Jump to content

Talk:2010 Olympic Village

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Subareas.jpg

[edit]

Image:Subareas.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Note 3 is a dead link and should be fixed, I'm not sure how to do this. H1nkles (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill 47 and Fortress and Corky Evans

[edit]

For more on the ongoing saga of teh unfolding scandal to do with this development please see Talk:Fortress_Investment_Group#Olympic_Village_complications.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

I propose that this page be moved from 2010 Olympic Village to 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Village. This is in line with the official name for this venue as used by VANOC and also is consistent with the naming of Whistler Olympic and Paralympic Village. - EronTalk 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It seems highly unlikely that this will ever be the "common name" for this. Provide some news stories to prove me wrong. So far I'm getting 700 google hits for 2010 Olympic Village and only 18 for "2010 Olympic and Paralympic Village". The problem is that "olympic village" is a very common name. Calling yours something else is not likely to change what others call it. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. First off, 'the Olmypics' is the corporate brand name which is inclusive of paraolympic sports. It's called the Olympic Games not the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Quite simply, paralympics doesn't need to be included every time the word olympic is used. The Olympic village as a title isn't discriminatory and consistent with the naming conventions of other Olympic articles. Mkdwtalk 10:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games are separate games held under the authority of separate organizations, the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee. "Olympics" is definitely not inclusive of Paralympic sport.
I am not concerned that the title is discriminatory. I haven't suggested that Paralympcs needs to be included every time the word Olympic is used. I am simply concerned that the title of this article is inaccurate as the name for this venue, as used by VANOC, is the Olympic and Paralympic Village. That's all. - EronTalk 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funding and cost overruns

[edit]

In rephrasing Corky Evans' analysis of the funding crisis, I stayed away from some of his very POV and accusative points, namely that Fortress (one of the hedge fund companies which precipitated the global financial crisis by engaging in high-risk loans) was, he says, known for a record of similar funding scams (if not a word in his speech (which was his farewell speech, as he has retired from politics since), definitely his meaning; read the speech) and that none of it seems like an accident; Fortress is the owner of Whistler Blackcomb, also, and has close ties to the BC Liberals including a very fat donation, as I recall. But the "scandal" isn't limited there, or to the resignation of the city planner as a point of principle during the crisis over the project's survival which led to the special sitting of the legislature (a night-time sitting as I recall), but to the escalating costs of the project, which were not on budget and far beyond what original estimates/promises were; which brings me to the point that nowhere in this art5icle, even in construction, is there an accounting of projected vs actual costs to go in the lede, and for context with the numbers in the funding scandal section. Research is required I don't have time for; but I hope all BC Olympics articles carry full and honest financial information as these are notable political issues in BC; noting that most non-Canadian Olympics articles carry much on funding issues, the reason this one and its sister-articles should is because this is heavy politics in BC and therefore "notable content". Especially when special sittings of the legislature are required to resolve. This was also a Public Private Partnership (PPP), now very much the norm in BC (these are known as PPPs) and also "politically loaded" given the province's economic history/traditions. List of public private partnerships in British Columbia or some such title would be very long, and full of now-controversial entries. But then so would be List of political scandals in British Columbia....Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Per WP:CV I have reverted to the last known clean version of the article. Going forward, it would be helpful if User:Skookum1 would explain in a bit more detail where the alleged copyrighted material came from, so that other editors can determine what, if anything, was in violation of the copyright policies. For now, to avoid having an entirely blanked article I have reverted to the last known clean revision. It would be best to discuss additions on the talk page before re-adding any of the alleged copyrighted material. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll try to get to it later today. See my further comments about content issues at User talk:Derekchang85. User:m.nelson (sp?) had spotted only one, and I'm not sure he removed it; Derekchang85 this morning removed one section which maybe was the one at issue, maybe it's the only one, but I'm not so sure......much may have been paraphrasing from citations he did provide, but they were all POV/SOAP in nature and not suitable for content IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing financial crisis and Millennium's default

[edit]

This article in today's Globe and Mail covers the ongoing financial crisis and the shoddy construction etc relating to this; the article is incomplete without it but I'm not going to update it, due to my mounting distaste with trying to add facts to Wikipedia and being told they're POV and need to be "neutralized", to the point of meaninglessness; this and so many other articles that have gone fallow once out of the main public arena are all grossly in need of updating; instead we are confronted with housekeeping moving-the-chairs-on-deck template revisions, hyphenation/MOS uselessnesses, and spin doctors masquerading as innocents in order to keep politician-spam in place and behave as though it's valid and NPOV; the POV fork of the "Concerns and Controversies" off the main Olympic article already disturbed me a long time ago; but the more I'm around here the more pointless I see Wikipedia becoming, when important matters are sidelined by irrelevance and by spin doctoring. Still, before I quit completely I'm seeding talkpages with coverage, from the so-called reliable mainstream sources and also from fact/research political blogs (which are not op-ed but which cover facts the mainstream media ignore in favour of celebrity news and re-cycling government/political party press releases), in the hopes that some person in the future might go "wow, there's a lot of material here that got passed over". Even to re-word the Globe's information here will be a pain and though it's worth my time adding this link, and these comments, it's not worth my time arguing with people who would "sanitize" the content I'd add to "neutralize" its meaning....Skookum1 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Olympic Village. 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 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 Olympic Village. 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) 22:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 Olympic Village. 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) 22:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Olympic_Village&oldid=1196571716"