Talk:Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics

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

Shawni Davis Controversy[edit]

The news was full of comments on the fact that Shawni Davis would not play for the US team. The general feeling is that this may (read most likely did) cost them the gold medal.

Why cover over the controversy for the reader?

I have reverted this part of the article. Accountable Government 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there has been no discussion on this issue, just removal of the text. I have changed the text a little bit, hopefully to make it acceptable. Accountable Government 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The highlights section should be, I think, a place for highlights of results, not for the entire story. A better place for that information is the Speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics page. Also it's "Shani" not "Shawni."Crunch 21:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In commenting on the highlights page, I will only note that you took out information about the controversy and replaced it with his reason for not doing so. A simple statement that there is a controversy surrounding the way in which he competed would suffice for the article. Team USA lost in the skating event. They don't get the chance to have their names up on the highlights page, so there is no way to mention it in that section. As far as POV goes, if he had skated it would have been considered a fact and recorded. The fact that he did not skate is also a fact. The idea that the team may have lost because he did not skate MAY also be POV, but you can't describe the controversy without it and it was largely reported on. It made the front page of the Olympic Sports section on Yahoo, for example and was covered for several days. Deciding what not to report is sometimes as important as deciding what to report. What is clear, by your own admission, is that his reason for not skating for the Team USA is related to his winning this medal. Accountable Government 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do that and I'm by far not the only person editing this article. Please become familiar with Wikipedia policies before you go around accusing people of things. Crunch 12:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tense wrong[edit]

Good work on this article, firstly. However, could whoever updates the day-by-day event listing update previous days to become past tense? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should be written in past tense to begin with -- Astrokey44|talk 13:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name[edit]

In response to some issues that have arisen during the AfD process, I am proposing a renaming of this article, just as I have done on the 2008 page. the highlights part of the name can be seen as both POV and OR, and should be removed. I therefore propose the name "Chronological Summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics". If anyone has other suggestions, please give them. I think this is a crucial part of helping fix this article. Random89 08:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. The current name, 'highlights', is not especially neutral and has suggestions of original research (who says that these events were the 'highlights' of the Games?); but a name like 'Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics' would be entirely acceptable. (It would arguably be a more accurate description of the page as well.) Terraxos (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under normal circumstances I would be BOLD and just move it, but with the ongoing AfD I would like a bit more input before taking any action. Random89 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that 'highlights' is pretty acceptable, but, if it'll stop the article from being deleted, I'd support 'Chronological summary'. How about just 'Summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics'? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summary is still POV, it invites the editors to again choose what they feel is notable enough to include in the face of thousands of sourceable facts about the olympics. There was several mentions about gold medals and records, so moving to something like 'Gold medals and world records during the 2006 Winter olympics' would eliminate pov.--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2008 (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) 07:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronological_summary_of_the_2006_Winter_Olympics&oldid=1200891060"