Talk:Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Olympics

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Purpose of this page edit

Do editors consider the purpose of this page to be to give a brief statements of facts, or a summary of events? I'd invite comparison of the following versions:

  • b) Ye Shiwen of China established a new world record of 4:28.43 in the women's 400 metre individual medley. She was nearly a second behind Elizabeth Beisel before the freestyle leg but finished 2.84 seconds ahead. Her final split of 28.93 seconds was faster than Ryan Lochte's in the men's 400 metre individual medley final.
and


My own preference is for a brief mention of key facts (example a), with references and links available for those wanting additional details. I would strongly argue again the journalistic tone of c), and fear that the level of additional details of b) leaves the page open to emphases and hype that reduces the page, or elements of it, to fancruft. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

On a related note, this is the second consecutive day that this page has been tagged with {{update}}. Are there not enough active users to add in these blurbs or something? Might as well remove them altogether until the major cleanup happens after the closing ceremony. I'd do it myself, but I am in the "wrong" time zone to provide timely updates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I really wish you guys would give human details on the events instead of simply listing the gold medalists. I mean seriously, how many pages do gold medalists deserve?? They already have a table on this page, they already have a medal page entry, and you guys just say "XYZ won gold". What's the point? Did they win by a notable amount or in an uncommon or dramatic manner? Why use humans when a computer program can scan numbers in. Ye Shiwen won in a very dramatic manner and generated buzz which can not be determined based on this page. If people want to do further research, shouldn't we give them a clue that something is possibly worth further research? Angry bee (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I believe this should be a progressive, medal-by-medal account of the 2012 Summer Games. At present, the page only sorts events by the day on which they occurred and then alphabetically by event. This is not a true chronological record. An archery event that occurred at 7 pm would be listed before a wrestling event that occurred at 9 am the same day simply by virtue of the fact that archery comes before wrestling in the dictionary. To be of any real benefit to users, this page needs to either be rearranged into true chronological order or renamed to something along the lines of "Day-by-Day Summary of the 2012 Summer Olympics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.139.43.101 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Changing the calender look to link to all sports finals edit

The calender need to be changed to link to all sports finals, not only those with 1 during that day. same as Template:2004 Summer Olympics Calendar uses.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Edits edit

Since I don't have a Wikipedia account, someone one with one can update this link the red link under the shooting results to this proper, existing Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser_Al-Attiyah -- I think the link on this page was misspelled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.120.245 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Records edit

Per the section title in the tab;e it mentions records not Olypic or World records. Hence the records broken are notable here (or at least id say the higher one). Also per OSE 2008 list is not an arguement. One is welcome to add the others too and probaly will be done as the games progress.(Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)).Reply

(Context: Lihaas has been adding a single African record in swimming: I removed this, citing precedent of the 2008 equivalent article and absence of other continental records) You have presented no reason why continental records should be included when they have not previously. Implicit consensus, the actions of editors, indicates that only Olympic and world records are to be reported here. Every athlete has an opportunity of breaking the same OR and WR: other records are different threshholds, different levels of achievement, depending on origin. You offer no justification for adding an African record without adding those for other continents. Where do you suggest this reporting of records stops: national records? All-comers records? Club records? They are all records as defined by the header on the table. Precedent and consistency are with Olympic and World records only. Other opinions? Kevin McE (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
No reason? did you read what i said? ecause the title of the column says records. Secondly, read OSE. On the contrary you dont have an arguement saying why it should not be. CCC/BOLD/BRD can change implicit consensus.
every athlete has an opportunity to b reak continental recrds as per the listing on the swimming page
It stops , presumably, at the point it cant be recorded/cited.(Lihaas (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)).Reply
I'm glad you raised WP:BRD. You tried being bold, it was reverted, so you should try to establish consensus here before posting. As regards CCC, consensus does not change by one editor acting in a manner that no-one else has any interest in. You cannot demonstrate consensus, as no-one has done what you have no interest in doing and add other continental records, and you apparently have no interest in applying what you seem to think should be a new policy even-handedly, so it fails POV (it pushes the POV that African records are worth noting, but those for other continents do not). I did give reasons for not giving continental reasons: read the sentence above beginning "Every athlete has..." Kevin McE (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Prose/ta ble edit

its come to my attention that virtually the same mention in prose are now in the table in a redundant way. We dont need both. Perhaps we should mentuon all competition for the day and which events took place. Then have a table for medalists.

right now other than stating the same, we have mentions of controversies which is already menions on the 2012 template.(Lihaas (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)).Reply
Both the prose and tables should remain but the prose should be embellished where necessary with additional notable events; for example Phelps record medal, details on athletes who are the first medallists from their country or world/Olympic records that are set in heats/qualifying/etc rounds. If you read through the 2008 equivalent there is a lot of detail in the prose that isn't in the tables - Basement12 (T.C) 23:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
...also margins of victory, such as the final score of a gold or bronze medal match. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
We need to try to find some variation in phrasing, without descending into journalistic commentary. We have 4 instances in entries for day 4 of "X won event A, while Y won silver and Z won bronze". Kevin McE (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agreed with all the above except that currently i doesnt have this. At the moment its redundant.
We also dont need to blindly copy 2008 per OSE.(Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)).Reply

References edit

Can I suggest that where possible we use references from news websites rather than the Official London 2012 site - whilst obviously a very convenient and reliable source it's likely to be taken down in the not too distance future so we'll end up with a lot of dead links to fix. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Non sporting events edit

There has been a death, the cause of which is directly attributable to Olympic organisation. I have wished to add it, one editor has been equally keen to remove it. There is nothing in the purpose of the page that seems to indicate that it is only for the actual results: indeed, several non-results issues away from the arena, although involving competitors, are in the article and have not been challenged.

So I would invite opinions both on this specific case (a London cyclist being killed by an Olympic vehicle on the same day as a Londoner wins an Olympic gold medal in cycling: Wiggins was asked for comment about it at his press conference that evening) and on the threshhold at which non-results merit inclusion on this list. Kevin McE (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I strongly believe it should be mentioned. Just like the bombing in 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Should we just pretend it didn't happen? It should be mentioned so people who are interested can use this as a starting point for more research. Angry bee (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
IANAL but "the cause of which is directly attributable to Olympic organisation" is an outrageous claim it seems to me. What is being suggested here exactly? That somehow the Olympic movement is responsible for road accidents that occur during the Olympics now? LOCOG might do a lot of things, but it's a dead cert they aren't responsible for the training of the thousands of bus drivers contracted for the games services. If the suggestion is somehow that LOCOG is hiring dodgy bus drivers, for a start the driver is innocent until proven guilty, and based on the colour of the bus this wasn't some fly by night company, but a hire from Stagecoach Group, one of if not the largest operator in the country. It has no place in this list as it was a pure coincidence, and not even a rare one at that. According to The Times, this guy was the 62nd cyclist to die on UK roads this year. There are cycling events on 9 days of the games. I make that around a 35% chance just for a cyclist being killed in the UK on the same day as an Olympic cycling event. If the motive of inclusion is to somehow blame or shame the IOC/LOCOG then that's clearly wrong, if it's to raise awareness about cycling safety, then sorry, that's not Wikipedia's purpose either. If it's to act as a memorial for the guy, then that's a pretty shitty deal for the other 61 dead this year, which apparently included four victims under 12. There isn't really any other argument that can be made that noting this death in this list is necessary. Readers are not being deprived of anything if a chronological summary fo the games doesn't include an entirely coincidental road accident. Wiggins' comment certainly isn't relevant - he was asked a question, what's he supposed to do? Say no comment? That aspect of it is entirely routine journalism, and if anything, including it as somehow relevant may even harm the cyclist's family as in his response Wiggins seems to have gone on about the risks of not wearing a helmet, even though the guy was infact weearing a helmet. And finally, to compare a bombing to a cyclict being knocked off their bike, is ever so slightly ridiculous. FerrerFour (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Attributing "purpose" is beside the point, as well as combative. The proponents argue, quite rightly, that this was covered in enough detail, and by enough sources to become significant. The question that is not addressed is whether it is significant enough to be mentioned in the "Chronological summary" or not. I would say it belongs somewhere else, there should be an extensive series of articles covering the non-sporting aspects of the game, one of them will probably offer a better home. Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC).Reply
A series? So this would be an entry in List of road accidents during the 2012 Summer Olympics. And that would then be filed under List of non-sporting incidents during the 2012 Summer Olympics? Be serious. What possible article could this ever be included in, if you're rejecting the premise that the reason it's being pushed for inclusion is because, in their own words, this guy's death was "directly attributable to Olympic organisation"? It was a road accident that got some transient media coverage due to some odd coincidences. As far as I know, this sort of trivia is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be documenting, anywhere. FerrerFour (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
This article is about sports. It's not rocket science. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you believe that to be the key issue, you should be equally resolute in deleting any reference to the opening ceremony. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
The opening ceremony of the Olympic Games has nothing to do with sports? Are you on drugs? FerrerFour (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
And what sporting competition did you see during it? Keep accusations to yourself please. Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Why would I need to see a sporting competition during the opening ceremony, for it to have been about sports? It wasn't an accustion, I'm stating my honest belief that anyone who could think the opening ceremony of the Olympics isn't about sports, is clearly on drugs. FerrerFour (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
People from sporting backgrounds, representing their sport at the biggest sporting event in the calendar. Sounds like sports to me. Lugnuts (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Day 14, 15 & Day 16 edit

The sections have never been completed for the last two days of the Olympic Games, At the moment they are only showing the times for the event finals that took place on those two days so they urgently need updateding. Thanks (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC))Reply

WP:SODOIT. I've been working my way through adding references and expanding the text for every event from about day 8 onwards, but your noticing that some days haven't been completed is really insightful - Basement12 (T.C) 23:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Since I wrote this bit a couple of weeks ago I have noticed nothing has changed at all and is still not completed, Please please can it be completed otherwise what is the point of having this page and I have tonight noticed that Day 14 is also not been filled in, It is a mockery of the page if three days worth of information is not there to be read. THIS IS NOW A TOP PRIORITY! (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC))Reply

Request for Comment edit

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chronological summary of the 2012 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) 07:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 45 external links on Chronological summary of the 2012 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) 22:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply