Talk:2014 Winter Olympics/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the archive of the discussions which took place before the election by the IOC of Sochi as host city for the 2014 Winter Olympics.

Contents

[edit] Notice

People who know the subject, please vet the changes by known vandal 210.54.65.251.

Salzburg selected by the Austrian Olympic Committee as their candidate on January 24th, 2005.

[edit] Southern Hemisphere

Are nations in the Southern Hemisphere even allowed to bid for the Winter Games? I know the timing would have to be changed, but if Summer Games can be held in Australia, why not Winter Games in, say, Argentina? Funnyhat 22:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, any nation (including East Timor, Bahamas or Monaco) are invited to bid for any Olympic Games. The possibilities for a Winter Olympic Games in the Southern Hemisphere are reals. I know Christchurch, New Zealand put a bid years before and possible they will put a bid for 2014 or 2018. Other possibilities are Santiago, Chillán or Villarrica in Chile or Bariloche in Argentina, but I think only Christchurch and Santiago are real possibilities for the Games, because now they are searching big host cities (Nagano, Salt Lake City, Torino, Vancouver) and maybe they won't select a small city as Bariloche. --KRATK 20:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC). But there are a possibility to do a Winter Olympic Game in Neuquén or Mendoza, in Argentina.

Forget about hosting it in Australia except maybe falls creek, but i wouldn't be suprised to see it hosted in Queenstown in New Zealand, or i would say somewhere like Cuzco, but since Peru has never entered the WInter Olympics, neither does it have any Ski Resorts (I don't think...).144.133.83.58 06:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date Clarification

The Sofia bid got the needed government support on July 23

Of 2004?

[edit] Logo of the Austrian Olympic Committee

Do we really need the logo of the Austrian Committee ? Shouldn't it be better to wait for the Salzburg 2014 logo ?Hektor 02:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bid comparison

The bid comparison is not from me. It has been prepared by ghost1 from the GamesBids forum. I just copied it from there. Hektor 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divided Korea

Isn't Ireland divided as well, making Korea not "the world's only divided country"? What about China and India?Bayberrylane 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound odd - I've taken out the words "world's only". — sjorford (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Sports

There. Someone requested references on the potential new sports. So there you go. I could not find any definitive information on the inclusion of Bandy, but I did find that the International Bandy Federation does have an IOC task force [1].

  • Since these sports will not be included after all, is it worthwhile to keep this section, about something which will not happen ? Hektor 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
hmm, you have a point there. I realize that this page is devoted to a sporting event that will happen in the future and this section deals with sports that will not take place there. I still think that it is worthwhile because 1. the rejection of these sports happened today (Nov. 28) and 2. the reader might find it useful to know what has been included/rejected and just to be kept up-to-date on the current status of the olympic programme. If anything, the vast majority of this page will be relegated to a new "bidding" page for 2014 and this bit of info will probably follow it. Perakhantu 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with 2014 Winter Olympic bids

I believe this page should be merged with 2014 Winter Olympics bids as they both cover the same informations. Rehnn83 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep separate Yes, currently, there is quite a bit of overlap between the two articles. But take a look at 2006 Winter Olympics and 2006 Winter Olympics bids. That's where things are heading. And my guess is if it does get merged, down the road, someone will say 2014 Winter Olympics is too long, break it apart. And, 2010 Winter Olympics has gotten shorter as time has gone on. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep separate per MrDolomite. Elk Salmon 07:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seperate The IOC will be formerly picking the host of the 2014 games in about a year, and as more information gets added, the info about the bids will get shuffled to it's own page. I guess MrDolomite said it best. Perakhantu 08:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


I've removed my suggestion of a merger as I make the count 3-1 against. --Rehnn83 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Should there be an infobox ? Personnally I think that there should be one, like all Olympics. Hektor 06:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no compelling reason to have it for future Games that have not been announced. Let's look at all the elements of the infobox:
  • Logo image: since none is available, the Olympic rings image is being used. This is a possible violation of the fair-use policy, as per discussion on that image page.
  • Host city: empty
  • Nations participating: empty until 2014!
  • Athletes participating: empty until 2014!
  • Events: empty until program is finalized, likely in 2012 (five years from now!)
correction: program should be finalized until 2011, as the Olympic procedure is to do that 3 years ahead of the Games.--Nitsansh 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Opening ceremony: can be used now
  • Closing ceremony: can be filled now
  • Officially opened by: empty until 2014!
  • Athlete's Oath: empty until 2014!
  • Judge's Oath: empty until 2014!
  • Olympic Torch: empty until 2014!
  • Stadium: empty for now
As you can see, there is very little that can be filled in at this time. I think the use of the infobox is useless on future Games pages at least until the host city is announced. At least at that time a handful of fields can be added, and a logicial logo image can be used. Until then, it has absolutely purpose in improving the article, and to my eyes, detracts from the quality of the article, reinforcing the future uncertainty of the event. That means we should re-insert this infobox on this page later this year, but not on the 2016 page until 2009, etc. Andrwsc 16:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but it comes back on like every other game on the day the city is announced. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
The infobox should not be removed. Flibirigit 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Per Andrwsc's edit summary, I am actually for keeping the infobox. You just made quite an arguement against it that I had to side with you somewhat. Reywas92TalkSigs 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not how I interpreted your comment. I fully agree with what you said earlier: "it comes back ... on the day the city is announced." Until then, it has no purpose. An infobox is intended to convey summary information, is it not? What information is available until that date? Next to nothing. Let's wait until July 1 when we actually have some information to present in that box. Andrwsc 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dates

Are the dates really fixed? they should be included in the candidature files which each city submits. Did all 3 candidate choose the same dates?--Nitsansh 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes Hektor 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I'd like to propose merging 2014 Winter Olympics bids into this page. Having seperate pages for it causes forking of content, and as we already have a section here for the candidate cities, it would be better to include everything on this page itself. It would put all relevant material in one place. I'd appreciate all editors' ideas about this. Thanks xC | ☎ 11:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - already proposed last year, already rejected. There are two such articles for the previous Olympics. When the city is selected the Olympics article will focus on the preparation of the Olympics and the facilities, while the 'bids' article will keep an archive of the failed bids. Hektor 11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, was clearing out the backlog on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I'd still support a merge, but as consensus decided otherwise, I'm removing the tags. Thanks for the quick response, cheers! xC | ☎ 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose too, but over time a link to the other bid page should be included.208.107.168.154 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Almaty2014.jpg

Image:Almaty2014.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Borjomi 2014.jpg

Image:Borjomi 2014.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)