Talk:Chicago 2016 Olympic bid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.

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)

Contents

[edit] Update

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)

[edit] Beware Childish Vandalism

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.

[edit] photos

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).

[edit] NPOV

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Financing

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))

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)
Nevermind. I see you already have! Good job. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many unsourced statements

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)

[edit] Merge

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

[edit] Former Logo as of May 16, 2007

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)

[edit] Footnotes?

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)

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)

[edit] danielhonigman.com

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)

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

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

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)

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