Talk:Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Olympic Bids task force.

Balanced view

I reverted some presumably good intentioned edit by user:Honestjeff who primarily deleted any negative information about the Chicago bid. I believe the goal of this page is to present information, both the positive and negative, about the bids (as long as they are sourced), regardless of where a person is rooting for. If others disagree, please let me know. Thanks--Cbradshaw (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also must mention that marking deletions of 500 bytes as a "minor" edit is not honest, but perhaps it was a newbie mistake?--Cbradshaw (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Europe not Asia

The IOC lists the NOC of Azerbaijan in the EOC (Europe) and not in the OCA (Asia). This needs to be fixed. I would fix it, but i'm not to good with the editing of wikipedia. So yeah, it would be good if someone could change it.The sound (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table layout

What is the point of the odd table layout for applicant cities? It does not seem to add anything and complicates editing and navigation (it would make more sense for each city to be a sub-section). Pimlottc (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I believe it made more sense when the cities had their logos as well, until they were all deleted. However, other similar pages all have these tables, so it may not be worth the trouble of reformatting all the pages (to remain consistant). At least, I don't think I'm going to do it. :)--Cbradshaw (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the tables. I feel like they are nice, but with so many cities here, it is not aesthetically pleasing to have such a long article full of tables. Please refer to 2012 Summer Olympics bids for an example of how each city can have its own subsection. It makes more sense to have them not in tables, and so I would encourage the user who reverted my edit to rethink this. Tables are really only meant to show small groups of things, and thus as you can see on the featured bids page, it is used sparingly. Jared (t) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doha & Rio de Janeiro

It says that the four highest rated cities were chosen as finalists, but according to the article, Doha, a failed bid, is given a higher rating than Rio de Janeiro, a successful bid. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. ThanksCbradshaw (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate cities overview

The section for Chicago states "By 2016, the Summer Olympics will have not been held in the Americas for twenty years", which gives the impression (at least to me) that this is a significantly long gap between games, however it is almost unprecedented for the games to be held in the same country only 20 years apart (in fact the games in question was the Atlanta 96 games referenced in this section). Perhaps this can be re-worded to avoid giving the wrong impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.229.37 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "20 years" because yes, I agree, it does give an impression that it had been really that long when the Americas last hosted the Olympics. Xeltran (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistancy in chicago score

this page states 7.0, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics states it is 8.5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid claims it is 7.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.255.251 (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, the score is 7.0. Vandals keep changing it.-Cbradshaw (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing it directly at that point in the article will make it easier to detect the misinformation. - PhilipR (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WC 2014

An anonymous editor just added a sentence about the 2014 WC hurting Rio's chances. This seems unfounded; as Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid points out:

Brazil will host the 2014 World Cup, could make the fourth double hosting in history; after Mexico in 1968 and 1970, Germany in 1972 and 1974, and the United States in 1994 and 1996.

Therefore, I have a strong prejudice toward removing this statement if it's not sourced pretty soon. Cheers, PhilipR (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this page (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article6858138.ece) the following statement is written: "Many IOC members are worried about delivery and the fact the 2014 World Cup will suck up resources, leaving the Olympics an afterthought. Rio officials would rather think of the football as the ultimate test event - that addresses the issue of airports and roads but what about the venues? You can't row on a footy pitch. Will the artists' impressions of sparkling new Olympic venues convince?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.54.241 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arranged ordering of the Bids

I've arranged the ordering of the bids with the highest scored first. It seems to make the most sense if you ask me. An alternative would be alphabetical, but raw score is probably the most relevant at this moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Tokyo 2016.png

The image Image:Tokyo 2016.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time of announcement

I was watching at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/CBS-News , and the time on the chat room showed the actual announcement at 12:50pm Eastern Daylight Time, so the time zones would be on the :50, not :30. MMetro (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the exact time of the announcement even needed? Seems like a pretty unnecessary detail, IMO. --Torsodog^Talk 18:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell if I know, but if someone puts it on Wikipedia, it had better be correct. MMetro (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it has to be in UTC, or CEST in Copenhagen, where the announcement is made. Never be in Eastern Daylight Time.--Belle Equipe (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not never, if Eastern is the local time zone. I wasn't going to calculate the UTC or CEST, but a :50 never translates to a :30, and somebody might appreciate the accuracy. MMetro (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though your source shows the time by EDT, that time zone has nothing to do with the IOC meeting. Time has to be shown on Wiki pages basically by UTC, unless events or incidents occured in certain time zone. The URL you quoted is merely a quotation, not the location where the event occured.--Belle Equipe (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

remove this section? Predicting indices

This is just using someone's predictions. Why not use Wikipedian's predictions? The rest of the article is find. Remove the Predicting indices section? President of Chicago (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't use Wikipedians' predictions because they can't be sourced. These indices are from two sourced sites that have some knowledge of the system and can be considered experts.

However, now that the selection is made, a short rewrite summarizing the predictions with the actual results may be in order. Hopefully, those two sites will write an article which we can reference.Cbradshaw (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090317073701/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gCXx3AcQIf0F9QkvGABKYylcGhpAD913GI0O0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gCXx3AcQIf0F9QkvGABKYylcGhpAD913GI0O0

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference URL titles need attention

Reference #4 reads "shit list" when it should read "short list" but I cannot find a way to correct this.

Corrected.--Oleksandr Tahayev (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627111241/http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1318.pdf to http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1318.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]