Jump to content

Talk:2010 Commonwealth Games

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

The "bomb" planted by Australian Channel Seven TV network

[edit]

That addition to the Controversies section is rubbish. One of the two sources "referenced" doesn't even mention it. The story in the one remaining possibly useful source explains the the event, more than two weeks before the Games, says nothing about what security will be like during the Games.

I submit that the TV network's action, plus the addition of its description to this article, are just news making sensationalism. It doesn't belong. I intend to remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this justification, much as I dislike certain journalistic practices. Despite the veracity of the story having since been challenged - a piece of information that I inserted into the article, so I'm not trying to defend the Seven Network here - the fact is that it received a huge amount of international attention. If you think that the attention was overblown, fine, but that doesn't make it non-notable. For example, while a lot of Democrats in the United States might think that the influence of the "Tea Party movement" has been wildly overstated or consists of astroturfing, that doesn't mean that that the Tea Party isn't noteworthy and that there shouldn't be an article on it in Wikipedia. The appropriate response would be to create an article on the Tea Party movement, while also including criticisms and controversies - which is in fact what that particular article tries to do.
Similarly, if the journalistic practices of Seven have come into question, then a balanced, well-sourced article should highlight both the report and concerns raised about the report. That applies for the whole section: attempts to remove the section entirely are illegitimate, because individual editors' claims that "everything's fine" do not acknowledge the reality of the controversy (regardless of how confected/sensationalised) that has taken place. Conversely, attempts to criticise into Commonwealth Games security without giving counter-claims would also be illegitimate.
The fact that we may personally dislike press sensationalism, however each of us defines the term, does not mean that we have carte blanche to erase something that was widely reported on news outlets around the world and was sufficiently important that the ABC's top media investigative programme felt compelled (correctly) to investigate its veracity. If the sources nominated were unreliable or inappropriate, the correct response is to place a "Verify source" template or "Failed verification" template, not to remove that part. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't responded at all to my most significant comment - "...the event, more than two weeks before the Games, says nothing about what security will be like during the Games." The rest of your post is really just describing the media's behaviour, in effect proving my point that Ch 7's actions were self-serving, sensationalist, news-creating rubbish. That may deserve it's own article as a media behaviour topic, but it's NOT about the Commonwealth Games. As for the Games themselves, there appear to be many problems. Channel 7's fake bomb isn't one of them, and reporting it here takes the emphasis off the real issues. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not sufficient. If that's your claim, then we should scrap the entire article, because the Games haven't taken place yet and so we can't possibly make any comment about them. What takes place before the Games is undoubtedly relevant to the Games themselves, to varying extents; security preparations don't just materialise on Day 1 of the Games - for large events like the Commonwealth Games, they are (or should be) conceptualised and operationalised well in advance. If the fact that the incident took place well before the Games is relevant, which it is, then that should be mentioned as a qualifying or counter-balancing statement. But none of that precludes this incident from being worthy of inclusion, a term which is shorn of any value judgements about whether a particular editor happens to like "sensationalism" or not. If you have a particular Wikipedia policy which prescribes that such a statement should be removed, please cite such a policy. The incident, as it stands, is veriable, does not meet the threshold for excision, and can be accurately presented in a way that is fair and reflects a neutral point of view. The correct path to follow in a circumstance like this would have been either to insert one of the prescribed templates or to have invoked the corresponding Wikipedia policy or guideline, instead of deleting content based on a personal dislike of tabloid news tactics. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's Wikipedia that disapproves of tabloid news tactics. We have standards for what makes a reliable source, and in my view that report made that news outlet an unreliable source at that time. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an incorrect invocation of Wikipedia policy. If you read the policy on reliable sources with respect to news organisations, you'll see this: "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting." Two things. The Seven Network is undoubtedly a "mainstream news source"; as are the myriad news organisations that picked this up worldwide. Secondly, this guideline relates only to factual accuracy, not to the tone of the report or whether it emerged from "tabloid tactics". To take an analogue, Seven's "investigation" into David Campbell - no matter how much you or I may have been disgusted by it (I certainly was) - was absolutely worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, and the fact that Seven resorted to yellow tactics in the course of that story was neither here nor there. In sum: do not allow your personal prejudices to get in the way of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
And before you say that the Media Watch investigation proves that the report was false, and therefore the sentence should not be included, there are two immediate objections to this: (1) Media Watch alleges that the report was false, which is being contested by the network, and (2) reports which are later found to be false do not automatically lose the right to be included; rather, they may be qualified with a statement that they have been challenged (and if applicable, that they have been proven false). This is in fact what the sentence said before you deleted it. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time that you stopped playing with words and Wikipedia policies. (There's even a policy on using policies for pedantic and silly games, but I can't remember it's name right now.) You and I both know that Ch 7's tactic was unethical and a deliberate attempt to create news, rather than simply report it. The only way in which that should be reported by Wikipedia might be as an example of unethical media behaviour. To even mention it in the article as having anything to do with preparation for the Games is feeding unethical behaviour. I don't care what Wiki-guidelines you spout here, you cannot convince me that it should carry any credibility nor even be mentioned in the article. (Unless, as I said, as an example of bad behaviour by the media, as has been alleged by Indian officials anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is very clear on this. If it's published in reliable sources such that the facts can be verified, its inclusion is justified. The issue is not whether Seven is a reliable source - they are not a third-party and thus cannot be used to prove notability - but whether the event has been reported in other media. And, look, it has: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc
Your position that Wikipedia should not report supposedly unethical behaviour is completely unsupported by policy. Do we have an article on September 11 attacks? The Holocaust? Is Wikipedia saying they were 'ethical' acts? Of course not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and it takes a dispassionate position on whether the events that it reports are morally justified in the eyes of the reader. This isn't Conservapedia. Bastin 09:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Spot on. As for the notion, claimed in HiLo48's previous comment, that it is illegitimate to cite Wikipedia policy in a debate about what should be in a Wikipedia article, it is worth remembering that regardless of what editors think of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, they are there to be followed. Wikipedia is not a place to be used as a battleground for the exercise of personal beliefs, ideologies or grudges. It is irrelevant what "you and I both" believe about Seven News' tactics. The incident meets all of Wikipedia's benchmarks for verifiability and reliable sources. If any editor has a personal objection to the Seven Network's journalistic practices, that's a matter for that editor. The story itself is highly relevant, attracted significant publicity and was widely disseminated as a point of discussion with respect to Commonwealth Games security. No counter-claim consistent with Wikipedia policy has been presented that outweighs these imperatives. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that the Ch 7 stunt proved nothing about Games security, and it's wrong for us to include it in such an area of the article. It did prove that a source normally regarded as reliable (though I have my doubts) was willing to do something totally unethical in the theatre of the Games in order to attract attention, which Wikipedia is seemingly enthusiastically helping to provide. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been a publicity stunt without merit by Seven, it would not have been reported in the reliable sources I cited above. That is, the biggest newspapers in both Australia and India. Once again, that it was done by a TV network is irrelevant to the discussion - it is NOT Seven's status that makes it worthy of inclusion. If the event is reported by the Times of India, the Hindustan Times, the Australian, and the Sydney Morning Herald, it is notable, if it's done by a TV network, a high school student, or (indeed) a terrorist group. That is, regardless of whatever 'honour' you want to save for the Games or whatever journalistic merits you think there were for the 'stunt'. You are expected to follow Wikipedia policy, whether you like it or not. Bastin 11:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
HiLo48 is going over the same point about his personal disapproval of the incident, but it doesn't actually advance a case for the line not being included. "My contention is that the Ch 7 stunt proved nothing about Games security": in other words, it's your personal view that Seven's story should not have attracted attention because you believe it was insignificant. You are entitled to that personal view. It does not legitimise scrubbing articles of things that attracted significant international attention among reliable news outlets and raised considerable questions about Games security, just because you would personally prefer that such an incident did not have those effects. I might have preferred less of a focus on asylum seekers during the recent Australian election, but that clearly would not entitle me to scrub any mention of asylum seekers from the Wikipedia article on the election. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. You seem unable to read what I am saying. Of course what Ch 7 did attracted attention. But that attention was not because of a significant problem with Games security. It gained attention because of outrageous and unethical media behaviour in the theatre of the Games. To say that it's simply my view is, of course, correct. So is your position simply YOIUR view. HiLo48 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you seem to be unable to read what either of us is saying. That it is eligible for inclusion is not Cyril's view or my view. It is Wikipedia policy's view. We have cited policy time and time again, and you must abide by it, despite the variance in your view from it. If you reply to this, please cite some Wikipedia policy, as we have done, or your case fails, and reference to the incident will be included in the article (albeit, I suspect and hope, in passing). Bastin 23:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
In consideration of the policies and guidelines noted in the course of this discussion, most if not all of which support inclusion of the incident, I have restored the one sentence about the incident, including - as is appropriate - the part about the veracity of the report being challenged; several media sources have been added as citations for that sentence. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, your obvious numerical advantage in this discussion and the time to look up policies has given you a temporary success. I know that given the time I could demonstrate that you are using such policies in an inappropriate and silly way. I also know that, many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. I will just point out that, becaue you have rightly inlcuded the criticism from Media Watch, what you have now added, under the heading of Concerns and controversies (meant to be about the Games), is an item demonstrating not a controversy about the Games, but a controversy about media behaviour. It really doesn't belong. But good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the source works, which I haven't checked, then it stays, as sting operations are a part of investigative journalism, whether one likes it or not, really YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what actually worked? They claim they carried in an object that wasn't actually a bomb, two weeks before full security was required, then publicised it themselves as if it meant something. Another, more reliable source says they lied anyway. We are publicising a low grade, commercial media stunt, not a sting. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participating nations - numbers in brackets

[edit]

What are they? Numbers of athletes? If so, we should say so. But surely a very early, almost certainly wrong guess at this stage. And a lot of nations don't have them anyway. I'd prefer to wait for reality to come into play. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this comment has been here a week now. Whoever put those numbers there in the first place apparently doesn't read Talk pages, so I still don't know if I'm right abut their meaning. I've added a comment to the article to clarify my guess on this matter and to help other readers. (Assuming I'm right, of course.) I still think it's silly putting numbers in an article that we just know are going to change. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies fixed

[edit]

I have replaced the controversy section with its rightful replacer. I know australians will want to replace it but it is correct, there is NOTHING wrong with CWG 2010 if you replace it you will be announced racist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtjdajtjda (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Someone has deleted the controversies section and inserted an odd replacement, this is biased. And yes im aussie so acccording to the guy that done it i must be racist --Gargabook (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People shouldn't remove anything from articles without discussing first but lets just face it the description paragraph is intended for description e.g. participating nations,venues,sports types,dates e.t.c. and there is more than enough place for criticism.Heck,there is an Entire section dedicated to criticism/controversies and if that doesn't satisfies someone there is an whole article Criticising commonwealth games.So lets be honest Wikipedia has a well established format which states that first paragraph is for providing Basic info (NOT CRITICISM) about anything and for praise/criticism you can write in subsections.This format is followed throughout wikipedia and shall be followed here.EXAMPLE:If I read about Australia then first para will tell me about its position,topography,population e.t.c It will NOT talk about controversies and internal problems etc those will be displayed in subsections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.64.165 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor English expression and grammar in the article, plus sensitive editors

[edit]

Quite a few additions have now been made to this article in what I would deem to be quite unacceptable English. I deleted one such addition, sincerely thinking it was so bad it had to be vandalism, and got roundly abused by the IP editor who had posted it.

This is English Wikipedia. I can be very tolerant of those for whom English is not a first language most of the time. There are many in my country., But I believe our standards here have to be much higher than is demonstrated by some of what has been recently posted. I don't want to become an English teacher, correcting students' work, and risking the ire of sensitive posters, but I do recommend to those for whom English is not their first language that they discuss your ideas here first and allow others to massage them into the best format BEFORE they end up in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roundly abused? Err... isn't that a bit much??? All I ever said was that one shall post his/her reason(s) for deleting something and I *also* said that I appreciate your contributions but it is 'unfriendly' to delete anything without giving reason.Also,If grammatical mistakes are the reason of deletion than you could have edited my post and rectified it.If you STILL think I have misconducted or as you put it "Roundly abused" you then by all means report me.

PS:I forgot to point out that your Complaint of 'poor grammar' itself contains grammatical errors e.g. "not a first language" it should be "not the first language" also "I do recommend to those for whom English is not their first language that they discuss your ideas here" it should be "that they discuss 'their' ideas" and "massage them into the best format BEFORE they end up in the article." Shouldn't it be message instead of massage??? Let's face it everyone makes mistakes.The key is to act in good faith and if mistakes are spotted one should point them out or rectify them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.64.188 (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he meant "massage", not "message". David Biddulph (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massage is correct - you can massage an idea or comment to further improve it. "not a first language" is also correct - some people are fluent and utilise more than one language as their first language, so not A first language is correct usage in English. So please don't troll. You have had the opposite effect and actually proven the need for some people to edit grammatically incorrect postings. Don't take is as a personal attack, rather as an aide. Lucaswells (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a careful read of my post to start this topic would show that I did not want to stop anybody contributing to the article. I just wanted wording discussed here first so that it would reach the high standards that we should all be aiming for in Wikipedia. And yes, looking back at my post I AM embarrassed at some of my own sloppy mistakes. I appreciate the corrections. Even today, I've seen additions to the article which I simply know will be gradually edited into better English. Why not try to get them right to start with? HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is not expectable and all readers should follow rules.

And maybe that line exemplifies everything I am trying to say. Unsigned, no Edit summary, seemingly irrelevant, and strange grammar. Hmmmmm. 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought when complaining about others not signing comments, one would take care to make sure his/her own comments are signed correctly.The continual use of a patronising tone on this talk page (and elsewhere) isn't exactly leading to productive results, is it? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, you spend too much time getting wound up by and responding to nationalist trolls and the likes of Silent Billy YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Sorry. I stuffed up. I just note that the purpose of Talk pages is to find ways improve the quality of article. That is my sole goal here. Rather than discussing me, can we talk about the article now please? HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of Commonwealth Games Village 2010 into Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games

[edit]

I have proposed a merger of the Commonwealth Games Village 2010 article into the Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games article. You can see my explanation here. I just need to solicit more feedback on this proposal. Do give me some of your feedback on it! If there is no significant opposition, I will be merging the two in a few days' time. Thanks in advance, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Response at Talk:Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We still need more comments from other editors, please do give us your feedback on the proposal. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 12:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly do need more comments. Right now the word venue is being plastered all over the article in a usage that is foreign to me. While it may be more common in other parts of the world, we certainly don't have consensus on that view. IT'S TIME TO STOP! HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proposal: WikiProject Commonwealth Games

[edit]

FYI, there is a proposal for a WikiProject for Commonwealth Games, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Commonwealth Games. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tokelau at the 2010 Commonwealth Games

[edit]

Is Tokelau participating at the Games? The main article as well as the medal table article states only 71 nations are participating, with Tokelau not in the list. However, the article Tokelau at the 2010 Commonwealth Games is still hanging around. This needs to be verified as it may impinge on the accuracy of the articles. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 12:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. And this is on the basis of them not appearing during the Parade of Nations. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map of competing nations

[edit]

Rwanda isn't shaded on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

number athlete

[edit]

no. of athlete shown in 6081 but they r around 6700 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunitarora096 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Prez or Prince or Both ?? Hey, its only Prince Charles who officially OPENED the games...The President spoke second only to formally say "let the games begin" What do you think ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.240.146 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

positive and negative aspects of commonwealth Games

[edit]

Can i know the positive n negative aspects of commonwealth Games ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.164.205 (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I suggest you consult/enquire on Wikipedia's reference desk, where a proper answer to your question can be given. The talk page of articles are meant to discuss article improvement only. Thank you. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 16:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

[edit]

There seems to be missing a summary coverage of the events, other than the medal table and the calendar... there should be a summary page, like Events at the 2010 Commonwealth Games... instead of just the sport articles.

76.66.200.95 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from K2joshi, 6 October 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Updated Medals Tally as on Oct 6,2010 21:40 IST

  • Country G S B T
  • 1 Australia 20 15 10 45
  • 2 India 11 08 05 24
  • 3 England 06 11 08 25
  • 4 Malaysia 03 02 04 09
  • 4 South Africa 03 02 04 09
  • 6 Nigeria 02 02 01 05
  • 7 Canada 02 01 08 11
  • 8 Singapore 02 01 01 04
  • 9 Scotland 01 02 02 05
  • 10 Kenya 01 00 00 01
  • 11 New Zealand 00 04 02 06
  • 12 Sri Lanka 00 01 01 02
  • 12 Wales 00 01 01 02
  • 14 Pakistan 00 01 00 01
  • 15 Bangladesh 00 00 01 01
  • 15 Isle of Man 00 00 01 01
  • 15 Trinidad and Tobago 00 00 01 01

    • K2joshi (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.[reply]

    CWG Medal Table

    [edit]

    CWG participants have been wrongly arranged yet again on the Medal table. Please check the Medal table and rectify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britsin (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The CWG medal table on here is not keeping up to date. The CWG site has Australia on 56 medals, yet this article still has them on 49. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.13.66 (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Medal tables in articles like this are always problematic. My personal belief is that we shouldn't bother until the Games are over. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Medal table issues

    [edit]

    See Talk:2010 Commonwealth Games medal table#Medals counted multiple times

    Statistical error?

    [edit]

    I think this is a statistical error. The Times of India reported a television viewership of 3 billion for the opening ceremony. In contrast, the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony had a reported 840 million. The 3-billion fact was earlier placed in the opening ceremony article, but another editor removed it. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 04:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's a nationalist delusion, I doubt many people at all outside the commonwealth would watch YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It must be a cumulative total, not a that 3 billion individuals watched it.Lihaas (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Red dots

    [edit]

    What are the red dots with yellow background in the calendar? Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The red dots are WP:redlinks (links to pages which don't yet exist). Yellow background shows days with event finals. David Biddulph (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New Zealand medal count?

    [edit]

    I have noticed that on the Delhi Commonwealth Games medal table, New Zealand wasn't up there, now this is confusing because it stated that New Zealand has a total of 34 medals and South Africa, which is on the medal table has 33 medals so please change this fault —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.150.58 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a fault. They are in the table, in 11th place. The usual ranking system, & it's explained at the top of the table. David Biddulph (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Number of participating athletes

    [edit]

    If one adds the numbers given in the section "Participating nations", the total number of athletes comes to about 4,399. However, the infobox mentions that 6,081 athletes participated and there is no source to back that claim. --King Zebu (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request Mahe.., 14 October 2010

    [edit]

    {{edit semi-protected}}

    Baton Design and Capabilities

    The Queen’s Baton 2010 Delhi is lightweight and uses ergonomic contours for balance and convenient holding. The baton’s combination of precision engineering and fine craftsmanship are integrated to create a true Indian masterpiece.

    Capturing images and sound

    The baton has the ability to capture images and sound as it travels through all 71 nations of the Commonwealth. Images and sound from the baton will be available on the Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi website.

    GPS system

    The latest global positioning system tech housed within the baton will allow its location to be viewed on the Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi website.

    LED Lighting

    Light emitting diodes embedded within the baton will transition into the colours of a country’s flag, whilst the baton is in that country.

    Text Messaging

    Messages of congratulations and encouragement could have been sent to the baton. Selected messages were available for viewing on the Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi website.

    Ncmahesh (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. These are already on the Queen's Baton relay page and there is a section for the Queen's Baton relay on this page too. What is it you want changed? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Queen's Baton relay above is a redlink; it should be Queen's Baton Relay with an upper-case R. David Biddulph (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rephrasing needed

    [edit]

    This particular line in the intro paragraph "The concerns which were raised during the buildup to the Games were largely eclipsed by strong performance by Indian athletes...." is a little strange/mismatched, as the concerns affected almost everyone involved in the games, while the strong performance of the Indian contingent is mainly of relevance to the Indian supporters. The line as it is now makes it seem as if the only people who were affected by the concerns were the Indian supporters. I can't figure out how to re-write it so that it does not seem that case though, so any help from other editors would be great! Zhanzhao (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Rephrased the concerns line to "..proved largely unfounded.." (in which you rightly corrected 'dire predictions' to 'concerns'). And performance of athletes given objectively as first, second, third in medal tally, so the achievement is mentioned without unnecessary nationalist effusiveness. VishalB (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Free Images

    [edit]

    Hi, I just thought I'd let you guys know there are some free images of the event here that could enhance this article. --92.4.112.133 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns and Controversy Section need serious summarizing/fixing

    [edit]

    The length of that subsection has been ballooning recently, which should not be the case considering the fact that it already has its own dedicated article. Right now there are too many mantions of numerous specific individual incidents and the depth of detail in which those incidents are covered uonly serves to pad the unnecessary length of that section. Some help requested summarizing it, or in cases where content is described here but not mentioned in the "concerns and controversy" article, to bring the content there. Thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Citations

    [edit]

    Where can I find reliable sources for a list of Australian medallists? Surely there is some website where all the medallists are listed together. I realise it can be found on the official website, but only if you routinely go through every event. Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Certain mistakes

    [edit]

    There is certain mistakes in this web page. pls find it out and rectify it. I felt ashamed when i saw that mistake. How wiki guys could do these type of mistake. pls make it clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.127.42 (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "There is great lack of information to accompany your feedback. pls include more useful info next time. I felt ashamed to even need to point that out. How some people can post without actually including anything useful. pls make it clear." (shakes head) Zhanzhao (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing Ceremony

    [edit]

    I believe on wikipedia we strive for unbiased and neutral articles or text pieces. However, I believe that the closing ceremony section doesn't do any justice to this ideology. Guys what do you think? PLease suggest. I am confused and hence have not touched it yet. One more thing, I am an Indian so don't think I am being bias :) ...I just want the article to be neutral. Amboeing747 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request from MiB64, 13 November 2010

    [edit]

    {{edit semi-protected}} Medal tally is not right. It needs to reflect games' official medal tally from the official website http://www.cwgdelhi2010.org/medal-tally or from other published source like BBC : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/commonwealth_games/delhi_2010/medals_table/default.stm

    MiB64 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I just scanned the chart, comparing it to your first source, and everything looks exactly the same to me. Can you please explain what is wrong? It's entirely possible I'm just missing the difference, since it's a lot of numbers. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially misquoted reference in the Costs section

    [edit]

    I was trying to track down what is currently reference 23 given in Costs for an estimate of the total cost of the Games as Rs 60,000 crore, ascribed to Business Today. The link given is a dead link, but searching their archives I found an article by the same author published on 19th September 2010, currently here, which gives the figure as Rs 30,000 crore. I couldn't find any articles on the 1st September 2010, or the 9th January 2010, which are the dates that might match the one given in the reference, though I may have missed something. I did not follow these developments at the time, and so don't feel qualified to make the change in the article. Could either a more confident editor or someone with more knowledge please make a call either way. It does not seem appropriate to maintain as fact something that does not seem to even be present in what is at best a secondary source, however inappropriate (in my opinion) the actual amount spent. Thanks. 81.156.160.47 (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Opening ceremony

    [edit]

    I have no idea of the depth of India-hatred and racism among editors, but shockingly, when I added instances of praise from international media for the CWG opening ceremony, with ample proofs and citations, they were selectively removed. The praise doesn't even come in the separate article dedicated to it. i am going to put back sections of praise for the ceremony. Anyone trying to undo the edits shall be dealt with seriously. Please understand that the CWG had many negatives, but they also had tonnes of positives as well. Anybody trying to purposely project India in an exaggeratedly bad light is biased.

    Also, i agree on summarizing the Controversies section. It is just too big, especially since a separate article exists for it. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 08:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Participating nations (map)

    [edit]

    I just noted that Rwanda is missing, if someone could correct it, that would be great. 2.142.104.137 (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

    [edit]

    Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

    Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    • http://urlabridger.p4o.net/url.php?b=30
      Triggered by \burlabridger\.p4o\.net\b on the global blacklist

    If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

    From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 05:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

    ☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

    checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 9 external links on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

    checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 7 external links on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

    ☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

    ☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Commonwealth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

    [edit]

    The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

    You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

    [edit]

    The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

    Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Commonwealth_Games&oldid=1257878539"