Jump to content

Talk:Chronological summary of the 2008 Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope of this page

[edit]

Is this page going to contain only results from the games or other features of the games eg. drugs scandals, injuries to notable athletes or protests etc? Do they count as 'highlights'? The winter olympics one linked has pretty much only results and the opening/closing ceremonies but does have some other info. Franmars (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any clear policy for this, but I believe the 2006 Winter Olympics highlights serves as a good model. Lampman (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being featured prominently on Wikipedia's Main page, and not coming about as a result of an unexpected event, I thought this page looked quite flimsy. I was rather expecting an entire portal dedicated to the Beijing Olympics. __meco (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say this page bears witness to the development that WP has gone through in just the last two years. In the 2006 Winter Olympics highlights page there is not ONE (1!) reference.
Now – two years later – no information will be accepted without thorough, reliable sourcing. I'd say that's development... Lampman (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the event where one Samoan boxer had to be carried off a stretcher in boxing good enough to be here? --Howard the Duck 16:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that spectacular injuries (though I'm not sure about the Samoan), drugs disqualifications, "Eric the Eel" performances etc, all lie within the scope of this page, as long as they get significant coverage in the press. Once the Games are over, we can then go back and see which are important in retrospect. Bluap (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've said it, it seems that incident wasn't widely covered and there several more knockouts (though none needed stretchers) on the second day.
But where is the death of the U.S. volleyball coach? That seems important. --Howard the Duck 18:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were the coach himself, it would be worth pointing out. However, it's the father-in-law of the coach, which is sufficiently far removed that, while it might be of local interest (so perhaps worth a mention on the US page), it isn't globally notable. Bluap (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this topic being presented in English or what? It's soccer in English, not football. Football is not an Olympic sport. Sadly enough.JGC1010 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is called soccer only in American English. Since the rest of the world outside USA still prefers British English, the sport in question is and will continue to be called football, just as the track lengths in athletic and swimming events as well as distances in shooting or archery are measured in metres, not feets. Also, observe the BE spelling in official material issued by the Olympic committees, or any international sports federation for that matter. Timbouctou (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Aussies and Canadians, both former British colonies also call it soccer. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Australian's now call it football, and officially, the IOC calls the sport football122.148.217.171 (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)mightymouseman[reply]
The Aussie FA officially calls it football but how the general populace is sorta disputed. –Howard the Duck 03:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments here have me concerned. The problem with "highlights" is who is deciding they are a highlight? One editor has already commented about going back after it is over and removing ones which weren't important. This seems to be like it is dancing dangerously with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. An argument could be made that any event being picked up by more than a couple sources could be considered a highlight. An editor, or editors going back and cherry picking the news items they like the most seems like a big problem to me. It seems that this type of page would be better left to wikinews and not wikipedia. Individual medal winners, notable stories, etc will already be covered on the respective nations/athletes/medal pages.--Crossmr (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, and just one voice... but it seems like a top level case of forgetting WP:NOT (e.g. Journalism, and especially Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization). The exception given there is if "the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." - which the Olympics might be, but 'highlights from..' is not. - If I had created this page or a similar one I would just be sitting and waiting for someone to list it on AfD. But hey IAR, huh? Brando130 (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, this is a good repository of facts (and references) from which Encyclopedia Entries can be made. Consider a black and white image, seen in close-up: there are brighter spots and dimmer spots, but when viewed at a further distance it can be seen that some portions which appeared a highlight when viewed from a narrow perspective are lesser highlights than those which can be seen from a better vantage. An arbitrary decision will necessarily be made as to which part of the range of 'bright' is a 'highlight'.
I don't have any problem with there being changes, additions and excisions to this material. Once it has been here it will be here, and can be used appropriately by our volunteer crew. I favor an inclusionist stance at this point, regarding this article's content -- within reason and excepting specifically vanity and promotional text... which should be strangled at birth with its own umbilicus. (perhaps, to continue the analogy I should say 'snuffed with its own snuffer') User:Pedant (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of Highlights

[edit]

Are we using UTC, China Standard Time or some other time? CB (ö) 00:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that we should use local (ie Chinese) time when determining the dates. In particular, the morning swimming finals will air in the US in the day _before_ they actually happen... Bluap (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, most broadcasters keep track of the days by local time, so we should too. -- Scorpion0422 01:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup Champions should be for Youth

[edit]

The IOC only allows under 21 teams to participate and used FIFA and regional under 20 tournaments as qualifiers, see here: Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's qualification. Therefore we should referrer to FIFA U-20 World Cup FIFA under 20 World Cup champions as the reigning World Cup champions for the purposes. That means that Argentina NOT Italy should be listed. As Argentina won the FIFA U-20 World Cup in 2007, 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RabbleRouser (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Olympics is an under-23 event, with 3 overaged players so it's not right to cite either Argentina or Italy as "World Cup" champions. Maybe with a qualifier? --Howard the Duck 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of gold medal winners

[edit]

I think we should list gold medal winners for every Olympic day alphabetically according to the sport involved. It would make the day tables easier to go through. It seems a bit chaotic this way, with entries put in chronological order by the times they were won. So for instance, the table for Day 2 could have Korea women's archery medal on top, followed by cycling, diving, fencing, judo, swimming and weightlifting medals. Also, we need to set a clear policy regarding team sports and events involving more than one competitor. I suggest that events involving one or two competitors are listed the way they are, while events involving 3 or more (including team sports such as handball, football, relays and so forth) should have all members of the team listes in smaller font size, with 3 or 4 competitors per line. Just to make things tidy. Timbouctou (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, except for the final issue about forcing the number of competitors per line. I think that we should let the user's browser determine the best way of splitting the list of competitors, depending on the available width. (We should definitely shrink the font for these, though) Bluap (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course, shrinking to 90% font included :-) Also, it would be nice to sort the highlights by sports, too. I took the liberty of doing that for day 2 highlights. Timbouctou (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day 03 medallists table

[edit]

Here's the table of medal awarding events for Day 03, August 11. It's alphabetically ordered by sport and event and is ready to be used for the upcoming day. Simply a matter of filling in the blanks with names and references. It should save some time to everyone editing this article, so feel free to use it once the day starts :-) Timbouctou (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Medalists
Sport Event Competitor NOC Rec Ref
Archery Men's team
Diving Men's synchronised 10 m platform
Fencing Women's foil
Judo Men's 73 kg
Judo Women's 57 kg
Shooting Men's 10 m air rifle
Shooting Women's trap
Swimming Men's 100 m breaststroke
Swimming Men's 4 x 100 m freestyle relay
Swimming Women's 100 m butterfly
Swimming Women's 400 m freestyle
Weightlifting Men's 62 kg
Weightlifting Women's 58 kg

--I went on ahead and wrote up day 4's gold medal events as such and posted them on the article. If anyone decides it's too early please post the code here before you get all deletionist on me. - preschooler@heart 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size

[edit]

After a little over two days this page is 27k with over 40 footnotes. Multiplied by 8 - for 16 days - that will be over 200k and over 300 footnotes. This is far excessive of what is recommended for WP articles, any suggestions for how to make it more acceptable in the long run? Lampman (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such numbers can be avoided. The Olympics comprise 302 events, which means the article will have a minimum of 302 footnotes for referencing gold medallists alone. And since the highlights page is expected to offer additional info, such as notable records set and other interesting occurances, and since I assume an average number of such notes could be around 5 per day at minimum, we will get another 80 references just for these entries. I have no idea how we could cut down the number of total references to under 350-400 without compromising the purpose of the article. Timbouctou (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, we could simply wait for the official website to publish a list of all medallists in a particular sport and then make it the sole reference for all the medallists competing in the particular sport. Or something like that. But such lists will become available only after the games are over. Timbouctou (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, articles of excessive length have certain technical and reader issues, and according to Wikipedia:Article size, articles over 100k "Almost certainly should be divided". It's not a problem yet, but maybe in time we should think of splitting it up into two (long) weeks? Lampman (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the KB total is for the formatting of the tables, and for references. The meaningful number is the amount of readable prose, which is much less. Bluap (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. You could also ask if it's really necessary with individual references for every single gold medal, when the official page (with sub-pages) provides it all. Lampman (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's worth including every gold medal winner. Otherwise, we would just be prejudiced towards whichever sports are popular in the countries where the editors happen to be. Perhaps, once it starts to get much larger, we could split it into two pages - one for each week. Bluap (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split the list of gold medalists on a separate article. --Howard the Duck 05:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what bluap stated previously. Perhaps if we're worried about length, could we could find a way to "hide" the tables such as the medal boxes on athlete pages? preschooler@heart 05:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They'd still load no matter what happens so it'll still violate WP:SIZE. --Howard the Duck 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in terms of making the article look neat and concise and be easy to read and sort. However, would it remove code from this article to move them to templates and place the templates in the appropriate spots? see my userpage and the way I coded it for an example. preschooler@heart 07:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, if the article is still big with all of the hidden things + templates if it reaches a certain size it won't load especially for very slow connections.
Another way to reduce size is to just say "United States 4x400 swimming team" instead of listing everyone's name. Imagine football (soccer), there are like 18 names to be added there. --Howard the Duck 07:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if most/all of the Olympic and World records referenced the official records page here? I know it doesn't show the exact events, but ... this might help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegebookworm (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:SIZE, it does talk about the amount of readable prose. Using the quick calculation of readable prose, the article is actually 10KB long, as opposed the the 30KB figure that appears when you edit the page. Bluap (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't wanna be Chicken Little here, but once the article size does get into the sextuplet digits, here are some of the suggestions that have been made to reduce it:

  • Instead of individual references, use sources like this (medalists) and this (records), combined with the <ref name="name"/> formula
  • Dropdown lists (will help with readability, if not with article size)
  • In the case of team victories (including relays), mention only team, not individual medallists

Lampman (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Records?

[edit]

Do people feel that Olympic Records are enough of a highlight to be included in the bullet-points here? My own opinions is that the Olympics are only held every 4 years, so it's almost a certainty that the Olympic Record will be broken in nearly every event. World records, on the other hand, are a much more significant achievement, and do deserve special highlighting. Bluap (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the context of the gold medalists tables, I think they're worth mentioning as "OR" in the appropriate box. In bullets, I think it should be mentioned, provided that the event is notable enough for a bullet-point without that information. - preschooler@heart 05:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is "merely" having beating the Olympic record in a qualifying round sufficient to warrant a mention in the bullet-point list? I'm growing more and more convinced that it isn't. Bluap (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add how many records were broken in this olympics it could be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.58.40 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: Portal:Current events/Sports

[edit]

It's a given that this'll be targeted for AFD so I'd suggest the editors here also add something to the portal above. The thing is the references are not on footnote style but inline style. And the page has no size restrictions since technically it's not an article. –Howard the Duck 03:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD problem has been solved, and the sports portal comes nowhere near fulfilling the purpose of this page. Lampman (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sez who? Solved for now. Basically those who said keep said to wait after the Olympics are over. Who knows what will happen after that. –Howard the Duck 04:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, what will happen is that no-one'll care about this page so much. The moment the Olympics stop, the traffic to this page will drop from millions a day to almost nothing, over night. At that point it's not such a big deal what's done with it, though I think by then it will have proven its right to exist. Lampman (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're basically saying when traffic to a page is minimal it should be deleted? –Howard the Duck 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, during the duration of the Games, we should put the current day at the top, then every previous day in the reverse order, kind of like Recent Deaths. Chanheigeorge (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008 in sports goes by days. It's better to make this a sub-page of 2008 in sports, which goes by events, and transclude to show at 2008 in sports#Olympics. --PFHLai (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikistan's first medal

[edit]

I believe that their first medal should be mentioned on this page as the same was done for Togo today. I am new and therefore am not comfortable making this edit myself. I am sorry if this is a misuse of the talk page but I think this issue should be resolved. --Weather130 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else already did it, but you are encouraged to be bold. - BanyanTree 03:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnastics

[edit]
Copied from my user talk page

Hi Jao. I noticed you removed the gymnastics bit from August 12. I added it especially because the US not at all expected to medal, and the Chinese were under extreme pressure to win. Also, if this is not worthy of inclusion in the article, why do we list stuff like, "Norway qualifies for the quarterfinals of the women's football tournament with a 1–0 win over New Zealand" or other seemingly routine scores? Thanks, Fang Aili talk 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to list all medals won under extreme pressure or unexpectedly as highlights, the list would easily get very long. As for the quarter-final qualifiers in women's football (or any other tournament), I for one don't think we should keep that kind of information. I do realize that there might be a rationale in the football and basketball tournaments (and some others) getting a lot of medial attention, even at an early stage, but I still think qualifying for the quarter-finals can hardly be considered an Olympics-wide highlight. -- Jao (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, then. Thanks. --Fang Aili talk 01:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered the inclusion of preliminary round info, when they don't include broken world record or other "firsts", to be rather questionable as well. I have removed the pre-Opening Ceremony sections. - BanyanTree 03:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page link

[edit]

Why was the link take off the main page? It is really useful right now. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name

[edit]

OK, this has been brought up a few times, both around the ITN pages and during the recent AfD adventure, but since we are discussing this page, here is probably the best place. "Highlights" is probably not the best title, as regardless of the content of the page, it brings up problems of OR and NPOV. Results, is not the best title either really, regardless of my own comments before on other pages. Perhaps something like "Chronological coverage of the 2008 Summer Olympics" or "2008 Summer Olympics by day". Random89 08:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Chronological summary of the 2008 Summer Olympics"? Bluap (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I just argued on the '2006 Winter Olympics highlights' page, the word 'highlights' should probably be avoided in these articles - it misleads people as to what they actually are (a summary of all the major events from the Olympics, not just arbitrarily-chosen highlights). I would support any of the alternate names proposed above. Terraxos (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you three. This would mean that for consistency's sake we should change the title of the other "highlight" articles for the other olympics but this shouldn't be a problem. I think the fuss was largely (but not solely) based around the use of the word highlight and moving the article would address that concern quite painlessly. Witty Lama 16:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am going to wait until at least a few days after the end of the olympics, then I will move both these pages. Out of the suggestion here and on the AfD page, the one that seems to best describe the article is Bluap's suggestion "Chronological summary of the 2008 Summer Olympics". Random89 08:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

days

[edit]

since the start was Aug 6, I've added days -2 and -1, as the first day of competition is a notable highlight, I've indicated it. As the first day of competition outside of the China Olympic NOC zone is also notable, I've listed it at Day 0 with Hong Kong's start of events. 70.55.86.69 (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer (football)

[edit]

WTF? How could anyone be confused by calling it football? Even Americans (and I am one) realize that everybody else calls it football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.139.16 (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Americans use wikipedia by far than the brits so we should use the terms that is more widely reconized , i.e. soccer.

The IOC calls it football, it appears in the list of events as football, hence we should call it football. -- Hongooi (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ioc sucks also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are more people in the world speaking english than americans and brits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.238.66 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary choices of "Highlights"

[edit]

Because it seems like the highlights on this page are completely arbitrary, I thought it might be better if we at least tried to set up standards for mention. From my sandbox come possible guidelines for past, current, and future highlights:

  1. Tying or breaking a World Record at any competition level
  2. Tying or breaking an Olympic Record at the last level (finals)
  3. First medal earned by an Olympic competing nation in 10 or more Summer Olympics
  4. First gold medal earned for a Olympic competing nation in 10 or more Summer Olympics
  5. Medal sweep by an Olympic competing nation in one event (Gold, Silver, & Bronze)
  6. Gold medal sweep in a sport with 3 or more events
  7. Death or serious injury of an athlete, coach, official, or spectator due to dangers of competition
  8. Tying or breaking international medal count records or record count record
  9. Widespread1 (international) news not relating directly to competition results
  10. ...(open to filling)...


1Verifiable news stories must be reported by reliable sources in at least 3 countries. {CB (ö) 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

It's a nice proposition, but since the page is probably going to get deleted when the Olympics are over (in 10 days or so) it just seems like too much hassle. Then again, since idiots like Becky are bent on endlessly citing the murky nature of the very term "highlights", let's up the criteria and report only events that could be supported by at least 12 different references, in at least three world languages from at least four continents :-) Timbouctou (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the page should be deleted after the games. However, I do think that it should be massively reorganised, and the information split into 2-3 separate pages (my choice would be a summary page of the games with a paragraph per sport, a list of gold-medal winners, and a list of world records broken during the games). Unfortunately, I suspect that the page is destined to be listed on AFD within an hour of the end of the games, so we probably won't get much time to contemplate its long-term destiny. Bluap (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think this is a great article and should be improved after the Games like Bluap suggested. 76.65.22.118 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First up, Please everyone - remember to be Civil - fight the argument, don't fight the person.
OK, my 2cents: I'm not so sure if this article should be separated out as Bluap suggests but it is a possibility. I also don't agree with Timbouctou that this article will necessarily get deleted. As I've pointed out before this is the only place where the olypmics information is being presented chronologically - an important format for information about an event. As for Collegebookworm's guidelines I think they are all perfectly good kinds of things to include here but I would shy away from actually solidifying a ruleset, just yet at least. We already have editorial policies coming out of our ears and I don't think that creating a list of "acceptable" items will solve any of the fights here - it will just move them to fights about policy rather than fights about Original research. There is a lot to be said for leaving the rules in flux, at least during the games, to see what turns up. We can always make it "neater" and conform better later on - there is no deadline after all. Witty Lama 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

85 kg weighlifting results

[edit]

Can someone please put in a table for the 85 kilogram men's weightlifting results--for the winners of the gold, silver and bronze in this page? According to this, Lu Yong of China won the gold medal but who won silver & bronze: [1]

Equestrian team jumping results

[edit]

Can someone please place the final results of Equestrian team jumping here: [2] According to this, the US won gold first and I believe Canada won silver from this source. But there is no official posted results table and I don't know who won bronze. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100m &200m

[edit]

when was the last time the same man held both the 100 and 200 WRs? This should be added to Bolt's entry. Nergaal (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Major" upsets

[edit]

I have an issue with this highlight:

"In a major upset, Belgium's Tia Hellebaut wins the women's high jump event, defeating the favourite and world champion Blanka Vlasic of Croatia and ending Vlasic's run of 38 wins in international competition."

While I agree that that could certainly be important enough to include on this page, why do we have to refer to it as a "major upset?" To repeat what I wrote on Hongooi's talk page, how does a "major" upset is different from a "minor" upset? Who determines which upsets are major, which are minor and which just aren't upsets at all? What set of criteria are used? How can we, as Wikipedia editors, try and be more objective and separate a news report's point of view from a set of basic facts? Does it even matter if the upset was major or minor or even an upset at all; is it encyclopedically relevant? Can't we just let the facts speak for themselves? If so and so was a favourite to win, and someone else beat them, why can't we leave it up to the reader to decide if there was an upset and, if so, to what degree?

Looking at that information, two reasonable people with all the facts could disagree on how upsetting that was. Why can it not just remain "Belgium's Tia Hellebaut wins the women's high jump event, defeating the favourite and world champion Blanka Vlasic of Croatia and ending Vlasic's run of 38 wins in international competition"? Any reader can decide for themselves how they feel, they don't need Wikipedia to tell them how big of an upset it was. Cheers, CP 16:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The future

[edit]

I think that this page has been a spectacular success, and would like to thank everyone who has kept it up-to-date. Now that the games are over, we need to start thinking about the long-term position. I would therefore like to suggest renaming this page to Chronological Summary of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Granted, there needs to be some clean-up, but I think that we are well on the way to a having very good article, and might even hope for eventual status as a featured list Bluap (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was WP:BOLD and moved it. If anyone objects please discuss it here. Random89 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the capital S in Summary violate WP:CAPS? Except for that, it's fine. -- Jao (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, that was a mistake. (I copy-pasted from the above section into the "new-title" field of the move page from.) I will move it again. Random89 22:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Four years on, the article is still in the present tense. These are not newspaper headlines, and the present historical does not sit well with formal tone. Kevin McE (talk) 13:14, 29 July 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]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chronological summary of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chronological summary of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chronological summary of the 2008 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Chronological summary of the 2008 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Chronological summary of the 2008 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronological_summary_of_the_2008_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1206594153"