Talk:2006 Asian Games

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 Asian Games article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Qatar Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Qatar-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.QatarWikipedia:WikiProject QatarTemplate:WikiProject QatarQatar articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Multi-sport events Mid‑importance

2006 Asian Games is within the scope of WikiProject Multi-sport events. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Multi-sport eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Multi-sport eventsTemplate:WikiProject Multi-sport eventsMulti-sport events articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of the Asian Games task force. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Redlinks on nations at World Games and Universiade.
Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (Overview at Category:Unassessed Multi-sport events articles)
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Multi-sport_events
Expand : 2009 Beach South American Games. All article related to preview Asian Games, such as 1962 Asian Games, 1958 Asian Games, etc. - Also Papua New Guinea at the 2015 Pacific Games and Fiji at the 2015 Pacific Games: athletes for most sports still to be added. -- Other articles that need expansion are the nations and events of the 2019 African Games. Help appreciated.
Other : Articles on multi-sport events, less the Olympic and Paralympic Games, need to be tagged on their talk pages with {{WikiProject Multi-sport events}}.

2006 Asian Games received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Discussion

Start new topic

Archives

Archive 1: 18 Sept. - 17 Nov.
Archive 2: 17 Nov. - 27 Nov.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 24 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juyoung Choi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Names in Game Reports

Ok, I know there is room for confusion here. Some countries seem to have the full names of players posted while others only the surname. I believe we need to have some consistency here. I believe we should use the full first and last name of the players who score goals. For one, in East Asia, it is common for players to have the same surname. Also, there is the order of names. I suppose that Arab nations use the same name order as the West. Here in East Asia, typically the surname comes first. Then there is Japan, who use surname first, but often change the order when it is used in English. Can we agree on a CONSISTENT policy? Ludahai 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just name them on Wikipedia like we are used to do. Chinese and Korean names for instance with surname first, before mentioning their given name. In other countries which do this we have to do that also. I don't know how Japanese names are spelled in Japanese, but as soon as they are translated into western writing they are named by given name first, see Category:Japanese sportspeople. Then on for instance Badminton at the 2006 Asian Games there are already schedules and the players are named like KARUNARATNE Diluka Thlishan, HIDAYAT Taufik and LEE Hyun Il. Why don't we just use the standard Wikipedia naming scheme and name them like: Diluka Thlishan Karunaratne, Taufik Hidayat and Lee Hyun-Il? As you can see there's already an article on Hidayat and Lee, which isn't linked in the article now, while it's not a bad thing to have red links in an article. SportsAddicted | discuss 09:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the style I used on 2007 ASEAN Football Championship where I used the surname only, if there are two or more people with the same surnames, I'd add the first letter of his given name, like P. Younghusband. --Howard the Duck 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I have the time (which will be tomorrow), I will fix the names on the Badminton page. I feel it is better to get the information on there than not have it at all, then fix it when you have the time. Ludahai 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like using only the surname. I think it better to use the whole name, unless a shortened version is more commonly used. I just fixed some of the Japanese names on the football report where they are thrashing Jordan. Ludahai 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just noticed this section. i didn't know that you were discussing about the way names should be presented. i used the last name first followed by the given name in the boxing article. it will take me alot of time to edit back, but hey, what's the consensus? --RebSkii 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the consensus is the way biographies are done on Wikipedia. I don't see why this should be different at the Asian Games? SportsAddicted | discuss 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the above editor was asking whether we should follow a consensus or why we should follow one but what the consensus is. Personally, I'm not particularly sure if the surname thing is a good idea given that many Malays and Indians from Malaysia & Singapore don't have surnames (indeed a number of people from West Asia too probably). BTW, simply the first letter of the given name is unlikely to be satisfactory either since it doesn't work for Chinese Malaysians & Singaporeans, Taiwanese, and probably Koreans and some Chinese from China with a two character given name. Normal initials would be better. E.g. "Ser Xiang Wei" which I took from the Singaporean page should not be referred to as Ser X or X Ser. That's just bizzare and would confuse her with her sister/cousin (Ser Xiang Ying). Ser X W or X W Ser makes much more sense. Nil Einne 12:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However we still run in to problems with Malays and Indians from Singapore and Malaysia. E.g. Abdul Rahman bin Hassan shouldn't be called A R Hassan or Hassan A R. bin Hassan A R or A R bin Hassan is just as strange. I'm not saying we should abandon surnames completely but there IMHO can be no universal formula. For Chinese, Korean and Japanese, IMHO there would no problem with Surname Initials. P.S. Should mention that the Japanese naming convention on wikipedia specifies we should use Given name Surname Nil Einne 12:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good thing i haven't encountered a boxer with no family name, well not yet as of this writing,(i think singapore boxers are not competing) so do i need to edit to first name first? the boxing article contains more than 140 names and counting. RebSkii 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Games medal count

I'd recommend updating this article after the Asian Games, not during because it can lead to inaccuracies. --Howard the Duck 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a site out there that is covering the games that we can copy a daily count from? Either that, one person could be entrusted to add medal counts as they come in rather than several people stepping over one another's feet,which is the real cause for potential problems. Ludahai 05:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i usually go online at 12mn GMT+8 (Qatar 9pm GMT+3) so the count for a particular day was already official at that time. but then again, we have to note that the medal tally may change because of unforseen circumstances e.g. medalist's suspension the next day. so how do we go about doing this? --RebSkii 07:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, here's the link pre-2006: [1]. I'd check after the games if they're all correct. You can do whatever you want at that article. --Howard the Duck 13:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

i moved this statement from the bidding process section:
"The chances for Doha's bid were described as small by the media."
a substantial amount of time has been given for the citation on this statement. if anyone, has the information, please feel free to put it back. thanks. --RebSkii 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SBS

SBS is only going to show the Opening Ceremony.

Pretty Disappointing, in my opinion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

i'm not sure if i have it right, SBS is a South Korea network, please correct me if i'm wrong. i suggest you see the select free live streaming on the net -->[[2]] --RebSkii 07:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link mate, no I'm talking about the SBS in Australia.

Sites that provide news update/overview on the Games.

Can anyone link me to any?

http://www.doha-2006.com Amjra 11:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution an event?

Dance Dance Revolution is listed as an event at these games. This SERIOUSLY smacks of vandalism, and without a citation it seems only more dubious. I'll watch this page and do something about it later, but I'd prefer to wait and see if an editor who takes an active interest in this page will look into it. Many thanks! Scienter 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is on the English Wikipedia main page I removed the Dance Dance Revolution link in the sports section. I couldn't find any mention of the activity among official resources with a Google search. If this is a bad delete, please be assured I removed in good faith and feel free to revert post haste. Thanks! Scienter 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into who included the Dance Dance revolution addition to the sports section and it was an anonymous "Editor" from a shared university IP. Probably won't be back to harm any more. Scienter 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were ever to plan such a thing, it'll almost definitely be in the 2007 Asian Indoor Games or future events, not the actual Asian Games. The Macau games actually will feature "E-sports" according to the page I just checked but only NBA Live, Winning Eleven and Need for Speed Nil Einne 12:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athlete's and Judge's Oath

Did someone watched the opening ceremonies? Who carried the Athlete's and Judge's Oath? If there is a replay or delayed telecast, kindly supply the info here in wikipedia. Exec8 15:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the names. —MK (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am here in Doha, and the games are being broadcast on an Al Jazeera sports channel, and I am guessing you can watch it on there website?153.26.176.34 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit OT here

But the Sepaktakraw at the 2006 Asian Games article seems to suggest India was in Group B but since India and Iran withdrew but India later decided to rejoin, they ended up in Group A. Is this true? Nil Einne 10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Question - Eyewitness

Hi, I am here in Doha volunteering the games, and I added a bit to the criticism section, about the volunteers problems, etc. How can I add something to the wiki page without citing a source, as "I" am the source, being the actual eye witness? Or does the source have to be a newspaper who as of yet, is not aware of the problem or doesn't care about it enough to report it? I made the entry as neutral as possible, as I didn't want to make it look like "sour grapes" or complaining. I myself have a car, so the transportation problems with the volunteers doesn't affect me, but it does about 90% of the rest of them. All the other problems I have witnessed myself, and they are all due to poor planning. I didn't even mention that so many volunteers have "disappeared" that there is talk of paying volunteers now. (My girlfriend is also a volunteer and has her own stories, she wants to quit because her office "VIP transportation" is working her 10 hours a day, one break, and the pace is ridiculous because so many volunteers didn't show up.) Anyway, how can I add something as an eyewitness? Thanks. Jdylan 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since "it happened", there must be some source. on some parts of what you've written, i have a Philippine broadsheet article that wrote about the things you posted, e.g, athletes soaked in the rain while waiting for the bus etc. i have some viable sources with me and i'll just get back tomorrow to add in the references. thanks and more power. --RebSkii 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korea

I thought North & South Korea combined for this game? So why is there a separate medal tally for (South) Korea and DPR Korea?

Don't know for sure but I'm guessing as with the Olympics they marched in together but compete seperately Nil Einne 11:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right Nil, they only marched under the unification flag; they are still competing separately. --Amjra 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asiad 2006 election

Does anybody have a list of the countries who voted for Doha to host the 2006 Asian Games?

User:Bashari|Bashari 10:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section moving towards POV

The criticism section of this article has several issues, in my opinion.

1) Subjectively, I'm not sure the issues presented in the criticism section are handled in a ~~non-point of view~~ non-neutral point-of-view manner.

Example: "...To be fair, it only rained twice in the two years since planning for the ceremony had begun, and the heavy storm during the actual opening ceremony is rare by Qatari standards. Building shelters at bus stops in case of rain in Qatar would seem ridiculous faced with these facts."

The tone of this writing sounds like a persuasive essay, trying to convince the reader that they should not consider the preperation efforts of Qatar to be wanting, in light of the circumstance of heavy rain.

I would alter the subsection myself, but as several people have put a lot of effort into this article I'm hoping the author/s of the "criticism" section will take the initiative to clean it up a bit.

Thanks! Scienter 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if it was handled in a NON-POINT Of View manner, then it goes to say that it is NOT POV maybe, you are trying to say NON-Neutral Point of View manner. although i am not the author of that particular section, each and every editor here is entitled to edit. thanks. --RebSkii 15:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, you were right, that is what I meant. Thanks. I know that I'm allowed to make alterations, but I just thought it would be best if the people who wrote it had an opportunity to fix it up, so as to avoid any feelings of their hard work being tossed or altered unfairly. Scienter 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that an anonymous editor has cut out the only sourced points regarding criticism of the Asian Games in Doha, without attempting to edit or add new information or sources. Is everything political in Wikipedia? Scienter 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hide the unsourced info that contradicts the sourced criticism ([3]). I'm not saying it's untrue but if we are going to claim something, especially when it contradicts with something else we've said, we need a source. It seems to me that this would be a matter of pride for Qatar and also important for future bids. So if reports suggested something which wasn't true, they would have attempted to correct these reports. N.B. I was there and I know it's true is not a source Nil Einne 18:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact that the Qatari team did not leave first - can someone please find sources that contradict what has already been said, because this is based on one eyewitness accounts and looks very bad for Qatar and the Asian Games. It is unfair to have the section biased against the Qataris when there are sources out there which contradict this. --Amjra 13:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy

I started the section on the tragic death of the Korean equestrian athlete Kim Hyung-chil. I am sure there will be more information available through the night here. Feel free to amend at will as more information becomes available. ludahai 魯大海 14:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the part about this being the 8th death relating to the games should be removed - it implies that they are a direct result of the games, while the reality is that one died while crossing while the other 6 in a car accident on the way to watch the arrival of the torch. This is the only real death directly linked to the games. Thoughts? --Amjra 13:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well i believe it should stand. because it says "death relating to the games" and not "directly resulting from the games or any of the events". the word "relate" is apt, those deaths has something to do with the games. --RebSkii 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nations participating

Is the nations participating still an estimate? I guess if one of the nations which isn't participating in many events hasn't yet actually participated then arguably it's still an estimate but if all 45 have actually participated then it would no longer be an estimate Nil Einne 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've checked it, each and every NOC participated already.--RebSkii 22:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torch Relay revisions

Huaiwei has removed Macau (Macao?) and Hong Kong's flags and placed them as areas within China. I am aware of the disagreement between people about China's ownership/control over these areas, but they were seperated in this article before, for some time (a week?), why are they being smooshed into China now? Is this a matter of correctness, or is this a political move? I'm somewhat inexperienced in this particular area, so I'm hoping some polite, intelligent discourse can occur to resolve this question. Respect and thanks. Scienter 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first amendment was in fact made 10 days ago [4].--Huaiwei 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, works for me, if thats the community consensus on how they should be catagorized, all the better. Thanks for the link. Scienter 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem at all.--Huaiwei 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(response to user:Scienter's comment at 02:10, December 10) They are separate NOCs, and all official sources says 15 countries. — Instantnood 10:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rebskii has now reverted the placement of Macau and Hong Kong back to what is labelled as " the original" placement. Can we have discussion before we revert again or re-revert again? Thank you! Scienter 13:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about playing them under China like so:
<place>
<place>

<place>

--Howard the Duck 14:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the preceeding line says: "NOCs visited" isn't that self-explanatory? let's keep it separated just like the way it was. i agree with Howard the Duck's suggestion.--RebSkii 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That line was "countries and cities", not "NOCs", prior to the first edit [5]. We could very well change that line back too if the "original" version should prevail.--Huaiwei 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
my fault, sorry. the current revision looks good to me. any more reactions? --RebSkii 18:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current revision of placing them under China as Howard the Duck is a good idea. Thanks, Scienter 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are separate NOCs, in other words separate members of the OCA. I can't think of any reason why they should be placed under the entry of China. No international organisation which membership is not restricted to sovereign states, e.g. the WTO, do so. — Insta ntnood 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The NOCs are applicable at the NOCs list section. Place names are applicable at the torch relay section. So if the torch went to Kaohsiung, we'd list Kaohsiung, not Kaohsiung. --Howard the Duck 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's Kaohsiung, it's impossible for the torch relay to be there. Kaohsiung might be possible though. ;-) — Insta ntnood 21:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the torch went to places. Taiwan is a place. Chinese Taipei isn't. --Howard the Duck 13:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related question, what were the exact places in HK and Macau did the torch visit? --Howard the Duck 07:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an anon user removed the line break i put so that the relay route image would not disrupt the line for the entry: united arab emirates. i think the line break is for aesthetic reasons and causes no harm to the torch relay section or to the whole article for that matter. --RebSkii 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the reference links and read the official sources, Huaiwei. Passer-by 21:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this comment (whatever it means) directly specifically at me?--Huaiwei 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you are the only one to insist to remove the reference links. Passer-by 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(From Hong Kong article) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Traditional Chinese: 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區 [pronunciation]) is one of the two special administrative regions (SARs) of the People's Republic of China (PRC), the other being Macau, and one of the richest cities in the world.

It is already told us that Hong Kong is SAR of China, not an independent countries. --Aleen f1 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what is a country and what is a sovereign state? Did you read the sources referenced? Passer-by 07:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been noted below that the official sources never write "15 countries", but always "13 countries" or "15 countries and regions". I suppose you need to write to them and educate them on what "country" means?--Huaiwei 12:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not entirely with the reference links. Its with the numbers and accompanying sources you are trying to add, and your misintepretation of them. Care to read the sections below concerning this?--Huaiwei 12:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong

Just wondering, if Hong Kong wins a gold medal, what song is played at the ceremony? Colipon+(T) 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March of the Volunteers, i.e. PRC's national anthem, is played for both Hong Kong, China and Macao, China. Neither territory has its own anthem. In the past God Save the Queen and A Portuguesa were played for Hong Kong and Macau, respectively. — Insta ntnood 10:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English

American or British? --Howard the Duck 09:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British IMHO. Many of the countries with a significant level of native or secondary English use like India Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore all use British English. Other Asian countries like China, Indonesia don't really have a preference either way AFAIK. I presume the Phillipines uses American English tho and perhaps some of the west Asian countries Nil Einne 08:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What English is used in Qatar, if I may ask? --Howard the Duck 08:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines

Philippines has 2 gold medals already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.76.211.135 (talk • contribs).

That's pretty pathetic. No wonder Filos make their living by cleaning Arab toilets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.36.129 (talk • contribs).

That must've felt really good, eh? --Howard the Duck 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

the spirit of the games section appears in the games' official website: http://www.dohaasiangames.org thus constitutes copyvio. i sent a notice to the author and i tagged it copyvio. --RebSkii 17:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final formatting of Sports pages

I am working on specific results on many of the sports pages. For uniformity, I propose the following layout:

1. Introduction
2. Medal Summary Section
- a. Medal Winners
- b. Medal Table
3. Detailed Results

ludahai 魯大海 09:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend segregating the men's and women's separately under a second level header such as:
==Men's tournament==

===Preliminary stages===
===Group stages===
===Knockout stages===
==Women's tournament==
===Preliminary stages===
===Group stages===
===Knockout stages===

--Howard the Duck 09:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that and will try to implement it as I am cleaning up the pages, which is underway. Also, names from Taiwan, China, South Korea, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Hong Kong, Macau, and Chinese names from Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia should be surname first. Some people have put them in the western order. Chinese names definately go surname first in accordance with Wikiproject China conventions (I am a member of the project). Also, typically names from all of those countries, plus Japan, go surname first. However, it seems reversing the order for Japanese names is common in English usage - though a bit strange for me. The Taiwan baseball players names are in the wrong order. I will fix them when I get to the baseball page. ludahai 魯大海 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me with the Chinese names? now this has to be manually edited (boxing article) because i removed the ALL CAPS format. thanks a lot. --RebSkii 15:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can also help if need be.--Huaiwei 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On such lists isn't it better to provide all names in the "Family name, Given name" format? Passer-by 07:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather go with Wikipedia's convention of "given name, family name". --Howard the Duck 09:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not Wikipedia convention for all languages. I know for a fact that the convention for Chinese names is surname, given name - I am on Wikiproject China. I believe Korean is the same way. I have seen numerous Korean names the same way. I don't know about Vietnamese or Burmese usage on wikipedia, but those languages also put surnames first. ludahai 魯大海 05:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to other languages. Since we call that Houston Rockets star Yao Ming not Ming Yao. --Howard the Duck 11:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese uses surname first. Check Aung San Suu Kyi for an example. Aung is the surname. Same for Ho Chi Minh, who was Vietnamese. Ho is the surname, and previous names, like Nguyen Sinh Cung is also listed surname first. As for Korean, check Ahn Jung-Hwan. Ahn is the surname - though with Korean, I have seen a few with the Western order - especially golfers who became well known in the United States. ludahai 魯大海 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we'd use Arroyo Gloria Macapagal? Hahaha :p --Howard the Duck 02:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. The Philippines uses the given name-surname order. ludahai 魯大海 04:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Archery at the 2006 Asian Games is finished. Take a look and tell me what you think. As for Chinese names, I will defer to Huaiwei as he is certainly more familiar with pinyin than I am - it is not commonly used in Taiwan. ludahai 魯大海 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the Chinese names in that page looks pretty correct.--Huaiwei 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia talk:2006 Asian Games (deleted)

Referee Bias in Handball

There was evident bias in the refeering of the handball match in Korea v. Qatar. Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft2k3KeBCtU The Qatar Handball national team admitted that the referee was favoring them, and agreed with the ROK national team to request a rematch. Furthermore, the two referees of the game were banned from international handball because of previous cases of bias...

Anyone care to put this in the article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.98.34 (talk • contribs).

If you have the links (news or official press statements) to back up this claim, it should be both on the main page as a controversy surrounding the Games as well as on the Handball at the 2006 Asian Games page. You can do it yourself if you have the proper documentation. ludahai 魯大海 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torch relay

Please avoid to use any table to serve the torch relay, that is only simple information and should serve by simple formatting ask mention in Wikipedia:When to use tables. Anyone keep to use table in that part will assume ask vandalism. --Aleen f1 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed that the verbal tenses are still in the future tense. the Asian Games is finished and it's time to edit to the past tense. well actually, i changed that before, but because, (i guess IMO) of the merry-go-round edit wars in the past few days, it was overlooked. --RebSkii 17:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is simple? Are List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita List of countries by literacy rate simple information? Anyhow, I am not interested to argue with people like you. Don't change anything else when you switch table form into bullet form. Passer-by 22:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The torch relay is simpler since it has fewer elements than those you've mentioned. Also, it's easier to edit in bulleted form than in tabular form. --Howard the Duck 02:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it simpler? They have the same number of columns. Those lists can be bulleted too. Passer-by 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, the torch relay had signicantly less number of rows? --Howard the Duck 09:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And much less wikisyntax for the newbie to learn?--Huaiwei 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's no reason to have a table. But I'm disturbed by Aleen considering it vandalism. A content or style dispute IS NOT vandalism. Check out Wikipedia:Vandalism. Please don't call things vandalism when they're not as this just confuses issues and undermines the problem of real vandalism Nil Einne 08:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First round vote

That is no source to prove the first round vote, and the source which raised before i'm cancel is empty. Feel free to add back if have verifiable source. Thank you. --Aleen f1 05:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who removed the source at the same time when you removed the first round results. The first source was taken from the printed version of the newspaper, which online version requires login. You may also have assess to it through subscription to online databases of periodicals. If the website of the second source is not working, you can always read it from Google cache. Google also provides a translation service. Passer-by 20:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what is feel free to add back? Please do not rude in Wikipedia as YOU CAN ADD BACK ANY TIME. --Aleen f1 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was being rude? Who removed the sources then claimed there was no source? Who responded in capital letters? Passer-by 07:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i'm say YOU CAN ADD BACK ANYTIME is already respect to the sources and other Wikipedians, please be courteous in Wikipedia. You never deal with more complicated circumstances. Please be civil. --Aleen f1 07:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong and Macau

According to the Wikipedia articles, Hong Kong and Macau does not come independently, and it just SAR in China. So how to deal with this situation in torch relay? --Aleen f1 07:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torch relay is for places, the participating NOCs are for NOCs. Ergo, since HK and Macau are SARs (province-level) subdivisions of China that are internationally recognize, and they compete independently from China in the games, the torch relay would display the places with HK and Macau under China. --Howard the Duck 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the two sources provided by passer-by, they both say 15 countries and regions. If passer-by insists on using the number 15 in the two sources, It should be listed as 15 countries and regions, not 15 countries. If then, I think Macau and Hong Kong can be listed seperately from China. --A10203040 10:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since the reference says countries and regions lets term it as such. --Howard the Duck 10:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Check out the official site [6], which talks about the "13-country Torch Relay route", the official Qater Tourism website [7] describing the torch's travels "over 50,000 kilometres to 13 countries in more than 50 days". Needless to say, the Chinese [8] refers to the involvement of "20 cites of 13 countries" too.--Huaiwei 14:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More... 15 countries and regions, 15 countries and regions (includes video), 13 countries, 15 countries, 14 countries. --Howard the Duck 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with either 15 countries and regions or 13 countries. I hope Huaiwei and Passer-by can come to an agreement, rather than continuing this revert war. --A10203040 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but Hong Kong and Macau are journey around the SAR and should not repeated again. I just hope same word not repeat for another time in same area. --Aleen f1 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Site lists Macau and Hong Kong separately from China as NOCs and thus this page should show the same.

ludahai 魯大海 09:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast/broadcasted

Both are accepted. --Howard the Duck 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Doha2006.jpg

Image:Doha2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis/Soft tennis

I've been revamping the tennis event page, and I was wondering if Soft Tennis needs it's own page/pages. All the references I've found treat soft tennis as a separate event (not a discipline of tennis): on the official site, it has its own schedule, the sports page has it separate, and the Olympic Council of Asia (the organizer of the games?) lists it separately for 2006, 2002, and 1998. I've created a page for the event, but have treated as a sub-page to tennis. Does it need to be completely split off? --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Can the notability of these sections be explained to me: closing ceremony, criticism, venues, problems, and broadcasting. It seems to me that venues and broadcasting are inherently nn, and the others have much more detail than they warrant. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the notability is there, so if you said you are cleanup this article, is nonsense, i mark you vandalism. --Aleen f1 05:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe the notability is not there, and I maintained the sections, I will wait to hear their notability before pruning them. Also, I improved the wording of the article, as I am a native English speaker. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe all there is fake, the notability is there, see all the Olympics article, there all write like this way. --Aleen f1 06:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is entirely too much detail, and I'm reverting your re-addition of the opening ceremonies section. It says the exact same thing as the main article which is linked right there, so it is entirely unnecessary. I'm just interested in making sure articles aren't bloated with cruft. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is enough to describe the opening ceremony with that short details. At least, some of them must be keep, or write something that not redundant to main article, you just erase all, that is deflect the "Opening Ceremony". --Aleen f1 07:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left the first paragraph so that there is some there about it. But there is no point in having more than a couple sentences additional to what is already there. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I begin to realise one problem from you, you not review the references and erase what you "feel like". That is problem of you. I hope you can do the appropriate things. Sounds like POV? If it not in sources, i probably will not add into the article. --Aleen f1 07:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself is pov. I did review the references, and I removed what was cruft. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't about the sources, it's that it sounds like an advert for the mascot. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, i feel it is enough for this article to readers. --Aleen f1 08:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no real defence for notability has been made, I will fix the article as I see fit. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fool me about this, see WP:NOTE, generally all of that is suit to the Wikipedia, i don't BELIEVE is not fit, all of the sources in there, plus all the material already aired/published. I can question about your editing. --Aleen f1 09:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are there, I honestly don't think that these are notable; and no one has bothered to defend them along with you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see what your reason behind this, first "YOU THINK", make the sense that you have reason for this, another is "YOU THINK", what you think, you can't delete something by just said the notability issues. I like to see, at the same time, i will like to ask other user about this. Also i don't see any reason why it should delete. Also, if it had notability issues, why any user didn't say this during peer review. Don't just said something "YOU THINK", if anyone act like you, then the word "YOU THINK" can stand for whatever the reason. --Aleen f1 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another is if no one defend along with me, that not mean you can delete for whatever reason, and you stand for notability issues didn't stand at all. May be another user didn't realise this one. --Aleen f1 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism, venues, and problems are inherently non-notable. In the criticism section, only one ref even still exists (19; but 16-18 are dead). It may have had notability when it happened, but in the scheme of things it does not. The specific location where events took place does not matter. WP does not need to have lists of excessive details on regional sporting events. Also, the venues section is unreferenced. In the problems section, 8 refs are dead, while only 6 still exist (31,32,37-42; and 30,33-36,43). The references don't even exist anymore. This is demonstrative of the lack of importance and notability of the subject. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you wrong once again, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead", i advise you to read that, a dead link does not lead to not notable, instead it should be fix where it possible, so do not call some section that have dead link as not notable. It is citing when what it happen. --Aleen f1 12:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Yes, I'm aware of that. It is not the issue here. From WP:Note, "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability." The sources don't even exist any more; the websites do not consider them important (notable) enough to maintain coverage on them. Just because it was notable when it was happening, does not mean it is still notable on a global scale. The fact that sources are disappearing is indicative of the lack of notability of these sections. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agree what you claim, it is happened, even the source disappearing, it is verified, you cannot censored something because the link dead, remember, dead link not mean it is lack of notability, this policy is not exist, you claim is disappropriate. --Aleen f1 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dead links mean it is not notable. If they're dead they don't exist anymore; if sources don't exist, it is nn. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to talk more about this, if you want to claim I'm wrong, then make it in ArbCom. Because your notability policy is out of the line, it seems YOUR policy, and not WP policy, i will not answer any further comment, because i already state, dead link should go for fix, and not question about the notability issues, all the fact provided is true, so is not a problem or questioning anything. --Aleen f1 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly out of line; you might notice that Andrwsc apparently didn't think your case was good or important enough to deal with. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea. If these links are now dead, are they in the Wayback machine or some other archiving service? That at least would solve the WP:V problem. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Aleen. Implement Rod's suggestion rather than reverting to your version. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod is just a suggestion, all that should be stay, he said about wayback machine, it is not about censored out all of that. Anyway, you are in 3RR war. --Aleen f1 08:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even freaking understand you... "all that should be stay, he said about wayback machine, it is not about censored out all of that." What does that even mean? You are in a revert war as well...look at the history. Rod has given a suggestion for a resolution; if you persist in your intention of ignoring it, it will look like bad faith on your part. I suggest that you do what he suggested to salvage these sections. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link should be save where it possible, i think you address the concern, BUT you not try to save it. How dare you say i'm ignoring you, you are the man who not TRY, but only fail people hard work, did you know how people work hard on it? Note you not a defender at all. If i stand in your side, i would use wayback machine to search when possible, and not ask other user to do, because you not try to know but you rather choose to delete it. --Aleen f1 09:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your way seems harsh, i can point out:

It is really doubt whether you have follow the Games last December 2006, as you point closing ceremony, criticism, venues, problems (single out Broadcasting because WP:NOR) lack of notability. If you not, you probably delete with blind. In order, venues can be found in Official Website, this has been done in Olympic Games, i have point for few times. Closing ceremony aired global, is all like TV shows that all the plot are submit without any ref, EXCEPT you didn't watch it. If you didn't follow, than is harsh you editing out something that true but you didn't know about the topic. This mean you not expert, and you blindly editing out.
You address the concern, however, you did not address it in details, make totally i dis understanding. However, you point out other person not defense along with me, did you know this contents is know by expert.
Another, you didn't give time, it seems you like to work your way rather Wikipedia way, i realise that {{Notability}} is exists, but you choose not to add it, instead you deleting all that consider can be IMPROVE. How people can improve if you not give time.
In addition, you didn't help to fix. Oppese to BOLD. I have point for few times that notability is still exists, but you choose to ignore (as you point to me). I have see your editing, it seems you like to delete something without try to review. --Aleen f1 10:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just all for this, i have no idea how your attitude. You like you say "YOU THINK". --Aleen f1 10:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A (mostly) outside view

Note : I did some work on this page a year or so ago, but nothing since, as I recall. Nevertheless, here's a couple of (non-exhaustive) observations :

The closing ceremony section was too long -- a short simple description is all that's needed.
You can make an argument that the venues section could be removed, because the venues are mentioned at the individual sport articles, but I have no preference on that.
The "Athlete's death" section is odd, in that it mentions eight deaths at the Games, but does say anything else about them. Needs tightening -- it reads a bit too much like a news article.
The subsections on Doping and Gender test should stay, but be combined.
Much of the "Last minute withdrawals" is written in future tense and narrative, event-by-event style (especially the paragraphs on India -- it's unclear what the actual final withdrawals were). Should be replaced with a very short list of withdrawals and reasons. It shouldn't be hard to find an actual list of who played at the games, which would remove the need for dead links to speculative articles.
Unsure about the criticism section, but if it stays in some form, the section on insufficient bed space should be moved there.

One dead reference fix anyway:

Rains spoil ‘best’ opening ceremony: http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2006/12/03/SPRT2006120381405.html (just did a search at that site)

That took a couple of minutes. Shouldn't be hard for people who want to keep a section to verify existing references or get new ones. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another outside view: I see this dispute as a conflict between "comprehensive" and "crufty". I think both editors are acting in good-faith, so accusations of vandalism are unwarranted. This article can certainly use some copy editing, as was done in the closing ceremony section. However, I think outright removal of the criticism, venues, and problems sections is too harsh. First, Doha is a candidate city for the 2016 Summer Olympics (see Doha 2016 Olympic bid), so much of this information is directly relevant to that article too. Doha's performance as a host city for these Asian Games needs to be objectively handled – we need to provide due weight to the issues of infrastructure capacity etc. This means we shouldn't include excessive details about problems they had (as might be the case with Aleef1's preferred version), nor should we gloss over them and delete that content (as might be the case with Carl.bunderson's preferred version). As was done with the closing ceremony section, I think some copy editing would be most effective.; I encourage User:Carl.bunderson and User:Aleenf1 to work towards a compromise solution instead of each blindly hitting the "undo" button. I am certain that there is a brilliant prose version waiting between your respective versions, and your counter-productive edit-warring is likely to end up with you both blocked for 3RR violations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is my version of the closing ceremony agreeable to everyone? If you feel its notable enough I don't mind the venues section staying. Would you (or someone) rewrite a criticism and problems section that goes between our two extremes? Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My solutions: I prepare to solve the problem, my point:

Venues should be stay, is weird to see a sporting article without venues, Football World Cup, Euro Champs, all list venues, is no point to delete, the venues took from official website.
All section should be rewrite as possible, Carl able to copyedit the other part, why not this and choose to delete it?
Is 1 year after the Games, if ref link dead, it can dig the new one when possible, however Carl choose to delete mean i can do nothing, because so much annoy.

I hope my point can bring to consideration, delete is harsh, as i believe. --Aleen f1 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]