see web page of the IOC, news 29 July 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.101.176 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torch Relay - Taiwan

The wording for the section on the torch being diverted away from Taiwan should remain as is. While China's point of view is that it is a province, this view is not shared by all peoples, or even countries for that matter. Stating that it is, definitively, a province is bias, just as if I wrote "the independent country of Taiwan". So, leave it as is. Kerui 18:09, 27 July 2008


The 2008 Beijing Olympics will also mark the third time that Olympic events will have been held in the territories of two different National Olympic Committees

I don't think that this statement is correct. In 1956, the equestrian events were held in Stockholm rather than in Melbourne, but I can't think of any other occasion when this occured. Would anyone care to provide us with details when this happened on another occasion? Moldovanmickey (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)MoldovanMickey[reply]

At the 1920 Antwerp Games, one of the sailing events had entries only from two Dutch boats, so after the first race in Belgium, they finished the best-of-three in the Netherlands. (See IOC website; "only event in Olympic history to be held in two countries") This is an entirely different situation from two organizing committees splitting the Games (Melbourne/Stockholm), or from one organizing committee having events in the territory of another NOC (BOCOG running equestrian events in Hong Kong), so grouping all three of these situations together with cumbersome text seems odd to me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it have a home page?

There is no 'external links' section. --fs 13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Chinese Taiwan and Tibet issues

I understand what you meant by the simply saying of Taiwan and Tibet. I understand that you know exactly Chinese territory includes Taiwan province and Tibet Autonomous Region, which are recoganized by UN and all countries' governments. However, it is confusing when you just simply say it especially to people who don't have any background knowledge about Chinese internal issues. So please use the correct official names, which is under the recoganition of UN, i.e. Chinese Taiwan province and Chinese Tibet Autonomous Region.

I will appreciate your kind adjustment.

Thanks and regards,

AlexBluesAlexBlues (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC) contribs) 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Taiwan issues it is not appropriate to refer to Taiwanese authorities "Chinese Taipei" or "Chinese Taiwan". Chinese Taipei is the name of the Olympic team from Taiwan, but these are not the name of the government of Taiwan. References to Taiwanese governing authorities should be to "the Republic of China (Taiwan)", while it is correct if referring to Taiwan in a geographical sense to call it simply "Taiwan". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Also, you have tried several times to inject into the article the unsubstantiated claim that Tibetan independence groups are supported by the CIA. This is an inflammatory accusation for which you have not provided any support. If you have some documentation of this, bring it here for discussion. If not, you should stop making these edits.Spinner145 (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A Chinese View: The government of the Republic of China was the central government of Whole China. However after the civil war, ROC government was defeated and retreated to Taiwan province. Current situation is the legacy of the civil war. However, ROC is not recoganized by UN, and there is no ROC (Taiwan), only Taiwan province. Both sides now are working on the reunification. Therefore, using Tanwan authorities is more accurate to describe Tanwan's current situation.

It's the public secret that CIA controls the Tibetan movement by providing the fund and the military instruction. Some staff even published the books to release the detailed information. Political powers behind the movement made things worse. Dala Lama should have won the heart of the nation. However he lost it. This is absolutely a Chinese internal issue. Without All Chinese cooperation, he can do nothing. Nobody trust him in China. And We don't care any more what he is going to do, doesn't matter whether it is so called peaceful movement or violence.AlexBlues (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I appreciate your opinions on the PRC / ROC issue. However naming conventions are discussed at length on the page I linked to: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). I quote a relevant passage: "One subtle yet important point: Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations. Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an independent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China."" These guidlines have been exhaustively established through consensus, and it is not incumbent on individual editors to change them ad hoc.
With regards to your allegations of the CIA being behind Tibetan independence movement, you have yet to provide a reliable, verifiable source for a very inflammatory accusation. Again, let's please try to keep this as NPOV and follow wiki conventions. The link you cited is insufficient to support your allegation that the Tibetan independence movement is a CIA puppet--all it says is that nearly 60 years ago a single CIA agent spent a year in Tibet. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and please try to seek consensus Wikipedia:Consensus before making again such changes. Thanks and regards,Spinner145 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese View: I appreciate your hard working, but the PRC government representing the whole China, including Taiwan, is recoganized by United Nations, right? Why don't you use the legal documents from UN in stead of the information without any leagal support? In my view, you have your own peronal views on China internal issues, therefore you selected the information, which you prefer, and published them in the public website.

For the CIA involvement in Chinese Tibet, I did give the link as the source of my information. Unfortunately, this link was deleted by SB. Many people in the world condemn Chinese cencorship, but I don't see here the people make a better job than Chinese government. It's really disappointing. Anyway, I can tell you, Western medias have lost the trust to Chinese, they can't make any influence to the who country. Wiki is the last choice, but you lost again. AlexBlues (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The naming conventions on Chinese names the page I linked are the consensus views of wiki editors, not my own (look at that page's history and you'll see that I did not contribute to it). It is not cherry-picking to say that on Wikipedia we follow Wikipedia guidelines in our editing. If you can find evidence within the guidelines that I am wrong please let me know, and if you think the guidelines themselves are wrong, all wikipedia editors are welcome to suggest improvements and try to reach a consensus to change those guidelines.
I read the link you gave and as I said, it showed that an author had published a book claiming that almost sixty years ago a single CIA operative spent a year in Tibet. Even if everything claimed in the desciprtion of that book is true, it is not sufficient to support your allegation that the Tibetan indepence movement is a CIA puppet organization.
If you are willing to follow guidelines it would be great if you stay around because wiki can only be improved by people with diverse viewpoints contributing. Cheers,Spinner145 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will see I am right. rgds.AlexBlues (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet censorship for journalists about-face

Is this about-face on censorship of the Internet for journalists in Beijing mentioned anywhere at Wikipedia? I can't even find a mention of the Internet in this article. Badagnani (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has become a widely covered subject; another article here. Badagnani (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Hymalaya

Hi, I don't know how to reply you to make the explaination. So I give you my answer in discussion board and hope you can see this.

Hymalaya is the true Tibetan name for the Mountain. Everest is the name from a British people. I think it's weird to use a British name here for a Tibetan Mt.. Since so many people concern the human rights here about the Tibetan people, why shouldn't we use the original Tibetan name here in stead of the British name to show the rights of Tibetans?AlexBlues (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia uses the common name for things in the English language. Bluap (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in English, Himalaya refers to the entire range of Mountains, while Everest only refers to one peak. Schoop (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The summit is named as Jumulangma in Tibetan language. Everest is named after a British when Britain colonized India.AlexBlues (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the other side? Think about how they managed to get Olympics to the CENTER of Beijing!

Leveling living quarters with bulldozer armies, people forcibly (and no, that is not comparable to the Western definition of "force") pushed to live in the suburbs of Beijing from now on, since the space of several square miles was needed for the Olympic buildings. Absolutely nothing in the article about it. OR Chinese people have thought this is an offense and have removed these bits from the article. I would not be too surprised! -andy 78.51.89.247 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics -- Scorpion0422 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wo... You sure care more about Chinese than us Chinese... Please, take care of yourself first and we will take care of ourselves. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, relax, take care of yourself.AlexBlues (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic promises?

This should not be the final set of sources about olympic promises, but there were promises made regarding the Olympics: http://www.ihlo.org/prisoners/en/ I suggest things about this are added to controversies, as they are important enough imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.73.156 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See: 2008 Summer Olympics bids#China.27s Olympic Bid Promises BillyTFried (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar

What is the difference between blue bullets and red bullets in the calendar? Moondyne 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are wikilinks, red bullets are redlinks for articles not yet created. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel stupid. Sorry. Moondyne 01:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! It's not really obvious, unfortunately — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At one point I was inclined to make the bullets different colors for men, women, and mixed events, but figured it doesn't really make that much more sense, and overcomplicated the table. Jared (t)  04:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Broadcasting in Mexico

Televisa and TV Azteca share the rights to host the games. They will both broadcast them in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.173.101 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but which channels will broadcast the games in HD. I think that TV Azteca 13, and TV Azteca 7, will broadcast in HD, since for at least a week the shows that used to be shown in HD are now being shown in Stretch-o-Vision also the Football games are being shown in Stretch-o-Vision. The only shows that are now shown in HD are the News, and One Telenovela. Also does anyone know which Televisa Channels are showing the Games in HD. Is it XEW Also known as Canal De Las Estrellas, XHGC also Known As Canal Cinco, or is it both. Joeloliv8 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Opening Ceremony in both Televisa and TV Azteca, and both of them broadcast it in HD. I think that the other broadcasts of the Olympics will also be in HD. --Aguilac (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Mindsports Games

Could someone please add the 2008 Beijing World Mindsports Games following the Paralympics in the See also section? http://www.2008wmsg.org and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Mind_Sports_Games. As a beginning user I don't have the authority to do so myself. Thank you in advance, Verycurious77 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not organized by the IOC but by the International Mind Sports Association (IMSA) so I don't think the event needs to be included in the article. Just my two cents. Xeltran (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not organized by IOC no. But IOC president Jacques Rogge is president of the committee of honour and GAISF president Hein Verbruggen is a member of that committee as well. The WMSG begin in Beijing just after the Paralympics have ended. The WMSG are being held in the Olympic Green Complex where the 3.000 players are staying as well. Chess and Bridge are IOC recognized mindsports, Draughts has just applied for IOC Recognition. It is the intention to organize the WMSG - maybe on the long run Intellympics - every four years together with the Olympics and Paralympics. So Beijing is likely to be the start of a new trilogy: Olympics, Parlympics and Intellympics. Two Chinese commercials voor the WMSG: http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/QgH0vz_5GAA/ http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/5BrtMB_YFDw/ I'd like to think that al this justifies a modest reference under 'See also'. I very much hope the authorized Wikipedians can agree on this. 84.86.103.21 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the others decide on this matter, too, before adding. :) Xeltran (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nonsense

What is this nonsense in the first sentence about the "Paralympics"? That has nothing to do with the Olympics, and even if it did, it wouldn't belong in the first paragraph, much less the first sentence. Can somebody please either delete it or relegate it to a small mention way down in the article? Seriously, folks. . .a pro-handicap agenda? That's what we're going to do at Wikipedia now? Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting in Spain

The public Spanish network TVE has a High Definition channel TVE-HD which can be tuned in the Digital+ pay package. I can't edit the broadcaster box. Please somebody add this.

Number of delegates

"Below is a list of the all the participating NOCs (where available, the number of competitors per delegation is indicated in parentheses):"

I clicked on a few and the number of people listed in the articles never seems to match the number on the main page (eg see Gabon, and also Algeria). Am I missing something? Anyone know where the numbers come from? Rbakker99 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few of those numbers are referenced, which is why we need to look at the official numbers that will hopefully be posted at the official 2008 Beijing Olympics site in a few days. Xeltran (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people participating for the Unites States on the main page is wrong it says we have 593 well Unites States has 647 and is the biggest participants at the summer games not China. So I don't know how to change that but it should. and other countries are wrong to. I don't know where you are getting your sources but they are wrong. MaribethSaxton (User talk:MaribethSaxton|talk]]) 10:03pm, 8 August 2008

Will reply at Talk:United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics --Jh12 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely some mistake?

204.152.239.217 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)The section on delegations includes the sentences:[reply]

Other delegations will be much smaller; Afghanistan, for example, will be represented by just four competitors. And some Competitors will be competing in the Olympics for the first time which includes Hayley Palmer who will swim for New Zealand[81]

Surely the second sentence here is entirely irrelevant. New Zealand have taken part before, and the fact that a particular competitor is taking part for the first time is hardly unique. This secntence should be deleted.

204.152.239.217 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Concerns and controversies & Ethnic Tibetans

It is currently written "Ethnic Tibetans have been banned from working in Beijing during the duration of the Games", one guy say the police told him to fire the tibetan working... nothing tell us it is systematic that Tibetan can not work in Beijing, it is certainly an action of one policeman. thus I propose to write "SOME Ethnic Tibetans have been banned" Froggy helps ;-) (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasters

HD BELGIUM = éénHD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.24.170 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasters for Dominican Republic: Telecentro and RNN, source [Comite Olimpico Dominicano http://www.colimdo.org/] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osplace (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasters for Switzerland = SRG SSR idée suisse on the channel SF2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.136.44 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long Page Load Time

Why does it take this page so long to load? Over 30 seconds with a DSL connection. I'm referring to the article, not the talk page. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Cheek's Visa Revoked by the Chinese Embassy

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Chi?urn=oly,98718 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiaozhu (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One world, one dream, welcome to the Chinese olympics. We should add that to the article if this proves to be the final word of the embassy. Novidmarana (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Does IOC realy plan to allow sportsmen from Kosovo to participate under Kosovo flag on any future Olympics? I ask, 'cause i heard that it won't do that until Kosovo became member of UN. -- Bojan  07:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happens is that a nation cannot compete until it has set up its own National Olympic Committee. This committee is so important becasue it controls the Olympics and athletes and trials for the whole country. (If you remember from recently, Iraq was almost barred from the 2008 games because it dissolved its Olympic committee.) I'm not sure if Kosovo has one yet, but that would be the first step at competing. Now, becoming a member of the UN really isn't relevant except for the fact that the International Olympic Committee looks for "nations" that are politically sound and not just a rebel faction that just recently broke off from its parent country. Becoming a member of the UN shows to the IOC that they are a country of their own, and can we please have status as an Olympic country :) ? So that's basically it. All that really needs to happen is for the IOC to approve Kosovo's Olympic committee, and they're in, but that can only happen when the IOC meets, which won't be until after these games, explaining why they can't compete this year. Jared (t)  14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Results

Is Wikipedia going to have a page which documents the complete results of events once they happen. There have been several soccer matches played already prior to the Opening Ceremony, however they seem to be scattered across multiple pages. Is there a single Olympics Results page being created?


Rhettrospective (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Rhett B[reply]

For the 2006 Winter Olympics, we had a highlights page: 2006 Winter Olympics highlights. I hoped that the same thing could be produced for this games, although I'm not sure what others think. It would be at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights. Jared (t)  13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess someone already started it! Perhaps you can reference that pages from time to time. Jared (t)  13:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too big.

This article is killing my computer. Can we possibley move more stuff into ancilliary pages. I would do it myself, but I cant.-96.237.252.71 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well what it is is the huge calendar, which is like 35 kb in and of itself. I think it should be made into templates, but they would still have to load. I think after the games is the best time to delete stuff, but for now we just have to build. Jared (t)  15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make sense. Please identify stuff that can, in any way, be moved to one of several pre-existing ancilliary pages, and do it. There is no removal of info, simply a streamlining of the info that is initially presented to the viewer. I don't understand locking this article, then completely ignoring any requests to change it despite this evident problem...
Why are there so many pictures?? I can count 5-6 pictures that can immediately be moved to an ancilliary article. This is ridiculous.-96.237.252.129 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Azerbaijani athlets is incorrect

According to several sources the number of Azerbaijani athlets to participate in the Olympics is 44 and not 39 as given in the article, please somebody who has acces correct this number [1] Baku87 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposals

This page is currently 109 KB long, which for an article that should have the potential of being featured in the future, is completely unacceptable, especially when considering that the Olympics have not even started yet (football did already start though...). The page takes forever to load and even more to edit. We need to drastically trim this article down, especially for those lengthy lists or tables that can easily be moved to their own separate pages. I've proposed the splits of the following:

This would be a great start. Thanks Do U(knome)? yes...or no 07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before this goes any further, another suggestion might be a good compromise, because I do recognize the issue of large pages. Perhaps what we could do is move the Broadcasting table to 2008 Summer Olympics broadcasting (to keep with convention). That would eliminate a large chunk of the page. Then, since we already have {{NOCin2008SummerOlympics}}, we could just wipe out the list of national competitors. Finally, the calendar could be moved back to 2008 Summer Olympics calendar, with maybe a mini-calendar on the main Olympics page. I'm not sure if this is essentially what was proposed above, because as per my concerns below, there really wasn't a proposal laid out here in full. Comments/objections to this being the "actual" proposal? Jared (t)  16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what I meant, except for the "we could just wipe out the list of national competitors". Do U(knome)? yes...or no 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the splits proposals by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Comment Well, considering the notability and global importance of the event, almost every section of the article probably needs its own page. For now though, I would like to handle only the huge sections that are the main cause for the loading and technical problems. Then I believe we should go ahead and decide for some of the other sections, case my case (all in my opinion of course). Do U(knome)? yes...or no 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense, but was that a bad joke? WP:SIZE says that articles larger than 100 KB "almost certainly should be divided". I'm glad if you have an extremely fast internet connection, but most people do not have access to that kind of equipment. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that is 109 KB even before opening ceremony, elimination rounds, semi finals, finals, medals (and medal count) and closing ceremony. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 09:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 109KB is irrelevant. Featured articles look at the length of readable prose. This article has lots of formatting in the tables, bumping up the KB. The actual amount of readable prose is actually fairly small.
  • Oppose. First off, the calendar used to exist at 2008 Summer Olympics calendar, where I created it, but someone had the necessity to move it here, removing the transclusion I had for it on this page completely. (I wouldn't oppose moving it back to that page, but ONLY if it stayed transcluded here). Basically, the size of this page is due to our using templates that repeat, or structures that look cool, but take up a lot of room. Everything should stay here for now, or at least in part, but for god sake don't keep getting rid of stuff, because there won't be anything left! Jared (t)  14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The 109KB is not irrelevant. It might not matter for featured article status, but it almost certainly will matter for the thousands of people who visit this page in the next two weeks who don't have super fast internet connections. Benjaminx (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - considering this page is going to be one of the most viewed on Wikipedia in the coming weeks I think is a necessity to pair it down. I think splitting the Broadcasting is a great first start because it is a simple and easy transition. Scottydude talk 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article has the thoroughness that the subject deserves. A great deal of the text in the article is references, not a bad thing. I think we need to remember the 100K guideline is just a guideline. Posterity will edit the article down after the Olympics are over, there is no need to be hasty about splitting it up right this minute because of concerns about the readers of 2010. I don't see any good argument for making this nicely thorough article less so by forcing readers to go to sub-pages (which in the long run will slow down their reading even more). Tempshill (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Make it easy for users to see the links to other pages and divide it up to keep it from getting too long and slow to load. Separate pages can expand on the thouroughness (sp?) of the sub-topic. Cs92 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seriously too big for my poor 512kps connection (pretty much a standard connection in Australia), along with many other fellow Wikipedians that have already been talking on this talk page about this issue. Jordsta (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yep it takes a while to load. However, its important that clear links are placed near the start of the article to help readers find what their interested in. Ziphon (ALLears) 08:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Simply being long is not grounds to split an article. The information is relevant and split pages will only seek to create confusion to access information. I have tried the page at a number of different internet speeds and foudn it loaded well within an acceptable timeframe Rotovia (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support just as long as those the split pages are easily accessible from the main olympics page hornplayer2 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Comment. Basically, I don't understand this proposal fully. Is someone suggesting, and many people agreeing to, the removal of entire sections of writing, tables, and pictures from this article? I understand that not everything can fit here, but if the end game is to make this page smaller, we can't do it without sacrificing the "quality" of this page. Honestly, splitting an article seems like the quick fix, but it just makes more problems, so why not rewrite some stuff here, or make smaller tables. Do we really need an "HD" section in the Olympic broadcaster's table? Do we really need the table?! There are some ways we can fix this without having to shove stuff on other pages first, and I really don't think having more pages to tend to is the answer. Jared (t)  14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

Since this is the most visible Olympic page, I'd like to remind everyone about the Olympic watchlist. It will be a useful tool for fighting vandalism which there will be plenty of. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 07:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening ceremony

When will the opening ceremony start? At 8:00 PM as this article says or at 8:08 PM as the article 2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony says? --Eleassar my talk 08:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony#Source needed for timing of Opening Ceremony jnestorius(talk) 08:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9:00 EST; 8:00 CST --frogger3140 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV? I think not

This page reads like Chinese propaganda. No information about concerns over Chinese human rights abuse other than journalistic restrictions. Human Rights Watch "allegations" are not allegations as the page states - they are documented facts. The controversy over Tibet is not whether protesters will disrupt the games, but whether China should continue to occupy Tibet.

82.70.211.221 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Chris Owens, August 8 2008.[reply]

How dare you spoil the big party for one billion Chinese!! But seriously, that is a problem with many China-related articles on Wikpidia these days, as any criticism of China is anathema for some editors. Novidmarana (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the reason that subjects like Chinese human rights are not mentioned in detail here, is that same reason that the Occupation of Iraq and Guantanamo Bay are not mentioned in each US sporting event article. There are other articles that adequately cover those subjects. For example: Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy over Tibet simply doesn't belong to this article, this article is about the Olympics.--Seba5618 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the press, which means the reliable sources, don't agree with you. If the reliable sources are constantly linking the two, then it does belong here. Ignoring that aspect of the coverage is a violation of NPOV.--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that by "press" you mean western press. In any case I didn't really meant what I wrote, I'm OK with the current size of the controversy section and I do agree that it is necesary to avoid POV. Still, I don't see how to merge this section on the rest of the article without losing consistency.--Seba5618 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highlights Section??

Do we want to add a Highlights section to this page, similar to one in 2006 Winter Olympics, and possibly linking to a more detailed Highlights of the 2008 Summer Olympics? I realise that it would become a bit of a dumping ground for information during the games, but I think that it would provide a centralised location for brief snippets of the games, which we could then clean up to a proper summary post-event. Bluap (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the best way that we can control the dumping of results. And conveniently, the page has already been started! It is at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights. That's how most of the subpage names here are structured, I suppose, and how the 2006 one specifically was too. Jared (t)  14:10, August 8, 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold, and added the section. Bluap (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a seperate article, then there is no need for a section, at least not now. As the games go on, this article will grow exponentially, as will the highlights article. If there is a need for such a section, I suggest adding it after the games so you can control the size of it and you don't have to worry about it constantly being updated with up-to-the-minute results, rather than actual highlights. -- Scorpion0422 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on TV

TV Guide provides time and channel information for all Olympics-related events here: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/summer-olympics/tv-listings/294210.

Where's the most appropriate place to put this?

Tubesurfer (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need to be included. No way we are putting the TV listings for every country. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 16:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Haitian athletes is incorrect

According to several sources there are 10 Haitian athletes to participate in the Olympics and not 1 as is stated in the article. Please correct this number Spyder00Boi (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brunei article...?

Should Brunei_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics be deleted, or a re-direct here, now that they are not taking part? The participation template greys out or omits those years where NOCs do not participate, so this separate article would be the first of its kind as far as I can see. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reference has been added to the main article explaining Burundi's absence so a separate article is not necessary. I think it should be redirected but improve the explanation in the article. 03md (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected Brunei's article to 2008 Summer Olympics#Participation changes and added useful text from the article into that section. Hope this helps. 03md (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect this page??

Currently, this page is semi-protected, which means that new users cannot edit the page. I would like to tentatively suggest that we unprotect the page. My reasoning is that this page is likely to receive a lot of attention from people who are new to Wikipedia. By allowing them to freely edit the page, we encourage the long-term aims of the Wikipedia project. A lot of the arguments in the essay For and Against TFA protection apply here. Bluap (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I for one would be opposed, just because of the amount of vandalism that I expect will be present here over the next few weeks. Jared (t)  23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly against unprotecting the article. There was hourly vandalism on the article as long ago as May, so unprotecting it during the games would be a bad idea. This is different from a TFA, it is only high profile for a day, this article will be high profile for more than 2 weeks. -- Scorpion0422 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sucks it is protected but the vandalism would be more than a TFA article. IPs and new users can edit the event and nation pages which are unprotected. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 23:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Dipping

The athletes from the United States first refused to dip their flag during the 1908 Summer Olympics. I missed the opening ceremonies because I overslept and forgot to tivo it, so I have no way of checking the rumors I've been hearing all day that the American's dipped their flag to the Chinese Head of State. Are their any photos or videos, or perhaps something that could produce a usable fact. Sweetfreek (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

        search it up on google72.80.187.148 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live Broadcast in USA.

Where would be the best place to put info regarding the press blackout of the opening by NBC? Just searching the web it appears alot of people (including me) were disappointed/angry by NBC's refusal to show it live and re-air it latter. Ifandbut (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in the article United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics Bluap (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was it not live? They did replay it all night though. --eric (mailbox) 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns and controversies

This section needs to be fully rewritten with better prose, and needs to provide neutral coverage for a broader spectrum of notable topics. I have also re-added the statement regarding persecution of Christians, and I will attempt to aid in further improvements of the section later tonight.   — C M B J   02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that we should try to keep this section as short as possible, reserving the sub-article Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics for a broad scope. We can't mention every single aspect of human rights in China in this article, which is supposed to be about the Olympics. We definitely want to avoid placing undue weight on the concerns. Bluap (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have with this section (and the reason I kept deleting it) is that it's EXTREMELY America-centric. America has been the loudest among any nation about so-called human rights violations, air pollution, Internet restrictions, blah blah blah. We need a global view, not just what America thinks. Wikipedian06 (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be, if the most reliable sources come from there, then it will get the most coverage. We're not here on wikipedia to create a point of view, only to accurately reflect what the reliable sources. Neutral point of view doesn't insist upon presenting something completely fair and balanced. It insists on presenting viewpoints held by the reliable sources with the weight that they're given coverage. If the majority of sources are US sources (and lets not forget the torch was snuffed in other venues) then the majority of text will be from a US view. What you can do is ensure that the sources are labeled as to where they come from.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently in the process of rewriting this section in as appropriate of a tone as possible.   — C M B J   06:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section has been rewritten, and now includes sources from Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It is not perfect, but it is undoubtedly an improvement. Further editing should include improved prose, slightly more verbose and well-written explanations of the most influential topics; such as the proposed boycotts, Tibetan unrest, and media censorship. The section should remain focused on concerns and controversies that pertain to the Olympic games, and delicate caution should be taken to avoid WP:UNDUE. Some of the information would be more neutrally and tastefully presented in other areas of the article.   — C M B J   11:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Bluap (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual start time

I believe the actual start time was in fact 2008hrs [8:08] not 2000hrs as posted.

Ygen (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Long Pagoda

something should be written about it. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

limited reception to other parts of the world

Man, why you make praise about transmitting the games in HD if you cant make the other parts of the world seeing it!, the broadcasting has been very limited and disappointing. I live in Panama and we here depends on small sections that are paid to US broadcasters to see it! And what we see? NOTHING! We only can see when our athletes play, nothing else from this big event. So whats the point? Why cant they transmit at reasonable prices for small countries so we can see at least something of the events? I cant see nothing in internet either because I not belong to any zone (Europe or USA) that the broadcasters belong!

When we will have a Super Low Definition Open Source Broadcast for the World, this situation isnt fair! I am so pissed, I wanted to see archery at last.....

And I have only see the opening ceremony, and because its the only thing we have, its looping in our local channels. I have Cable and I get nothing neither.

Please London! Dont make the same mistakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.43.196 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

Did Georgia team abandon Olympics Games?

See http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Olympics/idUSPEK30568120080809

--151.57.10.240 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To what extend is the pollution going to affect record times?

Are there sources supporting it? Because it sure sounds like it. I saw a portion of BBC saying that pollution yesterday in Beijing was about 8 times more than in London. --Leladax (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incidents

would a section on "incidents" related to the olympics, such as the killing the recent killing of a tourist or plots by terrorists, be appropriate? hornplayer2 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if there were an unusually large number of tourist deaths we might. If a tourist was killed in California while visiting Disneyland, we probably wouldn't mention it in the Disneyland article. The Disneyland page mentions deaths at the park itself, so it might depend if someone died in the Olympic stadium or if they died in the street. Terrorist plots are covered in the Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics article. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentionable media-related deaths, yes. Terrorists plots? Maybe after the Olympics are over and all is said and done, otherwise it would be a current event. Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics is pretty much appropriate. --eric (mailbox) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Summer_Olympics&oldid=230906741"