Talk:2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Opening Sentence

I believe that Hektor was wrong to revert my edit changing: "The 2012 Summer Olympic Games, officially known as the Games of the XXX Olympiad, are due to be celebrated in London from 27 July to 12 August 2012." to "The 2012 Summer Olympic Games, officially known as the Games of the XXX Olympiad, are due to be held in London from 27 July to 12 August 2012." As a fluent English speaker and being from England I am particular familiar with the correct phrasing; 'held' makes much more sense than 'celebrated'. If anyone else could confirm here that held is correct, that would be good and I could go ahead and rectify this. Lewispb (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I would be inclined to agree with you in most cases, saying that Olympic Games are "celebrated" rather than "held" is a minor point of style that we have used on many articles like this one for a while now, and you will see it elsewhere if you look. Truthfully, either is acceptable and I would have no problem supporting either, but it is merely a semantics discrepancy. Jared (t)  16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Moved this to a subsection of the Logo since it referese only to logo criticism. Badgerific (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

War on Iraq.AlexBlues (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

DanceSports

I have been seeing a number of websites claiming that the 2012 Olympics will finally have DanceSports as part of the official competitions, which is to include Standard, Latin, & Rock'n Roll dances. The official 2012 Olympic website has links to the International Dancesport Federation www.idsf.net, but no official announcements to confirm this, on either website. Does anyone have anything official so that this site can be updated (or not) to include DanceSport on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.44.45 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It most definitely will not be on the programme. See here and here. The IOC dropped two sports, but added no replacements. They could have chosen from roller sports, squash, karate, golf and/or rugby, but didn't. Andrwsc (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent spate of edits

Is it just me or have the recent edits to this page given the article an almost New Labour-ish positive spin? I note with interest that most of the citations to negative news regarding things like financing (esp wrt to London tax payers) have been removed in favour of older links to articles that are significantly more forgiving. Methinks Tessa, Tony, Seb et al have signed up to Wiki! Your thoughts on this matter would be appreciated - unless we're going to settle on just carrying on bashing Paris and omitting matters of concern to London in 200000. 90.242.28.201 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: YOU ARE NOT ALONE not, its not just you, I keep getting my reporting of negative commentary removed on the basis that it is 'vandalism' whereas it is reporting common attitude. I have, after numerous reverts, and emailing the man who keeps editing me out, given up. Everyone knows the press coverage I was summarising, and it is a useful if sad reminder to me that wikipedia, like everything else, is vulnerable to extremists - they have the energy to make their 'point' long after the sane have resigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.57.57 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bidding process

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

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

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

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

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

Updating the logo

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

The revised logo isn't available yet ... once it does I'm sure it will arrive here --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Granted, "Games of the XXX Olympiad" looks like someone forgot to fill it in, but all th other olympics' pages use Roman numerals, so I'm changing it back. boffy_b July 7, 2005 10:14 (UTC)

Unless 2012 is to be the Year of the Sex Olympics boffy_b July 8, 2005 09:05 (UTC)

Oh man, that would rule. Proto t c 8 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)

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

Well now we do have the new logo, you should have been careful what you wished for. It looks like Lisa Simpson doing something unnatural to Bart. Who are the people who come up with this appalling shi*e. £400,000 wasted, what a laughing stock we must seem. PrivateWiddle 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Its frankly shocking isnt it, we waste that much money on such a shambles that a bloody 6 year-old could do a better logo. Furiating is another word, we, the tax payers pay taxes that go to the government who fund Sport England and the Athletics Board to come up with this peice of sh!te. Sums our country up in one doesnt it? Shocking... Jazza5 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The following day ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of sports and disciplines

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

Budget

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

Request for sources

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

• I can find no source for the breakdown of the venues into Olympic Zone, River Zone and Central Zone that we have adopted. The article makes it sound as if these are official definitions, but neither the official bid website, nor the BBC venue coverage seems to use these terms.

• I can find no source to confirm that the Olympic Park is to contain a table tennis training centre. Both the websites above only reference table tennis in the context of the ExCel venue.

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

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

Slalom canoeing/slalom racing

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

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

Slalom canoeing begins "Slalom canoeing is a competitive sport where the aim is to navigate a decked canoe or kayak through a course of gates on river rapids in the fastest time possible." There most certainly is a reference to kayaking there. In addition, the International Canoe Federation (the IOC-recognized IF for canoe sports) includes kayaks in the definition of canoes. The link should go to slalom canoeing.

As for the piped text, the ICF calls the event "slalom racing" [1] and time trials such as this are considered part of "racing sports". -- Jonel | Speak 12:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Looking at the IOC's page on the sport, it seems that the IOC calls the sport Canoe/Kayak and the disciplines are Canoe/Kayak Flatwater and Canoe/Kayak Slalom. Perhaps we should go for these names. -- Chris j wood 13:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

London Olympics

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

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

This is the main article

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

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

Your tone continues your poor attitude. My intentions are clearly to improve our coverage and to state that I am simply deleting content is offensive. That content is covered by London 2012 Olympic bid and to have all of it here as well is a pointless duplication. This article should contain an overview of the organisation and not the fine details of every aspect of it. Your attempts to force your opinion shows your desire to have everything your way, sod anyone else. violet/riga (t) 14:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that third parties will see from the above that my attitude is more co-operative and more constructive than yours. You continue to rely on slurs. I don't like rows and I am not doing this for fun. I am trying to improve wikipedia, but your possessive attitude to this article makes it a very unpleasant experience. CalJW 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting and AfDing before discussion is not the correct approach. violet/riga (t) 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to CalJW's above mention of third party opinion, my view is that CalJW's attitude here and in other discussions is corrosive and detrimental to the Wikipedia project. I will also be posting this opinion on CalJW's talk page Varlan 23:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with continuing to include all the information in this article which violet/riga keeps on removing. The article may well become too big in the future and will need some information splitting out into their own articles, but I do not see this as necessary now, now the that the way it has been done is necessarily the best way of doing it. When the time comes that the article is too big I am sure that the correct and best way of splitting the article up will become evident. Until then, I say it should all be left here.

As for the argument between CalJW and Violet/riga above, I feel there is nothing wrong with the way CalJW has acted in respect to this: to me it appears that Violet/riga acted (probably unintentionally) in a way that may have appeared to be simple vandalism. A better way to go about such a dramatic change of this article would have been for them to have discussed it first (I cannot find any evidence of this taking place).

But anyway, let us keep the article as it was before these dramatic changes and then see how things develop. Evil Eye 20:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism!? Do you understand the situation at all? violet/riga (t) 21:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't saying what you did was vandalism, but that what you did could have initially been perceived as vandalism, or at least, when you add in your later work, to be an attempted to 'hide away' the information some people might find useful on a page with an obscure title (in the edits I looked at I couldn't always find a link to the page you'd moved the information too. But again I'd like to add that this isn't necessarily true and the reasoning behind what you did, but rather an possible interpretation of what someone not involved with the editing could have thought :) Evil Eye 19:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, violetriga, I think your reverts have removed much useful info. However, I agree that maybe a bit too much detail had gone into the article on the different olympic zones and on the construction timetable, given that the amount of information that could go into this article is only going to grow.

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

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

Darts

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

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

Open water swimming and BMX racing

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

Pounds v. Dollars

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

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

If we added a translation in dollars, we'd also likely have to include the Austrailian Dollar, Canadian Dollar, Euro, Yen etc. If you want to know a price in another currency, use any of the countless online converters. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with that; use domestic currency where applicable, and dollar+euro otherwise. Is that policy already? If not, it should be. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the IOC's based in Switzerland, the only translation we really ought to put in is to Swiss francs! -- Arwel (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that things should remain in pounds. There's enough places to convert it if people are really interested in finding out the amount. Sue Anne 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I support leaving it in pounds, as that is inline with the US and UK languages policy which would blanket cover the issue of currency. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so damn lazy - if you want the prices in $, do the work yourself. You can't just expect people to give you everything on a plate, just because you're American. And therefore feel that you own the internet. Apart from anything else, currency fluctuates in value all the time, i.e. your dollar is getting very very weak against the £. Have a nice day now. 01:32, 5th June 2007 (BST)

Repetitive entries

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

Broadcasting / digital switchover

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

Next year, the television in United States will be in pure digital after the broadcast of 2008 Summer Olympics. -- 13:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.125.96 (talk)

Jacques Chirac Quotation

This is not releant to the article and therefore I suggest it is removed. 87.113.86.219 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Libertyleading 22:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the Pink Logo

OK, that's probably the ugliest logo out of the 50 or so different ones for the games there have ever been! I sure hope that there is an alternate one, because this is a horrible representation of the games! It's just a big mess of pink. Am I the only one here who thinks this? Maybe we should put the bid one back up and just pretend there was never a logo put out yet! Haha. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No you're not, but I'm a rare species since actually don't dislike it. I must be the weirdo around here... *sigh*

Anyway, is the BBC poll data going be updated in the article until BBC decides to close it?... Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My eyes ... my eyes ... the goggles do nossssing ....

I've heard it said that it resembles Lisa Simpson performing fellatio. Rpresser 19:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it.... Perhaps. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the undeniable proof of LOCOG's secret intention! LOL!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parutakupiu (talk • contribs) 14:38, June 4, 2007 (UTC)

I see it now. Haha! _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Goatse

[2] Someone got the Goatse picture on the BBC website when asked to do a better logo.
1)it may be worth mentioning here or in the article on B3ta
2) someone may try upload a picture of goatse in place of the logo, so watch out. 19:41, 4 June 2007 Jared

I think this might be worthy of inclusion on Goatse but not necessarily here. violet/riga (t) 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not quite "the" goatse picture though. Now, that would have been fun. Hat's off to the poster anyway. Hopefully acceptable username 16:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think the logo resembles Goatse closely enough anyway. Deletion Quality 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

BBC poll results changed!

The votes in the BBC poll for the logo have been reset (as of 1:50am UK time, 5th June), and now only 30% of voters are giving the logo a "wooden spoon". Either there's a software error at the BBC, or someone was faking the original votes. A genuine shift from 80% to 30% with several thousand voters in both samples would be extremely unlikely in such a short time. The old votes seemed to fit better with the comments on the BBC's forums. Also, if nearly all the of the old votes had been fake, I would have expected a sudden slowdown in votes when they blocked the fake voter - but in fact the new votes are accumulating quite fast. All this evidence would suggest a software bug. Anyhow, the article text no longer reflects current votes. Perhaps things will change again later when the BBC's day staff return to work. Mtford 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's something like 60% Wooden Spoon at the moment. The general reception to the new logo has been pretty bad, they were slagging it off on the radio this morning. There must be some articles in today's papers about the response...

It's now back up to 82.22% for the Wooden spoon. I still think some of the user created images are better, and cheaper! --Dayfox 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Not notable"?

Can somebody point out one blog where nobody observed what the logo actually looks like? 83.67.217.254 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:V on the subject. Wikipedia is not a collection of observations from online bloggers. Daniel^C/_T+ 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Register and Tech Digest picked it up. Verify yourself.

Also these comments are real, and so are the other thousands pointing out the similarity to Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob. It's easy to verify.

This is only the beginning, don't be in denial. 83.67.217.254 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with whomever commented that it looks more like Maggie... 83.67.217.254 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I read a related comment in the Metro. Even though the Metro is simply copying comments from blogs, this is at least one print source that has used such an explicit reference. Dr. Submillimeter 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Herald 83.67.217.254 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I want a polo shirt with this logo on, and be gardening in it in a few week's time. 83.67.217.254 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Added refs. Very appropriate logo for the XXX olympics, may I add. Hopefully acceptable username 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could have been worse, mind you... Hopefully acceptable username 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

link

please add a link to the sun monkey logo story, so that readers can compare the blowjob logo to the one produced by a monkey. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007260156,00.html

[3]

2012 Summer Olympics logo article

May I recommend creating a 2012 Summer Olympics logo article? So much has been written about the ugly logo that a lengthy, well-referenced webpage could be written on the thing. Dr. Submillimeter 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was about to suggest this myself, we will eventually have to do that. 83.67.217.254 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless anything further happens I think it will now all go stale and there won't be a need for a separate article. violet/riga (t) 10:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

the logo spells ZION and looks like a swastika!!!!

wow symbolism at its worst http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=105194 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=105197 manchurian candidate 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and get this, if you turn the logo on its side and look at with a pair of binoculars from the reverse, it faintly looks like the image of Pope Pius VI! Please, this is NOT encyclopediac AT ALL. Wildthing61476 14:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

then go on and proof your point.the fact that it spells zion is the truth and removing this from the article further validates that wikipedia is a disinfo and a cointelinpro manchurian candidate 14:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it you are objecting to the item being removed. Please find a reliable source for it before reinstating it, an internet forum where someone says they have cut up a bit of card, rearranged the pieces, cut it a bit more and then drawn a swastika on it doesn't count. Thanks. Chriswiki 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Disassembled swastika". (As well as "subliminal sex act", by the way.) Tell me if you need more. Hopefully acceptable username 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A one-off comment in an editorial won't cut it either, considering the author of said editorial is drawing from the same internet forums. Wildthing61476 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I notice that the second source reporting the swastika thing has already been added. Oh, look, another one. Need more?

"the author of said editorial is drawing from the same internet forums" So what? Isn't what people wrote on blogs the subject matter? Hopefully acceptable username 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I now see in the article, I have no problem with this being adding. My point of contention was with the initial mention, which was the Zion/swastika reference, which read more like a conspiracy theory. Wildthing61476 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully acceptable username 16:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

i propose to add a separate article about conspiracy behind the logo and i see that swastika has been added in the article but is vaguely mentioned and there is no mention of the word ZION. manchurian candidate 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is because, as Wildthing61476 said, nobody could find a reliable and verifiable source for that. Hopefully acceptable username 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

lmao you need a source ,your eyes are the greatest source,write the damm logo in a straight line.hypocrites... manchurian candidate 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Be civil in your comments and stop with the personal attacks. Wildthing61476 19:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

why are you editng my work,whats wrong in adding the zion arrangement.is this company is controlled by them? manchurian candidate 12:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Will you stop flailing your arms now please? It's distracting. 205.228.74.11 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be added, you can see it says Zion here is a link to something about it http://thecosmicmind.blogspot.com/2008/04/london-olympics-2012-zion-new-jerusalem.html if we can add it looks like Lisa or a Nazi sign i don't see why we cant add it looks like Zion - Chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.146.112 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Technical criticism of logo

I think we should add some more technical criticism. I heard experts bashing it for obvious and objective design mistakes, like the fact that the word "london" is too small and will not be readable on most web pages. Hopefully acceptable username 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all very subjective though. I don't think "London" will be too hard to read in most cases, and even if it is the logo will be very recognisable. violet/riga (t) 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources making those technical criticisms, by all means, add them. Those would be a much better addition to this article than "ZOMG LISA SIMSN BLOJOB ZIONIST NAZI PROPAGANDA!!!1!!one!". -- Jonel | Speak 12:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

logo is bad

I think it looks like puke. It's styled like the 80's. "london" looks like it was typed on by a 12 year old girl in MS Paint. Its not for another 5 years, maybe the world's outrage will change it. It IS the olympics tho, even puke looks ok with the olympic logo on it.

Well, look at this page, specifically at the image. Looks beautiful with those flags and the bid logo, but then add this new pink one to those flags, remove the ribbon one, and hey presto! Utter disgrace. Gammondog 12:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you think the logo's horrible, I'm terrified of what they may be thinking for the mascot. Deletion Quality 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, It's a godawful logo. Like We don't have enough reasons for the rest of the world to make fun of us! All theat Money that could have been put elsewhere but instead, was chucked away on such rubbish. Conquistador2k6 23:47 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• If it's any consoltation the bot message below means it'll probably be deleted anyway, as Wikipedia continues to move towards an image-less model. 68.146.8.46 01:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:London2012.png

Image:London2012.png 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 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Boardcasting controversy

• Please update the list of confirmed broadcasters in Hong Kong, Cable TV Hong Kong, a pay TV operator. [4] It is noted that Cable TV is a non-over-the-air television system. The only two over-the-air television stations in Hong Kong, TVB and ATV, issued a joint-declaration and said that "it is a grant violates the Olympic doctrine, seriously hurting public interest while neglecting their right to be informed."[5] It is the first time in HK which a Summer Olympics broadcasting right have been given to a pay TV network. Some legislators and athletes also rise concern on the issue. 219.131.253.222 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

LOGO

why is there no logo at the top!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.179.159 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hidden halfway through the article because everybody's ashamed of it. --67.160.32.3 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Critisism/controversy

Is there any reason why there isn't a criticism/controversy section?

perfectblue (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There certainly should be a criticism/controversy section. I live in London and I hear 2012 olympic criticism/controversy on an almost daily basis.Veej (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not if there is controversy (obviously there is), but how it's presented. Criticism sections are discouraged as per WP:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure. Paulbrock (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Says the man who supports the London Olympics - obviously with you about there will be no mention of any negative feelings towards the games - work in a big building by Tower Bridge do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.192.183 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Logo

Maybe it's just me but the alternate logo (image at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2012.Alternate.jpg ) is just about as irrelevant an image as you could include in an article, yes it is a logo with "London 2012" but that's all. In addition It was uploaded by a user bearing the same user name as the linked website address and other than an exercise in graphic art it isn't notable and in my view is more an exercise in self promotion.

Can anyone provide a rationale for keeping it? - because I certainly can't find one! M100 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention above that there is a a VERY weak rationale (unsurprisingly by the user who uploaded the image) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aldaron M100 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as there's an alternate log displayed here (maybe it should even change every now and then), I'm happy. But having no alternate logo, considering the controversy surrounding the selected one, would be an omission. If you can find a more notable one that's also free or CC, feel free to replace. Also note that there's nothing sinister about my posting this one. I posted it when I realized that it's among the top few results returned by a Google image search for "alternate 2012 logos, and the first one that's free and available in any kind of decent resolution. — Aldaron • T/C 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with M100 here - examples of logos that were considered and rejected by London 2012 may deserve a mention, but showing a logo (presumably) designed after the unveiling of the official one is irrelevant, and falls foul of WP:MADEUP. And linking from the caption to a personal website, is a violation of WP:COI. By all means mention alternative designs were submitted,and that the BBC ran a competition, but the image is not appropriate, so I've removed it. Paulbrock (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You've conflated two things here. You may feel that WP:MADEUP and WP:COI apply, but it's still important that some logo appear here to show an example of an alternative design. If someone can come up with a free or CC one, then by all means upload it and use it in place of the deleted one. Until then I'd like to restore this one (but will wait a bit to see if we can get a replacement). — Aldaron • T/C 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is it a logo you designed, or just one that you're hosting? What's the source of the image? Paulbrock (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of sports

Could someone who knows please clarify under the "sports" section. It states that London will have 29 sports, but that it's original bid had 28 before a sport was drop, which seems to imply that there should be 27 sports. I think a clarification of this would be helpful, if for no other reason than to double check these numbers. Bradenkeith (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC) — 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's 26. Two sports were dropped: baseball and softball. From looking at the list of sports that was on there, it looks as if someone just counted up the lines, not realizing that the four Aquatics disciplines had been given separate lines. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Logo

I've been in a little logo war with an unregistered user and I just want to clarify why I keep replacing the old grey one with the one I uploaded. SVG is the superior format, and the old grey logo looks like crap. I'll gladly tint the SVG logo grey under consensus. The SVG logo is the one that appears on the official website in a variety of colours, and there isn't a grey logo in sight. -- _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found a clear version of the logo [6], which is a lot better than that rubbishy grey one, yet is still more neutral than pink. I know it's not SVG, but I don't have the means of creating in image in that format, so if someone else could transform it over, that would be helpful. Gammondog (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

£9.3 bn or £2 bn?

Hey, I'm using parts of this article for GCSE coursework (not directly, but in my words). It's a wealth of information ;) Just one thing... in other parts of the article (and the web), it says that the government raised the estimates to GB£9.3 bn. At one stage, it states the percentages of where the money is coming from. But it says that it is £2 bn. Is this for just a part of the olympics or is this a mistake? Go to edit this page.. then press Ctrl+F. Try finding this "<!-- 9.3 billion? -->" without the quotes. This is the part I'm talking about. I'll see any comments on this discussion page, since I'll be around this article for a while ^_^... --82.44.252.196 (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The total cost of everything Olympics-related(venue construction, contingency, infrastructure etc) is £9 billion. The staging of the games itself (presumably staffing, consumables,etc) is £2 billion, which is included in the £9 billion. Basically it'll cost £7 billion up until Summer 2012, then a further £2 billion for the event itself (slightly simplistic but you get the idea!) Paulbrock (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, alright, thanks! :) --82.44.252.196 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is the correct logo?

I noticed that Image:London Olympics 2012 logo.png has replaced the original Image:London Olympics 2012 logo.svg. I'm just wondering, has the official logo changed? Which is the real one? –  LATICS  talk  17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the official logo. There are 4 standard colours, but it's blockiness means it can be filled in with whatever the organisers want (so far, there have been images of the stadiums, of certain events, and of the Union Flag). This new one you just mentioned is a plain white version, rather than a coloured version, that's all. 86.136.103.34 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to win

Extended content

User:MissOrgum1996 has several times deleted information about events immediately after the award, seemin to think it's political. We alreday mention French commetns in the lead up to the vote, and the July 7 bombings were pretty siginificant, and widely linked to the Olypmic vote at the time. I don't see any reason for taking this out. David Underdown (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/07/Olympics2012.olympics20121 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/10/olympics2012.olympicgames7 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/10/olympics2012.olympicgames6 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/02/london.Olympics2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/sep/15/Olympics2012.politics http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/dec/23/Olympics2012.politics2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/06/olympics2012.olympicgames2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/07/olympics2012.olympicgames Various press links showing coverage of these issues David Underdown (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Political Statements Is it me or does someone have shares in the guardian newspaper? Political actions or statements should not be and are actually against the Olympic motto. Printing this on a page viewed by lots of people encourages more political actions and promotes their political cause. How many times has political been written in this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissOrgum1996 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC) On your talk page you say that it's about anit-European sentiments, here about not promoting terrorism (MissOrgum amended her original statement here). I find your commetns completely bizarre, especially since there are plenty of "political" statements about the rival bids remaining in the article. The only reason I picked the Guardian is because it's not a tabloid, and nor is it noted for its anti-European attitude. What is the problem with presenting contrasting reactions to the result of the bid? Is it really controversial to say that the party mood was dampened by the bombings (it could scarcely be otherwise). David Underdown (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Politics may be against the Olympic motto, but mentioning politics on Wikipedia isn't against any internet guidelines. Politics surrounds every single Olympics and major sporting event there is, there's no escape from it I'm afraid. Pullshapes (talk) -> I think the only reason you picked the Guardian is because you have shares in the business. Promoting your business is one thing, supporting political actions and statements is another. Unfortunately I don't find your comments bizarre. This is exactly what I expected to happen when changing statements supporting political actions - objection. Do you not have anything better to do with your time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissOrgum1996 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Have you tried assuming good faith? David Underdown (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I've highlighted this discussion at the two wikiprojects concerned to try and get wider input. David Underdown (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Having come here following the link posted on wikiproject olympics i'm struggling to see where the issue is. Is the material in question currently in the article? There is no problem with mentioning political concerns etc in the article (infact the 2008 games have a seperate article on that kind of thing) as long as they are properly referenced a nd not biased towards one particular POV. Basement12 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC) MissOrgum, first of all, let's stop with the accusations, shall we? Suggesting that someone is including links because they own shares in the company is rude, and goes against the spirit of WP:Civil and WP:Good faith. Now, on to the removals of the information.. I confess I don't understand your motivation. They appear to be good faith pieces of information in the article, referencing events around the announcement of London's win, viz, reactions in Paris, comments by Chirac and others (side note: I would edit your line about 'perhaps unfortunately for France', as that is pushing a political POV that isn't, as far as I can see, supported by the citations), and the eclipse of the news by the July 7 bombings. All of these things are relevant to the bid, and especially in the case of the bombings, notable inasmuch as something that would otherwise have been large news was generally overshadowed. Further, we owe zero allegiance to the Olympic spirit here; our policies are neutrality and verifiability. Excluding information because, quote, they are "actually against the Olympic motto" would be violating neutrality. So. Based on those, I really don't see why you removed all of that. As David pointed out, noting facts is not a political POV; that the things you removed happened are in no doubt, and they do not push a political agenda of any sort. Further, both you and David seem to have exceeded the three-revert-rule by a fair bit. Accordingly, I am going to restore everything you have removed. I would ask that: You both take a timeout from this page for a couple of days, and cool down. You both achieve consensus here before embarking on any further edits to hitherto stable sections of the page. You both re-read the WP policies on civility, neutrality, verifiability, and most importantly, assuming good faith. I am not an admin, so this isn't official of course. But it would behoove you both to, at the very least, take a step back. Perhaps go for a walk, breathe some fresh air. Prince of Canada t | c 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) [EC] Wikipedia attempts to present a neutral point of view, that doesn't try to ignore controversy, but to present it without taking sides. Removing controversy that has been mentioned in reputable news outlets is not only burying one's head in the sand, but also fails this neutrality test. The Guardian is one of a number of reputable British news sources - including the BBC - and an acceptable reliable source. Generally speaking, if a matter has appeared in a reputable source, then it is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia - that is the notability test. If I get the argument correctly, there is an attempt to remove any mention of politics from the article - that I find strange, as any International organisation depends on politics and the exercise of political influence. You also excised a real event that occurred as a result of London winning the bid. Maybe you'd care to expand on your reasons for that. I also have to warn all parties not to get involved in edit wars; apart from the 3 revert rule, editors may be subjected to editing restrictions, or be blocked if they indulge in disruptive editing. It is always better to talk about these changes and achieve consensus on the talk page. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC) PS - I am an admin, and Prince of Canada offers good advice. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Upon delving a bit further into the diffs.. MissOrgum, it's poor form to make large edits and note them as minor; it is also poor form to edit your own comments on a talk page and say you "changed a word" when you removed an entire sentence. Prince of Canada t | c 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC) My apologies if I have indeed broken 3rr. I don't intend this to be wikilawyering, I'm just trying to better understand the policy in this instance. I count that I reverted twice in the article (and at first I thought I was probably dealing with delete vandalism). Perhaps wrongly, I had not considered that 3rr would apply to trying to prevent my own talk page comments being edited, contrary to WP:TALK (and again I only count 3 reverts, though perhaps talk and article count together on this? - I appreciate it could be seen as a single dispute, and that the 3 reverts are not an entitlement). David Underdown (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC) My bad; I counted 4 'undids' next to your name at the article, not noticing one of them was reverting your own edit. While that would still violate 3rr in a very technical sense, I don't think it's violating the spirit. Does come under the heading of 'edit-warring', though, both at the article and here on the talk page. Better bet in the future: go to an admin when this starts happening. Prince of Canada t | c 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Create Divisions with the French?

The sentence of tv coverage seems to be a way of creating divisions within Europe, and distancing relations between the UK and France. This is againts wiki's (Soapbox) rules. And anyhow the article is and should be about the 2012 Summer Olympics (and the bidding process has a separate wiki page anyhow), it should not be used to promote any kind of political statements with malicious intent.

Although I don't think this is a case of soapboxing, I think it either needs (reliable) sourcing or removing. Verbal chat 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing looks good to me. Where do you see the issue? (Honest question; I don't see an issue, so I'd like to know what I'm missing.) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't actually a source given for the nature of the TV coverage-The Guardian links above do however contrast reactions in London and paris in a similar way. I doubt it would take long to turn up similar coverage from other British media outlets however, and we could broaden the sentence scope to refer to British media coverage in general (possibly other papers will mention the TV coverage too of course). David Underdown (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a great idea. Can you do it? I'm trying to write an article and this whole brouhaha has been somewhat distracting. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the article is still protected at the moment. I have also just found this BBC article Olympic losers react to London's win which does apparently include coverage fo the French reaction (I can't view the video on this computer). David Underdown (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The video doesn't seem to be necessary, as the statements in our article are directly supported by the article there. When the protect is over, would you be so kind? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. I think we need to avoid the implication anything like this was done maliciously (unless there is a very good source that it was) - they were covering both as they didn't know which would win. Verbal chat 11:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I was at the 'official' reception in Stratford East, and the feed we were getting switched between the candidate countries. I think everyone was prepared to hear "Paris" - but when they said "London", you coulda knocked me over with a feffer ... and then the Red Arrows arrived, at zero height and motoring for Trafalgar Sq. I think the announcement evoked equal surprise in both nations. Kbthompson (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the atmosphere must have been quite something. I was stuck in a small room behind a grotty old table with the radio on...one of my colleagues jumped so high his head hit the roof. Same difference really... :D Gammondog (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The handover ceremony is on Sunday - the Red Arrows will fly over Traf Sq, and probably be over Victoria Park. This then becomes the current Olympic page. It would be good to aim to improve the text/citations over the next few weeks and get it up through the wiki-quality process. There's little that can be done to get inside the 'blue fence' to take pix of the construction work; but the page needs more illustrations. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do the Terrorists Work For Them by Including the London Tube Bombings in this article?

The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Advocate Being a 12 year old girl from Poland and currently training in athletics it is my dream to go to London 2012. But when I read the 'Summer 2012 Olympics' wiki page alarm bells start to ring. Instead of being a page that provides information on the 2012 Summer Olympics, the page is being used as propaganda for terrorism. This is because there is an immediate mention of the July 2005 terrorists attacks. At my private school in Lodz, we have learnt about terrorism and it is obvious that this is some form of psychological warfare or cyber-terrorism (here's your Guardian kantors worth: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/16/wisdomnotintelligence). Please also read the wiki articles on psychological warfare and cyber-terrorism for further info. This (Summer 2012 Olympics) wiki article currently being read by thousands if not millions of people who are searching for information regarding this (2012) olympics on the internet and one of the 1st things that they see is the July 2007 terrorists attacks. 'If a serial killer's motive is to get their name printed in the paper and when they go out and kill 100 people is it right for the tabloids to print their name?' The answer is NO. Because this would mean they have won and achieved their goal. If you support the mentioning of the terrorist atrocities in this wikipedia article you are basically helping to support their terrorism marketing campaign. 'Being mentioned in the same sentence of the London Olympics means they have been successful in the promotion of their course. Besides this, supporting terrorist propaganda is against wikipedia's (soapbox rule) as the article would be giving biased press coverage towards the terrorists (and not a neutral one as stated in the 5 wiki pillars). (Surely a neutral article which would just provide information regarding the summer olympic games 2012). I hope everyone will see sense and immediately omit any reference to the July 2005 terrorist attacks, and provide perhaps provide a continued sense of victory for the already astonishing achievement your country has had so far. This wiki game is new to me so please help me beat any terrorist advocate who wants to fight this alteration. Do not let them win Orgum Wisniewski. Lodz, Poland [EC] Simple reason, Wikipedia is not censored. Real world events are covered on wikipedia without judgement. Entries must be encyclopaedic, i.e cover the subject dispassionately, including the nasty things in the world. Wikipedia is not a game, it is an attempt to build an encyclopaedia. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Such a change needs consensus before it could be made, and in any case censorship is not a wikipedia policy. You can still edit this page to make your case, but the article is protected against editing by anyone other than an admin - for a while. I would ask you to confine your discussion to only matters relating to the content, and not other editors motives - you have been warned about this before. As a young wikipedean, I would urge you not to give your real world identity in posts. Kbthompson (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC) The inclusion of terrorist (political) propaganda is against wiki (soapbox) rules and against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia which is a neutral point of view. Supporting terrorist actions by including it "in the tabloids" on wiki is NOT a neutral action. They are trying to stop me. I am not afraid of your threats. Please keep fighting this course. Do not let the terrorists win. --MissOrgum1996 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Reporting 'news is not terrorist propaganda. If the article said "London was bombed because the jihad commands us and London is bad!", that would be propaganda. Prince of Canada t | c 09:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Psychological Warfare If new reports of an anthrax mail scare then this is successful form of terrosirm (no matter if there is anthrax mail or not). Perhaps you should check the wiki page on terrorism.--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Why is it so important that the terrorist attack are mentioned on a page about the 2012 Summer Olympics. Putting on the bidding process page by all means. It is not appropriate to be on this page. It is advocating terrorism and promoting their course.--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC) No. Saying "Terrorism is good" is advocating terrorism. Saying "this thing happened" is neutral. Prince of Canada t | c 09:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC) No. Including the July 2005 bombings on a page that is currently being viewed by millions of people trying to find information about the 2012 Summer Olympics is against wiki's (5 pillar) neutral policy because it is promoting the terrorists course. Psychological Warfare and Terrorist Propaganda is against wiki's (Sopabox rules) --MissOrgum1996 (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Okay.. I give up. I'm going to find a Polish editor who can explain to you why you are mistaken. Prince of Canada t | c 09:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Why are you being racist asking for a Polish editor? Please could an admin remove Prince of Canada from wiki immediately. In Poland racism is not tolerated and I hope it is not tolerated on Wikipedia. PLEASE WOULD AN ADMIN CHANGE THE ARTICLE ASAP REMOVINGTHE TERRORIST PROPAGANDA MENTIONING THE JULY 2005 BOMBINGS WHICH IS ON A PAGE WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING VIEWED BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE 2012 SUMMER OLYMPICS. DO NOT LET THE TERRORISTS WIN--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Racism isn't tolerated in Canada, either. I have asked a Polish admin to explain things to you because English is not your first language, and we have had no success trying to explain things in English. I don't speak Polish, otherwise I would try to explain in Polish. Prince of Canada t | c 09:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC) MissOrgum1996, I'm an uninvolved editor who saw your post over atWikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. In my opinion, this isn't a COI issue. Reporting what happened is different than promoting a particular point of view and your refrain that the editors who disagree with you are "advocating terrorism" is absurd. You should try to WP:AGF. As for the racism,Prince of Canada was only trying to find somebody who could convey this to you in what is apparently your native language in the hopes that would make communication easier. I hope you consider these points, as I'm an editor who never saw or edited this article before your COI posting. Movingboxes (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Good grief. Please read what MovingBoxes has said very carefully. PrinceOfCanada wanted a Polish speaking editor to speak to you as it may be easier for you to communicate in your native tongue. Reporting something happened in a NPOV manner is perfectly fine; WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you. Minkythecat (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Yes but this editor also wants to acknowledge / advocate the terrorists by including them on this page, thus promoting their course--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Is it your position that Wikipedia should contain no information about terrorists or terrorism? Movingboxes (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC) No it is not but reporting something that has happened in this instance is not a neutral point of view from the terrorists point of view - as they want their actions to be reported. This is victory for the terrorists and is not neutral. A neutral page on the Summer 2012 Olympics would not any include terrorist propaganda. --MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I see no advocation of terrorism; merely events that occurred supported by references from reputable sources. Comment on the content - not the editors Kbthompson (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (actually prior to following) With all due respect, utter rubbish. Like it or not, the attack happened, it's naive to believe it should be magically airbrushed from history. You've now spammed COI and other noticeboards despite numerous people telling you politely that you are wrong. Wiki works on WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS - both of which you are completely and utterly ignoring. You're close to breaking WP:CIV by borderline accusing editors of being terrorist advocators... please listen to what you are being told; if you don't take things on board then you are becoming disruptive. Nobody wants action taken. Minkythecat (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC) It can be really hard when we run into article consensus that we disagree with passionately--I know it's happened to me before. However, Wikipedia is a team project and we never gain anything when we try to run headlong against consensus. You're in a situation where nobody agrees with your position. Is it possible for you to step away from the article for a day, week, month--however long it takes you to cool down? People here are concerned for your long-term success as an editor and want to help. Movingboxes (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC) This (Summer 2012 Olympics) wiki article currently being read by thousands if not millions of people who are searching for information regarding this (2012) olympics on the internet and one of the 1st things that they see is the July 2007 terrorists attacks. 'If a serial killer's motive is to get their name printed in the paper and when they go out and kill 100 people is it right for the tabloids to print their name?' The answer is NO. Because this would mean they have won and achieved their goal. If you support the mentioning of the terrorist atrocities in this wikipedia article you are basically helping to support their terrorism marketing campaign. 'Being mentioned in the same sentence of the London Olympics means they have been successful in the promotion of their course. Besides this, supporting terrorist propaganda is against wikipedia's (soapbox rule) as the article would be giving biased press coverage towards the terrorists (and not a neutral one as stated in the 5 wiki pillars). (Surely a neutral article which would just provide information regarding the summer olympic games 2012). Please see sense and immediately omit any reference to the July 2005 terrorist attacks. This wiki game is new to me so please help me beat any terrorist advocate who wants to fight this alteration. Do not let them win Orgum --MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC) PLEASE WOULD AN ADMIN CHANGE THE ARTICLE ASAP REMOVINGTHE TERRORIST PROPAGANDA MENTIONING THE JULY 2005 BOMBINGS WHICH IS ON A PAGE WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING VIEWED BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE 2012 SUMMER OLYMPICS. DO NOT LET THE TERRORISTS WIN---MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC) People have WP:AGF enough with you. You have spammed your view, which is clearly against consensus, here, you've made appalling edits screwing the page up, you've made accusations of racism You've spammed COI and Wikiquette... enough is enough. If you do not stop your misguided campaign, then I will fully support a block on your account. Please work with people rather than dogmatically pushing your POV. Minkythecat (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Logo Confirmation

Pink logo is the official one (Times Newspaper) ref indent CC

AFAIK the whole point of the logo is that the colour can change colour for different uses. There is no official colour. Jooler (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The logo is dynamic - you'll often see it with no base colour, and just the stenciled shape over moving footage or video. Try not to think of it as a kite mark, more as a flag used to demonstrate olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.120.219 (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

The then Prime Minister Tony Blair at the International Olympic Committee

Does anyone know or can give a better description of the image on the right, as it does not make sense. How can you be "at the International Olympic Committee", but is it "at the International Olympic Committee headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland", or more possibly "at the 117th IOC Session in Singapore". -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 23:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is the correct logo?

There is a logo on the official London Games website which is pink - is that not the official one that should be on this page??? This should be the alpha one should it not..

There is also a logo on their website which is blue, green, UK flagged...pink is just another base colour, it isn't the official logo. This clear one is fine as it is, it is a neutral presentation. 86.136.240.177 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I found this page here, which shows how the clear logo has been used by Lloyds TSB (a sponsor). This shows that it is the correct and acceptable logo. 81.153.166.17 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no "just one color" logo for the Games. As said, the logo is dynamic. But, of course, we're using the clear one because it's the most neutral. If, let's say, we're going to use the magenta version, other questions will pop up like, "Why can't we use the the blue one then?" bla bla... Besides, the other variations are in the Logo section anyway. Xeltran (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is far too pro the Olympics. Most Londoners and pracitcally the entire UK believe them to be at best a complete waste of money and at worst... ugh I can't even say it. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that is other than reportage of facts. Indeed, most sections include criticisms and concerns. Perhaps you could point out specific things that aren't neutral? And, indeed, provide a citation that "pracitcally [sic] the entire UK believe them to be at best a complete waste of money"? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd think the anon IP would be able to add sourced criticism of the Olympics, given it's clearly such an easy thing for him/her/it to find... rather than whine "wah, NPOV", add a criticism section and add sourced criticism. Minkythecat (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Actually, I'll translate the anon comment into English: "This article doesn't say what I want it to! Nobody is representing my biases! Everyone thinks the same thing because I say so! I'm too lazy to do anything about it!" Bah, humbug. Yet another reason to support mandatory registration. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok ok, let's keep our hair on. I'll remove the tag unless some justification is given. Personally, I'd have preferred the games to go to Paris, as then we wouldn't have to pay and I have access to a flat in Paris too :) Verbal chat 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind you to keep in on the content - and not individual editors. That said, one editor commented the article was too full of controversy - the other - not enough. That's beginning to sound like balance. I think it may have been Tessa Jowell, recently announced there would be no more money for the London Olympics - and Boris said it could be done cheaper. We should probably await a politician announcing 'it can be done for sixpence' - and another promising change from that!

Maybe next time there's an opinion poll on public perceptions of the London Olympics, then perhaps the results should be included. I suspect opinion is more divided than the IP claims. Kbthompson (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I should explain that the national pastime in the UK is moaning. _Unusual ^Gazelle 11:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramadan Controversy

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

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

They have already put in up. If you miss it, it's under the title Scheduling issues.24.1.4.241 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting Section

In the Broadcasting section of the article it says under the New Zealand section: "In New Zealand, free-to-air Prime Television New Zealand and pay TV parent company SKY Network Television have the rights to these games. [61] This is the first time the Olympic Games coverage will be carried on TV ONE and TV2 by TVNZ". However it is my understanding that it is the first time the Olympic Games coverage will not be carried on TV One and TV2 by TVNZ. Perhap someone can edit this and correct it. Bellham (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but someone keeps on changing it back and deleting "not". Gammondog (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, someone seems to keep changing the US broadcasting from NBC to ABC. This article could use a little protection. Bettyfizzw1 (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mission 2012

Now that the Beijing Games are over, and Project 119 has grown fruit... what about the UK version? Mission 2012 doesn't have an article. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Participating NOCs

Couple questions. Is this a confirmed list of the NOCs scheduled to compete in London? And if so, why are some linked to their Athens Games page, while others are linked to a page that doesn't (though soon will) exist? Bettyfizzw1 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it can't possibly be confirmed at this stage, and like you say the links are a mess. I'll remove this list until closer to the event. Basement12 (T.C) 04:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

Is there any way we could return the old entries regarding 2012 in popular culture or set up a separate page for it? With Spooks Code 9 and Fear Her, there are several tv shows which have already referenced this event, and more are likely... And that's just TV! Orville Eastland (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

News on Scheducle

Any new news on the issue of whether or not Muslim teams will participate in the 2012 Olympics due to the Holy Month of Ramadan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.178.4 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Qualifications

I think that it would be great to have links to the various qualifying tournaments to participate in the 2012 Olympics. The qualifying process for the soccer tournament has already started in Europe through the 2009-2011 UEFA Under 21 European Championships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.115 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there is the template at the bottom of the page that links to some of the current articles for 2012 events which covers qualificaions for them. It might be useful to have that list provided in the sports section and info that qualifications for some sports are underway. I see that China 2008#Sports provides a list format for the different sports involved, we could do it like that, dont know what others think. At the moment the sports section here basically just talks about potential sports or ones that wont be involved rather than providing information on what is taking place. looking at that section, thats something else that needs updating.. saw on the news this morning about womens boxing being allowed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lambis Nikolaou matter

I have developed a bit the story of the voting error adding the name of the implied person. If it is true what i have read i suppose someone will delete it very soon, but i continue to think it is relevant.

I have reverted your edit as this story was already included and referenced. The story ran for a day or two but was a based on rumour and speculation leading to a hypothetical outcome rather than evidence and fact. Expanding by adding a whole paragraph on this minor issue in a project of such a complex and long term nature does not pass WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. - NB it was not removed because it is true as you postulated. Tmol42 (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So, who was first?

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

Does it matter?? No.

Now, where's your christmas spirit? boffy_b

I'm not sure whether I'm happier that the UK won it, or that the French didn't. Proto t c

You really shouldn't put a carboardbox on your cat. You know that? right? -- yourself

An american friend has suggested it is genetic for the English to be torn between being ecstatic that London won the games or that we beat the French ;-P --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Yes well its probably best not to crow too loundly. Today's anouncement of the 2012 Olympics pleased a lot of Britains and has dominated the news in the UK today. But what is at stake;

A) In seven years time, Britain gets the opportunity to host an international event, spending £3 bn to play games for a fortnight,

Meanwhile last week, on the 28th June, in an item which got about 30s slot in the news;

B) France won the bid to host ITER, an international project, spending £7 bn to build a fusion reactor over the next 10 years. A project which after some 30 years of work could go some way to solving the world's energy problems.

A bit of perspective doesn't hurt. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

I'll clarify one point which is that it isn't a fortnight but a month - there is the Paralympics straight after the main games. Both these projects have the possibility for massive change for the good. --Vamp:Willow 7 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

Look at the acticle history if you are that bothered about who got here first --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

To the fusion Reactor comment I would rebuke that with the fact that France has spent vast amounts of money trying to win the Olympic bid for some 20 years now without winning - it represents a huge misallocation of money, perhaps that should be included in this article that the french government tried for many years to win and it came as great surpise to many that London won over Paris which had been the clear favourite from day one. Whilst the UK will be paying for the Olympics it will make that money back many times over in tourist revenue, buissness ventures, improving public infrastructure (especially transport) and it also aims to improve the overall state of health of the nation etc. This is no place for nationalistic arguments though, or for sour comments. (Id also direct you to the page on Nuclear cold fusion reactors - its a tough venture which may well not work. It could mean the French goverment has once again spent money it will not make back, and at an overhead of £7bn thats quite a potential loss.) I frankly have no idea why these topics are being discussed on this talk page but since you've started... There is some small misunderstanding about the nature of these "vast sums" that have been "mis-allocated" - in total the sums for the 3 bids Paris has tendered are considerably less than that which London spent on one Olympic, one failed International Athletics bid together, not to mention 3 further failed bids by Birmingham and Manchester - so let's have a sense of proportion please. I also find it interesting that although there is mention of Chirac's comments re English food there appears to be no sign of the rebukes handed to the London bid committee regarding its promises of free airline tickets, shopping and restaurant vouchers. Neither is there a single mention of the shady-in-anyone's-eyes early hours behind closed doors meetings between IOC delegates and London representatives. Surely that is just as pertinent to the discussion? I mean a silly comment of food is more persuasive to the notoriously corrupt IOC committee members than free gifts and secret promises? Surely not. As for the ITER - this kind of crass nationalistic commentary belongs in the pages of the Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail not Wikipedia, please take your jingoism elsewhere.

Image

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

It does say "Candidate bid" underneath, so perhaps someone thought it shouldn't appear. I believe it still should, however, and am currently celebrating! violet/riga (t) 6 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

The 'Candidate city' line is a problem. It would be easy enough to edit the image, but as it is a logo, I suspect that shouldn't be done. Even so, it is visually more useful to show the logo of the winning bid rather than the generic Olympics logo. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

Well until the bid's site comes back online, it's the most up-to-date image we have. boffy_b July 6, 2005 12:54 (UTC)

The bid site is back up, but the replacement logo won't be available for a while yet --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

olympic soccer

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

All team sports that the UK plays are as a single team, under the official name "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If the UK plays football in 2012 (and I'm pretty sure that it's one of the sports that guarantees a spot to the host nation), it will be as "ONE team", yes. Just like they had for hockey in 2004. -- Jonel | Speak 9 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

Because of the FA and its organisation a united kingdom football team has been elusive in the past, I understand however from a breif interview (records of which i cannot find) that Sebastian Coe said he hoped those issues could be resolved and ONE team could play instead thus representing the nation in which football (as it currently exists) was invented. Please correct me if im wrong however, its only something a vaugely remember.

Criticism

I see that all citations or hints or reports of negative criticism have been removed once again: someone very pro-Olympics is clearly regularly deleting anything that may seem negative. Can not WP lock this against such unrepresentative behaviour and turning this article into advertorial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.246.149 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Furthermore the "{{POV}}" tag keeps being deleted.

What criticism exactly has been removed? 86.133.98.120 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does not seem biased to me. The section on the logos covers the negative reaction of the public / mayor aswell as its expense. There is a mention of the allegation London didnt rightfully win the vote. Theres a mention of compulsary purchase causing problems, the transport section mentions London did badly during the bidding phase because of it and much imporvement is needed and mentions concerns about links to some venues. In the finance section it mentions concerns about London having to spend so much on it aswell as concerns by other parts of the UK about having to pay for basically a london thing. The article seems pretty fair and reasonable although a couple more sentences in some sections highlighting other issues that have come up might be useful

• A sentence or two more on the huge jump in the budget from the original bid
• More on the economic crisis, resulting in a shortfall of money from private companies
• A mention of Scotland and the SNPs concerns (Wales is mention already but both would be useful)
• A mention there have been some complaints about the numbers of foreign workers being employed to build the venues and the government has been releasing figures on this.
• A mention of general concerns about the London transport system being overwhelmed and not able to cope (at moment concerns just focus on specifics)
• A mention on shooting sports, because of British gun laws exemptions had to be given for the shooting to take place i seem to recall, and concerns about British shooters not being allowed to train in Britain.
• A mention of the public response to Londons part in Chinas 2008 closing ceremony. I saw / heard alot of negative views on it, if theres a decent source like a BBC poll on it that should be added.

Anyway those are a few things i can think of, i may add them to the article when i have some time. There does need to be some justification for the POV tag because its not clear theres a big problem here, so we should leave the tag on for a couple of days but if the other IP doest come back with his concerns, we should remove it.

What things do you think should be added 87.64.246.149? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this article does not appear to be overly biased - I don't think the tag is warranted unless specific reasons for its inclusion are documented. DJR (T) 01:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

Criticism always has it's own category within the main article not neatly hidden within flowery prose expressing self-esteem. Unless it is dealt with I suggest the article is POV.Twobells (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) As an update: the fiasco over the shooting events along with the outrageous behaviour in the way selection was conducted as well as the UK committee's attempt to secretly visit The National Shooting Centre without prior notice or permission OR allow Bisley to present itself either officially or otherwise needs to be addressed within the main article.Twobells (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Also, I bring to your attention the level of anger and humiliation the logo issue raised has not been fairly dealt with by the piece and to suggest that because some shop [advertising?] sold a few goods counters the feeling felt by the nation is just risible.Twobells (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Oh and I forgot to mention that a fundamental Olympic Charter has been broken over the usage of Woolwich Barracks as the shooting venue, due to the fact it leaves no sporting legacy, the £50 million venue will be demolished immediately after the Games.Twobells (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Oh and for a lesson in suspect ideology try and select 'shooting' on the BBC 2012 map: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/london_2012/3241188.stm. Twobells (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Subsequently I give the editors 72 hours to correct the article or I'll do it myself.Twobells (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever your beef is about this article there is little point in having a rant and expecting other editors to take you seriously let along respond to your ultimatum which just undermines further any point you were trying to make. Even your URL link is from 2004 no wonder its out of date. Perhaps you were wanting editors to look here. Either way if you have constructive suggestions about improving the content of the article make your points with clarity and leave the emotion on the otherside of the keyboard. Tmol42 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

2004? That is the current BBC link on BBC Sport website. Your link is a separate link obtained by entering 'venue' as opposed to 'map' or guide' and in no way deflects the comment as it is still the existing map for that area of the bbc site. The very first link using Google, AstaVista or Yahoo when typing '2012 Olympic map, guide or venue BBC' is [7] What you call an 'ultimatum' was a a polite opportunity for editors to rectify what is for all intent and purpose an advert for the 2012 games, subsequently I will have to correct the article and put it back in balance. As for emotive content using words 'ultimatum' and 'rant' quite clearly expresses your feelings to any reader. It is so typical that when anyone feels strongly about an issue ungenerous wording is used in an attempt to camouflage the actual facts of the matter, using words like 'emotion' and 'rant' are just examples of a sad attempt to deflect the actual criticisms.Twobells (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What I would 'politely' ask is why your comments haven't addressed any of the facts regarding the criticism's laid out?82.8.176.38 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no obligation on editors to respond to personal comments about the article which are not in accord with W:NPOV, W:V and amount to no more than W:OR. I took your call to editors "Subsequently (sic) I give the editors 72 hours to correct the article or I'll do it myself." to be an ultimatum and your choice of words both before and subsequently as unlikely to gain any concensus from other editors. Your string of unsupported statements suggest you are not happy about something in the content of the article but I cannot work out what it is you are specifically referring to as the statements do not seem to follow on from each other and do not present a coherant, well-researched and calm argument. I suggest instead of a string of personal opinions you bring forward some reasoned and verifiable evidence to give other editors a chance to understand what you are referring to that needs improving and how this could be achieved. By the way please remember to sign in before editing so it is clear you are the author of all the comments, thanksTmol42 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

'United Kingdom' or 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland'

Does anyone believe the United Kingdom should compete under the name of the United Kingdom at the Olympic Games and not as Great Britain and Northern Ireland? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the official name of the country, but is generally shortened to the United Kingdom rather than Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If these Games are really about reinvented in the patriotic spirit of our nation, then I believe as a UK Citizen that we should be competing as the United Kingdom whether our athletes come from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, or the British Overseas Territories. We are the UNITED KINGDOM, are we not proud to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.163.133 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your patriotism is admirable however this is a page to discuss the article not a forum to debate the merits or otherwise of the name of the team. A brief reference as to why the team became called as it is to be found at Great Britain at the Olympics and no doubt the rationale or otherwise has been already debated there too, hope that helps.Tmol42 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

50K Walk Venue

I added a cn tag against the reference to Tring being the venue for the 50k Walk. I cannot find any reference to this on the London2012 site nor on any of the relevant UK Athletics websites or RackWalking UK site. Can anyone advise/supply. Tmol42 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Photographs of Venues

This may be a small detail but the fact that the fourth image of the olympic venues is being displayed in the section 'Public Transport' may avoid an aesthetic issue but irritates and is inaccurate. I wonder if there is a need for all four images, especially since a separate article deals with the venues separately. Do others agree ? -- DeltaNovember (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Participating Nations

I have, on a number of occasions, removed a section entitled "Participating Nations", which has included various people's guesses as to whether a particular nation might attend. There is no point spending the next two and a half years seeing many and various (largely unauthoritative) guesses as to who might be there. Yes, we would expect that a large proportion of the IOC's affiliated nations will be there, and for the major nations the chances are close to 100%, but at the moment we don't know, and we don't need to know now and won't know now. When we do eventually know who is going to be there, we can list them, but not now. Am I being unreasonable? David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

More recently there have been attempts to add the list of competitors qualified in one sport, and treat it as a list of participating nations. In my view this list is fine in its right place, on the page for that sport, but adds no value to this page. Again, am I being unreasonable? David Biddulph (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in funding descriptions?

The costs for staging the Games (£2 billion) are funded from the private sector by a combination of sponsorship, merchandising, ticketing and broadcast rights. This budget is raised and managed by the London 2012 Organising Committee. According to Games organisers, the funding for this budget broadly breaks down as:

63% from Central Government; 23% from National Lottery 13% from the Mayor of London and the London Development Agency

Not sure how central government, Mayor of London and the LDA count as the 'private sector', and even defining the National Lottery as such is questionable.

Also, is there any particular reason why there is no criticism section in the article? There are plenty of relevant points that should be gathered together under that heading. Centrepull (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate page for mascots/marketing?

Should there be a separate page for the mascots? There's already a precedent from Vancouver and Beijing, and Beijing in fact even has another page about marketing. Should the same be done for London? There could potentially be a fair amount of information about it, especially if the whole idea of a story element is carried out. Gammondog (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I am delighted that the criticisms are now remaining un-vandalised: a few months back all reports in this article of any negative comments wrt 2012 (cost,logo) were deleted almost immediately. Well done whoever is managing to keep them in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.44.82 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bidding process anomaly

In the section "Bidding process", there's a grid showing distribution of votes at each stage, as each lowest city gets eliminated.

For some strange reason, the total votes cast is not consistent. For example, as of today's version, Round 3 shows a total of 103 votes, whereas Round 4 has 104. Is there a valid reason for this? If so, could somebody state it, here? Also, somebody could then add an explanatory note alongside the article's grid. --Trafford09 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know for sure but i would presume the vote went up to 104 because the country that lost in round 3 was able to vote in round 4. This BBC news report backs up the figures used. [8] BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of Events

The article currently states that there will be 300 events at the 2012 Olympics, but from what I have gathered, there will actually be 302, the same as in Beijing. We know that Baseball and Softball have been dropped, which takes the total down to 300, but the Tornado event in the sailing has also been eliminated, which further reduces the number to 299. However, there have been changes to the boxing programme, with the dropping of one of the men's boxing weight classes, taking the total down to 298, but with the addition of 3 weight classes for women the total is now 301. Finally, there will be a mixed doubles event in tennis for the first time, which takes the total back to 302. Unless anyone objects over the next seven days, I will change the total to 302. See here for confirmation that the Tornado event will be dropped and for changes to the boxing, and also here for confirmation that mixed doubles tennis will be added. Moldovanmickey (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are breaking WP:SYNTHESIS by collecting some changes from different sources without a source saying that these are the only changes or the total is 302. Here are two sources saying 300: [9] (pdf page 6), [10]. I'm not sure which number is right. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I clicked through the 26 sports at http://www.london2012.com/games/olympic-sports/index.php and got 302 in total with a calculation probably within WP:CALC:

8+34+2+2+4+47+5+(2 in basketball which forgot the count)+13+4+12+(18 total for four disciplines of cycling, said in the "Did you know?" box on the BMX page)+2+2+2+10+2+14+2+2+2+2+14+2+14+10+15+4+8+5+2+2+2+15+18 = 302.

But it would be good with an official or at least reliable source saying 302 if we are going to contradict reliable sources associated with the games saying 300. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice that the pdf document is dated in 2007, before the reported changes (and after the dropping of baseball and softball which occurred in 2005 and reduced the Beijing figure of 302 to 300 in London) to the programme. With the greatest respect to the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, can we really treat them as an authoritative source on the games? The frustratingly annoying thing is that neither the IOC website nor the London 2012 site (the two most authoritative sources)have an up-to-date figure on the number prominently displayed, be it 300 or 302 (although I will concede that there is mention of 300 here it would not be the first time that an official website has not been updated in the light of further changes). Neither of them have done the arithmetic and put it in a prominent place. I have found one source here that states 302, but it's non-authoritative and just looks like some kind of private (albeit non-scamming) enterprise. The evidence from the calculation work from the London 2012 website you have kindly done, does corroborate 302 and I am convinced that 302 is the correct figure- however on its own, my conviction does not really amount to a row of beans! If you think that the calculations are within WP:CALC, then why don't we change it to 302 with a suitable note? For what it's worth there is no current citation for 300, anyway. Kind regards Moldovanmickey (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

'Flat Pack Olympics' Not Addressed?

Hmm, The so-called 'Flat Pack Olympics' (due to so many venues having no legacy and being constructed of 'flat packs') seems to have no entry here, why is that? The issue has received wide coverage and British Shooting is seeking a judicial review. See:

http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/sports-digest/spare-us-from-the-flat-pack-olympics/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/5758718/London-2012-Serious-questions-remain-about-Olympic-legacy.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23562531-the-flatpack-olympics.do

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/5912558/London-2012-significant-concerns-remain-over-Olympic-venues.html

Twobells (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Participating Nations section - What's the number in brackets?

I'm guessing it's somehow related to the strange intro - "As of October 17, 2010 two sports have announced a portion of their quotas (equestrian and shooting). 32 Countries have qualified so far". Can this be written in plainer English please, and the number in brackets explained? HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll stick to my views previously expressed (see archive) that it's pointless having a "participating nations" section at this stage, & I think it's also pointless to try to list, this long before the games, how many competitors from each nation. The situation will change on a frequent basis, and the chances of any such numbers being verifiable as we go along would seem minimal. The only system which might be verifiable were if there were a separate article listing numbers of participants in a matrix of nations and sports, with references being provided to justify entries in the matrix, but I have doubts that such a list would be maintainable on a reliable basis. I see that there have been changes this morning to the numbers for some nations in the original "participating nations" list. Were the old numbers right? Are the new numbers right? In what way does this section meet the WP:V requirement? As I said in one of my earlier comments in the archive, if there are verifiable sources for participation in a particular sport, it wouldn't be unreasonable to include that information in the page for that sport at the 2012 Olympics, such as that shown at Shooting at the 2012 Summer Olympics. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and your perspective David. I agree with you completely. It serves no useful purpose, and those numbers don't really tell anybody anything. Nobody has replied to your original points back in April. That's six months! Do you and I now make up a bold consensus for deletion? HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just over 24 hours ago I reverted an edit to this section of the article and in my Edit summary invited the contributing editor to this Discussion. No response. There is a limit to how long one should reasonably wait for further discussion. I will do a bold delete. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe no-one's asked this yet but...

I can't believe no-one's asked this yet, but did the Doctor Who episode "Fear Her" have anything to do with either London's bid or the selection of London as the location for the Olympics? It could be a coincidence, but it might not be, hence my asking. If it isn't a coincidence, why not include it in the article? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The episode was mentioned at Talk:2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 1#Popular culture. London was elected 6 July 2005 and Fear Her#Production says it was filmed in January and February 2006 so they obviously knew that London had been selected for 2012. The episode is in Category:2012 Summer Olympics but I'm not sure it deserves mention in the article. And maybe it should be in Category:Olympic games in fiction instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I must've missed that in my search of the archives. I also didn't look closely enough at the dates for the selection of London and the filming of "Fear Her". My bad! Thanks --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of London 2012 Olympic youth ambassadors

The article London 2012 Olympic youth ambassadors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references and only a few online mentions, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Was this page in reference to the Children of Promise thing? Where kids born on 20/12/04 were promised to be involved in the Opening Ceremony? Only asking as my mate's kid was born on said day, and the the London2012 team have now gone back on their promises (the irony etc) and are instead giving the kids involved crappy gigs like waving at the Olympic torch all over the country (read, in their own cities, as opposed to the promised trip to London) during the 70 day exhibiting of said torch. Just wondering why this was baleeted in the first place. I mean who started the ball rolling, rather than the reasons stated..... 62.255.248.225 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in funding?

Under the 'Financing' paragraph, I read the following:

"The costs for staging the Games (£2 billion) are funded from the private sector by a combination of sponsorship, merchandising, ticketing and broadcast rights. This budget is raised and managed by the London 2012 Organising Committee. According to Games organisers, the funding for this budget broadly breaks down as:

64% from Central Government; 23% from National Lottery 13% from the Mayor of London and the London Development Agency"

The opening sentence is clearly in contradiction with the rest of the paragraph. If the costs are privately funded, how come the subsequent budget funding comprises only sources of public money?194.153.106.254 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Iran says: ZION for that logo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Olympics_2012_logo.svg Böri (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is the point of this section? HiLo48 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Iran says 2012 logo looks like "ZION"; 2 = Z, 0 = O, 1 = I and 2 = N Böri (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Countries can't talk. Who said it? Is there a reliable source? HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Already in there. Ravendrop 09:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So why doesn't it spell ZOIN? Or is the protest only from Chinese Iranians? .. or is it ZOIZ? um, NOIN anyone? NION perhaps? or maybe it looks closer in Persian?? Dr.O.Farr-Kinnel (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I once had a potato that looked a bit like Mrs Golda Meir - does this count? signed - Ayatollah Khingedwad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.196.8 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It already needs confident source which shows Iranian want to boycott the Olympics for this issue. "Iran said" is meaningless from provided link. Fantasizer Wiki (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From the original AP story:

The secretary general of Iran's National Olympic Committee said Iran sent a letter to International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge. ... "There is no doubt that negligence of the issue from your side may affect the presence of some countries in the Games, especially Iran which abides by commitment to the values and principles," the letter said.

That should settle the boycott issue.  --Lambiam 01:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. This was also in a reliable source cited for the boycott statement, which you removed together with the statement. Did you not read the source before you removed this?  --Lambiam 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

London, United Kingdom?

Yes, London is the capital of the UK but ‘London, United Kingdom’ just doesn’t look right to me. Would ‘London, England’ or ‘London, England, United Kingdom’ not be better? Zarcadia (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would go with just ‘London, England’ as the additional UK is superfluous. Keith D (talk)

Tone/POV

The article seems to be unwaveringly positive with no mention of criticism of (for example) the ticket costs or blind allocation method (e.g. <ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Olympics-London-2012-Ticketing-System-Branded-Confusing-By-Which-Magazine/Article/201104315975050 |title=Olympics London 2012 Ticketing System Branded Confusing By Which? Magazine | UK News | Sky News |first= |last={{err|{{AUTHOR MISSING}}}} |work=sky.com |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=26 April 2011}}</ref>) have I missed something? --Nate^t/_c 13:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Participating Nations

As per the 2008 Summer Olympics, i've created a template for participating nations at the 2012 Summer Olympics and included the number of current places gained at the games (through quotas, direct qualifications and host places). However I am unsure whether to update the main page with this list (to bring it into line with 2008) as it would mean the loss of cited references for the 67 nations in the list currently. (In the template I have commented out those nations which haven't qualified yet.) E1tiger (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better to wait until there is more information on the teams, because majority of the countries listed need those sources or there is no other information they will compete. I also had to revert your Chinese Taipei edit, as the "Chinese" is considered silent, see the 2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremony. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although if Chinese Taipei comes under "Taipei", should South Korea come under "Korea Republic"?E1tiger (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's how we have it in the 2008 template and the 2004 list - Basement12 (T.C) 14:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, South Korea is under Korea Republic, and North Korea is under Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Would that not be "Korea Democratic People's Republic"? ;) E1tiger (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think its Democratic first, thats how it was announced in Vancouver. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/16125.aspx
  • In Gondola lift on 2011-03-22 09:21:54, 404 Not Found
  • In Greenwich Peninsula on 2011-03-22 13:31:18, 404 Not Found
  • In 2012 Summer Olympic development on 2011-06-19 03:57:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

South Sudan will be independent by the time the Olympics are held, should it be added to the table of the participating nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The nations listed are only those who have a confirmed qualifier (or a confirmed quota allocation). Until an athlete representing South Sudan is confirmed as taking part it should not be in the list - Basement12 (T.C) 12:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides that fact, South Sudan is not recognized by the IOC, and it will not happen before 2012 barring anything substantial. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

From the IOC website, section 31, the current rules in relation to forming an NOC "In the Olympic Charter, the expression “country” means an independent State recognised by the international community.". Unlike the problematic case of Kosovo, there do not seem to be any obstacles to the imminent widespread recognition of Southern Sudan (none of the veto-holding permanent members of the UN Security Council nor the existing Republic of Sudan have indicated an objection to this). Assuming that international recognition is forthcoming, all that the sports organisations of Southern Sudan would need to do is form an NOC with at least five sports federations affiliated to each sport's international federation and then the IOC probably wouldn't have a problem recognising it- there will be 12 months between independence and the Olympics, after all. It's definitely too early to say that Southern Sudan definitely will or won't be at the games. In my view, not that it counts for anything at all, I would be very surprised if Southern Sudan doesn't appear at the games. The same can't be said, sadly, for Kosovo- maybe the IOC will allow them to take part as Independent Olympic Athletes, as they did commendably for East Timor in 2000.Moldovanmickey (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Olympiad

Is the official name really The Games of XXX Olympiad? The Olympiad is actually the time between two Olympic Games. Thus, this name suggests that the Games are held during the Olympiad, and that is simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.10.110 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a silly question in my opinion that. An Olympiad refers to a period beginning January 1 of a year in which the Summer Olympics are due to occur, and lasting four years. The first modern Olympiad began in 1896, the second began in 1900, and so on. The 29th began in 2008. Seeing as the next Olympics are in 2012, then January 1, 2012 will mark the start of the 30th Olympiad, and will end on December 31, 2015. Wesley Mouse (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If the OP wants a WP:RS, see Bye-law to rule 6 in the Olympic Charter, see ref 1 in the article on Olympiad. And of course the official announcement of the award of the Games to London did indeed refer to The Games of the XXX Olympiad. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Improvements needed to 'ticketing' paragraph

Upon reading the ticketing paragraph it is clear that it is poorly written and confusing. If possible effort should be made by someone with a thorough understanding of what happened with the ticket ballot to tidy this up and do the article justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.78.33 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Fines

Hey, I found a source saying that any streakers caught will be fined £20,000 or could face jail time. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/odd/news/a345830/london-2012-olympics-streaking-to-carry-gbp20k-fine.html Is there a place for this to go? Or is this just needless trivia? I thought I'd question it before placing it somewhere in the article. (Jeimii (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC))

Going to say useless trivia. Most countries, I assume, have fines and legal action against inappropriate behavior at the Olympics. Cosmo-san (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Section on Security

In wake of the riots and multiple security problems arising in London, and also as continuity of all Olympic-related articles, I am going to begin a new section titled "Security" for this article. I will most probably have it ready ina few days.

Suggestions and opinions are invited.

AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think there should be another bit added about the recent announcement that the organisers feel they might not have enough security for the games and have started hiring extra people and event considering using the military. The article basically says it all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8907271/London-2012-Olympics-volunteers-and-military-to-be-drafted-in-to-meet-Games-security-requirements.html

Toboso (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.206.231 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Security

I think there should be a section on Security. A recent article just confirmed that 13,500 members of the military will be on duty in London during the games:

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/2012/15203-britain-to-have-13500-troops-on-duty-for-london-2012-reveals-defence-secretary

Any thoughts on adding a section on security? --MusicGeek101 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

38 disciplines

Sorry, I don't have time to do the job properly, but on the list of sports, equestrian and volleyball should be broken down into their disciplines to make the total of 38 disciplines clearer.--ImizuCIR (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

    Done...thanks Orinn (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There are in fact 39, not 38. Now listed here, and 39 confirmed on London 2012 website. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Weird Dating

Is it just me or does it seem really weird that this article lists all the dates with the day first, followed by month, and then year, as in 01 March 2012. Shouldn't it be March 01, 2012. Personally I have never seen this before in my 36 years. 76.183.33.105 (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a more common international format. You can see it used in the timestamp that is added to your comment. Chris1834 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

See also Date format by country. Your IP address is American and it seems your country is nearly alone in using that date format. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First to host 3 Olympic games... or not?

On this article it says "London will become the first city to officially host the modern Olympic Games three times,[2][3] having previously done so in 1908 and in 1948." However, it also says the same thing on the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics page, "Innsbruck will become the first city to host three Olympic events, having previously hosted the 1964 Winter Olympics and the 1976 Winter Olympics." So who was first? Innsbruck holds their third event in January, 6 months before London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.0.111 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "the modern Olympic Games" includes the Youth Olympics but they are an "Olympic event", so I would say both are right. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Winter Youth Olympics" are not the "Olympic Games". If people want to play deceptive word games (also not the Olympic Games) and act as if they are, please do not be fooled. They are a different event. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On the Innsbruck page it says Olympic event (meaning including all Olympic events) so they are correct. This article should say Olympic Games. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Youth Olympic Games are not the Olympic Games. By Olympic games, summer and/or winter games are the subject. I think the challenge with this is that the youth olympic games are new and that it can de debatable in regard to whether or not Innsbruck is also a three time host city, but I feel that this does not include the youth olympics. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Athens was the first to host 3 Olympic Games. However, since the IOC decided to rescind the status of the 1906 Games this is not strictly correct if one defines Olympic Games as "officially recognised Olympic Games". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has received a lot of vandalism recently, which I think is to be expected. Would it not be wise to have the page protected?Weirdtheory (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Really depends on who is editing the page - criticism, or merely pointing out glaring inaccuracies in the budget section cannot be considered as 'vandalism', can it?

Occupy the Olympics?

Is there any truth in the reports that 'Occupy London' plan to invade every single event? Does anyone have a link to these? 212.139.108.5 (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.108.5 (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather Biased Editing - No Criticism?

Len McCluskey on the BBCNews today(29/02/2012) has suggested that industrial action against using the unemployed as slave labourers might be timed to coincide with these Olympics- why no coverage of this ? I'm aware there are plans to use those in the armed forces who have returned home in time as free car park attendants under the guise of 'enhanced security', but can Mr. Coe really hope to do very much about British people using their right to withdraw their (cheap) labour , short of driving the buses himself?

And why is there no detailed 'Accounts' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.108.5 (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Financing

This section in particular:

"The costs for staging the Games (£2 billion) are funded from the private sector by a combination of sponsorship, merchandising, ticketing and broadcast rights. This budget is raised and managed by the London 2012 Organising Committee. According to Games organisers, the funding for this budget broadly breaks down as:

   64% from Central Government;
   23% from National Lottery
   13% from the Mayor of London and the London Development Agency"

Is this actually just wrong?? The £2bn cost of staging the games is from LOCOG, which is almost totally privately funded. The breakdown that this refers to is presumably the costs of the ODA - the public organisation that is constructing the sites.

Details can be found here:

http://www.london2012.com/funding-the-games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.20.40 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"...vanity project."

Someone should remove the entry that states: The failure of Britain's political establishment to predict and prevent this housing crisis underlines the fact that the Olympic Games were never anything more than a vanity project.

This violates Wikipedia's policy of "Neutral Point of View," in my opinion, and that particular phrase is not cited. It is a locked article, so I cannot remove it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicalCreator (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

(about the Housing section under criticism) Ravendrop 10:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This section seems to be biased and based (loosely) upon a single citation. Indeed, it seems that most of the section is the writer's opinion and unrelated to the citation. 94.173.6.53 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually a Games Maker volunteer at the London games, and I can honestly say that this is the first I've heard about a housing crisis. The volunteers have so far not had issues about housing. We've been offered various options, including student accommodation, YMCA accommodation, some are staying with friends/family. Even LOCOG have said housing isn't an issue. So on that note, I think those details on the article are poorly cited, and need to be urgently reviewed. Wesley☀Mouse 00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere is NOC defined.

Maybe it's obvious to everyone else, but I had to look up what NOC signified. I feel it should be expanded everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.213.16 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that it stands for National Olympic Committee. Might need that confirmed before we add it to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Indeed it does. Wikilinked for bid section; fully spelled out with wikilink for the participating nations sections. Ravendrop 10:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Opening ceremony: artist?

Is there someone singing in the opening ceremony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.236.15 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Those details haven't been made public as of yet. There's still plenty of time yet. Wesley☀Mouse 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan

Had there been any indication whether South Sudan intends to send/qualify athletes. Or any indication from the IOC that these would be allowed to compete under the Olympic Flag (like the Netherlands Antilles athletes will) due to South Sudan not currently having an NOC. Ravendrop 10:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently there is no indication, though based on what they have done it will be unlikely that they will compete under their flag. Whether they can compete under the Olympic Flag will be discussed in the IOC meeting in late May.JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Location of the Olympic Park

I've just scanned through the article, and (correct me if I'm wrong) it isn't really made clear where the Olympic Park is. The lede gives a long list of venues without mentioning Stratford, London. If you only read the lede, you'd have the impression that there hadn't been any facilities built specially for the event and that only old ones were being used. Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a brief mention of the Olympic Park and Stratford in the lede. Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Logos image

Can somebody please remove the slide bar below the image of the different olmpic logos for it looks unprofetional as it does not do anything.(Calu Thanks 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC))--Calu Thanks 20:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no slide bar. Not sure what you are talking about. Likely it is due to your browser settings. Ravendrop 20:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you decrease your browser width enough that the image of the 5 logos does not fit in the screen, then the slide bar will appear. I'm not sure what can be done about it... Bluap (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Clear Logo

The clear logo used here is not a official logo. So I think it fails fair use. "The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image." I think it misrepresents the logo and no 2012 logo I have found use the colored rings like this does. The source to this file does not show a clear logo either. I think it should be replaced with a official logo. Theworm777 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Broadcasting list??

Why has this Olympics not got the Broadcasting List like Rio 2016??

    Austria – ORF[14]
    Azerbaijan – İTV[15]
    Brazil – Rede Globo and Rede Bandeirantes (exclusive all rights holders), Rede Record (only free-to-air television)[16]
    Europe – Sportfive; rights in each country to be resold to local broadcasters, except France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland and United Kingdom[17]
    Finland – YLE[18]
    France – France Télévisions[19]
    Germany – ARD and ZDF[19]
    Italy – Sky Italia[17]
    Japan – NHK[20]
    Norway – TV 2[21]
    North Korea – SBS[22]
    Portugal - RTP 1 and RTP 2
    South Korea – SBS[22]
    Spain – RTVE[23]
    Sweden – MTG[24]
    Switzerland – SRG SSR[25]
    Turkey – FOX[17]
    United States – NBC[26].

It is not a good section in a poor article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.125.188 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2012

In the section 'Tourism and the 2012 Games' please add that London Architecture Walks (http://londonarchitecturewalks.com/default.aspx) also provides tours of the Olympic Park area and is the only architectural tours provider of the London 2012 site. (http://londonarchitecturewalks.com/olympiclondon.aspx) Many thanks.

78.105.21.246 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It isn't appropriate to advertise in a Wikipedia article. I've removed the Blue Badge content as well. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sponsors

How comes theres no official list of sponsors? Some at least are announced.Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question. The Paralympics page (which duplicates many sections of this page) has a good list of partner companies. Wire723 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As a 'Games Maker' volunteer, I have a full list of sponsors for the main 2012 summer games, within all the training manuals been given to me, if that's any help. And I should be able to find a ref source too which can be used. Wesley☀Mouse 15:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the full list of sponsors as shown on London 2012 website.

Sponsors

Worldwide partners

• Coca-Cola
• Acer
• Atos
• DOW
• General Electric
• McDonald's (also the Presenting Partner for Games Maker volunteers)
• Omega SA
• Panasonic
• Procter & Gamble
• Samsung
• VISA

Official partners

• Adidas
• BMW
• BP
• British Airways
• BT
• EDF Energy
• Lloyds TSB

Official supporters

• Adecco
• ArcelorMittal
• Cadbury (also the official Treat Provider for the London 2012 Games Maker programme)
• Cisco Systems
• Deloitte
• Thomas Cook Group
• United Parcel Service (UPS)

Official suppliers and providers

• Aggreko
• Airwave
• Atkins
• Boston Consulting Group
• CBS Outdoor
• Crystal CG
• Eurostar
• Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
• G4S
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Gymnova
• Heathrow Airport
• Heineken UK
• Holiday Inn
• John Lewis
• McCann Worldgroup
• Mondo
• Nature Valley
• Next
• The Nielsen Company
• Populous
• Rapiscan Systems
• Rio Tinto
• Technogym
• Thames Water
• Ticketmaster
• Trebor
• Westfield

Official partner of the Paralympic Games

• Sainsbury's

Official supplier and provider of the Paralympic Games

• Otto Bock

Wesley☀Mouse 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The sponsors used to be listed in this page, but someone removed them (presumably because the list took up too much space). Bluap (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

One solution if space is the issue, would be to make a collapsible template which would contain the list of sponsors, and insert the template within the article. The Eurovision project have what they call a "super-template" which contains details for countries, songs, years etc. Something similar could be used to show the sponsors in tiers, I don't mind mocking up a prototype design as an example. Wesley☀Mouse 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles and Kosovo

In about a week the judo rankings will be updated and the announcement of athletes will come. Both Netherlands Antilles and Kosovo will be given a spot. The IOC will announce if Kosovo athletes can compete as independent athletes in late may and while they have stated that Netherlands Antilles will compete they have not stated the name they will compete as. The question is should a page be made for these two areas and if so what should it be called.

examples

• Netherlands Antilles/Kosovo at the 2012 Olympic Games
• Independent Olympic Athletes (will both areas be merged into one or should there be 2 seperate IOA created?)

JoshMartini007 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

One would assume that the same principles that happened in 1992 Summer Olympics which had independent athletes, would also apply here. Wikipedia currently has an article covering the independent athletes from Barcelona '92 under the heading Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics. So in that respect, it would probably be plausible to create an article under the heading Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics, which would cover Netherlands Antilles and Kosovo. Don't forget that only 89 UN states recognize Kosovo's independence so far, so it may be logical for now to list them as Independent Olympic Participants (IOP's) until further details are released as to how they will be recognized in London. Wesley☀Mouse 01:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics is the way to go. The other possible "independent" athletes could be from South Sudan since they don't currently have an NOC. Though I haven't seen anything that said they are seeking any athlete placements. Ravendrop 02:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The other option, would be to create articles for each individual nation, and then redirect them to Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics, until details from the IOC are released as to how each nation will be "referred" as. That way, an article can be viewed, and if (for example) the IOC do decide to allow Kosovo to participate in their own right, then you'd just remove Kosovo's redirect tag, and reintroduce its own article. The same would go for other nations who we are currently assuming will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" until further details are announced to state otherwise. Wesley☀Mouse 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Kuwaiti NOC is still suspended, I think, so Kuwaiti athletes might have to participate under the Olympic flag as well. MrYIndeed (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Athletes from the Netherlands Antilles could in theory compete under the Netherlands umbrella, as parts of the colony is still classified as the "Kingdom of Netherlands". However, the likelihood of that happening, would all depend on the Netherlands themselves, and if they would consider allow that as a temporary measure. As MrYIndeed (talk · contribs) rightfully pointed out, Kuwait are still suspended and have been since January 1, 2011. The IOC are still to have a few more meetings yet between now and the games opening. So all these unknown answers should be known by then. The question is, what happens in respect of articles for the time being? Do we wait until we know more? Do we create individual articles for each nation, and redirect to an IOP article - with the option to reinstate each individually created article in the event a nation is permitted to compete in their own right? Wesley☀Mouse 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd draw the line between existence and non-existence of a recognized NOC. As long as there is no NOC, the countries will not be able to compete under their own flag. This includes AHO, who had their membership withdrawn, but not Kuwait who are still an (albeit suspended) member. So I'd collect Kosovo/AHO/South Sudan on a single page for now. Either way, this is not a terribly important decision now, since we will certainly know which way to go in a few weeks. MrYIndeed (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to point out there MrYIndeed. I never said an non-existence NOC would still compete under their own flag. I know this is impossible, as the IOC withdrew NAOC's recognition. However, I was trying to point out that the nation of Netherlands Antilles (NAOC) could in theory be absorbed into the Kingdom of Netherlands, as they are a colony of the Netherlands, and thus may be able to compete under the flag of The Netherlands (NOC-NSF). However, that would all depend on whether or not the Netherlands would allow that to happen, or if they've even thought of allowing that to happen. As things stand now, NAOC is extinct, but NOC-NSF could allow a temporary merger-type option, based on the fact one nation "colonises" the other. Wesley☀Mouse 18:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Further to what I just wrote there, I have checked on the official website of the Netherlands Antilles (yes the site still exists). Netherlands Antilles will compete as IA's (independent athletes) for the 2012 games. However, after the games, NAOC athletes will fall under the jurisdiction of the Olympic Committee of either Aruba or the Netherlands, as they all have the same Dutch passport. So my initial theory of Antilles merging with Netherlands, looks like it is already being discussed as an option. Wesley☀Mouse 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply you said that. My rationale is this: We're essentially trying to predict how athletes are going to participate. For the Dutch Antilleans we then have our answer: they are IA's. The same is very likely for Kosovo, where the only other option seems to be no participation at all. So, we should simply go with the probable case: IA's in both cases. For what it's worth, I think this decision in the AHO case has to do with the fact that the qualification was already in full swing when AHO lost their status. It would have been unfair for NOC athletes who had already worked towards qualification in American competitions to be forced to switch to Europe (as with the Judoka who *may* qualify, Judo qualifications are still ongoing, so this might be a non-issue if no AHO athlete qualifies). MrYIndeed (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should wait until the matter becomes clear. The announcement will only be a few weeks away. Bluap (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles (NAOC) have established on their website that they are to compete IA's (independent athletes) in London; so the matter surrounding them is pretty clear in all respect. However, in regards to other nations such as Kosovo, Kuwait, and South Sudan are still unknown, and will most likely be cleared up in one of the upcoming IOC meetings between now and the start of London 2012. Although, as Kosovo is only recognised as an independent nation by 89 UN states; then the likelihood of them being permitted to compete as an independent nation is still in the balance, and would most likely be pigeon-holed (for choice of phrase) under the IA's banner also. Wesley☀Mouse 00:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Official terminology of host nation

I've noticed that on both the opening lead, and the infobox; the naming of the host country is shown as United Kingdom. However in the eyes of the IOC, they refer to the nation as Great Britain. As this is an Olympic articles, shouldn't Great Britain be used instead of United Kingdom? After all, the team themselves are referred to as Team GB (Team Great Britain). Even the British Olympic Association article refers to the nation as Great Britain and Northern Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesley Mouse (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Agree - official terminology should be used in cases of international events. swinquest (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So I'm safe to be WP:BOLD and just change it accordingly then? Wesley☀Mouse 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, go ahead.Lihaas (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look into this, and even though the name can be changed on the lead, the infobox is a different matter, as its a protected subtemplate which cannot be changed. With this in mind, would it not be more plausible to mention something within the article to point out that even though geographically the nation is known as United Kingdom but in the "eye" of the IOC it is more commonly known as Great Britain? Wesley☀Mouse 15:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree - There's a misunderstanding here - the name for the competing teams at the Olympics is decided upon by reference to the IOC rules, and the NOC concerned - the British Olympic Committee organises as "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", often shortened to "Great Britain" or, as a commercial name, Team GB. But although the games are organised by the NOC that participates under that name, they are not hosted IN the NOC - that would be a nonsense. They are hosted BY an NOC, but IN a geographical location, and that location is part of a sovereign state - and that state is offically called the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and etc, ) For example, where the Games to go to Taiwan, you wouldn't say the Games were held in Chinese Taipai, but in Republic of China. I know for the vast majority of NOCs the name of the team is the same as the name of the state or country, but for a select few, it isn't - and although the host NOC participates in the games as GB, and its sports team should be so referred, the name of the country it represents, and which is hosting the games, is the United Kingdom.

I know it's a bit pedantic, but it's also the reality - e.g. the United States Team represents the United States, the Brazil team represents Brazil, but the team of chinese Taipai represents Republic of China and the Team of Great Britain and NI represents the United Kingdom. Mpjmcevoy (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how to fix second para in "ticketing".

The paragraph currently reads:

Following IOC rules, people applied for tickets to, based on their country of residence (for legal reasons, European Union residents were able to apply for tickets in any EU country).

I can't make sense of it. The 'to' seems like it should be followed by something. 'To events'? And the commas are used to suggest a clause but usually when this is done you can remove the text between commas and the sentence would still make sense. But if we try that here it leaves us with "Following IOC rules based on their country of residence" which makes no sense. Can anyone fix it? --bodnotbod (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My fault. I've fixed it so that it makes logical sense, but the wording is still clumsy. (I think that this sentence is necessary, because most of the section is UK-centric, and we need to make it clear that it doesn't apply world-wide) Bluap (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Countdown

I think it would be productive to add a countdown days clock (in days) though i would like to check first also i am aware that this will need to be maintained over the whole world so i suggest that it be in gmt+0000 please help and aprove and disaprove below Objections

conditions

comments

thank you --Calu2000 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Check manual of style first, as I think such items would fall under what Wikipedia is not, and would probably be seen as promotional content. However, displaying countdown clocks on the Olympic Project pages is sufficient enough. Wesley☀Mouse 18:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Not doneunder sugestion of Wesley☀Mouse thank you --Calu2000 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

London, England or London, United Kingdom

In the lead, which of the following should we use:

1. London, England
2. London, United Kingdom
3. London, England, United Kingdom
4. London, Great Britain

Are there any other suggestions? Bluap (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My personal preference is for London, United Kingdom Bluap (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Always a clumsy area. The Games were awarded to the London bid submitted by the British Olympic Association. It is the National Olympic Committee for "Great Britain and Northern Ireland (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), the Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man and the Channel Island Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey) and British Overseas Territories which do not have their own National Olympic Committees (Anguilla; the British Antarctic Territory; the British Indian Ocean Territory; the Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; the Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia; and the Turks and Caicos Islands)." I'd recommend leaving out the country all together. Nobody will be confused. Not even residents of the other Londons. The Wikilinked article, London, manages to describe it as a Global city. Sounds good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned this issue the other day. And technically, the use Great Britain, would be the correct choice. This is because, in the eyes of the IOC, they refer to the country as Great Britain. Even BOA, refer to it as Team GB (the GB being very obvious). To use "London, England" would be incorrect, as there are also regional venues in Scotland and Wales too. To use United Kingdom, would be including N. Ireland; however as there are no venues in N.Ire, then simple GB would be reasonable. Wesley☀Mouse 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

To address each suggestion individually:

1. London, England - Would not be acceptable as London is representing the UK, and events are taking place in Scotland and Wales.
2. London, United Kingdom - Should be the most straightforward and logical format but...
3. London, England, United Kingdom - ...is the format that is used in the 1904, 1932, 1976, 1984 and 1996 articles, (e.g. Los Angeles, California, United States), so would make sense to carry on that style here.
4. London, Great Britain - Would be grossly incorrect, for the reasons stated by User:Mpjmcevoy @ Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Official_terminology_of_host_nation. Zarcadia (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion continues further down the page at #Disambiguating London. -- Alarics (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sports pictograms

Why have the pictograms for the sports been removed? They are there to help people that are unable to read the English info navigate comfortably. 76.64.229.109 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating London

As an Alpha++ world city, London does not, strictly speaking, need disambiguating at all. Nor does it have to be wikilinked, per WP:OVERLINK. Nevertheless, I left it wikilinked when I reduced its mention in the lead from the ludicrous "London, England, United Kingdom" to just "London". Another editor then restored "United Kingdom" on the grounds that this is what we normally put, a statement with which I disagree but I was not prepared to get into a big argument about it. However, somebody else has now put it back to "London, England, United Kingdom" and put "see talk page" in the edit summary, but appears not in fact to have put anything about it on the talk page. In a spirit of compromise, I am prepared to accept either "London, England" or "London, United Kingdom", but "London, England, United Kingdom" just looks childish and silly, and makes Wikipedia appear unprofessional. So I am reverting it to "London, United Kingdom". -- Alarics (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"see talk page" refers to Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#London.2C_England_or_London.2C_United_Kingdom where this is being / has been discussed, and it has been discussed elsewhere in the talk. I actually agree with you that "London, England, United Kingdom" is excessive but it's the format that appears to be used as per the links I provided at the linked talk section. My point for reverting is that WP relies on consensus between editors and a single editor can't keep edit warring just because (s)he feels (s)he's right. Zarcadia (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise you were referring to a discussion that had taken place earlier. But now that I have studied that discussion, I must say there is no case for regarding its outcome as a consensus. Of the four editors who took part, only one (yourself) favoured the "London, England, United Kingdom" formula, and even then not exclusively. The others favoured (1) "London, United Kingdom", (2) just "London", and (3) "London, Great Britain". So in fact there was no agreement at all. On the point of precedent, I don't think any of the 1904, 1932, 1976, 1984 or 1996 Olympics examples are fully analogous to the present instance. Four of those five were in the United States, and many Americans regard the name of the state as an integral part of a city's name, even when plainly unnecessary, as in the case of "Los Angeles, California" (two of those four); we don't have that in the UK. Another of the four, the 1996 case, in fact says "Atlanta, United States" (Georgia not mentioned), so does not fit the claim that there is any standard pattern. The fifth example, "Montreal, Quebec, Canada" is superficially a bit more like "London, England, United Kingdom" and does seem otiose, but I am guessing that might have to do with political sensitivities, i.e. the fact that a lot of people in Quebec wish they were not part of Canada, again something that does not apply very strongly to London in relation to England.

Anyway, I see that we are now back to "London, United Kingdom", and I hope that will stay. -- Alarics (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles and Kuwait

I see this was discussed in April, but I am almost certain the uses of Independent Olympic Participants and Kuwait is incorrect. The IOC source at Kuwait at the 2012 Summer Olympics states that Kuwaiti athletes will “participate under the Olympic flag with the title 'Independent Olympic Athlete'” (with no country code given). Similarly, the IOC source on Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics states that the islands' athletes may “take part in the London 2012 Olympic Games as independent athletes under the Olympic flag”. The only difference is the clear statement that Kuwaiti athletes will compete with the title, whereas statement for Netherlands Antillean athletes is more vague and could be intended as a description of the situation. Even without these sources I would consider IOP most unlikely as this designation was used for a country blocked from competing by a UNSC resolution. In conclusion, Kuwait will compete as “Independent Olympic Athletes”, and Netherlands Antilles probably will. 88.88.163.201 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait and Netherlands Antilles are competing as “Independent Olympic Athletes”. However they compete as “Independent Olympic Athletes” which refers to them as individuals - athletes is a clue in the title. "Independent Olympic Participants" is the collective form, for more than one Independent Olympic Athletic Nation. Take for example Goose, plural is Geese; the term of venery name (or collective noun) for geese would be gaggle (when not in flight) and skein (when in flight). So on that basis, “Independent Olympic Athletes” is the singular noun, and "Independent Olympic Participants" the collective variation. Wesley Mouse 17:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise you'd end up with having to have two articles Independent Olympic Athlete at the 2012 Summer Olympics (Kuwait) and Independent Olympic Athlete at the 2012 Summer Olympics (Netherlands Antilles), and that would be very confusing. Whereas Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics enables us to group them together as one entity, while sub-heading Kuwait and Netherlands Antilles in that article. Wesley Mouse 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Athlete is singular, athletes plural. Participant is singular, participants plural. Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics would enable the desired grouping and match the sources better. Thank you for responding, I have tried several other talk pages before this one, with no response. 88.88.163.201 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But using the plural format would be incorrect. They are in groups, so the collective noun would be used, which in this case is participants, and keeps in-line with other articles that also had IOP's. And the International Olympic Committee list them as IOPs not IOAs. Wesley Mouse 18:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are they referred to as IOPs? I have tried to find it and also requested a source in the IOP at 2012 article. If there is no source, I don't see the problem with using Independent Olympic Athletes cf. Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Did you claim that participant is the collective noun for athletes, or did I misunderstand? I don't think there is any collective noun for athletes. A participant of athletes doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, and I've never seen it used. 88.88.163.201 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The collective noun is a known fact, so no claim. Also I am a volunteer at the games, so know that they are listed as IOPs. It is on all the documentation. I cannot add a source myself, as it would be a conflict of interest. Wesley Mouse 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics; Category:Olympic athletes as Independent Olympic Participants; Independent Olympic Participant. To have an article entitled as Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics, would then mean the article would have to list the sports persons as individuals and not the nations they would have competed as. To have Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics allows the article to list the two separate nations ,and then sub-list the sports personalities under the respective nations. Wesley Mouse 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also the 2000 article Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics was only one nation, East Timor. In 1992, 3 countries participated as "independent". In 2012, it will be 2 nations, thus keeping the term "participants" in line with manual of style and article title. Wesley Mouse 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The IOC official page lists the 3 Yugoslavian nations as "Independent Olympic Participants" for the Barcelona 1992 games. For Sydney 2000 the IOC list East Timor as Independent Olympic Athletes. Which clarifies my statement that if its one nation, then Athletes would be the correct term, more than one nation and it becomes "participants". Wesley Mouse 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick searches on google for “Participants of athletes” gives 295 hits and “Participant of athletes” 9 hits, so I don't think it is a common collective noun, and even if it were I don't see the relevance. I don’t see what part of WP:MOS or WP:AT you rely on. I have not seen any publicly available reliable sources for non-1992 usage of IOP which is why I have tried to initiate discussion. I don't think we can find any precedence from the IOP in 1992 and IOA in 2000; the designations were created as one-offs when they were needed by the IOC. Perhaps they ought to make a permanent designation for athletes competing under the Olympic flag, but that is not up to us. The designation "Independent Olympic Athletes" (note that it is not the same designation as in 2000) is stated outright in the source for the Kuwait article, and indeed in the article. (Do you agree that the Kuwait article ought to be moved in principle, though we differ as to the appropriate target?) As previously indicated the case for the Netherlands Antilles is less clear, but I have seen no evidence to suggest the revival of the defunct IOP code. On another note, I do not understand why the title Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics in would prevent subsections for different nations. (Subsections based on Yugoslavian or Macedonian nationality are in any case not used in this article.) As we appear to have reached a stalemate, is WP:3O an option? 88.88.163.201 (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We haven't reached a stalemate. I've provided two sources from the official Olympic website, that lists 1992 when there were 3 nations competing under the Olympic flag as "Independent Olympic Participants"; and another source for 2000 which had only one nation competing under the Olympic flag as "Independent Olympic Athletes". 2012 has two nations competing under the Olympic Flag, and based on previous situation in 1992 and the way the 1992 article is also listed, then participants would be the correct procedure. There is no need for a 3O to be carried out as this had already been discussed back in April, and the current listing was agreed and is being used. WP:AT (or article naming) gives rough guidelines on ambiguous article naming. An article title needs to reflect its content as accurate as possible. If it was only Kuwait or Netherlands Antilles competing under the Olympic Flag, then yes, they would be listed as IOAs; however as there are two nations they would be IOPs. Two nations independently participating under one Olympic flag, thus making them IOPs. Doing a quick search based on your athlete theory doesn't really prove much. Have you tried a search for IOPs too? Also try doing a search on the IOC website for IOPs, that too will bring loads of links. Wesley Mouse 22:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed something that you may have overlooked and not noticed properly. The 1992 and 2012 articles are titled Independent Participants (Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics and Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics) Whereas the 2000 article is "individual athletes" (Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics). An athlete cannot be independent as they do hold a nationality, thus making the title Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics politically and grammatically incorrect. We couldn't list them as Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics as there are more than one nation under the Olympic flag, again making that title grammatically incorrect. The athletes are participating for two separate nations both under the Olympic Flag, thus making them Independent Participants, and thus making Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics politically and grammatically correct. Wesley Mouse 23:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Both athletes and participants (they are the same persons) have a nationality. Countries don't send athletes to the Olympics, National Olympic Committees do. In this context independent does not mean that they are independent with regards to nationality, it means that they are independent from NOCs, which may be unrecognised, non-existent, dissolved or prevented from taking part because of sanctions. See Jasna Šekarić, who competed for two Yugoslavias and Serbia and Montenegro, but as an Independent Participant. Similarly, individual is intended to convey that they are not taking part as part of a delegation from an NOC, but as individuals. In this context they are equally independent. The reason Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics and Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics are titled as such is because the IOC (for their own reasons, we can only speculate) chose to use those designations. The source given in Kuwait at the 2012 Summer Olympics (from the IOC) clearly states that Kuwait will be competing with the title "Independent Olympic Athletes". For this reason I simply see no reason to title the article differently. Similar wording is used about the Netherlands Antilles in the source for them, though it is not stated as a title for the athletes. Excluding Wikipedia, there are no indications that the IOP designation will be revived. By the way, I hope you'll enjoy volunteering at the games. 88.88.163.201 (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

88.88.163.201 is exactly right; What the IOC says, goes. If the athletes appear under the IOC code Independent Olympic athletes/IOA then that's what they should be listed under on Wikipedia whether it seems grammatically incorrect or not, even if that means lumping Netherlands Antilles and Kuwait athletes together in a single article. There are plenty of examples of the IOC using names that seem incorrect, the United Kingdom competing under the name Great Britain for example, but we have to follow their conventions on Olympic articles - Basement12 (T.C) 00:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I cannot comment why the Kuwait article has them listed as IOAs when they are in fact officially listed with Netherlands Antilles as IOPs. The Kuwait article could be containing factual errors, which should really be rectified with sources to verify facts. The Antilles Olympic website does state they are IOPs and not IOAs; doing a search on the IOC website also lists Antilles and Kuwait for 2012 as IOPs not IOAs. If the official body (IOC) have enlisted them as IOP then we should reflect that on the articles and the naming of such. Deferring away from the official sources would be incorrect and misleading to the general reader. As a volunteer for the games, I do have access to other weblinks, but I cannot provide urls for them whether it be on this talk page or the article itself, as I would be breaching protocol that I agreed to abide to whilst being a Games Maker. It is also why I try and keep my editing on this article to a very minimum, unless I am correcting spelling/grammar issues that I find, then that isn't really in breach of any protocol or COI issues. Wesley Mouse 00:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion, and perhaps compromise at this current stage would be to leave things as they are, until further details are released by LOCOG and the IOC in regards to how these participants will be recognised as, once we know more then there is nothing wrong in correcting the articles on that basis. But for now, and seeing as it had been agreed in the discussion back in April to refer to as IOPs based on the sources, then I personally think changing names now would be deferring away from a previously agreed consensus. Wesley Mouse 00:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To Basement12: I do not have any source that claims that they will use the country code IOA, or any other country code for that matter. However the source for Kuwait unequivocally states that the Kuwaiti athletes' title is "Independent Olympic Athletes". To Wesley Mouse: WP:CCC. I wouldn't mind being wrong, and would support moving them back if new information becomes available. Unfortunately, the status quo is not an option because it fails WP:V, a core policy. I'm the same IP editor. 85.167.110.183 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

FINA currently has the two Kuwaiti swimmers listed as IOA, but that could just be a FINA thing. JoshMartini007 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the status quo comment, we have established there are sources that verify IOA and sources that also verify IOP. As there are sources that are making the recognition unclear than using either IOA or IOP would be conflicting WP:V. We cannot just pluck for one of them based on personal views, as that would then be violating WP:NOR. The only loop-hole around this is basing things off previous scenarios, such as Barcelona 1992 and Sydney 2000. It has already been noted that in 1992 3 countries participated as independent, and as a result made them and the article IOPs. In 2000, only one nation was independent, and thus made them IOA. On that basis, and until we have something more solid to clear up the confusion, then we should really follow previous examples and as there are 2 nations, would mean following the example used in 1992 and not 2000. Wesley Mouse 16:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for "sources that (...) verify IOP". You have not pointed out any source using IOP for athletes competing in 2012, excluding unpublished internal documents. This fails WP:V (my emphasis): "Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." By contrast, I have pointed out an official IOC source using the phrase "Independent Olympic Athletes" as the title that will be used for Kuwaiti athletes. 85.167.110.183 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have pointed out sources, if you've failed to spot them then that isn't my fault. What else do you want me to do? And please don't quote what WP:V means, I found that a little bit patronising of my intelligence and ability to read. I know full well the ins and outs of WP:V and capable of reading policies too. On the contrary though, the internal documents are now listing IOP for Netherlands Antilles, and IOA for Kuwait. This is to show individual distinction between the two. Which in my opinion as well of the opinions of other GMs (games makers) that I've spoke to, have said its ludicrous as they might as well reinstate their individual NOC codes if that be the case. I just wish I could provide the internal sources which show this, but in doing so I would breach protocol as well as violating COI if I added them to the article. Wesley Mouse 17:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend offence; I merely wanted to indicate what exactly was my problem with internal sources (which I understand you cannot publish), by pointing out exactly which part of WP:V I was referring to. Some policies are long and earlier in the discussion I was unsure which part of e.g. WP:AT you where referring to, and would have found such information helpful. As I have no clear source for the Netherlands Antilles I am not as opposed to it remaining at its current location (until more information becomes available) as I am for Kuwait doing so. Do you agree that the Kuwait article ought to be moved to Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics? 85.167.110.183 (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In what I can only describe as a bizarre twist to this saga, the BBC have listed Netherlands Antilles for the 2012 games as Netherlands Antilles and Kuwait as Kuwait and none as IOA or IOP. Wesley Mouse 17:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to the WP:AT question, I was mainly pointing out the 5-part WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The easiest way that I can think of would be to look at the various naming proposals and scoring them against each of the 5 criteria, and seeing which one fulfils the most criteria.

• Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.
• Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to indicate accurately the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise.
• Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long.
• Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.

Comparison table

	Recognizability	Naturalness	Precision	Conciseness	Consistency
Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics	Yes	Depends - Is the general reader aware of recognition issue?	Yes	Depends - similar used in 1992 scenario	Yes - similar used in 1992 scenario
Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics	Yes	Depends - Is the general reader aware of recognition issue?	Yes	Depends - similar used in 2000 scenario	Yes - similar used in 2000 scenario
Kuwait at the 2012 Summer Olympics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Netherlands Antilles at the 2012 Summer Olympics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

I've done a cross-examination table to show comparisons of various article titles based on the naming criterion. And we're still none the wiser. Oh why do the IOC make things so complexed? Wesley Mouse 18:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

While the bottom two are consistent with regular NOC at xxxx Summer Olympics, they are not really consistent with the special case of athletes competing without their NOC being allowed to take part. For this we have the top two options. For now I propose that we move the Kuwait article to Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics and keep the Netherlands Antilles at Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics. This will ensure similar titles for the two articles relating to athletes competing under the Olympic flag this year, and match the source given in the Kuwait article. Re BBC weirdness: It hardly seems a priority for them at the moment, as they have used the old flag (before 1986) of the Netherlands Antilles. 85.167.110.183 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/14/226367.html - The Kuwait debate is now over.Topcardi (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the above, and several (but surprisingly few) other media sources I have changed the flag back to default in the template. I will await further information released by the IOC before revisiting the Netherlands Antilles issue. There are no new press releases regarding Kuwait on olympic.org right now, so if the media turns out to be wrong I think the suggested move above should be carried out. 85.167.110.183 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Topcardi (talk · contribs) for finding that piece of news. Now we can let sleeping dogs lie in regards to Kuwait. Talk about the IOC leaving things until the eleventh hour. So Kuwait can now have its own article, just leaves Netherlands Antilles as IOPs for now, although they have been given the option to also compete as just Netherlands if the athletes choose to do so due to them having dual passports. Wesley Mouse 09:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)