Talk:2028 Summer Olympics/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Author
I am the author of the page, and have added additional information, such as the proposed Seattle/Vancouver bid. Since this would be the first multi-national bid, this is a significant event in the Olympic movement, even if the bid doesn't succeed or is abandoned. I would claim that the 2028 Olympics page has far more relevance then the 2024 and 2016 pages, simply because of the 100 year anniversary for Amsterdam and the prospect of the Seattle/Vancouver joint bid. Although it may seem far away, cities really do start exploring these things this early. TruckOttr
I agree, this is relevant information concerning current affairs in each of these cities. Article should be kept. Derekpblank 07:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be changed. According to the 2022 Winter Olympic page, Montreal, Canada and Lake Placid, USA are exploring a joint bid. I have no idea how likely the bid is to take place, if it does go through, it would beat the 2028 bid you mentioned by 6 years. I would suggest that a reference be made that this could be the first truly joint bid, but also reference the possible 2022 Winter Olympic bid. RonSigPi, 12 November 2007. —Preceding comment was added at 09:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Oceania
I removed Perth and Melbourne, and they keep reappearing. The references provided by the authors either don't work or don't mention anything about the 2028 Olympics. If there is verifiable references regarding either Perth or Melbourne, feel free to add them, otherwise it's Original Rsearch. see: Wikipedia:No_original_research. I left in Brisbane, since the article stated that they were considering a bid sometime in the next 15 or 20 years, which would cover 2028. --TruckOttr (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Multinational bids
There have been multi-national bids in the Games history. Luge, bobsleigh and skeletton events were planned to take place at Königssee if the bid of Salzburg for the 2010 or 2014 Winter Olympics had been successful. It would have been multinational Games in Austria and Germany. --Miebner (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
AFDed - ARTICLE DELETION REQUEST
May I suggest this page for deletion as it is a bit pathetic having a wikipedia article for an event that is 20 years in the future . I have known articles only a few months away that have been deleted but this takes the piss really, I mean no news on the games will be known until 2021 at the least. I suggest it be deleted and protected to at least 2019, what does anyone else think. (BlackpoolKickboxer2008 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC))
- I suggest you ask at WP:OLYMPICS first. I think their convention is to create a page when information starts to come available about strong bid candidates in reliable sources. And please note that it already has survived an afd (although it was more than a year ago) -- Scorpion0422 00:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- In agreement with BlackpoolKickboxer. My goodness, we haven't even had the 2016, 2020 & 2024 Games yet. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Vienna
http://sport.orf.at/stories/2171188/ According to this German news article, the referendum in Vienna was clearly negative. Should it still be noted in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.169.156 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Potential Bids (Africa)
I have removed Cairo, Egypt as a Potential Bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics. I could be wrong here, however given the fact there was no citation, and the recent removal from power, of the Freedom, & Justice Party, by the Egyptian Military, I would have to say that this is now moot.--Subman758 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Potential Bids (Europe)
I added Sochi as a potential bid for 2028 because Sochi hosted the Winter Olympics in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.138 (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
"Bids for the 2028 Summer Olympics"
Bids for the 2028 Summer Olympics should redirect here -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Request for Comment
There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
About Madrid, New Delhi, and Miami
I noticed these three cities were uploaded, and there wasn't any citations or even any article upon searching. I had to get rid of them as a result for inaccuracy. If you discovered an article about these three cities in the bid, please notify me before uploading. Thank you! -HanSangYoon- --HanSangYoon (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
About Thessaloniki
This city is according to a news article (BBJ; Budapest Business Journalist), is going under the bid. However, besides chatrooms, there were not a single article about the Greek city bidding. Can anyone find this article that tells the bid (even in Greek)? Thank you! -HanSangYoon- --HanSangYoon (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Removal of Seattle/Vancouver bid
I will be removing the Seattle and Vancouver bid. While there are multiple references, the problem is that three of them- the only ones that address the bid itself- are from 2006. I have yet to find anything about a joint Olympic bid off of these sites too. And the other two references are relating to the rules of hosting between two countries.
Until more sources that are much more recent can be found, I'm going to delete this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 8 September 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus that the proposed titles are not WP:PRECISE, and also don't solve a tangible real problem. — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
– For the Olympics scheduled for 2026 and 2028, the bidding process has not yet started; these articles essentially only exist to show potential bids. Considering that many potential future bids don't focus on a specific year, and it's difficult to determine which future Olympic games should and should not have articles, I think the year-specific articles on 2026 Winter Olympics and 2028 Summer Olympics should be replaced with general articles encompassing all future games.
This hypothetical article would be divided into secions by year - Potential bids for 2028, potential bids for 2032, potential bids for 2036, potential bids for no specific year, et cetera. One advantage of having a general article like this is that information on Olympic games that are further into the future can be added, as can generic non-year-specific information about future Olympic games.
Under this proposal, articles for individual Olympic games would only be created when the official bidding process is started. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 01:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. First 2020 Summer Olympics are future Summer Olympics too, so the title is not correct. Should be something like "Bids for Summer Olympics beyond 2024" to be precise. Second I think that "bidding process has started" is not precise enough as a criterion, I expect endless debates on the application of such a criterion. For instance, Switzerland NOC is in the process of selecting its 2026 candidate. So has the bid process started or not ? I prefer as unambiguous criterion : "one Games beyond the last one for which the host city has been elected". This way 2024 and 2026 are now valid articles. In conclusion, I think your proposal is ok (with another name) for 2028 but I am strongly against it for 2026. Since the proposal is more criticable for 2026 than for 2028, I think this discussion should have been in the 2026 article talk page, because I would like the fate of both articles to be separated.
Hektor (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable argument. The fate of the two pages can be separated if necessary; the move request could easily be closed as a "Yes" for 2028 but a "No" for 2026. Also a good point about article titles. In light of this, I'll change my vote to: support moving 2028 Summer Olympics to Summer Olympics beyond 2024, and neutral towards moving 2026 Winter Olympics to Winter Olympics beyond 2022. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, in my opinion we should keep these articles. One important reason not to use "Summer Olympics beyond 2024" and "Winter Olympics beyond 2022" is that only one Summer and one Winter Olympics can be described, because allocated games shall have their own articles, and there are no information to publish for further future games. (it is assumed that the 2030 Summer Olympics will take place in 2030, but we don't know even the timeline for bidding. But we should only allow articles about games 1-2 years before the bids should be given, and be careful about copying media speculation about possible bids until they are more firm. The first time these articles should only contain the timeline for decision, if known. So in my opinion 2028 Summer Olympics should not exist until at least when 2024 Summer Olympics is allocated. Media has the Freedom of the press allowing them to print speculation, but we should not do that. --BIL (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- My vote is No as well. I concur with BIL. If the idea is to lump future Olympic Games into a mega future Olympics article, this could be said about any series of events set for the future. It doesn't make a lot of sense for there to be an article on U.S. presidential elections after 2016, for example. But I would also agree with BIL in that only articles should be created for near-future events when sufficient details are known (i.e. there shouldn't be an article being created for the 2064 Summer Olympics since that's way too far into the future for anyone to be thinking about it). So to address your concern, Chessrat, about the limited information we know about future Olympic games, I think 2028 Summer Olympics and 2026 Winter Olympics suffice as stand-alone articles right now, since there's enough info on potential bids. We won't need to create articles for 2032 or 2030 until we get closer into the future and more details are known about bids then. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Only problem with this is that I don't see the distinction between, say, the 2028 and 2032 articles. How many potential bids must exist before a standalone article can be created? The present article on the 2028 Olympics contains 15 potential bids; the former article on the 2032 Olympics contained 4 potential bids prior to its deletion last year (it looked like this. Other than the 2028 article containing more potential bids than the 2032 one, they are very similar, so how can one of them be deemed worthy of an article and the other not? This inconsistency, and the difficulty of drawing a line between noteworthy and not noteworthy, is actually why I thought about creating a merged article for several games in the first place. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- I get that. I can see how that line can be pretty blurry. But based on WP:GNG, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Wikipedia indeed doesn't necessarily have a threshold for the number of reliable sources needed for an article, so notability can be hard to quantify in this regard. But that's why we as a community get to determine that. WP:CRYSTALBALL also says that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place...If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." Actually, based on that line alone, I may have made a case for keeping 2032 Summer Olympics (based on your record), but I guess at the time the community felt we weren't ready for it yet. But it doesn't matter too much, because it will come back - eventually. Your proposal is an interesting idea, but I don't see how Future Summer Olympic Games or Future Winter Olympic Games would necessarily be better than what we have been already doing with simply creating stand-alone articles for upcoming games. Even with Future Games articles, your concern would still be there: when would we know when to make a stand-alone article for a set of games? (Apologies for the long reply. Just wanted to make sure I gave a well-informed answer!) GabeIglesia (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose the advantage of creating a generic future games article is that individual standalone articles would be less important. Right now, Wikipedia contains absolutely no information on, say, the 2032 or 2036 Olympics, and cannot do so until the community decides that it's time for an article to be created; on the other hand, a generic future games article can be expanded as new information pops up. When the community decides that the time is right for a new article to be created, it can simply be split off from the generic future games article, rather than being written from scratch. Anyway, because it looks like this move proposal is set to fail, I've created User:Chessrat/sandbox/2032 Summer Olympics to add information to, so that we have a ready-made article for when the community decides the time is right to create an article. Similar sandbox articles can be created for 2036, 2028, etc if necessary. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I get that. I can see how that line can be pretty blurry. But based on WP:GNG, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Wikipedia indeed doesn't necessarily have a threshold for the number of reliable sources needed for an article, so notability can be hard to quantify in this regard. But that's why we as a community get to determine that. WP:CRYSTALBALL also says that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place...If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." Actually, based on that line alone, I may have made a case for keeping 2032 Summer Olympics (based on your record), but I guess at the time the community felt we weren't ready for it yet. But it doesn't matter too much, because it will come back - eventually. Your proposal is an interesting idea, but I don't see how Future Summer Olympic Games or Future Winter Olympic Games would necessarily be better than what we have been already doing with simply creating stand-alone articles for upcoming games. Even with Future Games articles, your concern would still be there: when would we know when to make a stand-alone article for a set of games? (Apologies for the long reply. Just wanted to make sure I gave a well-informed answer!) GabeIglesia (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Only problem with this is that I don't see the distinction between, say, the 2028 and 2032 articles. How many potential bids must exist before a standalone article can be created? The present article on the 2028 Olympics contains 15 potential bids; the former article on the 2032 Olympics contained 4 potential bids prior to its deletion last year (it looked like this. Other than the 2028 article containing more potential bids than the 2032 one, they are very similar, so how can one of them be deemed worthy of an article and the other not? This inconsistency, and the difficulty of drawing a line between noteworthy and not noteworthy, is actually why I thought about creating a merged article for several games in the first place. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- My vote is No as well. I concur with BIL. If the idea is to lump future Olympic Games into a mega future Olympics article, this could be said about any series of events set for the future. It doesn't make a lot of sense for there to be an article on U.S. presidential elections after 2016, for example. But I would also agree with BIL in that only articles should be created for near-future events when sufficient details are known (i.e. there shouldn't be an article being created for the 2064 Summer Olympics since that's way too far into the future for anyone to be thinking about it). So to address your concern, Chessrat, about the limited information we know about future Olympic games, I think 2028 Summer Olympics and 2026 Winter Olympics suffice as stand-alone articles right now, since there's enough info on potential bids. We won't need to create articles for 2032 or 2030 until we get closer into the future and more details are known about bids then. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, in my opinion we should keep these articles. One important reason not to use "Summer Olympics beyond 2024" and "Winter Olympics beyond 2022" is that only one Summer and one Winter Olympics can be described, because allocated games shall have their own articles, and there are no information to publish for further future games. (it is assumed that the 2030 Summer Olympics will take place in 2030, but we don't know even the timeline for bidding. But we should only allow articles about games 1-2 years before the bids should be given, and be careful about copying media speculation about possible bids until they are more firm. The first time these articles should only contain the timeline for decision, if known. So in my opinion 2028 Summer Olympics should not exist until at least when 2024 Summer Olympics is allocated. Media has the Freedom of the press allowing them to print speculation, but we should not do that. --BIL (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable argument. The fate of the two pages can be separated if necessary; the move request could easily be closed as a "Yes" for 2028 but a "No" for 2026. Also a good point about article titles. In light of this, I'll change my vote to: support moving 2028 Summer Olympics to Summer Olympics beyond 2024, and neutral towards moving 2026 Winter Olympics to Winter Olympics beyond 2022. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support This is a very good idea! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this is the best solution to the problem. I would instead advocate that we return to only posting interested bid cities that all specify a specific year (i.e. not a "in the future statement"), that are current (i.e. activity within the last year), and are issued by a source with actual authority to advocate a bid (i.e. not a citizen group or some random commentator, but a mayor etc.). This used to be the standard for these types of pages, but looking at these pages obviously isn't anymore. I wouldn't be opposed to a separate future Olympics page that discusses cities that are looking at future bids (the Plans for Winter Olympics held in Barcelona is a good example), but is separate from the 2026 and 2028 Olympic bids. The process for selecting the 2024 is already well underway and though the IOC selects the Olympic city seven years in advance, the deadline to declare an interest is approx. nine years before, and the studies often start well before this. Thus I think that a +2 policy (i.e. the next two Olympics yet to be selected) are reasonable as reliable sources are likely to exist. For example, in the current 2028 article I would remove the following: Budapest and Paris (as they are currently bidding for 2024), Milan and Naples (as Rome is currently bidding for 2024), Amsterdam (as it is an "in the future" statement), St. Petersburg (as it is not someone in a position to realistically push a bid), Sochi (as "in the future" statement), Doha (as an "in the future" statement), and Casablanca (for being 5 years outdated). In sum, I believe that the best answer to the issues raised by the initial promoter of the move is to tighten the policy of what is allowed to be included on the page, rather than a change of title. Ravendrop 07:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ravendrop.--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 11:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Minsk will be bid for 2032 Summer Olympics
Minsk will host 2019 European Games so I have gone ahead and removed the paragraph you inserted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Removal of Thessaloniki
I feel that the Thessaloniki bid should be removed. While it is referenced in the Budapest Business Journal, the source in that journal is a page that hasn't been updated since 2012. If you were to use this as a source, then you'd have to discredit the BBJ reference- as its only source (and the only source to the bid I've seen) is a link to this page. The other source is a forum page that was last posted on in 2008. I've read elsewhere that forum posts are not to be used as sources, as they rely heavily on opinion and not solid fact.
Unless another source than the following is found, I feel it should be deleted.
http://www.bladesplace.id.au/olympic-games-candidates.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2028 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/20141020224656/http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216136762.html to http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216136762.html
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 07:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Candidature process and cities sections
Now that the IOC has decided to award both the 2024 and 2028 games at the same time: Unless someone is willing to regularly sync up all the tables and content from 2024 Summer Olympics#Candidature process and 2024 Summer Olympics#Candidature process, I do not see the point of copying all of that here. Thus, I have reduced it back to a shorter "bidding process" summary section.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
2032 Summer Olympics bids
Any thoughts on whether some of the bids on the outdated list can be moved to 2032 Summer Olympics?? Not necessarily all of them, but some of them; and not necessarily now, but sometime within the next 2 months?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
2028 Paralympics
There is no page yet for the 2028 Paralympic Games in Los Angeles. Should one be added soon? --WRCosA (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Logo
Please someone upload the logo - [2]- in Wikimedia Commons, because we can't use it in Russian wiki (and in other wiki projects). Plz someone help. 46.70.0.7 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2028_Summer_Olympics#/media/File:LA_2028_Olympics_Logo.png){kind=link}
"Football", not "Soccer"
This issue was raised last year in the sub-section "Football (soccer) Venues" above, but ignored. In the Olympics, the sport is known as football. This includes in the article 2000 Summer Olympics, held in Sydney, Australia. It is general Wikipedia policy to call the game soccer in Australian articles, for equivalent reasons to those in the USA, but it was called football in the Sydney Olympics article.
We should use the IOC convention of "football" in this article too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, the IOC convention of calling the sport "football" should be used in this article. In any case, we must have consistency throughout the Summer Olympics articles and making an exception for Games hosted by the US would be bizarre. Looking back at previous Summer Olympics in the US:
- Atlanta 1996 refers to the sport as Association football with a couple of references to soccer (which should also be changed)
- LA 1984 refers to it as Football in the main sports list, but soccer everywhere else (should probably be changed)
- LA 1932 doesn't really refer to it at all so we'll leave that alone
- St. Louis 1904 refers to it as Football
- I've gone ahead and made the change on your behalf. To be honest, I think you'd have been fine doing that anyway as I doubt you'd have got any opposition from anyone. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
All Olympic publications, including the US Los Angeles website la28.org, use the IOC designated title of "football". There is nothing to discuss here. MapReader (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you MapReader. We are still waiting for Drmargi to give a reasonable argument against using the term "football". We probably need to be careful here because if either of you make any further reverts on the main page this will probably constitute edit warring, which is the reason why I left it alone when my original edit was reverted earlier. @Drmargi: Please comment. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151: @GoodDay: @Sportsfan 1234: your opinions would also be very much appreciated here, thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think a note of some sort indicating, this is soccer at the top of the article is good enough. All future reference can say football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- If the IOC calls it football, then that's what we should use in all the Summer Olympics articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- So as an IOC event, this article automatically transcends WP:ENGVAR? In the U.S., football refers almost exclusively to gridiron football. Unless the organizing committee suddenly uses that new "event-based programme" rule Tokyo used to add baseball back, to add American football... I hate to invoke an all or nothing, but if you're going to say this article is written in U.S. English yet suddenly switch to British English for one word, I'd rather that all Olympics-related article be written in British English to a T, regardless of nation. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- We really should be using terminology that least confuses readers. "Soccer" is understood everywhere but "football" means different things in different countries. In Australia, for example, we have four different codes so calling soccer "football" is confusing. Add to that the fact that the article is using American English and ViperSnake151 has a valid point in that we should be be using what the Americans call it, which is soccer. That The IOC might call it football does not mean that we have to do so on Wikipedia. Perhaps a compromise might be to refer to it as "football (soccer)", which satisfies the requirement of using American English, the usage of the IOC and least confuses our readers, who come from every nation, not just the ones that play soccer. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have been one of the strongest campaigners for calling the round ball game soccer in Australian articles, but I accepted that it needed to football in the article on the Sydney based 2000 Summer Olympics, because it's an international event. The same should apply here.
- The point is that we are describing an Olympic event, not the sport per se, and should use the official title for that event, as for any other Olympic competition. And the same approach we take for the formal titles of competitions and awards elsewhere - give the correct formal title notwithstanding whatever Engvar the article text is in. The US LA28 organising committee is using this approach on its own (American English) website; so should WP. Also there's our own article on the event Football at the Summer Olympics MapReader (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- We still need to ensure that readers aren't confused, which means presenting the name in such a way that isn't ambiguous. That's why I suggested the compromise. That
it's an international event
is exactly why we need to do this. We need to cater for everyone. That's why we do things like include metric/imperial conversions. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- We still need to ensure that readers aren't confused, which means presenting the name in such a way that isn't ambiguous. That's why I suggested the compromise. That
- I tend to agree with AussieLegend that a compromise could be used, e.g. call it "Football (soccer)" when it first comes up to make it clear what we are talking about. This should apply to all Summer Olympics articles, not just the Games specifically hosted by the US, so it caters for all readers. The lead word should still be Football as this is how the IOC have chosen to name the Olympic sport. We could even put a pop-up over the word Football like so. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There's another issue you've all overlooked. Beyond the fact that the article has been stable at soccer for some time (and this has come up before), and the ENGVAR issue raised above, there is a clarity issue. In the United States of America, we have two major sports that are followed widely at both the collegiate and professional levels, soccer and basketball. In Los Angeles, we have two professional football teams: the Rams and the Chargers. We also have two major NCAA football teams: UCLA and USC. And before anyone poo-poohs the importance of college football, spend a little time looking at online coverage of these two teams and the prominence of college football coverage in the American media. In the U.S. professional football is administers by the NFL, and played with an oblong, tapered ball. Soccer is a minor sport played by little children by comparison. The LA professional soccer team, the Galaxy, has its fans, but even following the arrival of St. David of Beckham (and subsequent speedy departure), they drew precious few new fans.
We are talking about an event that won't occur for ten years. Right now, the role of the article is to convey information about LA's preparation for the Olympics, and there's no pressing reason to use football v. soccer, especially given the reasons noted above, the activity regarding the movement of the LA Chargers football team to LA from San Diego adding to the confusion already discussed, the use of soccer by the LA 2028 Organizing Committee in ordinary usage here in LA and the use of soccer during the 1984 Olympics (anyone else remember them?) The function of an encyclopedia is to communicate; we are a long way from the time when the "The IOC uses it" argument is even remotely of issue, much less valid. The article is written in American English, the activity is currently taking place in Los Angeles, the event is not on the international stage for some time, and WP:ENGVAR applies. There is no reason to make the change to football now, if ever. Oh, and @Rodney Baggins:, the next time you presume to take a misogynist dig at my motivations for restoring the stable term, speak to me directly rather taking the cowardly approach and hiding your dig on another editor's talk page, but not before you review WP:AGF. You don't have a clue. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Your personal attack on another editor is unhelpful and inappropriate. You overlook that the official American website for LA28 uses football, only. Whatever the outcome of the discussion, the removal of any reference to football in tables headed 'events', as you are now edit warring, is clearly inappropriate, given that the official IOC event is called football MapReader (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- In response to previous comment by Drmargi: OK I said a personal thing about you on another user's Talk page because I didn't see the point of saying it here. But I am happy to repeat it for the benefit of others, namely: "I notice that Drmargi is from [the Republic of] California and is probably an American patriot who objects to the word "football" on principle because it's so English." First of all, please look up the meaning of "misogynist" – how could this comment have anything to do with you being female, male, or otherwise? I was loosely implying that you might be an Anglophobe actually! Secondly, the comment stems from the fact that I think you are using WP:JDLI logic, which is against Wikipedia policy. Thirdly, you have clearly contravened the WP:3RR rule, so I am inclined to report you for edit warring. As for the subject of the current discussion, I've completely lost interest in it now, I've got better things to worry about. Consensus is unlikely to be reached here any time soon, but the incorrect use of the word "soccer" will surely get ironed out some time over the next 10 years... Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Typical. You were called out for an inappropriate comment, and instead of simply apologizing, you decide to try to embarrass me and strike back, and insult my state into the bargain. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest everyone calm down and stick to the topic at hand. Just to clarify, Drmargi has reverted three times , which is not a 3RR breach. That requires 4 reversions in a 24 hour period. However, it only takes 2 reversions to edit-war and I note that Drmargi isn't the only one to revert more than once. Per WP:STATUSQUO, while this discussion is underway the article should remain at the version before the contested edits were made and that is the current version of the article. If there is any more edit warring I'll happily take the matter to WP:AN3 myself. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I support saying "football (soccer)" at the first occurrence but only football later. WP:ENGVAR says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation", but it also says: "In an article about a supranational or international organization, it is often a good choice to use the variety of English used by that body." In an article about an IOC event it seems good to use the IOC term football. Only one male and one female team will be American and football is followed far more in many of the other participating countries so it's debatable how strong ties there is to the host nation. I think the large majority of Americans know that American football is not an Olympic sport so there is low risk of confusion. It's confusing to change the name of an Olympic event based on the host. I suspect the English Wikipedia has many readers around the World who don't know what soccer is but know football and follow the Olympics. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It's been a while since any new points have been made so I suggest we are in a position to draw this discussion to a close. Almost all editors who have contributed to the discussion favour either the IOC title football, or support the compromise suggestion of football with the first occurrence referring also to soccer in brackets. There is also the strong consideration that the most authoritative source - the Los Angeles organising committee itself - is using football on its own website. But I have no difficulty with the compromise suggestion, which reflects the broad consensus of this discussion, and we should now implement accordingly. MapReader (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Next games
I think we should already state that the next games are going to be organised in 2032. Indonesia is planning to bid for these games (1 & 2, and the IOC has even released a statement confirming that.--BugWarp (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Go for it and make a page for the 2032 edition! --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Redundancy
Does any MOS mention about the redundancy of narrative and list? Please raise as i wonder. It keeps revert with this ridiculous reason. --Aleenf1 15:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- An edit can be reverted without an explicit policy present in the MOS. A simple, basic, fundamental (and what else?) principle of good writing is to remove redundancies. The narrative discusses the U.S. broadcast set-up at length. The host country is the U.S. so the discussion of the broadcast arrangements in narrative are both appropriate and sufficient. Then, start a sourced table with other countries as they're announced. But there's no need to duplicate the U.S. in the table. It's redundant. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- You try to make something of your own here. List still a list, no matter how you claim it is redundancy or not, as with the previous the edition of Olympics too. --Aleenf1 23:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Drmargi, please find a MOS that explain your action, otherwise you are disruptive. So far, nobody does but you. --Aleenf1 06:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not. The burden is on you to gain WP:CONSENSUS to add content in a list on the pretext that there will be a table some day when it's already in narrative. All the forum shopping in the world won't change how the consensus process works, and it's up to you to gain consensus to make the inclusion. The fact remains: the edit is redundant. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's typical to include the host country in the broadcast list so the reader doesn't have to search the rest of the article for the information. I don't see why it should be any different here. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Drmargi, you always think you are right, while i does remember you allow a list of hoax/unsourced into the broadcasting rights section. The format is been consistently use across the Olympics, still you insist i'm the one who need to gain consensus, an action which to "bleach" your editing. --Aleenf1 13:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's typical to include the host country in the broadcast list so the reader doesn't have to search the rest of the article for the information. I don't see why it should be any different here. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not. The burden is on you to gain WP:CONSENSUS to add content in a list on the pretext that there will be a table some day when it's already in narrative. All the forum shopping in the world won't change how the consensus process works, and it's up to you to gain consensus to make the inclusion. The fact remains: the edit is redundant. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Drmargi, please find a MOS that explain your action, otherwise you are disruptive. So far, nobody does but you. --Aleenf1 06:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- You try to make something of your own here. List still a list, no matter how you claim it is redundancy or not, as with the previous the edition of Olympics too. --Aleenf1 23:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Opposition section
Three times I have added information about public opposition to the Games and three times it has been removed without explanation. I have combed my language for signs of bias or any information not backed up with references. Have I missed something? Drmargi, two of the three removals were made by you; will you view my last edit and let me know what should be changed to avoid future removal? Thank you! Reallyhappening (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- There seems to be an effort to suppress any and all opposition to the Olympics on this page; suppression that is not applied to any other page about the Olympics as far as I can see.
- There has been opposition voiced to the 2028 Olympics by numerous politicians, sports commentators, mainstream media outlets, scholars, Olympic athletes, and political groups. Such opposition has been included on previous games. As an example, take a look at the Winter 2022 Olympics. Why is it fine to include mention of a potential boycott of the 2022 games by groups like the World Uyghur Congress, whereas it is not fine to include mention of a potential boycott of the 2028 Olympics by groups like Black Lives Matter? The 2022 page mentions basically every single group or politician who is mulling a boycott, whereas every single group and politician calling for a boycott of the 2028 games is being systematically removed.
- There exists a very clear double standard here, and either this page has to be modified so as to be in line with how freely calls for boycotts are mentioned on other pages, or pages of past (and other future) games will have to be modified so as to be in line with how restrictive calls for boycotts are handled on this page. Sarrotrkux (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Two issues: first, NOlympicsLA is a very small fringe organization, aligned with democratic socialist groups, that represents itself as speaking for the homeless of LA and how they would be impacted by LA28. The methodology for their survey (who did they survey and how?) is not disclosed, rendering the results of the survey questionable and possibly highly biased. It claims on its website that BLM is a supporter, but given the sizable Black homeless population in LA, that's not altogether surprising. The content discussing remaining groups that were removed is even more fringe; I haven't seen a single politician, athlete, etc. mentioned.
- Second, you cannot draw a reasonable parallel between this little organization's objections and the issues surrounding the Uyghurs; that's like compairing crabapples and soccer balls. The opression of the Uyghurs is a human rights issue on an international scale that is leading to the proposition that at least western nations boycott the Beijing winter Olympics. You're talking about small fringe organization representing the results of a methodologically questionable survey as the prevailing thinking of the residents of Los Angeles City and County. They're not the same thing at all. Several editors have been through the section and trimmed fringe content, which makes clear how questionable it is. It's not an issue of suppressing anything. It's simply editors making editoral judgment about content that falls within WP:FRINGE. The survey is mentioned another place in the article along with other surveys, and that's sufficient. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is opposition to every olympics - there certainly was in the run-up to London, and clearly there has been in Tokyo. So it deserves mention, without giving it undue weight in the article (experience suggests opposition drops off once the games are underway). If we are going to refer and apply descriptors to any particular group involved, these do need to be supported by citation. MapReader (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- In regards to NOlympics LA, someone had created an article. I wanted add edits and sources that were critical of the organization but unfortunately, some users had founded my edits to be too biased. I add discussed this on the talk page. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is opposition to every olympics - there certainly was in the run-up to London, and clearly there has been in Tokyo. So it deserves mention, without giving it undue weight in the article (experience suggests opposition drops off once the games are underway). If we are going to refer and apply descriptors to any particular group involved, these do need to be supported by citation. MapReader (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Second, you cannot draw a reasonable parallel between this little organization's objections and the issues surrounding the Uyghurs; that's like compairing crabapples and soccer balls. The opression of the Uyghurs is a human rights issue on an international scale that is leading to the proposition that at least western nations boycott the Beijing winter Olympics. You're talking about small fringe organization representing the results of a methodologically questionable survey as the prevailing thinking of the residents of Los Angeles City and County. They're not the same thing at all. Several editors have been through the section and trimmed fringe content, which makes clear how questionable it is. It's not an issue of suppressing anything. It's simply editors making editoral judgment about content that falls within WP:FRINGE. The survey is mentioned another place in the article along with other surveys, and that's sufficient. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)