Talk:Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2007WikiProject peer reviewCollaborated
April 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
October 18, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Comments[edit]

This article was created as a result of its (1) historic nature for Chicago and (2) overflow of good information that couldn't fit in the main 2016 Summer Olympics article. This article was created in the same fashion that the New York City 2012 Olympic bid article was written. Gerald Farinas 02:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Is There No Mention of Any Criticism or Popular Opposition??[edit]

This article is not at all complete if it does not highlight any criticism of the proposal and report on any municipal political opposition. I don't have the wherewithal to complete it, but certainly this material should be mentioned. Here's a start: http://www.chicago2016.com/2016/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=560:an-open-letter-to-olympic-activists&catid=32:public-articles&Itemid=30 http://nogames.wordpress.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.24.158 (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Beijing Olympic Costs[edit]

Hi, having read a story on the BBC on how much the Beijing Olympics cost and seeing how this page contains a breakdown of how much Chicago's Olympics will cost, I thought that it was fair to mention the costs of the Beijing Olympics in the "Financing" page. It looks like this was removed within a day without comment (August 1). Surely the costs of an identical event in a developing country (one with next to free land and labor costs) is relevant enough to mention? Let's discuss... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.25.93 (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the previously removed edit and put it back. I really think that it's relevant to have the costs of previous Olympic events in the section where Chicago's budget is described. I also included is a reference to the final costs of the Athens Olympics ($9 billion). If someone wants to remove these references, can we have the courtesy of explaining the reasons for doing so? I don't see any issue over the relevance and/or reliability of the BBC but I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.39.52 (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I've updated the "Recent Developments" section with the announcement that Chicago was chosen, however, I'll leave the rest of the updating to someone more capable than I am at this. Charlie Dunk 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware Childish Vandalism[edit]

I noticed that someone snuck in a couple of disparaging remarks about Chicago, ie the "sports culture" section read Chicago benefits from a strong sports suckingculture and is arguably one of the most sport-oriented cities in the United States. On Aug. 1, 2006, it was named "Worst Sports City". The lame attempts at humor have been edited out.

photos[edit]

i've noticed that there's a photo gallery here http://www.chicago2016.org/venue_gallery.aspx - i dunno how to upload photos, could someone do it for me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.106.231 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Some of the word choice in this article seems a bit loaded. For example:

Chicago benefits from a strong sports culture and is arguably one of the most sport-oriented cities in the United States.
The Chicago Transit Authority operates a vast and efficient network of buses and "L" trains...

I know these aren't blatantly NPOV. However, the article almost reads like an ad for Chicago. Shouldn't the article point out the pluses and minuses of the bid?H.al-shawaf 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, the first one is actually semi-NPOV because there is one source in the article (I know, because I introduced it) that says that Chicago is one of the top sports cities in the US, if not the top. Both are, I'd admit, very "loaded," though. I may need some sprucing up all around, but I do believe, like the first one, that many statements are true but worded in a biased way. └Jared┘┌talk┐  22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not so much that the statements aren't true, but that they seem like an ad. And they make the article longer without improving it. Speciate 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Financing[edit]

Early cost estimates hover at $5 billion, with $1.1 billion needed for the lakeside Olympic Village and an additional estimated $366 million for a temporary 80,000 seat Olympic Stadium to be built in Washington Park. [1]


(this is my first day and first suggested edit - thanks for the opportunity to participate)

(DeepDishChicago 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, thanks for that! That may be really helpful. If you'd like to try to integrate it into the article in the appropriate section, we'd appreciate it! Leave a message on my talk page if you need help! └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I see you already have! Good job. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many unsourced statements[edit]

I see 33 citations on this page, which is good, but there are still about 10 "citation needed" tags all over it, placed there at two different times. There is a long way to go. Unfortunately, I can't help you, so I am pleading for the help particularly of the Chicago-based Wikipedians! Read the passages, then find the sources. - Desmond Hobson 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

These should be merge in to a section called something like "Previous American bids" or something to that effect. The articles won't develop themselves anymore than they are now, so merge. └Jared┘┌t┐  11:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about just merging them to 2016 Summer Olympics bids, like was done with other Olympics games... —dima/talk/ 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's also a possibility. But since they are American bids, I think there should be some mention of them in this article as well, but maybe not in as much detail. Just to suggest the fact that the US way vying for two other cities to bid, but because of X and Y factors, Chicago was chosen over the other two. Just maybe a short section like that. └Jared┘┌t┐  10:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that they are mature articles unlikely to develop further does not make them candidates for merger. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Suppose that some bribery scheme is discovered in the future, as happened here;2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal, but involving SF or LA. Then the article would have to be split. We should wait until Oct 3, 2009 to discuss merging, and then only if the IOC does not choose Chicago. Speciate 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, valid arguments above. I agree that moving too quickly will bring no benefit, really. We'll keep it the way it is for now, and rethink the issue at a later date. └Jared┘┌t┐  11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former Logo as of May 16, 2007[edit]

There is no new logo at present, but it was announced today that the "torch" logo is not allowed by the IOC for an Olympic Bid logo. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2007-05-16-474334623_x.htm from USA Today today Kidsheaven 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes?[edit]

What happened to all the footnotes for the citations? A good amount of the facts in this article are sourced, but clicking on them doesn't bring you to the bottom of the article, and upon scrolling down there it becomes clear that there are no footnotes at all. askewchan 01:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A missing </ref> tag was omitting the sections below a unclosed reference. I've fixed that so all's good now. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

danielhonigman.com[edit]

What are the thoughts on the danielhonigman.com external links on the page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At brief glance, it looks sort of bloggy. Jared (t)  20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pan am 1959.jpg[edit]

Image:Pan am 1959.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ha! You've been foiled again, BetacommandBot!--Cbradshaw (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago2016.com controversy[edit]

Four times in the past 24 hours, Dope janey has added a lengthy edit that copies a "Top 10" list from chicago2016.com. As stated by Cbradshaw in one of his undo comments: "Sounds like ad for the site, as well as undue weight." I concur with this assessment and have reverted the edit as well. In my opinion, the existing text addresses the controversy in an even-handed way, and the full elaboration of Frayne's points skews that tenuous balance. Also, the sites Dope janey added to the External links section (chicago2016.com and especially pickchicago.com) could be considered linkspam. I have reverted his/her edits again, and requested that he/she discuss this here before adding again.

Full disclosure: I am personally opposed to the Olympics in Chicago, and support Frayne's desire for a full and open discussion of the bid's benefits and drawbacks. But I do not think Wikipedia is the place for that discussion. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't mind having the link in the external links section, but I don't think the section should be expanded beyond the current text. At this point, it is not a major issue in the "bigger story". Detailing the points currently would give (as I said before) undue weight to one person's viewpoint. In addition, Dope Janey's text is not strictly NPOV. I believe Kevin Forsyth made some changes to the original text to make it more neutral (eg "claims" to "states") which I think was wise.
As for my disclaimer, I support the Olympics in Chicago, but I also support people's rights to discuss it as well as including information which could run counter to the bid, thus maintaing NPOV. After all, I'm the one who introduced the material to the article in the first place. Cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good points; I have returned the external link, with note that it's not affiliated with the official committee. I'm hoping that's an NPOV way of putting it in. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with how the site is now. Listing the domain is appropriate seeing as it is mentioned in the dispute paragraph. However, I also agree that Dope Janey's text, using specific phrases such as "rightful owner" makes the article one-sided. Good edit Kevin. Jedlink (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opposition website[edit]

I've been reverting someon'es inclusion of opposition websites and online petitions. I mentioned in an edit summary that it is perfectly acceptable to document Notable opposition with reliable sources within the article itself. FYI: I don't care whether chicago gets the Olympics or not. Quite honestly I don't know how this article got in my watchlist. ccwaters (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

I've noticed the article is nominated for a GA; there is one issue I noticed that should be tackled. The lead has quite a lot of references - the whole point of the lead is to summarize the article, so the references should be in the main body. There are no need for references in the lead unless it's something direct your taking from the source. -- A talk/contribs 03:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Comments
  • Avoid overlinking. In the USOC city selection section alone, San Fancisco, Los Angeles and Peter Uberoth are linked twice
  • As noted in the main talk page, there is not much need for the references in the lead, especially if they already exist in the article body.
    • It does seem that the uncited lead style is becoming more heavily favored. Looking at the first 10 articles at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2009, I find seven articles where all WP:LEAD paragraphs have no citations and three where at least one has no citations. This is quite a shift from when there was a fairly even splite between fully cited and fully uncited leads. I will make the necessary changes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, it is personal opinion, and not something I would hold up a GA pass over. Resolute 04:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a fan of there being so many "On date X, Y occurred" statements to begin paragraphs. Its akin to being a bullet point list without the bullets.
  • "Chicago's chances for hosting the 2016 Summer Olympics are bolstered by preliminary commitments made by major corporations and wealthy Chicago philanthropists; promised participation in the planning process by community and government leaders and the enthusiasm of the citizenry." This is a direct copy from [2]. Perhaps inadvertent, but I do not believe entire paragraphs should be copied verbatim, especially without credit. Please reword.
  • "Most importantly, the city's existing infrastructure and venue options are substantial and equal other top contenders like Madrid and Tokyo." Opinion with no source
  • "As of the announcement on April 14..." (financing) April 14 of what year?
  • "Chicago has strong allies to pursue federal funds for security and transportation due to its high profile U.S. Senator.[39]" Source does not support statement
    • The ref was useless. Do we need a ref to say that it is advantageous that the president is from Chicago and the number two ranking United States Senator represents our state. Those just seem to be givens?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not fully convinced, but I'll let it slide.
  • Overlinking again in the Venues section. All of the parks have already been linked, for example, and in a couple cases are linked twice more in this section.
  • Chicagoans are famous for their rabid support of their home teams: the Chicago Bears, Chicago Blackhawks, Chicago Wolves, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Chicago Bulls, and more recently, Chicago Rush, Chicago Fire, and the Chicago Machine. Other events such as the Chicago Marathon, one of the largest marathon events worldwide, will also play a part in Chicago's Olympic-planning process." Opinions without source
  • "Rio is identified as a "dark horse" that can ride away with the competition." Ride away? Jargony
  • Several references require formatting - #s 28, 29, 73, 74, 96, 97
  • Reference 23 is dead
  • What makes gamesbids.com a reliable source?

I find the article to be comprehensive, but concerns I have mainly around prose quality and referencing require addressing before I can consider passing this article at this time. As such, I will place it on hold pending the resolution of these concerns. Resolute 14:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything fixed. I do have a new concern though, relating to this article, which admittedly appeared after my initial review. There is evidently a small, but notable, opposition to the bid, and I think this should be incorporated. An IP editor mentioned it in the main talk, but provided only non-notable sources, so I dismissed it initially. Opposition also gets small mentions here and here. Based on Vancouver's experience, I would anticipate that opposition will grow in intensity, if not in popularity, as the vote nears. It would be wise to begin to incorporate some of this. Probably just a paragraph for now, perhaps in the Controversy section? Resolute 23:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and fixed! I am now satisfied that this is a good article. Care will have to be taken in the next several months that it remains comprehensive, however. Resolute 16:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of GAs[edit]

If this article is to remain a GA as the selection approaches, it is vital that it is written from a scrupulously neutral point of view, presenting all relevant points of view without bias and without endorsing any viewpoint. I encourage disinterested editors to look at the article and reevaluate it against the criteria. Geometry guy 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look and corrected a few concerns. I think reassessment is probably unnecessary at the moment, but would still question whether this article is sufficiently encyclopedic: it should present the positives and negatives about Chicago's bid objectively, and not be used as a promotional vehicle.
For instance, according to the Chicago Tribune, the IOC report "was particularly hard on Chicago's transport. It cited inconsistencies in the amount the city said it planned to spend on road and transit projects and noted that while the many sports venues along Lake Michigan are well connected to Lake Shore Drive, they're not close to rail lines and stations." I see nothing on this in the article, but instead vague statements about how extensive and considerable is Chicago's transport infrastructure. This needs to be addressed. Geometry guy 18:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Venues[edit]

The Venues section desperately needs to be updated. The bid book is out with the official venue plan, and yet Wrigley Field still has a picture and is "under consideration" according to this article. These links might help:

http://www.chicago2016.org/our-plan/proposed-venues.aspx http://www.chicago2016.org/our-plan/bid-book/bid-book.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.83.93 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminated[edit]

I heard Chicago has just been eliminated from the bid. Can anyone confirm? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10/barack-obama-arrives-in-copenhagen.html

This means someone has to go through and change all those verb tenses from "will" to "would" or "would have". Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say. That's a lot of work, and I'd be willing to tackle it, but I don't have time right now. --MicahBrwn (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through it with a medium-tooth comb. Given the heavy citations, some paragraphs were hard to decipher, but hopefully I've got most of the tense changes taken care of. --MicahBrwn (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God Chicago lost. Not for any political reasons, it just doesn't need any more construction and traffic. --Selfish Gene 2009 (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the two reasons it lost are (1) residents have gotten wise to the fact that hosting Olympics games is a costly white elephant in these days of tight budgets and were not willing to fully fund the idea, and (2) there have been a number of recent "wilding" incidents in Chicago that emphasized the city's reputation for violence and mayhem, which put off the IOC members. Should we note this in the article?Arlesd (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arlesd pal, I don't know what planet you live on but the second reason you gave is impossible. Rio has far more violence and mayhem than Chicago does. Power Society (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chicago bid 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chicago bid 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Chicago bid 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, 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: 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) 20:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Chicago bid 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: 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) 11:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Chicago bid 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: 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) 14:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago bid 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: 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) 19:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago bid 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: 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) 06:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_bid_for_the_2016_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1206652364"