Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

Opening Sentence

I believe that Hektor was wrong to revert my edit changing: "The 2012 Summer Olympic Games, officially known as the Games of the XXX Olympiad, are due to be celebrated in London from 27 July to 12 August 2012." to "The 2012 Summer Olympic Games, officially known as the Games of the XXX Olympiad, are due to be held in London from 27 July to 12 August 2012." As a fluent English speaker and being from England I am particular familiar with the correct phrasing; 'held' makes much more sense than 'celebrated'. If anyone else could confirm here that held is correct, that would be good and I could go ahead and rectify this. Lewispb (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I would be inclined to agree with you in most cases, saying that Olympic Games are "celebrated" rather than "held" is a minor point of style that we have used on many articles like this one for a while now, and you will see it elsewhere if you look. Truthfully, either is acceptable and I would have no problem supporting either, but it is merely a semantics discrepancy. Jared (t)  16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Moved this to a subsection of the Logo since it referese only to logo criticism. Badgerific (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

War on Iraq.AlexBlues (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

DanceSports

I have been seeing a number of websites claiming that the 2012 Olympics will finally have DanceSports as part of the official competitions, which is to include Standard, Latin, & Rock'n Roll dances. The official 2012 Olympic website has links to the International Dancesport Federation www.idsf.net, but no official announcements to confirm this, on either website. Does anyone have anything official so that this site can be updated (or not) to include DanceSport on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.44.45 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It most definitely will not be on the programme. See here and here. The IOC dropped two sports, but added no replacements. They could have chosen from roller sports, squash, karate, golf and/or rugby, but didn't. Andrwsc (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent spate of edits

Is it just me or have the recent edits to this page given the article an almost New Labour-ish positive spin? I note with interest that most of the citations to negative news regarding things like financing (esp wrt to London tax payers) have been removed in favour of older links to articles that are significantly more forgiving. Methinks Tessa, Tony, Seb et al have signed up to Wiki! Your thoughts on this matter would be appreciated - unless we're going to settle on just carrying on bashing Paris and omitting matters of concern to London in 200000. 90.242.28.201 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: YOU ARE NOT ALONE not, its not just you, I keep getting my reporting of negative commentary removed on the basis that it is 'vandalism' whereas it is reporting common attitude. I have, after numerous reverts, and emailing the man who keeps editing me out, given up. Everyone knows the press coverage I was summarising, and it is a useful if sad reminder to me that wikipedia, like everything else, is vulnerable to extremists - they have the energy to make their 'point' long after the sane have resigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.57.57 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bidding process

This article should contain brief details of the bidding process, with 2012 Summer Olympics bids containing the full details.

The process of electing a host city for the olympics involves two phases (conducted under the Olympic Charter). In the first phase, applying cities must answer a fifty page questionnaire; after review the International Olympic Committee announces the chosen candidate cities. Phase two requires candidates to submit a candidature file to the IOC. Following further detailed rteview, the IOC announces a list of final cities from which the final Host city will be elected in a session.

source: http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/cities_uk.asp

It does now, so I'v de-exclaimed yout comment. Hope you don'th mind. boffy_b 08:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the "Details of the Bid" paragraph, including the link to London 2012 Olympic bid into the "Bidding Process" section - I think it is important that we maintain a distinction between the Bid details and the actual organisational details. This section needs to remain a historical record but may in time become confusing as alternate organisational details are made in the run up to the games. I've tried to be explicit as I can emphasising that these are historical details, but I think this may require a removal of much apart from the link or else it may become confusing as details may begin to contradict those given later, where an up to date account of the organisation is given. S Newton 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating the logo

I think we need newer logo without the text "CANDIDATE CITY", now that london win the 2012 summer olympics! I don't like the number xxx

The revised logo isn't available yet ... once it does I'm sure it will arrive here --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Granted, "Games of the XXX Olympiad" looks like someone forgot to fill it in, but all th other olympics' pages use Roman numerals, so I'm changing it back. boffy_b July 7, 2005 10:14 (UTC)

Unless 2012 is to be the Year of the Sex Olympics boffy_b July 8, 2005 09:05 (UTC)

Oh man, that would rule. Proto t c 8 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)

the london commitee has at leas 6 years to get a logo, plenty of time, but the fact it is the 30th olympic games may play a part in the design of the logo, but the logo should just as well reflect the culture of the host city.

Well now we do have the new logo, you should have been careful what you wished for. It looks like Lisa Simpson doing something unnatural to Bart. Who are the people who come up with this appalling shi*e. £400,000 wasted, what a laughing stock we must seem. PrivateWiddle 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Its frankly shocking isnt it, we waste that much money on such a shambles that a bloody 6 year-old could do a better logo. Furiating is another word, we, the tax payers pay taxes that go to the government who fund Sport England and the Athletics Board to come up with this peice of sh!te. Sums our country up in one doesnt it? Shocking... Jazza5 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So, who was first?

So, who was first to update the page with the result? Was it me? — Peter McGinley 6 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

Does it matter?? No.

Now, where's your christmas spirit? boffy_b

I'm not sure whether I'm happier that the UK won it, or that the French didn't. Proto t c

You really shouldn't put a carboardbox on your cat. You know that? right? -- yourself

An american friend has suggested it is genetic for the English to be torn between being ecstatic that London won the games or that we beat the French ;-P --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Yes well its probably best not to crow too loundly. Today's anouncement of the 2012 Olympics pleased a lot of Britains and has dominated the news in the UK today. But what is at stake;

A) In seven years time, Britain gets the opportunity to host an international event, spending £3 bn to play games for a fortnight,

Meanwhile last week, on the 28th June, in an item which got about 30s slot in the news;

B) France won the bid to host ITER, an international project, spending £7 bn to build a fusion reactor over the next 10 years. A project which after some 30 years of work could go some way to solving the world's energy problems.

A bit of perspective doesn't hurt. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

I'll clarify one point which is that it isn't a fortnight but a month - there is the Paralympics straight after the main games. Both these projects have the possibility for massive change for the good. --Vamp:Willow 7 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

Look at the acticle history if you are that bothered about who got here first --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

To the fusion Reactor comment I would rebuke that with the fact that France has spent vast amounts of money trying to win the Olympic bid for some 20 years now without winning - it represents a huge misallocation of money, perhaps that should be included in this article that the french government tried for many years to win and it came as great surpise to many that London won over Paris which had been the clear favourite from day one. Whilst the UK will be paying for the Olympics it will make that money back many times over in tourist revenue, buissness ventures, improving public infrastructure (especially transport) and it also aims to improve the overall state of health of the nation etc. This is no place for nationalistic arguments though, or for sour comments. (Id also direct you to the page on Nuclear cold fusion reactors - its a tough venture which may well not work. It could mean the French goverment has once again spent money it will not make back, and at an overhead of £7bn thats quite a potential loss.)

I frankly have no idea why these topics are being discussed on this talk page but since you've started... There is some small misunderstanding about the nature of these "vast sums" that have been "mis-allocated" - in total the sums for the 3 bids Paris has tendered are considerably less than that which London spent on one Olympic, one failed International Athletics bid together, not to mention 3 further failed bids by Birmingham and Manchester - so let's have a sense of proportion please. I also find it interesting that although there is mention of Chirac's comments re English food there appears to be no sign of the rebukes handed to the London bid committee regarding its promises of free airline tickets, shopping and restaurant vouchers. Neither is there a single mention of the shady-in-anyone's-eyes early hours behind closed doors meetings between IOC delegates and London representatives. Surely that is just as pertinent to the discussion? I mean a silly comment of food is more persuasive to the notoriously corrupt IOC committee members than free gifts and secret promises? Surely not. As for the ITER - this kind of crass nationalistic commentary belongs in the pages of the Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail not Wikipedia, please take your jingoism elsewhere.

Image

In the many reverts and updates, the image has many times changed between Image:Olympic rings.svg and Image:London 2012.jpg, I presumed it was being changed back to the former by accident and restored the London one, is there any reason not to use it? boffy_b July 6, 2005 12:14 (UTC)

It does say "Candidate bid" underneath, so perhaps someone thought it shouldn't appear. I believe it still should, however, and am currently celebrating! violet/riga (t) 6 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

The 'Candidate city' line is a problem. It would be easy enough to edit the image, but as it is a logo, I suspect that shouldn't be done. Even so, it is visually more useful to show the logo of the winning bid rather than the generic Olympics logo. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

Well until the bid's site comes back online, it's the most up-to-date image we have. boffy_b July 6, 2005 12:54 (UTC)

The bid site is back up, but the replacement logo won't be available for a while yet --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The following day ...

The following text (in bold italics here) has been added to the article:

On 6 July 2005, the final selection occurred was announced at the Raffles City Convention Centre in Singapore. Moscow was the first city to be eliminated, followed by New York and Madrid. The final two cities left in contention were London and Paris. At the end of the fourth round of voting, London won the right to host the 2012 Games with 54 votes, defeating Paris' 50. The next day, central London and the Underground were rocked by a series of terrorist explosions.

I'm in two minds about this. The bombing is a terrible co-incidence, but there is no evidence it is more than a co-incidence. And this single throw-away sentence really doesn't do justice to anything. I cannot make up my mind whether to delete it (on the grounds there is nothing encyclopedic about coincidence) or expand it. I'd appreciate some other editors views. -- Chris j wood 8 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

Certainly not worth expanding; there's already an article about it. But is it irrelevant? That's a judgement call. I'd be inclined to remove it, although I'm afraid if it's removed, it'll just keep getting put back on (particularly whilst feelings are so strong). Proto t c 8 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

Is it also a co-incidence that it happened at the same time as the G8 Summit? --86.137.180.41 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this sentance. My reasoning is this:

• a) The July 7th attacks were in no way linked to the winning of the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
• b) The attacks were not on the same day as london won the bid and so should not be linked for that reason.
• c) As stated there is no encyclopedic relevance to this article or anything further to expand upon linking 2012 games to the 7/7/05 attacks.
• d) The way in which it was edited into the article and the fact it was initially placed in bold suggested that the person who made the edit adding POV to the article. Although I will assume good faith and take it as an accident.

Also - "The attacks were carried out on the 7th July as full Police and MI5's efforts were focused on the G8 Summit in Gleneagles." is making asumptions. To say "full police and MI5 efforts were focused" elsewhere suggests no police were on standby in london which is incorrect. Also MI5 do not deal with terrorist incidents, the police do. MI5 is an intellegence agency, they only gather the information and then the police act upon it. It was not their responsibility to deal with the bombings although one could argue it is in their mandate to prevent it if possible. In light of this I have removed the comment entirely, should you feel the need to put it back up please inform us as to your reasoning. Ta. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

olympic soccer

Will the UK play the 2012 olympic football as ONE team as they did many years ago (they can't play there as England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)? The UK hadn't played olympic football since the 1970's even if they qualified in the U-21 European Championship.

All team sports that the UK plays are as a single team, under the official name "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If the UK plays football in 2012 (and I'm pretty sure that it's one of the sports that guarantees a spot to the host nation), it will be as "ONE team", yes. Just like they had for hockey in 2004. -- Jonel | Speak 9 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

Because of the FA and its organisation a united kingdom football team has been elusive in the past, I understand however from a breif interview (records of which i cannot find) that Sebastian Coe said he hoped those issues could be resolved and ONE team could play instead thus representing the nation in which football (as it currently exists) was invented. Please correct me if im wrong however, its only something a vaugely remember.

Number of sports and disciplines

I have added a list of sports and disciplines. Athens had 28 sports and 37 disciplines. I have removed softball and baseball, and assumed that BMX (to be included for the first time at Beijing) is a separate discipline within cycling, and that there are no other changes. If you no otherwise please amend it. Calsicol 22:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Budget

The figures I have added were taken from the Daily Telegraph. This is one of the fuller listings I have seen, but it doesn't cast to the £100 million surplus forecast, so it is presumably a selective list. The numbers will doubtless change. Calsicol 13:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for sources

There desn't seem to be much in the way of cited sources for the some of the information on this page. Specifically:

• I can find no source for the breakdown of the venues into Olympic Zone, River Zone and Central Zone that we have adopted. The article makes it sound as if these are official definitions, but neither the official bid website, nor the BBC venue coverage seems to use these terms.

• I can find no source to confirm that the Olympic Park is to contain a table tennis training centre. Both the websites above only reference table tennis in the context of the ExCel venue.

If you know of a source for any of this, please reference it (in the references section or inline). -- Chris j wood 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Olympic, River and Central Zones are official- they are on the London Bid site 'Venue Map'. --Oli 08:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Slalom canoeing/slalom racing

The article formerly linked to the article Slalom canoeing with the link text Slalom racing. However Slalom canoeing makes no reference to racing, and describes a sport which is essentially an 'against the clock' type of event with only one competitor going at a time. I assumed that this was the correct sport, with a rather loose link text, and changed the text to slalom canoeing.

It seems I was wrong, as User:Bhoeble reverted my change with the comment there is slalom kayaking as well. However this still leaves a link called Slalom racing pointing at an article not about racing and not referencing slalom kayaking; either the wrong article or an article in need of a rewrite. For now I've turned these into redlinks to Slalom racing. If anyone knows better, please change . -- Chris j wood 11:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Slalom canoeing begins "Slalom canoeing is a competitive sport where the aim is to navigate a decked canoe or kayak through a course of gates on river rapids in the fastest time possible." There most certainly is a reference to kayaking there. In addition, the International Canoe Federation (the IOC-recognized IF for canoe sports) includes kayaks in the definition of canoes. The link should go to slalom canoeing.

As for the piped text, the ICF calls the event "slalom racing" [1] and time trials such as this are considered part of "racing sports". -- Jonel | Speak 12:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Looking at the IOC's page on the sport, it seems that the IOC calls the sport Canoe/Kayak and the disciplines are Canoe/Kayak Flatwater and Canoe/Kayak Slalom. Perhaps we should go for these names. -- Chris j wood 13:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

London Olympics

London Olympics previously redirected here. But given that there have been two previously, Ive changed that into a disambiguation page Robdurbar 13:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That was a good idea, and inspired me to turn it into a full article. violet/riga (t) 14:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the main article

With regard to violet/riga's attempts to delete swathes of this article, and her assertions that reversions of this are somehow illegitimate without discussiom, I am opening this section to point out that her implication that she has attempted to open a discussion and I have failed to respond to it is untrue. There is no discussion of the deletions here as anyone can see. In the absence of any attempt to explain the deletions, I believe it is as legitimate to restore deleted sections of this article as it would be to restore say the history and geography sections of the United States article if they were deleted.

This article should cover all the main aspects of the 2012 Summer Olympics. As it becomes necessary to create more breakout articles, they should be done by theme, eg transport and infrastructure, and a precis of each break out article should always be left in this article. It is not appropriate for major aspects of the Games to be covered only in the bid article, which should simply be a historical record of the of the bid up to July 2005. All aspects of the games except the bid itself will evolve, and the updated information should be in this article or in break-out articles from this article, rather than break out articles from the bid article. CalJW 14:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your tone continues your poor attitude. My intentions are clearly to improve our coverage and to state that I am simply deleting content is offensive. That content is covered by London 2012 Olympic bid and to have all of it here as well is a pointless duplication. This article should contain an overview of the organisation and not the fine details of every aspect of it. Your attempts to force your opinion shows your desire to have everything your way, sod anyone else. violet/riga (t) 14:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that third parties will see from the above that my attitude is more co-operative and more constructive than yours. You continue to rely on slurs. I don't like rows and I am not doing this for fun. I am trying to improve wikipedia, but your possessive attitude to this article makes it a very unpleasant experience. CalJW 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting and AfDing before discussion is not the correct approach. violet/riga (t) 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to CalJW's above mention of third party opinion, my view is that CalJW's attitude here and in other discussions is corrosive and detrimental to the Wikipedia project. I will also be posting this opinion on CalJW's talk page Varlan 23:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with continuing to include all the information in this article which violet/riga keeps on removing. The article may well become too big in the future and will need some information splitting out into their own articles, but I do not see this as necessary now, now the that the way it has been done is necessarily the best way of doing it. When the time comes that the article is too big I am sure that the correct and best way of splitting the article up will become evident. Until then, I say it should all be left here.

As for the argument between CalJW and Violet/riga above, I feel there is nothing wrong with the way CalJW has acted in respect to this: to me it appears that Violet/riga acted (probably unintentionally) in a way that may have appeared to be simple vandalism. A better way to go about such a dramatic change of this article would have been for them to have discussed it first (I cannot find any evidence of this taking place).

But anyway, let us keep the article as it was before these dramatic changes and then see how things develop. Evil Eye 20:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism!? Do you understand the situation at all? violet/riga (t) 21:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't saying what you did was vandalism, but that what you did could have initially been perceived as vandalism, or at least, when you add in your later work, to be an attempted to 'hide away' the information some people might find useful on a page with an obscure title (in the edits I looked at I couldn't always find a link to the page you'd moved the information too. But again I'd like to add that this isn't necessarily true and the reasoning behind what you did, but rather an possible interpretation of what someone not involved with the editing could have thought :) Evil Eye 19:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, violetriga, I think your reverts have removed much useful info. However, I agree that maybe a bit too much detail had gone into the article on the different olympic zones and on the construction timetable, given that the amount of information that could go into this article is only going to grow.

The information on the different venues was useful, I feel. For example, The 'Venues' section could be put into this aritcle, but cut off to just 1 paragraph, with a 2012 Summer Olympics Venues page (or one following the precendents set by previous Olympics, presuming that such precendents exist).

The legacy bit is good but ; could be extended to inculde some criticisms of what is being removed/lost from East London too. Budget section could go into both or either of the bid page and the development page. Announcement and developments is a good section, but could easily expand to being rediculosly big. Robdurbar 09:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Darts

Surely we have to have something about the sport of kings, darts, being included as an olympic sport. It has to happen.

Except that it's won't, so we don't. — sjorford (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Open water swimming and BMX racing

Will thesae 2 disciplines be added to the 2012 roster as well as the 2008 games? If so, I'll add them. I was just wondering because it would make sense. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pounds v. Dollars

Many values are written in pounds but there is no american dollar equilavent next to it. It would be nice to have that because I'm american and so are most of the other users. (No offense to you Brits.) haha. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Are most users of Wikipedia American? Is that a fact, or do they just share their usage of English? As the article is taking facts in Pounds it doesn't make sense to convert them to Dollars due to currency fluctations, and also the world shouldn't have to change everything it says so it makes sense to the American reader. --Spacepostman 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If we added a translation in dollars, we'd also likely have to include the Austrailian Dollar, Canadian Dollar, Euro, Yen etc. If you want to know a price in another currency, use any of the countless online converters. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with that; use domestic currency where applicable, and dollar+euro otherwise. Is that policy already? If not, it should be. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the IOC's based in Switzerland, the only translation we really ought to put in is to Swiss francs! -- Arwel (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that things should remain in pounds. There's enough places to convert it if people are really interested in finding out the amount. Sue Anne 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I support leaving it in pounds, as that is inline with the US and UK languages policy which would blanket cover the issue of currency. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so damn lazy - if you want the prices in $, do the work yourself. You can't just expect people to give you everything on a plate, just because you're American. And therefore feel that you own the internet. Apart from anything else, currency fluctuates in value all the time, i.e. your dollar is getting very very weak against the £. Have a nice day now. 01:32, 5th June 2007 (BST)

Repetitive entries

I hope that as the information related to this future event become more available, the repetitive facts and entries (some are repeated in verbatim across several sections) will be fixed. Joey80 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Broadcasting / digital switchover

Does anybody have a citation for the "Any subsequent delays in carrying out the analogue to digital switchover may result in a great many viewers being unable to watch the 2012 London Olympic games!" comment? Unless I've completely missed something, viewers would be able to watch terrestrial/analoge broadcasts if the digital switchover were delayed. Guinness 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Next year, the television in United States will be in pure digital after the broadcast of 2008 Summer Olympics. -- 13:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.125.96 (talk)

Ramadan Controversy

Shouldn't we include a section about the Olympics being scheduled during Ramadan? That's major international relations news.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410439&in_page_id=1770

Jacques Chirac Quotation

This is not releant to the article and therefore I suggest it is removed. 87.113.86.219 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Libertyleading 22:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the Pink Logo

OK, that's probably the ugliest logo out of the 50 or so different ones for the games there have ever been! I sure hope that there is an alternate one, because this is a horrible representation of the games! It's just a big mess of pink. Am I the only one here who thinks this? Maybe we should put the bid one back up and just pretend there was never a logo put out yet! Haha. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No you're not, but I'm a rare species since actually don't dislike it. I must be the weirdo around here... *sigh*

Anyway, is the BBC poll data going be updated in the article until BBC decides to close it?... Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My eyes ... my eyes ... the goggles do nossssing ....

I've heard it said that it resembles Lisa Simpson performing fellatio. Rpresser 19:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it.... Perhaps. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the undeniable proof of LOCOG's secret intention! LOL!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parutakupiu (talk • contribs) 14:38, June 4, 2007 (UTC)

I see it now. Haha! _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Goatse

[2] Someone got the Goatse picture on the BBC website when asked to do a better logo.
1)it may be worth mentioning here or in the article on B3ta
2) someone may try upload a picture of goatse in place of the logo, so watch out. 19:41, 4 June 2007 Jared

I think this might be worthy of inclusion on Goatse but not necessarily here. violet/riga (t) 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not quite "the" goatse picture though. Now, that would have been fun. Hat's off to the poster anyway. Hopefully acceptable username 16:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think the logo resembles Goatse closely enough anyway. Deletion Quality 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

BBC poll results changed!

The votes in the BBC poll for the logo have been reset (as of 1:50am UK time, 5th June), and now only 30% of voters are giving the logo a "wooden spoon". Either there's a software error at the BBC, or someone was faking the original votes. A genuine shift from 80% to 30% with several thousand voters in both samples would be extremely unlikely in such a short time. The old votes seemed to fit better with the comments on the BBC's forums. Also, if nearly all the of the old votes had been fake, I would have expected a sudden slowdown in votes when they blocked the fake voter - but in fact the new votes are accumulating quite fast. All this evidence would suggest a software bug. Anyhow, the article text no longer reflects current votes. Perhaps things will change again later when the BBC's day staff return to work. Mtford 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's something like 60% Wooden Spoon at the moment. The general reception to the new logo has been pretty bad, they were slagging it off on the radio this morning. There must be some articles in today's papers about the response...

It's now back up to 82.22% for the Wooden spoon. I still think some of the user created images are better, and cheaper! --Dayfox 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Not notable"?

Can somebody point out one blog where nobody observed what the logo actually looks like? 83.67.217.254 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:V on the subject. Wikipedia is not a collection of observations from online bloggers. Daniel^C/_T+ 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Register and Tech Digest picked it up. Verify yourself.

Also these comments are real, and so are the other thousands pointing out the similarity to Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob. It's easy to verify.

This is only the beginning, don't be in denial. 83.67.217.254 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with whomever commented that it looks more like Maggie... 83.67.217.254 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I read a related comment in the Metro. Even though the Metro is simply copying comments from blogs, this is at least one print source that has used such an explicit reference. Dr. Submillimeter 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Herald 83.67.217.254 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I want a polo shirt with this logo on, and be gardening in it in a few week's time. 83.67.217.254 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Added refs. Very appropriate logo for the XXX olympics, may I add. Hopefully acceptable username 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could have been worse, mind you... Hopefully acceptable username 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

link

please add a link to the sun monkey logo story, so that readers can compare the blowjob logo to the one produced by a monkey. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007260156,00.html

[3]

2012 Summer Olympics logo article

May I recommend creating a 2012 Summer Olympics logo article? So much has been written about the ugly logo that a lengthy, well-referenced webpage could be written on the thing. Dr. Submillimeter 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was about to suggest this myself, we will eventually have to do that. 83.67.217.254 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless anything further happens I think it will now all go stale and there won't be a need for a separate article. violet/riga (t) 10:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

the logo spells ZION and looks like a swastika!!!!

wow symbolism at its worst http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=105194 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=105197 manchurian candidate 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and get this, if you turn the logo on its side and look at with a pair of binoculars from the reverse, it faintly looks like the image of Pope Pius VI! Please, this is NOT encyclopediac AT ALL. Wildthing61476 14:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

then go on and proof your point.the fact that it spells zion is the truth and removing this from the article further validates that wikipedia is a disinfo and a cointelinpro manchurian candidate 14:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it you are objecting to the item being removed. Please find a reliable source for it before reinstating it, an internet forum where someone says they have cut up a bit of card, rearranged the pieces, cut it a bit more and then drawn a swastika on it doesn't count. Thanks. Chriswiki 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Disassembled swastika". (As well as "subliminal sex act", by the way.) Tell me if you need more. Hopefully acceptable username 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A one-off comment in an editorial won't cut it either, considering the author of said editorial is drawing from the same internet forums. Wildthing61476 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I notice that the second source reporting the swastika thing has already been added. Oh, look, another one. Need more?

"the author of said editorial is drawing from the same internet forums" So what? Isn't what people wrote on blogs the subject matter? Hopefully acceptable username 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I now see in the article, I have no problem with this being adding. My point of contention was with the initial mention, which was the Zion/swastika reference, which read more like a conspiracy theory. Wildthing61476 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully acceptable username 16:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

i propose to add a separate article about conspiracy behind the logo and i see that swastika has been added in the article but is vaguely mentioned and there is no mention of the word ZION. manchurian candidate 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is because, as Wildthing61476 said, nobody could find a reliable and verifiable source for that. Hopefully acceptable username 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

lmao you need a source ,your eyes are the greatest source,write the damm logo in a straight line.hypocrites... manchurian candidate 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Be civil in your comments and stop with the personal attacks. Wildthing61476 19:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

why are you editng my work,whats wrong in adding the zion arrangement.is this company is controlled by them? manchurian candidate 12:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Will you stop flailing your arms now please? It's distracting. 205.228.74.11 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be added, you can see it says Zion here is a link to something about it http://thecosmicmind.blogspot.com/2008/04/london-olympics-2012-zion-new-jerusalem.html if we can add it looks like Lisa or a Nazi sign i don't see why we cant add it looks like Zion - Chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.146.112 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Technical criticism of logo

I think we should add some more technical criticism. I heard experts bashing it for obvious and objective design mistakes, like the fact that the word "london" is too small and will not be readable on most web pages. Hopefully acceptable username 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all very subjective though. I don't think "London" will be too hard to read in most cases, and even if it is the logo will be very recognisable. violet/riga (t) 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources making those technical criticisms, by all means, add them. Those would be a much better addition to this article than "ZOMG LISA SIMSN BLOJOB ZIONIST NAZI PROPAGANDA!!!1!!one!". -- Jonel | Speak 12:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

logo is bad

I think it looks like puke. It's styled like the 80's. "london" looks like it was typed on by a 12 year old girl in MS Paint. Its not for another 5 years, maybe the world's outrage will change it. It IS the olympics tho, even puke looks ok with the olympic logo on it.

Well, look at this page, specifically at the image. Looks beautiful with those flags and the bid logo, but then add this new pink one to those flags, remove the ribbon one, and hey presto! Utter disgrace. Gammondog 12:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you think the logo's horrible, I'm terrified of what they may be thinking for the mascot. Deletion Quality 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, It's a godawful logo. Like We don't have enough reasons for the rest of the world to make fun of us! All theat Money that could have been put elsewhere but instead, was chucked away on such rubbish. Conquistador2k6 23:47 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• If it's any consoltation the bot message below means it'll probably be deleted anyway, as Wikipedia continues to move towards an image-less model. 68.146.8.46 01:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:London2012.png

Image:London2012.png 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 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 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 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Boardcasting controversy

• Please update the list of confirmed broadcasters in Hong Kong, Cable TV Hong Kong, a pay TV operator. [4] It is noted that Cable TV is a non-over-the-air television system. The only two over-the-air television stations in Hong Kong, TVB and ATV, issued a joint-declaration and said that "it is a grant violates the Olympic doctrine, seriously hurting public interest while neglecting their right to be informed."[5] It is the first time in HK which a Summer Olympics broadcasting right have been given to a pay TV network. Some legislators and athletes also rise concern on the issue. 219.131.253.222 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

LOGO

why is there no logo at the top!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.179.159 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hidden halfway through the article because everybody's ashamed of it. --67.160.32.3 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Critisism/controversy

Is there any reason why there isn't a criticism/controversy section?

perfectblue (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There certainly should be a criticism/controversy section. I live in London and I hear 2012 olympic criticism/controversy on an almost daily basis.Veej (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not if there is controversy (obviously there is), but how it's presented. Criticism sections are discouraged as per WP:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure. Paulbrock (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Says the man who supports the London Olympics - obviously with you about there will be no mention of any negative feelings towards the games - work in a big building by Tower Bridge do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.192.183 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Logo

Maybe it's just me but the alternate logo (image at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2012.Alternate.jpg ) is just about as irrelevant an image as you could include in an article, yes it is a logo with "London 2012" but that's all. In addition It was uploaded by a user bearing the same user name as the linked website address and other than an exercise in graphic art it isn't notable and in my view is more an exercise in self promotion.

Can anyone provide a rationale for keeping it? - because I certainly can't find one! M100 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention above that there is a a VERY weak rationale (unsurprisingly by the user who uploaded the image) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aldaron M100 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as there's an alternate log displayed here (maybe it should even change every now and then), I'm happy. But having no alternate logo, considering the controversy surrounding the selected one, would be an omission. If you can find a more notable one that's also free or CC, feel free to replace. Also note that there's nothing sinister about my posting this one. I posted it when I realized that it's among the top few results returned by a Google image search for "alternate 2012 logos, and the first one that's free and available in any kind of decent resolution. — Aldaron • T/C 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with M100 here - examples of logos that were considered and rejected by London 2012 may deserve a mention, but showing a logo (presumably) designed after the unveiling of the official one is irrelevant, and falls foul of WP:MADEUP. And linking from the caption to a personal website, is a violation of WP:COI. By all means mention alternative designs were submitted,and that the BBC ran a competition, but the image is not appropriate, so I've removed it. Paulbrock (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You've conflated two things here. You may feel that WP:MADEUP and WP:COI apply, but it's still important that some logo appear here to show an example of an alternative design. If someone can come up with a free or CC one, then by all means upload it and use it in place of the deleted one. Until then I'd like to restore this one (but will wait a bit to see if we can get a replacement). — Aldaron • T/C 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is it a logo you designed, or just one that you're hosting? What's the source of the image? Paulbrock (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of sports

Could someone who knows please clarify under the "sports" section. It states that London will have 29 sports, but that it's original bid had 28 before a sport was drop, which seems to imply that there should be 27 sports. I think a clarification of this would be helpful, if for no other reason than to double check these numbers. Bradenkeith (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC) — 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's 26. Two sports were dropped: baseball and softball. From looking at the list of sports that was on there, it looks as if someone just counted up the lines, not realizing that the four Aquatics disciplines had been given separate lines. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Logo

I've been in a little logo war with an unregistered user and I just want to clarify why I keep replacing the old grey one with the one I uploaded. SVG is the superior format, and the old grey logo looks like crap. I'll gladly tint the SVG logo grey under consensus. The SVG logo is the one that appears on the official website in a variety of colours, and there isn't a grey logo in sight. -- _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found a clear version of the logo [6], which is a lot better than that rubbishy grey one, yet is still more neutral than pink. I know it's not SVG, but I don't have the means of creating in image in that format, so if someone else could transform it over, that would be helpful. Gammondog (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

£9.3 bn or £2 bn?

Hey, I'm using parts of this article for GCSE coursework (not directly, but in my words). It's a wealth of information ;) Just one thing... in other parts of the article (and the web), it says that the government raised the estimates to GB£9.3 bn. At one stage, it states the percentages of where the money is coming from. But it says that it is £2 bn. Is this for just a part of the olympics or is this a mistake? Go to edit this page.. then press Ctrl+F. Try finding this "<!-- 9.3 billion? -->" without the quotes. This is the part I'm talking about. I'll see any comments on this discussion page, since I'll be around this article for a while ^_^... --82.44.252.196 (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The total cost of everything Olympics-related(venue construction, contingency, infrastructure etc) is £9 billion. The staging of the games itself (presumably staffing, consumables,etc) is £2 billion, which is included in the £9 billion. Basically it'll cost £7 billion up until Summer 2012, then a further £2 billion for the event itself (slightly simplistic but you get the idea!) Paulbrock (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, alright, thanks! :) --82.44.252.196 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is the correct logo?

I noticed that Image:London Olympics 2012 logo.png has replaced the original Image:London Olympics 2012 logo.svg. I'm just wondering, has the official logo changed? Which is the real one? –  LATICS  talk  17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the official logo. There are 4 standard colours, but it's blockiness means it can be filled in with whatever the organisers want (so far, there have been images of the stadiums, of certain events, and of the Union Flag). This new one you just mentioned is a plain white version, rather than a coloured version, that's all. 86.136.103.34 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)