Talk:2018 Winter Olympics

message: Hello again, this is specifically meant for @LRataplan but anyone else is welcome to weigh in if interested!
We need to amend the Jorien ter Mors entry to indicate that she was specifically the 1st female to win medals in two different sports at one Winter Olympics because it's already been done a few times at the summer games.
* Two women won Olympic medals in two different sports at the 1924 summer olympics in Paris: they were American diver/swimmer Aileen Riggin & Swedish diver/swimmer Hjördis Töpel. Riggin was only 18 when she won silver in diving and bronze in swimming and Töpel won bronze in both diving & swimming.
*At the 1936 summer Olympics in Berlin, American diver/swimmer Katherine Rawls won silver in diving and bronze in swimming.
--- It seems that diving and swimming combo's were the in thing back in the 1920's and 1930's!
So even though it's happened at least 3 times before at the summer olympics, no other female has ever done it at a winter olympics hence Jorien ter Mors does indeed go down in history for that!
So I've changed her entry to: "In doing so, she became the first female athlete to win Olympic medals in two different sports at a single Winter Games."
Just out of interest, whilst digging around I also found these women who won Olympic medals in two different sports but at separate summer olympics:
American Helen Wainwright won silver in diving in 1920 (Antwerp) and another silver in swimming in 1924 (Paris); German Roswitha Krause won medals in swimming & team handball, but at various different games (1968, 1976, 1980); and Briton Rebecca Romero won silver in rowing in 2004 (Athens) and gold in track cycling in 2008 (Beijing).
All fascinating stuff :)
Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating indeed, and a comprehensive statement that fully covers her record (although I must admit it's looking less and less glamorous ;) I noticed in the material you linked there is also a male skater who did both short track and long track medals: Eric Flaim). The English article on Ter Mors seems to have been edited already, so I updated the Dutch one instead :P LRataplan (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jorien ter Mors entry in Records section 

message: I am concerned about this edit in particular. What they added seemed to be very passionate and promotional, and places heavy emphasis on several brands that are Worldwide Olympic Partners, specifically Intel and Samsung. When asked if they had any affiliation with the subjects they were writing about, they dodged the question entirely and accused me of trying to obscure the Olympics' purpose as a platform for new technologies and being ignorant of the "significance of ever growing dynamics between sports and tech". I suspect a COI. ViperSnake151  Talk   22:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suspect a COI here, rather, I strongly suspect Srobidx of fanboy (or fangirl) behaviour. Passionate, indeed, and that's not a crime :) but the relevance of the mentioned showcased tech improvements is not given and would be debatable at best. "Launching of 5G in winter olympic 2018 along with the use LED drone is something that has never been done before in human's history"? False &  false. The short track sensor suit has specifically NOT been used at the Games (and 'peppered with' can, thanks to our contributor, now quantified as 'having 5'), and the possibly interesting development of the MIPS crash helmets is completely ignored, while those DO change competition circumstances for athletes. Add the liberal use of marketing adjectives (enormous, unsurpassed) in his or her edit, and we can say Srobidx' edit does not meet notability and neutrality guidelines. And my assuming good faith is seriously hampered by his or her complete absence of etiquette on User_talk:ViperSnake151. That was actually pretty rude and warrants informing an admin. I suggest we do not move towards a compromise as long as his or her additions are of unproven merit, instead, we chalk this up to a lack of competence and move on. LRataplan (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Srobidx edits 

message: Over the past couple of weeks, various people have been batting this around by editing and re-editing the first sentence of the current article. The consensus was reached that Olympics is a singular collective noun. The test is to ask yourself: "is there such a thing as an Olympic? What exactly is an Olympic then?" If there is such a thing, then 'Olympics' must be more than one 'Olympic', but the answer is clearly NO. So we can treat 'Olympics' as the singular noun.
Type "Olympics singular or plural" into Google Search and you get the following:
>We at ESL Library decided to go with “the Olympics” + singular verb and “the Olympic Games” + plural verb. Basically, “the Olympics” is a collective noun like team or United States, and usually takes a singular verb. ESL Library. 29 Jul 2012
See Ref: http://blog.esllibrary.com/2012/07/29/olympics-singular-or-plural/
This does have repercussions for other olympics pages, e.g. Winter Olympic Games reads "The Winter Olympic Games (French: Jeux olympiques d'hiver) is a major international sporting event... " which is clearly wrong using the current logic.
Please also refer to my edits on 28 Feb (00:08) and 25 Feb (13:06).  Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 2018 Winter Olympics singular or plural? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Firstly, I suspect this section should be named Bidding and selection. (Not election.)
Secondly, the second contains this sentence - "So this time, in the first round of voting, I set up a strategy to end it with a majority in one shot, which was perfectly successful." Who is "I"? What's this really about? Is it a quote from someone that's become orphaned? HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To be consistent with other Olympics articles, the section should really be called Bidding process. I wasn't too happy when I saw the major changes made yesterday by an unregistered IP with absolutely no explanation and I very nearly reverted the whole thing but held back pending more time to go through it in detail. I plan to check all facts against the four existing references (and any others I can find) but suspect it needs to be mostly returned to its previous wording. I do think it's entirely unreasonable to make large random edits without even providing an edit summary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found this Reuters article which clearly states "This time there was no room for doubt. Pyeongchang won in a canter, taking 63 votes to 25 for Munich and seven for Annecy as they won by a crushing margin on the first round of voting." Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please can you check over what I've done to the bidding section. I've cut out all the unnecessary and unsourced stuff that the IP put in and done a bit of rewording, etc. I could have just reverted to what was there before but I thought it was only fair to go through piecemeal and explain the reversions and changes in detail. Hopefully what we've ended up with, while still a summary, is a slight improvement on what was there originally. I think the lead needs looking at too as the IP has had a good old muck about with that too. Let's be fair, if this article were protected, pending changes editors would have immediately rejected all those IP edits as "Unexplained changes". P.S. I've left the heading alone for now. Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bidding and election section