Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bidding process

This article should contain brief details of the bidding process, with 2012 Summer Olympic bids containing the full details.

The process of electing a host city for the olympics involves two phases (conducted under the Olympic Charter). In the first phase, applying cities must answer a fifty page questionnaire; after review the International Olympic Committee announces the chosen candidate cities. Phase two requires candidates to submit a candidature file to the IOC. Following further detailed rteview, the IOC announces a list of final cities from which the final Host city will be elected in a session.

source: http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/cities_uk.asp

It does now, so I'v de-exclaimed yout comment. Hope you don'th mind. boffy_b 08:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the "Details of the Bid" paragraph, including the link to London 2012 Olympic bid into the "Bidding Process" section - I think it is important that we maintain a distinction between the Bid details and the actual organisational details. This section needs to remain a historical record but may in time become confusing as alternate organisational details are made in the run up to the games. I've tried to be explicit as I can emphasising that these are historical details, but I think this may require a removal of much apart from the link or else it may become confusing as details may begin to contradict those given later, where an up to date account of the organisation is given. S Newton 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Updating the logo

I think we need newer logo without the text "CANDIDATE CITY", now that london win the 2012 summer olympics! I don't like the number xxx

The revised logo isn't available yet ... once it does I'm sure it will arrive here --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
Granted, "Games of the XXX Olympiad" looks like someone forgot to fill it in, but all th other olympics' pages use Roman numerals, so I'm changing it back. boffy_b July 7, 2005 10:14 (UTC)
Unless 2012 is to be the Year of the Sex Olympics boffy_b July 8, 2005 09:05 (UTC)
Oh man, that would rule. Proto t c 8 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)

the london commitee has at leas 6 years to get a logo, plenty of time, but the fact it is the 30th olympic games may play a part in the design of the logo, but the logo should just as well reflect the culture of the host city.

[edit] So, who was first?

So, who was first to update the page with the result? Was it me? — Peter McGinley 6 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

Does it matter?? No.
Now, where's your christmas spirit? boffy_b
I'm not sure whether I'm happier that the UK won it, or that the French didn't. Proto t c
You really shouldn't put a carboardbox on your cat. You know that? right? -- yourself
An american friend has suggested it is genetic for the English to be torn between being ecstatic that London won the games or that we beat the French ;-P --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
Yes well its probably best not to crow too loundly. Today's anouncement of the 2012 Olympics pleased a lot of Britains and has dominated the news in the UK today. But what is at stake;
A) In seven years time, Britain gets the opportunity to host an international event, spending £3 bn to play games for a fortnight,
Meanwhile last week, on the 28th June, in an item which got about 30s slot in the news;
B) France won the bid to host ITER, an international project, spending £7 bn to build a fusion reactor over the next 10 years. A project which after some 30 years of work could go some way to solving the world's energy problems.
A bit of perspective doesn't hurt. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
I'll clarify one point which is that it isn't a fortnight but a month - there is the Paralympics straight after the main games. Both these projects have the possibility for massive change for the good. --Vamp:Willow 7 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)
Look at the acticle history if you are that bothered about who got here first --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

To the fusion Reactor comment I would rebuke that with the fact that France has spent vast amounts of money trying to win the Olympic bid for some 20 years now without winning - it represents a huge misallocation of money, perhaps that should be included in this article that the french government tried for many years to win and it came as great surpise to many that London won over Paris which had been the clear favourite from day one. Whilst the UK will be paying for the Olympics it will make that money back many times over in tourist revenue, buissness ventures, improving public infrastructure (especially transport) and it also aims to improve the overall state of health of the nation etc. This is no place for nationalistic arguments though, or for sour comments. (Id also direct you to the page on Nuclear cold fusion reactors - its a tough venture which may well not work. It could mean the French goverment has once again spent money it will not make back, and at an overhead of £7bn thats quite a potential loss.)

[edit] Image

In the many reverts and updates, the image has many times changed between Image:Olympic rings.svg and Image:London 2012.jpg, I presumed it was being changed back to the former by accident and restored the London one, is there any reason not to use it? boffy_b July 6, 2005 12:14 (UTC)

It does say "Candidate bid" underneath, so perhaps someone thought it shouldn't appear. I believe it still should, however, and am currently celebrating! violet/riga (t) 6 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)
The 'Candidate city' line is a problem. It would be easy enough to edit the image, but as it is a logo, I suspect that shouldn't be done. Even so, it is visually more useful to show the logo of the winning bid rather than the generic Olympics logo. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)
Well until the bid's site comes back online, it's the most up-to-date image we have. boffy_b July 6, 2005 12:54 (UTC)
The bid site is back up, but the replacement logo won't be available for a while yet --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

[edit] The following day ...

The following text (in bold italics here) has been added to the article:

On 6 July 2005, the final selection occurred was announced at the Raffles City Convention Centre in Singapore. Moscow was the first city to be eliminated, followed by New York and Madrid. The final two cities left in contention were London and Paris. At the end of the fourth round of voting, London won the right to host the 2012 Games with 54 votes, defeating Paris' 50. The next day, central London and the Underground were rocked by a series of terrorist explosions.

I'm in two minds about this. The bombing is a terrible co-incidence, but there is no evidence it is more than a co-incidence. And this single throw-away sentence really doesn't do justice to anything. I cannot make up my mind whether to delete it (on the grounds there is nothing encyclopedic about coincidence) or expand it. I'd appreciate some other editors views. -- Chris j wood 8 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

Certainly not worth expanding; there's already an article about it. But is it irrelevant? That's a judgement call. I'd be inclined to remove it, although I'm afraid if it's removed, it'll just keep getting put back on (particularly whilst feelings are so strong). Proto t c 8 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

Is it also a co-incidence that it happened at the same time as the G8 Summit? --86.137.180.41 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this sentance. My reasoning is this:

  • a) The July 7th attacks were in no way linked to the winning of the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
  • b) The attacks were not on the same day as london won the bid and so should not be linked for that reason.
  • c) As stated there is no encyclopedic relevance to this article or anything further to expand upon linking 2012 games to the 7/7/05 attacks.
  • d) The way in which it was edited into the article and the fact it was initially placed in bold suggested that the person who made the edit adding POV to the article. Although I will assume good faith and take it as an accident.

Also - "The attacks were carried out on the 7th July as full Police and MI5's efforts were focused on the G8 Summit in Gleneagles." is making asumptions. To say "full police and MI5 efforts were focused" elsewhere suggests no police were on standby in london which is incorrect. Also MI5 do not deal with terrorist incidents, the police do. MI5 is an intellegence agency, they only gather the information and then the police act upon it. It was not their responsibility to deal with the bombings although one could argue it is in their mandate to prevent it if possible. In light of this I have removed the comment entirely, should you feel the need to put it back up please inform us as to your reasoning. Ta. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] olympic soccer

Will the UK play the 2012 olympic soccer as ONE team as they did many years ago (they can't play there as England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)? The UK hadn't played olympic soccer since the 1970's even if they qualified in the U-21 European Championship.

All team sports that the UK plays are as a single team, under the official name "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If the UK plays soccer in 2012 (and I'm pretty sure that it's one of the sports that guarantees a spot to the host nation), it will be as "ONE team", yes. Just like they had for hockey in 2004. -- Jonel | Speak 9 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)
Because of the FA and its organisation a united kingdom football team has been elusive in the past, I understand however from a breif interview (records of which i cannot find) that Sebastian Coe said he hoped those issues could be resolved and ONE team could play instead thus representing the nation in which football (as it currently exists) was invented. Please correct me if im wrong however, its only something a vaugely remember.

[edit] Number of sports and disciplines

I have added a list of sports and disciplines. Athens had 28 sports and 37 disciplines. I have removed softball and baseball, and assumed that BMX (to be included for the first time at Beijing) is a separate discipline within cycling, and that there are no other changes. If you no otherwise please amend it. Calsicol 22:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Budget

The figures I have added were taken from the Daily Telegraph. This is one of the fuller listings I have seen, but it doesn't cast to the £100 million surplus forecast, so it is presumably a selective list. The numbers will doubtless change. Calsicol 13:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for sources

There desn't seem to be much in the way of cited sources for the some of the information on this page. Specifically:

  • I can find no source for the breakdown of the venues into Olympic Zone, River Zone and Central Zone that we have adopted. The article makes it sound as if these are official definitions, but neither the official bid website, nor the BBC venue coverage seems to use these terms.
  • I can find no source to confirm that the Olympic Park is to contain a table tennis training centre. Both the websites above only reference table tennis in the context of the ExCel venue.

If you know of a source for any of this, please reference it (in the references section or inline). -- Chris j wood 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Olympic, River and Central Zones are official- they are on the London Bid site 'Venue Map'. --Oli 08:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slalom canoeing/slalom racing

The article formerly linked to the article Slalom canoeing with the link text Slalom racing. However Slalom canoeing makes no reference to racing, and describes a sport which is essentially an 'against the clock' type of event with only one competitor going at a time. I assumed that this was the correct sport, with a rather loose link text, and changed the text to slalom canoeing.

It seems I was wrong, as User:Bhoeble reverted my change with the comment there is slalom kayaking as well. However this still leaves a link called Slalom racing pointing at an article not about racing and not referencing slalom kayaking; either the wrong article or an article in need of a rewrite. For now I've turned these into redlinks to Slalom racing. If anyone knows better, please change . -- Chris j wood 11:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Slalom canoeing begins "Slalom canoeing is a competitive sport where the aim is to navigate a decked canoe or kayak through a course of gates on river rapids in the fastest time possible." There most certainly is a reference to kayaking there. In addition, the International Canoe Federation (the IOC-recognized IF for canoe sports) includes kayaks in the definition of canoes. The link should go to slalom canoeing.
As for the piped text, the ICF calls the event "slalom racing" [1] and time trials such as this are considered part of "racing sports". -- Jonel | Speak 12:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Looking at the IOC's page on the sport, it seems that the IOC calls the sport Canoe/Kayak and the disciplines are Canoe/Kayak Flatwater and Canoe/Kayak Slalom. Perhaps we should go for these names. -- Chris j wood 13:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] London Olympics

London Olympics previously redirected here. But given that there have been two previously, Ive changed that into a disambiguation page Robdurbar 13:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That was a good idea, and inspired me to turn it into a full article. violet/riga (t) 14:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is the main article

With regard to violet/riga's attempts to delete swathes of this article, and her assertions that reversions of this are somehow illegitimate without discussiom, I am opening this section to point out that her implication that she has attempted to open a discussion and I have failed to respond to it is untrue. There is no discussion of the deletions here as anyone can see. In the absence of any attempt to explain the deletions, I believe it is as legitimate to restore deleted sections of this article as it would be to restore say the history and geography sections of the United States article if they were deleted.

This article should cover all the main aspects of the 2012 Summer Olympics. As it becomes necessary to create more breakout articles, they should be done by theme, eg transport and infrastructure, and a precis of each break out article should always be left in this article. It is not appropriate for major aspects of the Games to be covered only in the bid article, which should simply be a historical record of the of the bid up to July 2005. All aspects of the games except the bid itself will evolve, and the updated information should be in this article or in break-out articles from this article, rather than break out articles from the bid article. CalJW 14:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your tone continues your poor attitude. My intentions are clearly to improve our coverage and to state that I am simply deleting content is offensive. That content is covered by London 2012 Olympic bid and to have all of it here as well is a pointless duplication. This article should contain an overview of the organisation and not the fine details of every aspect of it. Your attempts to force your opinion shows your desire to have everything your way, sod anyone else. violet/riga (t) 14:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that third parties will see from the above that my attitude is more co-operative and more constructive than yours. You continue to rely on slurs. I don't like rows and I am not doing this for fun. I am trying to improve wikipedia, but your possessive attitude to this article makes it a very unpleasant experience. CalJW 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Reverting and AfDing before discussion is not the correct approach. violet/riga (t) 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
In response to CalJW's above mention of third party opinion, my view is that CalJW's attitude here and in other discussions is corrosive and detrimental to the Wikipedia project. I will also be posting this opinion on CalJW's talk page Varlan 23:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with continuing to include all the information in this article which violet/riga keeps on removing. The article may well become too big in the future and will need some information splitting out into their own articles, but I do not see this as necessary now, now the that the way it has been done is necessarily the best way of doing it. When the time comes that the article is too big I am sure that the correct and best way of splitting the article up will become evident. Until then, I say it should all be left here.
As for the argument between CalJW and Violet/riga above, I feel there is nothing wrong with the way CalJW has acted in respect to this: to me it appears that Violet/riga acted (probably unintentionally) in a way that may have appeared to be simple vandalism. A better way to go about such a dramatic change of this article would have been for them to have discussed it first (I cannot find any evidence of this taking place).
But anyway, let us keep the article as it was before these dramatic changes and then see how things develop. Evil Eye 20:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism!? Do you understand the situation at all? violet/riga (t) 21:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't saying what you did was vandalism, but that what you did could have initially been perceived as vandalism, or at least, when you add in your later work, to be an attempted to 'hide away' the information some people might find useful on a page with an obscure title (in the edits I looked at I couldn't always find a link to the page you'd moved the information too. But again I'd like to add that this isn't necessarily true and the reasoning behind what you did, but rather an possible interpretation of what someone not involved with the editing could have thought :) Evil Eye 19:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, violetriga, I think your reverts have removed much useful info. However, I agree that maybe a bit too much detail had gone into the article on the different olympic zones and on the construction timetable, given that the amount of information that could go into this article is only going to grow.

The information on the different venues was useful, I feel. For example, The 'Venues' section could be put into this aritcle, but cut off to just 1 paragraph, with a 2012 Summer Olympics Venues page (or one following the precendents set by previous Olympics, presuming that such precendents exist).

The legacy bit is good but ; could be extended to inculde some criticisms of what is being removed/lost from East London too. Budget section could go into both or either of the bid page and the development page. Announcement and developments is a good section, but could easily expand to being rediculosly big. Robdurbar 09:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Darts

Surely we have to have something about the sport of kings, darts, being included as an olympic sport. It has to happen.

Except that it's won't, so we don't. — sjorford (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open water swimming and BMX racing

Will thesae 2 disciplines be added to the 2012 roster as well as the 2008 games? If so, I'll add them. I was just wondering because it would make sense. --J@red [T]/[+] 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pounds v. Dollars

Many values are written in pounds but there is no american dollar equilavent next to it. It would be nice to have that because I'm american and so are most of the other users. (No offense to you Brits.) haha. --J@red [T]/[+] 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Are most users of Wikipedia American? Is that a fact, or do they just share their usage of English? As the article is taking facts in Pounds it doesn't make sense to convert them to Dollars due to currency fluctations, and also the world shouldn't have to change everything it says so it makes sense to the American reader. --Spacepostman 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If we added a translation in dollars, we'd also likely have to include the Austrailian Dollar, Canadian Dollar, Euro, Yen etc. If you want to know a price in another currency, use any of the countless online converters. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with that; use domestic currency where applicable, and dollar+euro otherwise. Is that policy already? If not, it should be. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the IOC's based in Switzerland, the only translation we really ought to put in is to Swiss francs! -- Arwel (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that things should remain in pounds. There's enough places to convert it if people are really interested in finding out the amount. Sue Anne 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I support leaving it in pounds, as that is inline with the US and UK languages policy which would blanket cover the issue of currency. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitive entries

I hope that as the information related to this future event become more available, the repetitive facts and entries (some are repeated in verbatim across several sections) will be fixed. Joey80 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcasting / digital switchover

Does anybody have a citation for the "Any subsequent delays in carrying out the analogue to digital switchover may result in a great many viewers being unable to watch the 2012 London Olympic games!" comment? Unless I've completely missed something, viewers would be able to watch terrestrial/analoge broadcasts if the digital switchover were delayed. Guinness 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramadan Controversy

Shouldn't we include a section about the Olympics being scheduled during Ramadan? That's major international relations news.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410439&in_page_id=1770

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/1/Talk%7E2012_Summer_Olympics_6322.html"