This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
2024 Summer Olympics is within the scope of WikiProject Multi-sport events. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Multi-sport eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Multi-sport eventsTemplate:WikiProject Multi-sport eventsMulti-sport events articles
Other : Articles on multi-sport events, less the Olympic and Paralympic Games, need to be tagged on their talk pages with {{WikiProject Multi-sport events}}.
2006 and 2007 deletion debates
This article was nominated for deletion on March 6, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 December 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.
This article was nominated for deletion review on 2007 January 5. The result of the discussion was overturn restore and relist.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Thelma Davies (Liberia) is also in the 200m as well as the 100m It would be nice if that got added, same goes for Jereem Richards of Trinidad who is in the 200m as well as the 400m DominikPrz (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone help to protect this article from anonymous users? Because these users are very annoying, especially when updating the nation list. Apart from that, I also have some concerns that these irresponsible users will damage the article, as we are getting closer to the Olympics Amnom Darius (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the information bar on the top right of the page, the number of nations should be changed to 199 to reflect the nations added to the number (namely Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe and Seychelles) Aerror44 (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Izno (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Italian contingent is officially 403 athletes as the Chinese one is of 405. Check all the sources and you’ll find it. I’m Italian btw and I study Chinese so I understand also articles in Mandarin. In Italian every newspaper can support the number and the Italian ministry of Sport confirmed it. For the Chinese contingent go check the South Morning China newspaper cause is in English if you don’t speak Mandarin, it’s officially 405 athletes. Who’s able to modify the article, please change this. Thank you. 79.23.1.30 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
the Italian contingent is officially 403 athletes as the Chinese one is of 405. Check all the sources and you’ll find it. I’m Italian btw and I study Chinese so I understand also articles in Mandarin. In Italian every newspaper can support the number and the Italian ministry of Sport confirmed it. For the Chinese contingent go check the South Morning China newspaper cause is in English if you don’t speak Mandarin, it’s officially 405 athletes. Who’s able to modify the article, please change this. Thank you. 79.23.1.30 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Izno (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extra paragraph in Posters referring a series of Olympic-themed artwork
A note to the mods diligently removing anything they themselves did not contribute. This is supposed to be a contributory project where more than just the assigned mods bring in information to the public. Before you delete the extra paragraph please note by doing so you are depriving potentially millions of the public from being informed about this entire set of artwork dedicated to the Olympics and that seem (to several people at least) far superior and more inspirational than the official IOC poster. There is nothing on Wikipedia that says the page on the Olympics (2024 Games or any for that reason) should be only about posters created solely by the IOC. In fact the 100 plus citations at the end of the article shows 100 plus contributions that are NOT the IOC, so why delete this extra informational and public-beneficial paragraph? Breezepub (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all this seems like an attack on one editor that deleted your first attempt claiming it to be promotional. After looking at it myself, I would tend to agree. It is all primary sourced from the publisher of the content. LinkedIn is not a reliable source primarily because it is self-published. The other source is the publisher's website. Just because you find something interesting does not make it notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. As for the citations not being IOC content. They are independent sources (like you should have) that back up what is being shown in the article. Not even remotely the same thing. Chris1834Talk14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
strongly disagree with your rationaliation, notable because I didnt find anything remotely similar despite canvassing the web for a couple of weeks. You are just blabbing a pre-recorded message without thinking which is not why this is supposed to be open and contributory. Supposed is relative. As long as we clean up grammar errors and omissions then it is ok for us to volunteer but if we add something someone not part of the original mods setting up a page, then it becomes a matter of judicious opinions. Where am I attaking a mod? Are you attempting to intimdate me by accusing me of conduct I did not make? Having an opinion different than those who are automatically deleting valuable contributions is "attacking"????? I stand by my comments, the paragph you have deleted is invaluable to the public and you have deleted it twice so far without providing a valid reason. The information and source are both valid and notable since there are arent anything remotely similar on the web, Linkedin is a valid news source because the corporation did publish the announcement I mentioned in the paragraph. First and foremost you ought not delete a paragraph that is under discussion, rule anywhere on any team effort. You dont see it? Lame Wikipedia culture still as lame as 20 years ago when I tried my hand at contributing useful information omitted to the public. Are you and you buddies and your management somehow deluding the public by pretending all these hoops on wikipedia makes this a "fair and unbiased" encyclopedic resource? 2603:8000:5903:A7D5:A06F:BEFC:CCAA:94DC (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't agree with the reason doesn't make it not valid. Wikipedia is open to all to edit but here are guidelines to keep information reliable. See WP:REPUTABLE. The first line states that it should be based on reliable, INEDPENDENT, published sources. None of you sources are independent which makes them not reputable. See also WP:RSSELF talking about "self-published sources are largely not acceptable". See also WP:RSPLINKEDIN declaring LinkedIn as generally unreliable based on 10 conversations previously held on the topic due to its self-published nature. Notable doesn't have to do with the publisher, it has to do with the content. I can't find anything about this content anywhere except your sources which are not reliable according to the majority of editors. Not sure how you think this all works but I have no "manager" and I don't even know any of the other editors on here other than discussions had on talk pages. If what you want to post is a good addition than every Olympic item that is out there should be added to this article. The article would be so long, it wouldn't be useful to anyone. There is nothing unfair or biased about any of this. All of these policies have been discussed and agreed upon by the majority of editors. Anyone can propose a change to these policies and open a discussion about it. Chris1834Talk19:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you are using circular logic to validate your actions and the other mods' actions: "Just because you don't agree with the reason doesn't make it not valid." this is what you have done, you DISAGREED WITH THE CONTRIBUTION, you are attempting hard to invadidate its value to this page and to the body of information presented, it is YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION, AND YOU STARTED OFF BY ATTACKING a new source of information and by labeling as an "attack on the editors", your reflex response is telling of the culture wikipedia engenders in its "senior" members. After 20 years, the management at wikipedia has only indoctrinated guidlines that only made this "resource" worse than when it started off. Breezepub (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris$$$$@& "The first line states that it should be based on reliable, INEDPENDENT, published sources. None of you sources are independent which makes them not reputable."
None of my sources are independent???
You mean to suggest Citadel Consulting Group LLC is a subsidiary of the ACME Media Empire???? Are you saying if these posters from West Coast ----- and Citadel Consulting ---- were regurgitated by the Washington Post it would be INDEPENDENT AND REPUTABLE source? The same Washington Post that was raked by scandals and for flaunting basic minimal journalistic standards???Reputable?
and lets not forget that half of what is published by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald and Wall Street Journal and now almost defunct TIME magazine are sourced from AP (the Associated Press), you call THAT independent? None of the big media are INDEPENDENT, THEY ARE OWNED BY THREE OR FOUR INDUSTRIAL CONGLOMERATES like GE and AT&T. What standards are these of Wikipedia, outdated, obsolete and only to make its invaluable information the "little boys and girls club" for a small group of elitist players? Breezepub (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt see from mods erasing that valuable extra information on additional professional artwork posters celebrating the Olympics anything that remotely resembles COACHING other wikipedia members (on this tab or many others) or those who join. the underhandness of your conduct is more than off putting (revealing no control and compliance on basic standards - just constant waving of "notable" guidelines that are meant as guidelines not as a tool of disinclusion. You excuse your conduct publicly and pre-emptively by accusing someone volunteering their time amd effort as "attack" to somehow imply their contribution is faulty and justify only your information as valid and valuable when it is not inclusive and open, contrary to the "mission and vision" of wikipedia. You think with each passing year and this "rationalized" conduct of your mods goes unnoticed, even by those without a background in mass communications and principles and theories in propaganda? You do know that in 20 years of testing and sampling your product I never noticed anything remotely similar to auditing being applied by an audit firm to Wikipedia and its baseless pretenses, for a group that has a monopoly on what is included and omitted as information to such a huge audience worldwide? Your team of deleting mods do not have any kind of credibility that the business community on Linkedin expects of firms doing business in the usa or anywhere. Breezepub (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
strongly disagree with your rationaliation, notable because I didnt find anything remotely similar despite canvassing the web for a couple of weeks. You are just blabbing a pre-recorded message without thinking which is not why this is supposed to be open and contributory. Supposed is relative. As long as we clean up grammar errors and omissions then it is ok for us to volunteer but if we add something someone not part of the original mods setting up a page, then it becomes a matter of judicious opinions. Where am I attaking a mod? Are you attempting to intimdate me by accusing me of conduct I did not make? Having an opinion different than those who are automatically deleting valuable contributions is "attacking"????? I stand by my comments, the paragph you have deleted is invaluable to the public and you have deleted it twice so far without providing a valid reason. The information and source are both valid and notable since there are arent anything remotely similar on the web, Linkedin is a valid news source because the corporation did publish the announcement I mentioned in the paragraph. First and foremost you ought not delete a paragraph that is under discussion, rule anywhere on any team effort. You dont see it? Lame Wikipedia culture still as lame as 20 years ago when I tried my hand at contributing useful information omitted to the public. Are you and you buddies and your management somehow deluding the public by pretending all these hoops on wikipedia makes this a "fair and unbiased" encyclopedic resource? Breezepub (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attacking you Chris#$@!!, this is what 50 years of experience in the business world looks like when critizing a lesser experienced professional acting without decades of experience in the rear view mirror, if you and your buddies feel threatened by the least disagreement in a supposed "open" setting for contributions, you should be doing something else somewhere else and not as a mod on "this grand design" of nothing more than misinformation by omission. Breezepub (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris$#@? you have cleverly redirected the conversation away from the issue. I included an extremely valuable bit of information on a source of artwork celebrating the Olympics of 2024 and the upcoming 2026, a source of artwork superior to the posters produced by the International Olympic Committee. I have cited Linkedin (and you have questioned the source when it can easily verified firsthand by anyone). \
Linkedin is a highly respected business community and anything published by Linkedin corporate members CAN BE VERIFIED FIRST HAND BY ANYONE, a basic element of journalistic fact-checking which you have shushhed in your retorts.
That is adherence to "notable" guidelines to make use of them for barring others from being included. That is what the "notable" guidelines are and they nothing more than guidlines, you and all other mods have used them as absolutes and interpreted them strictly to prevent anyone other than the "baptized official mods" from shaping up the info on this Olympic page and anywhere else in the Wikipedia kingdom. Breezepub (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a source of artwork superior to the posters produced by the International Olympic Committee" - this is an opinion, not a fact. The verification of what is posted on LinkedIn is the companies own website. Neither of these are third-party sources. I don't know what to say. You obviously don't agree with the policies that have been established by the community, not some allusive management you keep referring to. By your reasoning on this item, anything that relates to the Olympics that has its own website should be included in this article. Here is an Olympic needlepoint: https://pennylinndesigns.com/products/paris-2024-olympic-rings I think it is fun. It is published by it's creator on the web. Does this warrant inclusion on this page?. If you think it does not, then why your item and not this?
On the same line of thinking, we should also have mentions of every piece of artwork out there in the appropriate article. Why is this set of artwork more important than all the other artwork out there? Can you imagine if we included a paragraph about every piece of artwork that exists in the world? That is why the community established notability guidelines. You say notability was something created to keep "other" people from "shaping" Wikipedia. Would you come to Wikipedia if every article included a paragraph about every piece of artwork ever created for that topic? Chris1834Talk21:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and there you are again with a lengthy reply that obscures the basic arguments against deleting the new paragraph on those 20 some posters
" The verification of what is posted on LinkedIn is the companies own website. " yes of course it is, otherwise you would not be able to verify as correct the statement made by the publication (WEST COAST MIDNIGHT RUN), in other words it is NOT HEARSAY OR VERBAL, it is a published comment on a highly visible platform where corporate managers and executives trade comments. Do you and the other mods on Wikipedia have your CV and credentials published anywhere, as do all members on Linkedin? Where are YOUR professional credentials??? none to be seen.
I stated that the publisher CITADEL CONSULTING GROUP LLC announced a series of art posters dedicated to THE OLYMPICS, more than 20 plus posters to be published over two years until the upcoming 2026 Italian Games. I cited my statement in the Wikipedia paragraph using THE OFFICIAL COMMENT MADE BY THE PUBLISHER, CITADEL on Linkedin where it was announced. A journalist requires to fact check a citation, and in this case you dont have to call the Sacramento Office of Publishers' Clearinghouse, the comment made in Wikpedia can be LOOKED UP DIRECTLY, FIRST HAND, by anyone bothering to do a fact checking effort. The publisher, Citadel, INDEED MADE THE ANNOUNCEMENT. There is no further checking to be done. Do you need a signed letter from Citadel to Wikipedia vouching for the announcement? The announcement is basically a press release on Linkedin and it can be verified by anyone and everyone. The conmnent on Wikipedia is verified and verifiable. End of story.
The difference is that the item you pointed out is completely non-notable from a vendor selling a crochet tabletop item. THE VENDOR IS AN UNKNOWN QUANTITY and may have for one month or one year setup a page to sell this Olympic themed crochet tabletop canvas. Conversely the publisher Citadel ---- has been online for more than 20 years, practically forever, HUGE DIFFERENCE, and the publisher has published news and entertainment segments as its SOLE PRODUCT, they are not selling knicknack and snacks or paper tissue to wipe your tears you find at the local store or supermarket. The publisher has created a series of dramatic art posters, telling a story via artwork of the Olympics, which in my opinion and several of my colleagues where I did a first pass to see if they pass muster, all agreed Citadel's artwork was superior to the posters released officially by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) but YOU DELETING THE PARAGRAPH AND REFERENCE ARE BARRING AND REMOVING THE OPTION FOR THE PUBLIC TO JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES. YOU OPINION IS NOW HELD SUPREME TO THE PUBLIC'S OWN.
By removing the paragraph, you have blithely followed an outdated set of GUIDEDLINES THAT YOU AND YOUR COMRADES ARE TREATING AS ABSOLUTES (your Notability criteria cannot foresee every situation hence we have mods - supposedly people - and not AI programs - but you keep this up and I am first in line to recommend they replace you mods with AI) and did NOT FOR ONE MOMENT EXERCISE PROFESSIONAL JUSGEMENT
Perhaps you are not a journalist or a media professional in evaluating that this bit of information could be valuable to the public and it is UP TO THE PUBLIC TO MAKE UP ITS OWN MIND IF CITADEL'S ARTWORK is in fact superior to the posters created by the International Olympic Commmittee (IOC).
DIRECT RELEVANCE TO YOUR PAGE ON THE 2024 OLYMPICS
Yes sure there are tons of knicknacks out there on the Olympics, merchandise, t-shirts, coffee mugs, but YOUR PAGE MENTIONED POSTERS and this WEST COAST MIDNIGHT RUN IS A PUBLICATION, PART MAGAZINE PART LIFESTYLE EDITORIALS, THAT CREATED 2024 OLYMPICS POSTERS, A SERIES OF 20 PLUS POSTERS ON THE OLYMPICS SO IT HAD VALID REASON TO BE INCLUDED IN YOUR PARAGRAPH ON THE 2024 OLYMPIC POSTERS.
your brief training session is over Chris, and you can continue to argue defending yourself, your lack of judgement and your ability like a robot to follow guidelines which you interpret as absolutes. I have decades of experience in industry and I was unable to find anything on the web remotely similar to these art posters on the 2024 Olympics, it is in itself a notable criteria and I would not be wasting my time with all these lengthy explanations if in my professional opinion they were not deemed worthy of inclusion. Are you an Olympics art expert in some way? do you have a fine arts background or a diploma in graphic design? what are your credentials and reasons for holding your opinion above my explanations??? SHOW ME SOME OTHER 2024 OLYMPIC ART POSTERS that you can find on the web today, this month, that makes this series of art posters UNREMARKABLE AND NON NOTABLE!!!!Breezepub (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Izno (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)