Talk:2024 Summer Olympics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nice work

I want to thank everyone who expanded this article. You've done a fine job and I'm sure now that the article will survive AfD (heck even the nom has retracted). I was wondering if we could add Copenhagen based on the source I cited in the AfD discussion [1]. On the one hand, it doesn't go into a lot of detail and is fairly speculative. On the other hand, it is on the official Danish government site and therefore could almost be viewed as Danish policy. Any thoughts? -- JJay 18:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge and rename?

I feel this article and similar ones should be merged and renamed.

The articles should be renamed as they aren't about Olympic games, they're about the bids for them. Bid articles currently have a systematic nomenclature of (Year) (Summer/Winter) Olympic bids (see category:Olympic Games Bids).

They should also be merged, as there's a lot of overlap between this article and 2020 Summer Olympics.

Any thoughts? Andjam 04:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of potential bids with no references

Most of the items on this page are speculation and most we don't know if are truly factual. I'm adding a 'citation needed' mark to all the unreferenced potential bid cities. xero 06:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Philippines

I'm putting a tag. The site isn't very reliable. What we need is an article from a news agency or something. Xeltran (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK then. While this site does give some sort of evidence, there hasn't been any offical government news about this. 121.58.205.126 (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Err, not really. If you take a look, it's just pure speculation. If new sources should fall under WP:RS, then we'll return it back. Xeltran (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, please, stop adding the dubious Manila bid if editors cannot provide reliable sources. By reliable, I mean a news article from a news agency or see WP:RS, even the government has not made any formal announcements regarding this. Dubious bids are likely to be removed rather than tagged for a citation since it will just entice anon editors to keep adding dubious statements. Xeltran (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Philippines section has clearly been edited by partial persons trying to gain support for a bid. This should be taken care of. 71.165.215.227 (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No citation or sources to prove Manila will bid for 2020 or even 2024 Summer Olympic Games. Even the editors who added Manila to these pages have as their best citation or source (which is a blog) an unreliable or non-credible source. No information or news even from the Philippine Government. 112.210.208.121 (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Lima, Peru

This paragraph had ended in the middle of the first sentence, following two sucessive edits by different IPs: the first claiming to remove 'propaganda' and the subsequent edit removing everything but the first 4 words. Anyway, I've completed it and restored the external reference. The information and ref are taken from the 2020 Summer Olympics page which cites Lima's desire to bid for both. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Montreal and Toronto

Does anyone notice that there are always potential bids for these two cities. If it isn't one, it is the other! 24.203.182.78 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia

Saying the soonest that Philadelphia could put a run together was 2024 does not qualify them for a run at a bid, the other cities have legitimately put together plans, Philadelphia, does not to my knowledge, have a legitamate plan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.198.12 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

They are applicants officially confirmed by the IOC, but they requested the United States not to apply for the 2020 Summer games nor the 2022 Winter games. The USA hsa the most IOC requests and applications than any other country, and the IOC will like to have a chance for Africa, India, the Middle East and South America to have a rare chance to host the Olympics. + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Maldives

A bid for Maldives appeared in the Asia section, but the article cited was from a mock newspaper. No other source found. I deleted it, if someone can find a reliable source for it, please add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.118.202 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saving the link here in case someone else wants to take a look. This is obviously a stunt. If someone can verify who did it (was it just the newspaper, or did someone actually make such statements at the Copenhagen conference?) it might make an interesting sentence in a "Stunts related to these Olympics" (or equivalent) section. It's an interesting piece -- I hate to lose it completely.Donlammers (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix

Just a question: I heard a rumor that Phoenix would place a bid. Is there any truth to this? 74.47.203.160 (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The bid was there to represent Phoenix, but not entered the contest for the 2020 nor 2024 summer olympics. Other cities in USA interested but not have put a bid are Chicago; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles; Miami, Florida; New York City; San Diego, California; San Francisco and Washington DC. The only US city, Philadelphia was to place an official application in the article. + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hershey, Pennsylvania

I am removing the Hershey, Penn "potential" bid. It looks like the add is one of 'personal interest;' i.e., a person who would love to have the games in Hershey, and has thus created an amateurish website and a Facebook group with 3 fans that states: the 2017 Olympic Games will be decided in 2024.

While the enthusiasm for this person's town and desire to improve it is commendable, the harsh reality is that a town of ~12,000 people will not be a Games contender in seven years, much less a host in 14. Treefingers1206 (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hershey will serve to host olympic venues, not the games opening and closing ceremonies of either the Philadelphia or Pittsburgh 2024 games. Hershey sits in the close center of the state of Pennsylvania though, but that's not the point. There isn't a bit of evidence of Hershey or the state capital of Harrisburg will be the "official IOC host city". + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Multinational bids

The IOC does not allow multinational bids. Should we even have proposed bids listed that are multinational? --MusicGeek101 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that such proposals go against IOC rules: it is unlikely they will go ahead in submitting a bid. I would prefer to move them in an other section called "Proposals for multinational bids" with a sentence explaining that it goes against the rules. Otherwise, if we go with deletion, it will be important to explain the rule in the article and put a reference. LeQuantum (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only Toronto/ Buffalo, New York and Seattle/ Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada have submitted theirs, San Diego, California USA/ Tijuana, Mexico also explored the two nation bid option in the 2024 or 2028 Summer Olympic games. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No one has submitted their bid. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Why not? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577573393290580100.html?mod=googlenews_wsj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.33.206 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it is some random journalist saying "why not"? It is not an official decleration of intention to bid, or even of looking at the possibility of bidding. Its simply journalist fluff that comes out all the time when the current Olympics are on. Additionally, it appears to be a somewhat cyrptic jab at Atlanta. Ravendrop 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Prune

I've gone ahead and removed some of the more ridiculous inclusions on the page. The page does have a role on wiki, but it should only include reliably sourced statements from politicians of cities/NOC members that demonstrate that there is true intention to bid or that they are currently exploring a bid (this kind of "exploratory committee" cost/benefit analysis is almost always a prerequisite to any bid for every western nation). Statements from journalists that "X city may bid" without supporting evidence from city politicians or NOCs (which have to approve any and all bids) should not be included, nor should statements of the "we intend to bid for/host a future games" as this could be 2024 or 2224, nor should 'facebook' or other 'interest groups' movements be included unless they have gained they explicit support of political leaders and/or NOCs. Inclusion should be strict or else it gets ridiculously long. For countries where there is general consensus that a bid is coming (such as the US) cities that are being put forward should be condensended into one paragraph (like I have done, removing San Fran and LA because no legitimate source has said 2024, they've only said future) unless formal exploratory work has begun, such as with Tulsa, and, I think, Washington DC/Baltimore. Additionally, I removed all Oceania, because John Coates has been explicit that 2024 is not on the table (see this for example). Brisbane may be the presumptive next applicant, but until they put their eye on a firm Olympiad (and not the vague "future") the information should be left out. For the same reason I removed Guadalajara (no one close has said 2024, only future, plus their current bid for the 2018 youth casts doubt on any attempt at the moment as they seem to be doing in intrumentaly, i.e. Pan Am -> Youth -> Summer (maybe). Same with Marseilles, German and Kuala Lumpur. They were only vague speculation based on the cities hosting some other event, with 2024 never mentioned, and no mayor, NOC, governor, etc. confirming that they were looking into a bid. The list may need further pruning, and I may have missed some cities may have moved on to formal exploratory phases. Ravendrop 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Too soon

I think this article has been created prematurely. We haven't even had the 2016 Games yet, let alone the 2020 Games. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel the same way. I have tired to keep this page in order but my edits keep getting changed for no reason, even though they are sourced. With all this going on, perhaps this article should not be started up until a bidding process starts, or is close to starting. Perhaps doing this will allow the page to be more organized. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are not good and not very helpful to the article. Assuming lines from a source, like "Kuala Lumpur could use" does not indicate in the slightest that they will bid. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi MusicGeek101. This page is not too soon: I think it is already possible to give good information about possible bids. You tried 'to keep this page in order', but I think that many times you reverted edits which were basically good work. Recently, a good clean up has been done here, and it was explained at the end of this talk page (section 'Prune'). Your recent edits tried to revert these edits, but you didn't explain yourself on the talk page. If you still disagree about the clean up, explain why on the talk page, because I don't understand your disappointment. By the way, I tried also to clean up the page 2022 Winter Olympics, and it was always removed by you. I also explained my edits in the talk page. If you disagree, come to discuss it, I am very open minded... LeQuantum (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

2024 or 2028 Australian Bid?

It has been discussed in the press that Australia may make a bid for the 2024 or 2028 Olympics for the 1956 host city of Melbourne. Melbourne previously bidded for the 1996 games in it's last unsucessful attempt(before Sydney won the 2000 olympics). The City is already very capable of hosting the event, as it's sporting facilities are some of the best in the world to this day. It more recently hosted the 2006 Commonwealth games. Obviously should Melbourne bid(and win), it would be the first city in a while(from what I recall) that would not have to build a new main Stadium for the games, as it's 1956 home at the MCG is still one of the world biggest sporting arenas. I wonder if that's an advantage or a disadvantage in todays climate where it appears the IOC seems to favour Cities that wish to use the olympics in an attempt to build up long term sporting infrastructure... Melbourne already has it all(partly thanks to 1956 and the 2006 Commonwealth games).

Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle said he would like the city to host it again and would support a new bid, as have several other melbourne government and business Identities. Premier Ted Ballieu has not ruled out a bid saying that the only thing keeping them back is how it would fit into the current budget(the bid itself, we already have all the sporting facilities we need to run this).

I'm not sure if this should be added to the article, but it's worth keeping an eye on. I think it's mostly a flag for a 2028 bid, but 2024 is obviously the next opportunity. Colliric (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

John Coates, the head of the Australian NOC, has repeatedly said (since at least 2009) that Australia will not bid for 2024. And since a bid needs to approval of their NOC, no matter what Melbourne or the premier wants, if the NOC doesn't agree the bid won't be accepted. This happened when Las Vegas submitted an unauthorized bid for 2020. So, no, nothing about Australia should be mentioned for 2024. Ravendrop 02:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei vs Taiwan

Should we use the official name "Chinese Taipei" or the more common name "Taiwan"? Using "Taiwan" might spark some political issues. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 14:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan is the place. There is no place called "Chinese Taipei". What I suggest is making a disclaimer that Taiwan is referred to as Chinese Taipei for Asian Games and Olympic purposes. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That might work. (I live in Taiwan, if you don't know already) --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 23:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We probably should see what other Wikipedians think about this subject. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 23:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Its most logical to use the IOC eterm as thats the way it will be handled.Lihaas (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think it should say Chinese Taipei. We can put Taiwan in parentheses. The fact is that by IOC standards, Taiwan is recognized as "Chinese Taipei". I know this is all very complicated, but when it comes to the Olympics, Taiwan is always introduced as Chinese Taipei whether it be during an opening ceremony or during a competition during the Olympics. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Los Angeles/2024

NONE of the sources introduced on this section indicate that Los Angeles will pursue a 2024 Olympics. All hint at a future bid, with some speculating it will be 2024 (because it is the next cycle to bid on) but there is no concrete evidence or sourcing to back up that Los Angeles is considering a 2024 bid. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, LA Times mentions a councilman who wants to introduce a motion to "explore a future bid, potentially in 2024". That absolutely is speculative, but the article reflects that. Other subsections are just as vague: Baltimore, a source saying that someone was 'gauging interest in making a run at the 2024 Game'. Doha, "looks 'forward to the 2024 race'".
The main question is, what should the bright line for inclusion be here?
Amalthea 09:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Baltimore should then be removed. Doha after losing 2020 said we will bid again for 2024. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, in the source we have Doha is just as speculative, and there are many more examples, like Berlin and Kiev. My point is, at the moment we don't have a clear inclusion guideline for those 'potential bids', so we seem to include all where we have a reliable source of some city or state official hinting at intent to explore a bid.
If you can think of a better bright-line rule I'm all ears, but this early in the process all we have is speculation.
Amalthea 12:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well remove the bids that we all come to a consensus that we believe is just speculative. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 13:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Dallas

Either this is an error, or somebody is dumb. Cowboys stadium would be way better for the Olympic stadium than the cotton bowl. Think of that forty yard long screen, the seating capacity of it, and how much better id would be. Changarose46ers (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Vienna?

Vienna will have a referendum next year about hosting the 2024 or 2028 Olympics. Should we include this in the article? [2] Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

My gut reaction is no. Unlike the rest of the entries on the page, this isn't an intent to bid, but rather a referendum to establish if their is public support for the possibility of a bid. Many, many cities ask the question if they could/should host the olympics, but few of these actually go anywhere. Additionally, the referendum does not appear to be binding, thus even if it is voted in favour, a bid may still not happen. Finally, there doesn't appear to be an exploratory committee established, but merely this question. We also have to keep in mind that this page is not a news source and need not to include every minor speculation. I think that Vienna should be included only if the referendum votes in favour and if the council then sets up an exploratory committee into bidding. That would then match the criteria that has been used to include other entries on the list. Ravendrop 03:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. A lot of IP addresses are editing to include Vienna however. Should we ask for page protection? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First I'd encourage them to respond on the talk page. If they don't then page protection is appropriate. Have to keep in mind that only two of us have commented so far. It's not, yet, a clear cut consensus. Ravendrop 17:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First, there's only a question, about hosting the 2028 Olypics, but not the 2024 Olympics in this referendum. Also the Viennese are not sure if the referendum will be positiv - Mr. Häupl (mayor of Vienna) said, that he will do everything to bring the Games to Vienna, if the Viennese wants him to ... so we can add Vienna in MArch, if the referendum is positiv. Greetings from Austria --Austriantraveler (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree if the referendum is successful then we should go ahead and add it. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Busan?

Can anyone confirm for me the fact that Busan is actually planning a bid. The google translation of the Korean article is very poor. Is the article quoting officials, or is it a journalist suggesting that Busan should bid? At what stage is the bid at? For inclusion on the page Busan should have at least an exploratory committee, or someone high in power (mayor/governor) announcing that they will bid. I am highly skeptical of this bid though, as South Korea will host the 2018 Winters, and there is no way that South Korea is a big enough country to get two olympics so close together. It did happen with the US in 1996/2002 (6 years) but, US in terms of revenue brought, size, athletes, impact, etc. is multitudes times more than South Korea (this is not to disparage South Korea, but simply the truth). There is no modern precedent for hosting so close together. (The closest that comes to mind is Innsbruck 64 and 76 (12 years), but due to a cancellation) and Canada 76 and 88 (12 years)). Ravendrop 20:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Busan is considering a bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics passively becuase Pyeongchang succeed in hosting 2018 Winter Olympics. Even though the city is considering passively, it is true that Busan is considering. They already have an offical website[3] and CI for Bidding 2024 Olympics[4]. -- Min's (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the website run by the city? I ask because there are often webpages for bids put up by private individuals or advocacy groups, but which have no ties to the city and thus no say in determining whether a bid actually happens or not. Their page does look pretty fancy and professional, but my google translation of it isn't giving me evidence of who is behind the page. However, if you (or someone else) can confirm its city-run/backed, despite my personal doubts about the likelihood of winning, it would meet the standards we've set for other cities to be included on the page. Ravendrop 20:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubai

The head of strategic planning for the Dubai Olympic Committee has said that Dubai will not be bidding for 2024. The link to this story can be found here. Posting this on talk so a record of the link can be kept (rather than simply being in an edit summary) as though there was some speculation from the media, no official plan for a bid ever emerged and thus I do not believe Dubai should be listed on a "didn't bid" (or similarly named) section. Ravendrop 07:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

US Bids

The section on potential American bids is detailed yet, it needs to be cleaned up. Also it has been ruled that Tulsa is not pursuing a bid. This link says so:

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/tulsa-sports-commission-tulsa-not-in-mix-for-for-bid-on-2024-olympic-games

--MusicGeek101 (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Chicago City Hall (and Mayor Emanuel) has said unequivocally that the city has no interest in pursuing a 2024 Olympic bid.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-19/sports/chi-usoc-sounding-out-25-cities-on-2024-summer-games-bid-20130219_1_olympic-bid-cities-about-possible-bid-discussions-with-interested-cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danetidwell (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Calendar for bids

Back in early 2011, Wikipedia's article on 2020 Summer Olympics had a calendar with all the dates information on the bids revealed. Perhaps by the fall of 2014 this article should have a similar calendar. Georgia guy (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Date format

This article uses dmy dates, e.g. 26 September 2014. It has contained a {{use dmy dates}} template since July 2011. This makes sense, as the Olympics are international and mdy dates are largely US-centric.

I have changed all the mdy format dates I can find in the body. There are still many within refs (date=, accessdate=, archivedate=), but that is less important. Maybe someone else would like to fix them.

All future edits to the body content should use dmy format. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

USOC Olympic Bid

Boston has been chosen by the USOC to be their Olympic bid. http://www.teamusa.org/News/2015/January/08/US-Olympic-Committee-Selects-Applicant-City-For-2024-Olympic-And-Paralympic-Games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Melbourne?

Why was Melbourne replaced by Brisbane? NDACFan (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I readded it since I couldn't find a reason why it wasn't listed... NDACFan (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Order of listings?

Hello, I was just wondering, if there should be an order of listing for the cities? At present it is the order in which the application was announced, but it could also be an alphabetical order. The bids for the 2020 Summer Olympics orders candidate cities in order of of drawing lots. --109.43.0.152 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• The IOC order (drawing lots) will only be known after the IOC deadline of September 15 is passed. Hektor (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Toronto

Toronto has not applied to host the Olympics. There has been much debate and discussion about it, in light of the Pan Am games, but no application has been made, nor is there any guarantee that one will be made.

I have restored the information on Toronto to the section on potential bids. isaacl (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone must have been listening in to CBC's speculation and got a bit ahead of themselves. Likely, but not guaranteed. They certainly rocked the Pan Ams though. Iheartthestrals (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bidding calendar

The IOC has just announced in Kuala Lumpur a few major changes to the bidding procedure. IOC Drops Applicant Phase and Short List From 2024 Olympic Bid as Part of Sweeping Changes To Process. Therefore the calendar in this article is outdated and the distinction between Applicant Cities and Candidate Cities does not seem relevant any more with the cancellation of the shortlisting process. My understanding is that all cities will be candidate cities from September 15 but maybe we can wait for official confirmation from the IOC by Sept 15. Hektor (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia and Thailand

Recent reports are coming in that Thailand and Malaysia are going to pursue a joint Olympic bid. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/sports/498302/thailand-eyes-joint-bid-for-games http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/809710-thailand-malaysia-discuss-olympic-aspirations/ http://bangkok.coconuts.co/2015/03/18/thailand-malaysia-discuss-olympic-aspirations

Most likely the bid will involve Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur.

Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see that this bid will take place because the games are "technically" awarded to a city and not a country. The only time I am aware that an Olympics has been held in two separate countries, was in 1956 when the Equestrian Events were held in Stockholm due to emergency quarantine laws in Australia.46.7.85.68 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hungary/Budapest Failed Bids?

I've looked at the years when Hungary are supposed to have bid, but none of them included 1908, 1948 or 2012. Thus I don't understand why London is supposed to have been awarded the games when Hungary had a failed bid?46.7.85.68 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)46.7.85.68 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that some attempt has been made to correct the matter I raised above, but London was not a host city in any of the years that the cited Budapest bids were made, so this part is still wrong. Budapest never lost out on a bid made by London. I am not being pedantic. I don't want to correct the item myself because I do not understand the mechanics such as the hyperlinks. If I correct the item, I might cause unintentional damage to the Article46.7.85.68 (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

As the article correctly states, Budapest bid for the 1944 Summer Olympics and lost out to London. The fact that those Olympics did not take place does not change this fact. Kahastok talk 16:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. Your point is accepted. I was not aware that London had been awarded those games. For some reason, I thought they had been awarded to Tokyo, which I now see was in 1940.46.7.85.68 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian Supreme Court & Budapest Bid

According to the Guardian, apparantly the Hungarian supreme court blocked a public referendum on the Budapest Olympic bid. Worthy of note in this article I think. 2.25.10.167 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Rome cancelled bid

Hello, I have gotten reports that after the earthquake in Italy Rome will possibly cancel Rome's bid, therefore making Los Angeles, Budapest and Paris the only bidder left

Regardless, this is no doubt between Paris and LA. Budapest doesn't have much of a chance. Strausszek (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

About Toronto, etc.

About Toronto, etc. It ought to be worth mentioning that back before 2010, the Canadian Olympic Committee was planning to bid for Toronto for the Summer Olympics, perhaps for 2012 or 2016. Then when Vancouver won the Winter Olympics for 2010 (requiring the spending of a lot of Canadian money), the Canadian committee decided to put the bid for Toronto on hold indefinitely. Maybe the time is getting ripe.
Also, I believe that there ought to be more opportunities for the Olympics to be held in the Southern Hemisphere (Rio de Janeiro was a big leap.), but today I have learned that this idea has been dropped because the Commonwealth Games will be held in Durban, South Africa in 2022. I think that Cape Town would be a lovely place for the Olympics. Also, I think that it would be outstanding to have the Winter Olympics in the Southern Hemisphere (where the seasons are reversed), but I have not seen anything about a bid from Argentina or Chile in the Andes, or New Zealand with the Southern Alps, or Australia with the Australian Alps. For none of these places would there be any question of having enough snow, but all of the winter athletes would have to realign their training schedules. Also, with global warming, the prospect of having the Winter Olympics in the Pyrenees seems to have vanished.47.215.211.16 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2024 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714151718/http://usoc.org/News/2014/June/13/List-Of-Cities-For-Potential-US-Bid-For-2024-Games-Narrowed-To-Four to http://usoc.org/News/2014/June/13/List-Of-Cities-For-Potential-US-Bid-For-2024-Games-Narrowed-To-Four
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxsports.com/olympics/story/american-sports-federations-on-board-for-us-2024-olympics-bid-092614
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.2024boston.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dc2024.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817092013/http://www.gamesbids.com:80/eng/olympic_bids/2020_bid_news/1216136206.html to http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/2020_bid_news/1216136206.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://usoc.org/News/2014/June/13/List-Of-Cities-For-Potential-US-Bid-For-2024-Games-Narrowed-To-Four
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/243898041.html

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) 10:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles

If Los Angeles should host in 2024 It will be 40th Anniversary 1984 and 2024 LA 1984 and LA 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.70.69 (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This article needs real clarification...

...on whether there's any official information confirming that whichever city doesn't get the 2024 bid will get the 2028 bid. Georgia guy (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2024 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/2020_bid_news/1216136206.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705032224/http://www.olympic.org/ to http://www.olympic.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705032224/http://www.olympic.org/ to http://www.olympic.org/

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) 19:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy/Pase

I have added {{Copypaste}} to the article, based on the Earwig's Copyvio Detector review of the page. A lot of the article is word for word from the sources that are listed. Elisfkc (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like what the tool is flagging for the top 3 entries (gamesbids.com) is the list of milestone names and dates in the "Candidature Process" section, that all sources are drawing from the IOC list. The names used by the IOC for these milestones seem like pretty straight factual info whose text and order is part of the fact.

The lower confidence entries from thelocal.fr and latimes.com are chunks of about 2 sentences at a time; they're cited, but probably should be at least paraphrased or converted to explicit quotations. Willhsmit (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Willhsmit: That's the issue. Someone is just copying and pasting lines from LA Times and The Local, rather than paraphrasing. Elisfkc (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Willhsmit:@Elisfkc: I confirmed that the top 3 flagged entries are because of the straight factual information, and then edited the article to avoid the copyright violations for the remaining articles. I'm new to editing wikipedia; do we need to do something formal before removing the copy/paste flag at the top of the article or can I just do it now that I've resolved the problem? Vanderdecken12 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Paris 2024 Venues

Perhaps we should add a venues section for this page? The LA 2028 page already has one. Feel free to discuss how we can go about entering a venues section on this page. Cordially, --WRCosA (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

what are interesting facts on summer Olympics 2024????

Answer ...not knowing the answers maybe you can guide me with answers. GOD (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Shooting at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shooting at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

An inclusion of a "concerns and controversies" section to the article

Hi. I created that section on the actual article, which includes the petition of a french feminist group to ban the hijab in olympic competitions in 2024. is it adequate? Andrescbernal (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

References

I have deleted it, as it was entirely one-sided and made no attempt to consider the right to compete of women who choose to use such dress. No doubt there will be other controversies to follow, but just because one website ran their press release it does not mean it is a significant factor in the games. Kevin McE (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Grand Palais Éphémère (Centred).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Events + countries competing

As per the official website of Paris 2024 [5] the numbers are listed. We can/should list them in the infobox with expected in brackets beside them. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Is 3 years away, those numbers are real or merely a projection? Are quotas set? Are qualification started? You should knows how Olympics works, and from now you expected 206 nations will competed? Crystal ball at all. --Aleenf1 15:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

206 nations and 10,500 athletes

206 nations and 10,500 athletes, a projected number on Paris 2024 websites, the Games qualifications and quotas not yet set, is the number projected can be stated? Crystal ball? --Aleenf1 15:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Quotas are set actually [6] at 10,500. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So you mean it will not change? It is not happen yet, to be frankly. --Aleenf1 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

[7], it is reduction to 10,500 athletes maximum, however the EXACT number of the athletes still TBA. --Aleenf1 16:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

About Le Motto

The motto of the 2024 Summer Olympics has changed. The translation the poor editor who made that edit used was from Google Translate. Google Translate is not famous for being accurate. So, can I undo it? Vulcan300File:Stalin pointing.png^{GO TO GULAG CYKA} 13:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Venez partager in French means exactly "come share", whether or not Google Translate says so. I notice you changed it to made for sharing immediately, without waiting for a reply here. That is not the best use of a talkpage. I have reverted your change. Bishonen | tålk 08:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC).

That is the problem, you see. Speaking of Olympic mottos: do we even have a source for that? Vulcan300File:Stalin pointing.png^{GO TO GULAG CYKA} 00:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Venues

I think there's a mistake in the venues section. There's not a chance Arena 92 hosting aquatics, it's a rugby stadium. There is a source here supporting that it will host gymnastics, but the table probably contains many mistakes so I preferred not doing it whole by myself. [8] —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I confirm Arena 92 is hosting aquatics. 2A01:CB0C:65A:2200:7B:BC8B:9F87:2BE2 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

"Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Weightlifting at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Weightlifting at the 2024 Summer Olympics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Weightlifting at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Field hockey at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Field hockey at the 2024 Summer Olympics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#Field hockey at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Swaggalicious (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Set up countdown?

Can I set up the countdown to the opening ceremony of 2024 summer Olympics in this articles? Sinsyuan (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Wrestling at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wrestling at the 2024 Summer Olympics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Wrestling at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The official return of Russia in name

Does Russia return to these games, with their name & national anthem restored? GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In principle the punishment imposed on Russia will end up until these games. However, since we do not have a crystal ball. It is advisable to wait and see what the day will bring. Nimrodbr (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think Russia will return to these Olympics. Keep in mind that the invaded Ukraine and the entire world isn’t so happy about it. Mastergerwe97 (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

An interesting perspective. Ancient Olympic Games tells us that in the original Games in Greece "During the celebration of the games, the ekecheiria (an Olympic truce) was announced so that athletes and religious pilgrims could travel from their cities to the games in safety." The idea was to encourage peace. Governments being at war should not be a reason to punish the athletes from such countries. And who is going to be the totally impartial judge of such situations? HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Countries officially qualified for Paris

National Olympic Committees secured a place in Olympics, there are the official references for IOC:
1.- France: IOC Reference
2.- Great Britain: IOC Reference
3: United States: IOC Reference and CONCACAF Reference
4: Dominican Republic: IOC Reference and CONCACAF Reference
Dear collaborates If there is support, this information could appear in the article. Thank You! Rey1996ss (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree Agree with Rey1996ss. And for many reasons : 1) France is the host of the Olympics, they are qualified in almost every sports/events and I don't see them refusing all their quotas saying "No it's just for fun, we're organizing the Olympics but we won't competing in it, we're just watching all the other nations competing". CQFD, their Olympic Committee must be present in the page

2) For Great Britain, United States and Dominican Republic, their Olympic committee must also be present on the page because there are sources that prove that they qualified for the Games + on the Question of if they're going to accept the quotas I invit you to go to the twitter account of the Football federation of United States (+ the twitter account of their teams : Women and Men) + the twitter account of the Football federation of the Dominican Republic. You will see that they are saying : "We are going to PARIS 2024 !!!". CQFD there is no doubt, no

questions : they're going to accept their quotas, no doubts on that + Dominican Republic it's their first time so of course they will accept it. Even the FIFA has commented on it on congratulating the qualified teams.

Sportsfan 1234 : When you say "Countries may qualify, but there is no confirmation on the acceptance of these quota places", it's totally absurd : in this case you must erase the team that are present in the tables in the page Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification and Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's qualification because, according to you, "they have not accepted the quotas". According to me this is absurd. To conclude I totally agree Agree that the Olympic Commitee previously cited must be present on the page. Pindrice (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree Agree with Rey1966ss that the Olympic Committees should be cited. Dannyphx (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor an indiscriminate collector of future obvious information. "These nations, along with the other 200 that are missing to confirm, will participate". Shocking. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a compromise proposal that will hopefully be acceptable and, in my opinion, will represent the situation in the best possible way. Since these NOCs receive a quote per the qualification system, the section's title will be "Qualifying National Olympic Committees." In the vicinity of the games or at the beginning of them, after the NOCs have confirmed the quotas, the title will be changed to "Participating National Olympic Committees."Nimrodbr (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete It doesn't matter whether countries have qualified, because all NOCs in good standing are invitied to send at least one male and one female in athletics. So the list of participating nations is a red herring: any nation that has not fallen foul of the IOC will be able to participate if it wants to: qualification is unnecessary. I would also argue that the list as it stands falls foul of WP:OR, it is a synthesis of facts collated to a purpose not attested in any reiable source. Unless you can point at a source that lists 'qualified nations', Wikipedia should not carry one. Kevin McE (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The only problem is Russia and its participation being banned from the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as IOC banned from competing in major sporting events including the upcoming 2026 Winter Olympics. ApprenticeWiki ^contribs 00:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Program edit suggestion

similar to the the "Aquatics" sub section in the program list i believe all Combat Sports/Martial Arts should be grouped together(Archery and Shooting included) 2001:8003:3668:DB00:98DB:A448:8856:7857 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The order of the sports is according according to the division of the International Olympic Committee and the federations that govern them. The "Aquatics" are arranged together since they are all associated with World Aquatics (formerly FINA). Therefore, I see no reason to group together the sports that are part of Combat Sports/Martial Arts since Each of them belongs to a different federation. Nimrodbr (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"France 2024 (Olympics)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect France 2024 (Olympics) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24 § France 2024 (Olympics) until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Color in Calendar table

Does anyone think the colors in the Calendar table are too dark? I think the lighter cell color before this edit was easier to read and made the gray cell borders easier to see. Can we improve the color contrast per MOS:COLOR? Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've changed it back to how previous Olympic articles do it. -- AxG / ✉  22:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Angola and Philippines WADA sanctions

WADA has imposed sanctions on Angola and the Philippines. the WADA document on the sanctions itself only mentions barring the nations to use their national flags and nothing about competing under a neutral name (this is merely a presumption). Angola and the Philippines are under a slightly different status at this time. The WADA sanctions for Angola is now in effect, while the same for the Philippines are deferred pending appeal with the CAS.

The question is how do we display the flags? I think it is just appropriate to leave a blank flag for Angola until the WADA sanctions are lifted.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Russia ban

Outsports says that at the end of February, the CAS upheld a ban on the Russia Olympic Committee fielding a team (as they did previously, the ROC nominally independent of Russia), because the ROC had incorporated some Ukrainian associations from occupied territory (this, as a form of threatening the integrity of another national Olympic committee, is against IOC rules). So Russian athletes all have to be individual and neutral if they wish to compete. None of this seems to be mentioned in the relevant section, and presumably when the IOC first gave the ban should be mentioned, too. Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Afghanistan competing

I noticed Afghanistan has not been mentioned. Can it be discussed under "countries competing" why Afghanistan has not been allowed to compete in the tournament (I understand the official reasoning due to the Taliban but it must be mentioned why on the page as it can cause confusion among the readers of the page. Pathaan2024 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Afghanistan should be mentioned in the article. However @Pathaan2024, based on all the news articles I am reading, there is no official status on Afghanistan at Paris Olympics yet. The main source I can find is from June 2023, and does not mention any ban yet.

Since Wikipedia follows WP:Verifiability we can only discuss a topic if there's news articles already on them. So we'd want more news articles to discuss if IOC is allowing/banning Afghanistan before including it. Soni (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"France 2024" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect France 2024 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 5 § France 2024 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Controversies section

There was a lot of extraneous details and WP:NOTNEWS in the controversies section of the article. I have done a pass and a half to cut down on most of those and trim them down to contain the most essential info. Soni (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Good job. Such sections are always problematic because they do attract of lot of trivial and attempted point-scoring content. I shall keep an eye on it myself. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsif Splitting into another article may be useful, but it becomes significantly less useful if none of said article is even summarised. The controversies section should at least have a paragraph or two to summarise the most pertinent controversies of the Olympics Soni (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was planning on starting a discussion (though more likely at the Olympics project, this talkpage is active, so that's good) of which controversies should be summarised - Russia and Israel, presumably, but my question was going to be should any others be, too. Happy to write up and source the summaries, if you have any input? Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not well versed on Olympics or following all of these sources closely enough to tell which of these are significant versus a single news cycle. My gut says Russia, Israel, and maybe a line each about both during qualifying controversies? The Russian bit itself will be the most significant given we have multiple threatened boycotts and potentially some actual boycotts stemming from it.

It may also be possibly helpful to just go through a broader check of news articles of the Olympics to confirm nothing significant enough got missed in the cracks. Once an editor does a pass-through them, we would be better able to tell which of them fit Controversies article vs warrant summarising here. Soni (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 23 § Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I think if anyone wants to create the missing articles for Eritrea and Palestine they can now do so after quotas for road cycling (Eritrea) and dressage (Palestine) have been confirmed. Topcardi (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

can I get the source for the cycling quotas for eritrea? Paytonisboss (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Calendar: Canoe Salmon Discrepancy

I'm opening a talk page about this because I was confused the first time I saw it.

The current calendar shows there being no event on August 2. This is confirmed by a competition schedule via a media statement, a reliable source.

However, the official Paris 2024 website schedule shows there being time trials that day, which isn't even marked anywhere on the aforementioned schedule. Jamisonsupame (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Jamisonsupame

Thank you for alerting us about this mistake we will review your sources and get back with you asap.

if you have any questions feel free to contact me via my talk page ---> (talk) Paytonisboss (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong number of gymnastic-events in the calender?

In the calender there are only 14 gymnastic events (10+2+2), but I believe that should be 18 (14+2+2)? 80.86.137.195 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back up this claim? Paytonisboss (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the official program :) Competition-schedule-by-sessionevents-V6.pdf (paris2024.org) And the sub-page with gymnastics also says 18 and not 14. 80.86.137.195 (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @80.86.137.195

Do u know how to cite that source, if not I will be more than happy to cite that and edit it into the event tally for you.

Also feel free to contact me via my talk page with the link to your source so I can confirm it abides by the Wikipedia reliable sources ---> (talk)

have a amazing day Paytonisboss (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The calendar appears to be correct with a total of 14 artistic events, plus the 2 rythmic and 2 trampoline. Just as described at Gymnastics at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Am I reading this wrong? (And unsure why Paytonisboss is demanding a source for this question). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@ZimZalaBim I was asking for the link to his source he had updated the calendar prior to my comment so it could be cited because I saw no cited source to the editPaytonisboss (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Identical number of athletes between men and women?

The lead tells us "The Games will be the first to feature an identical number of athletes between men and women.". Seriously? Precisely equal numbers? I find this hard to believe. How is it being achieved? Perhaps something else is meant there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The quota designated by the IOC is gender equal. Perhaps changing the wording to say "scheduled to feature" would be better. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a source for this? That would help to give us suitable wording. And I'll just note that the lead is meant to be a summary of things described in detail elsewhere in the article, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sources: More can be seen in a Google Search 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Track and Field is not listed on the Calendar section

Track and Field is not listed in the Calendar section of the article. This should be included on the calendar. 67.55.247.157 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be there under Athletics? Aurangzebra (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

IN most of the world, the sport known in the USA as Track and field, or just Track, is known as athletics. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Worst Olympic opening ceremony ever

It deserves to be mentioned that there are many articles panning the Paris opening ceremony as one of the worst ever. 27.96.195.135 (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Link to oe a in a Reliable source please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Opening Ceremony have already been noted on the 2024 Summer Olympics opening ceremony page. 3.14 (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous users

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)

Vietnam Qualified

1 Vietnamese athlete Qualified for 2024 2601:1C2:700:27AA:18D6:7EC3:F26:FF3F (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Summer 2024 Preview link image is Swastika

does anyone else see a swastika when you hover over the page link? 49.184.141.195 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a vandal. It will update eventually. Knitsey (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've requested page protection on WP:RFPP. Once that gets approved the problem should go away. S5A-0043^Talk 08:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Kinda fitting, not gonna lie. 212.200.247.87 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Jolly (artist)

I just created an article for Thomas Jolly. He is the artistic director of the opening ceremonies. Thriley (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Liberia at the 2024 Summer Olympics, Trinidad and Tobago at the 2024 Summer Olympics

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2024

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)

 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

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)

 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)

Sponsors list

The table of every named sponsor on 2024 Summer Olympics#Corporate sponsorship seems like an overkill to me, and a blatant WP:NOTADVERTISING/WP:NOTDB violation. This is an encyclopedia for sourced prose text, not part of an IOC marketing campaign. Listing 100+ sponsors, lots of whom don't even have articles on Wikipedia, is not encyclopedic content. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Extra paragraph in Posters referring a series of Olympic-themed artwork

Complainant blocked, rant over. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 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. Chris1834 Talk 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC) 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) 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. Chris1834 Talk 19:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) "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? Chris1834 Talk 21:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Reply to @Chris1834Chris1834 VERIFICATION AND FACT CHECKING 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 RETORT ON NOTABILITY Chris$$$$ "Here is an Olympic needlepoint: https://pennylinndesigns.com/products/paris-2024-olympic-rings" 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)

Italian and Chinese contingent

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)

Why is italy not showing 403? This info can be verified anywhere. 199.67.138.42 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

CHANGING OF THE ITALIAN COMMITTEE

I want to ask who’s constantly changing the number of athletes for the Italian committee from 403 to 371? I’m trying to adjourn it from days and it keeps coming back. I’m Italian, I read Italian, I speak Italian and it’s clear on all the official site that our committee has 403 athletes. I’m gonna change it for the last time, if it will be cancelled I’m gonna report your IP or nickname on Wikipedia and be sure you won’t be able to modify Wikipedia articles for a while. 93.150.192.171 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We do not include alternates in the total Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a number without alternates? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)