Talk:2010 Winter Olympics

No Games 2010 re Five Ring Circus

With this edit I restored what User:HiLo48 had quickly deleted/blanked after I restored it, with additional cites; and I've cited 2010 Watch's org-site which is what No Games 2010 morphed into. It doesn't really matter, User:HiLo48, if you've never heard of it; proper procedure woudl be to add the {{[[Template:|]]}} tag, or {{fact}}, not to outright delete it because YOU have never heard of it. Perhaps if you'd read the section before the POV washers had had a go at it you might know who that is; to me, you were just deleting something you didn't like to see re-emerge in the article, despite your protestation that my objections to such behavioure is "promoting conspiracy theories". If your behaviour were neutral and objective, you'd have a leg to stand on; but when you make edits like that, I don't have to promote anything....it is what it is. There was more on No Games 2010 in the earlier editions of this site that "others" moved to the POV-fork Controversies article, then once there perhaps (?) deleted it there. Out of sight out of mind....Skookum1 (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the No Games 2010 piece (and have again) simply because there is no explanation of what it is. Is it a web site, a book, an organisation, or what? I live 20,000km away. Don't watch your local TV or read your daily papers. I have no idea. And I really do want to know. I am not opposed to it's inclusion at all. Just opposed to an inadequate explanation. I would be happy to see its inclusion if it's relevant. I like to think that in my editing approach here I'm not representing an opponent, but more someone who just wants to see a better article. Please give us all more information. (In the article, not just in the references.)

PS: I know I've removed some material about Five Ring Circus. Again, I'm not taking an anti- position there. It's just that with my other edit, it would have been a bit of orphan text. Please add it back too when you better explain No Games 2010. :-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked teh POV fork, and true to form there's only one passing reference to the documentary version of Five Ring Circus, none about the book; and the original political opposition information has been moved to the very bottom after tons of much more specious and less-truly-controversial/notable material; the whole piont of the POV fork, in my view, was to dump the controversial information elsewhere (its original creator tried to blank the entire section, which was only cursorily restored and then completely diluted). I haven't fully explored the POV fork, relative to the content that was originally here, but I suspect a LOT will be missing, or otherwise diluted; there was no link at all on that page, or here to 2010watch.com, which just ain't right, and is a clearly POV omission/deletion....."Oh, it was jsut a coincidence" or "it's not a verifiable source" just won't cut it....Skookum1 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Text Move

I propose moving the first paragraph under the heading 'Legacy,' (but not that under the subheading 'Funding') to a subheading under "Media Coverage' to be named 'Media Ratin/Review' or something to that effect. The reason is two fold. First off (and has been pointed out in the conversations above) this type of media reaction is not what the Legacy section envisions. The legacy is supposed to be more along the lines of infrastructure development as a result of the games, training/funding initiatives for athletes, future sporting events hosted because of the Olympic experiece, increased winter/overall tourism, etc. Secondly, by moving it to a media section would more clearly signify that these are opinions, and are not facts.

To this end I have cleaned up the paragraph adding citations to statements, and removed those that I could not find reliable citations for (note, the [1] isn't a reliable source for saying that these were the best olympics. Also you're not going to find many newspapers, journalists, athletes, IOC members, etc. (other than Stephan Harper who said so directly at the closing ceremonies) definitevly saying that any one Olympics was the best (or the worst) ever.). I also propose (and will help with, at some point, hopefully) that the legacy section be expanded to look at the sport infrastructure, and events hosted because of this infrastructure built for the olympics. I am thinking among the lines of the 2011 North American Biathlon Continental Championship and the FIL World Luge Championships 2013. I'm just not sure how to source it properly.

Opinions, objections, approvals, and constructive criticisms encouraged. Ravendrop (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the issues in that section were removed a long time ago to the POV-fork Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics, then once there were sanitized as "unimportant" and downplayed, or outright deleted and shoved into the dustbin. It's interesting to me that two articles from British newspapers are taken as relevant, while alternative news coverage in Canada, largely anti-Games, is dismissed as "unimportant" or "POV" or otherwise shoved aside; the puff piece responding to the Guardian's diatribe seems to have VANOC cocktails-and-hors d'oeuvres smeared all over it, by the way....Skookum1 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Pricewaterhousecooper or PricewaterhouseCooper

Generally speaking, we do not use unusual capitalization per the MoS, unless it is beneficial to the reader. In this case, it does not appear to help; if anything, it looks like an error. (I'm aware that the company uses the stylized form, but - as with Telus/TELUS, Nike/NIKE etc - we defer to the Manual of Style.) Gump Stump and I had initiated discussions on this on my talk page, but we agreed to move it here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

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

• http://www.sport.nl/content/pdf/207223/vancouver/ISUkunstschaatsenint
  • In Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Qualification on 2011-03-19 06:08:30, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 Winter Olympics on 2011-06-19 00:35:07, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing question

I've been perusing this article, making a few fixes here and there, but I have to say the sourcing is a bit over the top. Here are my three issues:

• List of participating nations, is it necessary to source every participating nation? I don't think it is. I found a source [2] that lists all the participating nations and I put an introductory sentence above the map and the list. Unless there are any objections I'm going to remove all the sources for each nation. If you need a precedent for this please consider 1952 and 1956 Winter Olympics, both FAs with this format.
• Not every fact needs a reference. I know some may balk at the idea of reducing the number of references but in some cases things go over board. Case in point: "Luxembourg qualified two athletes[66] but did not participate because one did not reach the criteria set by the NOC[67] and the other was injured[68] before the Games." What we have here is one sentence about Luxembourg not sending two athletes and it's referenced by 3 sourcesI Overkill IMO. See WP:CITE for thoughts on when to put in references. Every piece of information does not need a reference. If it's notable enough to include something on a country that didn't send athletes then find a summary reference and leave it at that.
• Refs should go at the end of sentences whenever possible (see WP:INCITE) unless the fact being cited is particularly contentious or controversial. Example is the same sentence as above. Luxembourg qualifying two athletes is not controversial, nor is the fact that one of them was injured. A case perhaps could be made for one not participating because s/he didn't meet the NOC criteria but the other two sources could go at the end.

You may ask what's the problem with too many references. For me there are a few, one is that it breaks up the readability of the article when you're wading through a myriad of in-line citations (especially when it's the same website reffed over and over again see ref 66), two is that every reference has to be maintained, dead links have to be fixed and if the referencing isn't necessary then it's just more inefficient work. BTW I count 23 dead links and three more that require registration. Someone has to maintain the article and keep fixing the links as they expire. Finally, each one of the refs has to be a credible source (Tstsy is a tourism site, Sittingduckmusicandmedia - huh?) and they have to be formatted consistently. So unless someone objects I will remove the sourcing from the list of participating nations. Then I'll take a look at some of the referencing issues and make some fixes. I know my concerns are controversial and people have put a lot of effort into this article, so I'm willing to discuss any of the issues I've raised before I take action. If you have an opinion please share it. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)