Talk:2010 Winter Olympics

Template:Add

Athletes village now complete

This edit changed the text saying that atheletes village was under construction, to say that they are now complete. I sure as heck hope they are complete by now, with the olympics starting in 2 weeks - but is it really encyclopedic to state that they are complete? Does it add anything to the article? DigitalC (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That same wording remains in the edit mentioned in the following section; there's some way to reword that that's encyclopedic but I'm only on my second coffee ;-). Skookum1 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of "British Columbian"

Among other changes in this edit, I corrected "British Columbian government" to "British Columbia government". The -n form is only used for people, usually in a nominative sense, not adjectival (e.g. "he was a British Columbian"); other adjectival uses do not use -n, e.g. "British Columbia mountains", "British Columbia rivers", and even non-personal mentions of people, e.g. "British Columbia premier", "British Columbia skier", "British Columbia doctors", "British Columbian voters" etc. The -n form is comparatively rare, come to think of it; this should probably go in WP:CANSTYLE with other specifically British Columbia(n) uses, such as capitalizing "Interior" and (in some contexts) "Coast". I just wanted to mention it here because in this and other articles, heavily edited by non-British Columbians, there'll be edits which in good faith use the -n form but which are awkward/incorrect-sounding/looking "on the ground".Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On further thought, there are some cases where a phrase like "British Columbian skiers" could/would be used, but others where the normal use "British Columbia skiers" would apply....what the distinction is I'm going to have to think about; I can affirm that "British Columbia government" is the normal use in that case, and that the most common/normal use of "British Columbian" is for people, not objects/places etc.Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Matches my understanding as well. Likely the anon editor is from away. --KenWalker | Talk 15:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ROC/Chinese Taipei

Should there be any reason why Chinese Taipei be listed as ROC? As far as I'm aware, the IOC only recognizes the Republic of China as Chinese Taipei, and it should be reflected as such. I personally think Taiwan is independent but not recognized by a majority of countries. But that's irrelevant. And other Olympic articles where the ROC has competed as Chinese Taipei has them under "T", but listed as Chinese Taipei. So I think we should be doing the same.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, First of all, allow me to thank you for taking my concern into consideration for discussion! The Republic of China (Taiwan) is forced to compete under Chinese Taipei as its designated title. However, I believe it's not just my freedom of speech, but along with the 23 million Republic of China citizens and any loyal supporters of the ROC and Taiwan. In 2009, the ROC (Taiwan) hosted two international sports events: the 2009 Kaohsiung World Games and the 2009 Taipei Deaflympics. Both times, the President of the ROC opened the games as the President of the ROC (not as Chinese Taipei). The IOC requests that the ROC (Taiwan) use the title Chinese Taipei for international sports events and NOC committees. The Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee respects the IOC decision (which is truly the pressure from the PRC and their disgustful acts of bullying)and follows the policies (i.e. using the Chinese Taipei Olympic flag, using the Chinese Taipei title, and using the Republic of China Flag anthem to sub for the National Anthem of the ROC); however, citizens, the government, and etc. don't belong or fall under the direction of the IOC. Thus, the ROC government and its citizens have the complete right to use the title the Republic of China (Taiwan) and to bring in our national flag into these sporting events, and so anybody else. There is also confusion between the PRC (Communist mainland) and the ROC (Taiwan) for most foreigners and westerners. The title and explanation of the usage of "Chinese Taipei" is usually altered to imply that the ROC (Taiwan) belongs to the PRC (mainland). For example, the Mandarin translation of "Chinese Taipei": in the mainland would be 中國臺北 (Zhōngguó Táiběi), but the correct translation in the ROC (Taiwan) and internationally should be 中華臺北 (Zhōnghuá Táiběi). As a Chinese/Taiwanese-Canadian living in Vancouver, I'm hoping that you, also as a Canadian, can respect the freedom of speech and human rights by allowing the "Republic of China (Taiwan) - competes as Chinese Taipei" or similar to be the title of the ROC under the Participating Nations for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics article. Thank you! - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.210.66 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The existing consensus for Olympic articles is quite clear. The IOC has used "Chinese Taipei" to refer to this National Olympic Committee (NOC) for about three decades. We use "Chinese Taipei" for Olympic articles 1980 and later, and "Republic of China" for appearances through 1976. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what Taiwan/ROC is called, as the list of "participating nations" is really a list of teams participating. The articles on 1954-1964 refer to a team named "Germany" despite no one country having that name, and 1992 lists the Unified Team. --skew-t (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Participating nations as of Feb. 3

I've done a bit of cleanup work on this section and the {{NOCin2010WinterOlympics}} template. All of these nations appear to have qualified athletes for the Games, using http://www.fis-ski.com/data/document/summary-quotas-allocation.pdf as the latest quota allocations from FIS. However, I'm concerned that some of these countries might not appear after all. The list of entrants at http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-athletes/ seems to be fully populated, but several nations on the FIS list still show 0 entries (ALG, ARG, BIH, ETH, ISL, MEX, NEP, RSA). That page also still shows some countries that might have sent entries, but ended up with a quota of 0 in the final FIS list (BAH, CRC, GAB, KEN, LUX, MLT, MAD, THA, TGA, VEN). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I found NOC sources for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mexico and South Africa, a news media source for Iceland and a blog source for Argentina. Like four years ago, Ethiopia's sole qualifier is Robel Teklemariam and there are several sources confirming his 2010 participation, including his own blog. I was unable to find any sources for Algeria and Nepal, however. Sue-Tomi (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are good finds, and the official site does say The athletes listed have not been confirmed, nor is the list inclusive of all participants. More athlete profiles may be added or removed at any time., so I think we can still assume Algeria and Nepal will compete. It's easy enough to delete those articles if not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As of February 8, the Vancouver 2010 site has been updated with most of those nations previously missing. The only ones we're claiming will attend, but do not appear on that site, are Colombia and South Africa. Perhaps the Colombia entrant withdrew? Not sure why the RSA entrants aren't showing up yet. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've found entries for Cynthia Denzler (COL), Peter Scott (RSA), and Oliver Kraas (RSA) on the Vancouver 2010 site, so we can be sure that Colombia and South Africa will participate. That leave us with 82 confirmed nations, pending any last minute withdrawals. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've found entire Philip Boit (KEN) so Kenya will go to the OG

And now there is this story. He will not participate after all. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Medals per capita

Will Wikipedia publish the number of medals per capita won by each country? [1] -- Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that has an external article (like the one in your diff), then we can certainly use it to reference something in this article. But per discussions and consensus we had in 2004, 2006, and 2008, we should not create a new article solely on that topic (WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV) or use our own calculations (WP:OR). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That link was removed in the next revision. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

p.r. spin on costs

User:DigitalC was correct to reverse this edit by Bmac-whomever, which is a repeat of a p.r. spin generated by the BC government's Public Affairs Bureau and by p.r. consultants associated with VANOC. It's also repeated in an article by Gary Mason in the Op-Ed section of yesterday's Globe and Mail. It's not acceptable because it editorializes on information provided by another cite, and repeats material already elsewhere in the article but here used in a POV fashion to discredit/debase other cited NPOV information. The original estimate of the cost of the Games was, yes, $600 million - but that's not even the size of the security budget, and it's also the cost of the Hwy 99 upgrades alone. Pretending that the $10 billion is overblown is utter nonsense; that figure, as I understand it, doesn't include certain Games-associated costs which the government has not pegged as being part of the Olympics costs - which include, I think, the RAV project (aka now the Canada Line) and the upgrades to some of the sporting venues; I don't even think the grotesque cost overruns on the Convention Centre (which are double or triple those on the supposedly "infamous" Fast Ferries) are included in that $10 billion - only the costs incurred by renting it for the Media Centre and putting up temporary signs etc - . Mason's column, by way of example, furthers the p.r. spin by claiming that the Hwy 99 upgrades were needed and going to get built anyway; what he, and VANOC/PAB spinsters don't admit to is that that higheway only services, essentially, one very rich community and the corridor of high-priced real estate en route to it, and that hundreds of millions were already spent on it since the early 1980s, and that funds going to its Olympics-budget upgrade were, as a result, not spent on highways in other parts of the province badly in need of repair and/or new construction. Similarly the spin that the Canada Line was badly needed is garbage; the B-Line bus service was already functioning well and it was the Evergreen Line that was badly needed, but has been put back by at least 10 years because all that money was put into the Canada Line; the costs to Cambie Street businesses who got screwed by the government's broken promise to tunnel instead of cut-and-cover are also not included in that $10 billion (that should also go in the Controversies section, along with a lot else that's missing...). Let's put it this way, I'd trust Price Waterhouse any day over the lie-machine of the PAB and VANOC; if that material is put back in it must be in the context "defenders of the Olympics costs say...." because it's not factual, it's Op-Ed (which is why Gary Mason's article is an op-ed piece, not a news piece). Also, it's "COI" material because it apes/echoes VANOC sources/p.r. doctors. I know all this sounds like SOAP; but the material inserted WAS soapboxing by parties who seem to have COI interests, if not direct connections (as could not be proven without, perhaps, the use of WikiScanner and an IP identity check). This article is going to see lots more of such edits - "cognitive infiltration" - in the next weeks to try and downplay the huge financial and social/political problems of these Games, in the same way there have been efforts to delete referenced content; the warm weather section got turfed, even though there are dozens of international-media citations for it by now.... Vigilance is needed, and also some sense of conscience. Anything that sounds like spin IS SPIN, and the edit that DigitalC reversed WAS SPIN. i.e. it was POV, and changed information provided by a reference....Skookum1 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Official lexicon(s)

I found the following official lexicons (or lexica) for the Olympic games of 2004, 2006, and 2008, but I have not found any for the Olympic games of 2010.

• Athènes 2004 > Lexique Officiel
• Turin 2006 > Lexique Officiel
• Lexique des jeux olympiques d'été

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the Ice Hockey obsession?

The Olympic Games is an international event covering many sports. I don't think "the longest road trip in NHL history" has any relevance to the Olympics at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL (from a Canadian who's not hockey-obsessed). Sounds like there's a passage that belongs on Olympic hockey or a subarticle on the 2001 Olympic hockey series but yes, it doesn't belong in this article....."the longest road trip in curling history" would sound equally silly wouldn't it?Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that the offending text was actually duplicated. It was in the Venues section AND in the Sports section. User Zondor has place a Discuss tag on the remaining piece in the Sports section. I'm not a well enough informed and experienced editor to understand the intentions of that tag. As far as I'm concerned the Canucks mention should disappear from there as well. HiLo48 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Advertising NBC?

At the end of the article we have "Olympics on NBC". Looks like pure advertising to me. Or just American bias? As an Australian, can I have Olympics on the Nine Network please?

The section is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a section, it was a template, and yes it's highly inappropriate, not just because it's not global in context but also because it was flagrant spam by NBC; many parts of it were not even NBC-specific. I've placed a speedy delete tag on it - {{Olympics on NBC}} - but that may get removed and it put into an AfD debate; I think there's no grounds to keep it and I think most experienced editors would agree. NBC Sports needs a slap on teh pee-pee for trying to coopt Wikipedia like this. There's a similar issue with the plug for AP's coverage, as there are other US outlets with media in attendance (NBC is not yet mentioned in that section, but should be), but that's a simple matter of fixing text, not using a Wikipedia "device" to promote one specific broadcaster, from one specific country. If by the time you read this the template link is red, it means it's been deleted....Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your tag from the template, as there's nothing about the template or the main Olympics on NBC article that's advertising, and the article isn't just about the current Games. Whether the template belongs on this article or not is a separate issue, and it's probably best to not include it here. PaulGS (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Haiti

Shouldn't there be stuff about the Haiti earthquake relief related to the Games? (like when the We Are the World is aired, or [2] the selling of street banners...)

70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The We Are the World song was only broadcasted on the US national television on NBC, it didn't debut along with the Olympics in other broadcasts around the world.

-- Reevent (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Security and civil rights - Tree Sit link

needs to be changed to point to tree_sitting 194.74.237.82 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this!!!194.74.237.82 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Calendar

Would it not be better to have the calendar as a template? It is now used also in the article Chronological summary of the 2010 Winter Olympics, and it takes up a lot of bytes. Lampman (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just did it, that lifted 14k off the page. Lampman (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Most populous?

Vancouver isn't the most populous city to have held Olympic Winter Games. Turin has a higher population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.101.232 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Metro Vancouver (2.1 million) is more populous than Metro Turin (1.7 million). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

With international variations in municipal boundaries, and cities these days often crossing such boundaries, such claims are hard to prove in an absolute sense. How about we settle on "...one of the most populous cities ever to hold the Winter Games...."? HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of cities to have hosted the Winter Olympics, would there really be any significance in that? --24.36.128.14 (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Either way, that statement is original research. Rather than putting another {{citation needed}} in, I simply removed it (the reference for that sentence didn't mention the populous bit). -M.Nelson (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Homelessness" Controversy

I read this paragraph three times and still don't understand why it has anything to do with the Olympics, not only because it's poorly written, but also because it seems completely irrelevant. Suggest removal. --juxtapose (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. No connection has been made with the Games. Purely political point scoring I suspect. (And I know nothing of Canadian politics.) I will remove it if no-one else does. (After the major edit tag is removed) HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Vancouver, and don't agree with the protests, but there is a link. The issue is two-fold. First of all most Olympic cities have a bad history of trying to hide their social problems, so homeless advocacy was rightfully worried from the start. Secondly, there were promises made about things like how some number of the Athlete's Village have been reserved for low income housing after the Games. The problem is that due to cost overruns there is continued worry that this promise won't be kept (i.e. the government would rather/need to sell the units instead). So there is definitely a link.

If you're in a position to write up that detail, with references, please go ahead. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian participants

{{editsemiprotected}} Bulgaria has qualified one more athlete and will be represented by 19 participants instead of 18 (source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, source 5). Please correct the number. --62.204.152.181 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done [3] —Akrabbim^talk 05:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

hundreds of opponents??

The phrase "expressed by hundreds of activists and politicians," should be reworded, first because it is an unverified number and second because there is easily more than a thousand activists and politicians who are aware and expressing opposition to the olympics. This seems strictly political to me, and I would fix it but I don't have an account on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.167.239 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Costs (internal inconsistencies)

The Costs section currently includes both of these claims: "all raised from non-government sources, primarily through sponsorships and the auction of national broadcasting rights. $580 million is the taxpayer-supported budget to construct or renovate venues..." These appear, to me, to be contradictory. The venues are a huge part of the Olympic games, and are a huge part of the cost of hosting the games. It makes no sense to say "all raised from non-government sources" when a third or more of the total cost is provided by the government. How should we temper or remove the "all ..." claim? N2e (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Death of Nodar Kumaritashvili

This is the first time a winter olympic athlete has been killed during the games [4]. I expect it is going to receive a lot of media coverage. I suggest we need to mention the death in the lead of the article rather than just a small section low down in the article. Abc30 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We should wait to see how this is covered before deciding where it ends up. If this becomes one of the major focuses of the Games, then we can add it to the lead afterwards; if not, then somewhere lower in the article is more appropriate. PaulGS (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief this is not the first winter games related death. http://www.torontosun.com/sports/vancouver2010/news/2010/02/12/12857041-qmi.html --89.217.180.63 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It was hardly "popular belief". The reference cited with the claim that it was the first death also mentioned earlier deaths towards its end. So not "popular belief", just incomplete reading. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the death occur before the official opening of the games? It is surely notable and terribly tragic, but "during the games" may not be accurate, perhaps "in a training accident hours before the opening ceremony" is right. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Nicolas Bochatay was a speed skier not a speed skater. Suprcel (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not find a reference to this person in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Participating Nations - alphabetical order?

Shouldn't the participating countries be in order alphabetically? I am watching the opening games right now, the person editing it is arranging the nations in order of entrance into the stadium. In my opinion, they should be in order alphabetically, as the article is not stating the order of entrance of nations, but those participating. It would also be in respect to the other participating nations shown in the previous Olympics Games, in order alphabetically. Anime4international (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it should. The recent edits are ridiculous. The only place we should have nations in marching order is the 2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremony and/or 2010 Winter Olympics national flag bearers articles. Look at the 2008 articles for an example of how we did this. All of the other 45 preceding Games articles use normal alphabetical order in the participating nations section. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Do appreciate the quick response. I'll edit and place this on my watchlist for any ridiculous changes...Anime4international (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like everything's good. Someone got to it before me. Was taking a look at the previous to see the consistency.Anime4international (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit were reasonable, and made in good faith, and I do not appreciate them being called "ridiculous". However, I happily bow to precedent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Torch Relay

Please change "Also Shania Twain carried the torch in her hometown of Ontario" to "Also Shania Twain carried the torch in her hometown of Timmins, Ontario".

Done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OLYMPIC MALFUNCTION

OLYMPIC MALFUNCTION --- And there was indeed supposed to be a fourth pillar rising to the sky there. Not sure how many people here noticed --- there was quick speculation here as the drawings we got showed a fourth one. I think most here just figured they were building suspense. It was LeMay Doan who got axed out of her moment of glory.

-- Billy Amato

this does sound like a good article to make..we will need some more time ..so that more info can come out about it..However i see no need to mention every little thing that happens on this main article..If they are worth mentioning then they should have there own article... Like the unfortunate accident that resulted in a death today... Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is worth its own article. Sprocket (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It goes in the opening ceremony article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Border security questioning

I'm yet to work out what the Olympic connection is with the detaining at the border of someone who didn't even know the Olympics were on. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Concerns and controversies"

Can this section be split off into a separate article? It has reached the size where it is awkwardly dominant, and there are some sections within it that are not as relevant as they once were. Sprocket (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the (ir)relevance of some bits, but I also note from historical experience that most of the "issues" arise before the Games (i.e. up to now), then the real success stories start to come out during the period the Games are on. Give it a couple of weeks. Maybe help by adding some positive stuff of your own. Then when it's all over some effort can go into working out what really was important. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And the first paragraph of the article says The 2010 Winter Olympics, officially the XXI Olympic Winter Games or the 21st Winter Olympics, is a major international multi-sport event held on February 12–28, 2010 ... but the link for protests is from 2007. --74.56.12.36 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Luge track too fast and dangerous

There seems to be a pervasive concern amongst the luge athletes that the track is too fast and difficult. The death of the Georgian luge athlete today obviously increases that perception, but there have been other accidents and other concerns expressed by the athletes themselves. The track is proven to be fast with world record times. Anyway, this seems to be sufficiently big concern to note in the article, especially with the death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabelar (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The weather and snow conditions

I suggest that the unseasonable weather and the resulting poor snow conditions and fog delays are of sufficient concern to be noted. Of course it is a developing story -- we don't know how much impact there will actually be, but within a couple days we should have enough info to create a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabelar (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gretsky Missing!

Wayne Gretsky was the final celebrity to carry the torch, as the most prestigious Canadian athlete. He should be added to the list of celebrities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.241.174 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Cauldron Lighting

Let's nip a edit war in the bud; I think we may all dispute who lit the cauldron. The problem is that 4 people lit the one inside BC Place, and only 1 lit the one outside. Both are to remain lit throughout the Games. So, let's hammer this little dispute out now before we start revert wars. ThePointblank (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Both are not to remain lit throughout the games; the indoor cauldron was extinguished after the ceremony. --99.231.163.135 (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well... not quite, Catriona LeMay Doan did not light the one inside, her pillar didn't rise. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

IOC President Jacques Rogge

International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge looks exhausted at the opening speech of the 2010 Winter Olympics last night; no wonder after yesterday's tragedies. Overall the message seems to be: we hold the dead athlete in our hearts but the games are going forward. Only the bad weather is going to delay the start of the competition tomorrow.

-- Billy Amato —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.17.196 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

8 athletes in Georgian team

I changed the number to 8, with * to point out the death. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

US Team Members

The US team actually consists of 216 members, as opposed to the 215 shown on this page (Even the US-specific Winter Games page contradicts this and shows as 216) 24.8.211.188 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Terry Fox

This morning in the news, it was debated that the games should have done something more to include the legacy of Terry Fox. For further data, please see www.ctvolympics.com. - Its a current cover story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.70.66 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Medal Table - What's an NOC?

Well?

HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

National Olympic Committee. You're welcome.-Cbradshaw (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Well, maybe it has some pedantic, precise meaning in the formal legalities of the Games, but I suspect 99.999% of readers would find it a loss less confusing if it said country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that not all the teams are from discrete countries: see Virgin Islands, Cayman islands, Hong Kong etc. 142.166.86.10 (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry that last comment was me, forgot to sign in. HalifaxRage (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please fix error

The world map is an addition that I was going to suggest. There is an error. Greenland does not have an national olympic committee, they may compete with Denmark. Therefore, Greenland should be marked in green as Denmark's Olympic Committee is sending a team. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Polska reprezentacja to 47 zawodników a nie 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.144.73 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games

{{Editsemiprotected}} In the introduction, please change

are being organized by the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC).

to

are being organized by the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC).

Thanks. 72.244.203.42 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Nirvana888 (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Update tense

Just a note, the majority of this article currently says things like "Vancouver will host the Winter Olympics"; currently this should be "Vancouver is hosting the Winter Olympics" and it will later need to read "Vancouver hosted the Winter Olympics". -M.Nelson (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole article needs a tense check and rewrite; if I wasn't at work and discreetly peering behind tabs to get to WP I would do it myself. HalifaxRage (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

tedium work - conform/cleanup/format/tidy citations

the citations (at moment some 125+ of them) on this somewhat high profile and padlocked article are presented in a mishmash of styles including:

• some article titles are presented in italics
• various bylines and/or datelines are missing
• plenty of newspaper (and other publisher) names are not presented in italics
• many article titles have only first word initial capped (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles)
• several bare URLs are presented

could some kind soul take on the tedious task of cleaning up the citations? (as an editor without the option to register, this editor is unable to edit this locked article).--98.113.187.11 (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Medal table

The France team is not in the lead with overall medals. The French have 3 medals were USA has 6. Also Germany has 4 and then Canada with 3 . Can somebody correct the order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.20.178 (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)