Talk:2028 Summer Olympics

message: Please note that the Los Angeles 2024 venue plan that was initially proposed for the 2024 bid has remained the same for the organization of the 2028 Olympics. While the bid book references 2024, no change has been made to the venue plan. In the event that a change is made, then that should be reflected on wikipedia pages for respective LA 2028 venues. As of now, things are staying the same. The only change is the year. If you have any thoughts or concerns, then please don't hesitate to discuss it here rather than removing good faith sourced edits which have been put in. --WRCosA (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I thought I was reverting the removal of content, not the other way around. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. All of this content is new and things are currently developing. Lets keep an eye on what is coming from the bid committee (aka future organizing committee) and use whatever information they provide. As of now, things seem to be unchanged when it comes to venues. --WRCosA (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Yes, World Rowing appears to have approved the move from Perris Lake to Long Beach Marine Stadium in September 2022. They also explain it in a Q&A on their website. Minorstab (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Its tough to figure out which venues would be used. As I stated above, typically Olympic soccer involves the use of six venues. I think at least we know that there venues in LA (Rose Bowl, Banc of California Stadium and the LA entertainment center) will be used as soccer venues. Then the question becomes which three venues outside of LA will be used? I would guess Levi's Stadium (San Francisco), CenturyLink Field (Seattle) and Las Vegas Stadium would be used, but thats an educated guess based upon logistical logic. However, I don't think we should be speculating on the main page for the 2028 games. Sooner or later we will find out. --WRCosA (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find information from the bid book on potential football venues. It is sourced, so I have included it in the article. It is worth noting that the potential MLS venue in San Diego may never be built as MLS expansion status is unclear at the moment. --WRCosA (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles 2028 Venue Plan 

message: Many football (aka Soccer is the US) venues are mentioned. Typically during the Olympics, six venues are used for football. Do we know yet which six venues will be used or will it be more than six? Just wondering what has been decided or are they going to wait to make a determination on that. --WRCosA (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Its tough to figure out which venues would be used. As I stated above, typically Olympic soccer involves the use of six venues. I think at least we know that there venues in LA (Rose Bowl, Banc of California Stadium and the LA entertainment center) will be used as soccer venues. Then the question becomes which three venues outside of LA will be used? I would guess Levi's Stadium (San Francisco), CenturyLink Field (Seattle) and Las Vegas Stadium would be used, but thats an educated guess based upon logistical logic. However, I don't think we should be speculating on the main page for the 2028 games. Sooner or later we will find out. --WRCosA (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find information from the bid book on potential football venues. It is sourced, so I have included it in the article. It is worth noting that the potential MLS venue in San Diego may never be built as MLS expansion status is unclear at the moment. --WRCosA (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Football (soccer) Venues

message: Just a bit of feedback to anyone working hard on this article - 2028 Summer Paralympics is very sparse compared to this article, especially when compared to Paris 2024... Shouldn't be too much work either - given how much between the Games is interchangeable these days (venues etc)  Turini2 (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2028 Olympics / Paralympics 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :United States at the 2028 Summer Olympics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 21#United States at the 2028 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Bonoahx (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "United States at the 2028 Summer Olympics" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Why you not throw everything into the host city area, California, Southern California, Greater Los Angeles? While just tell people "You are wrong", a hilarious comments. That's one simple, host city which already wikilink and people can be read that. That's also consistency across multi sports event article. --Aleenf1 03:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody can no need discuss and throw everything to it, yet she can said you are wrong, you are the one who need consensus, and keep something inconsistency across Olympics article, barbarian indeed. --Aleenf1 03:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: California is correct to be placed in the infobox as Los Angeles is in California. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also another one person, who always think he is right also, so i will put Greater Los Angeles. --Aleenf1 03:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot meet kettle. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Yeah, whatever he can said about, he is right... Aleenf1 03:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We will let others discuss. I am open to removing the sub political entity if there is a consensus to do so. There isn't atm. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You fear to comment because you and Drmargi are the same type, while biting others and keep yourself clean of it. --Aleenf1 04:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

text: The IOC assigns a host city for the Olympic Games. It doesn't technically assign a host country, and certainly not a host state within a country. It would be perfectly adequate for our Infobox to simply say Los Angeles. For those rare individuals who don't happen to know where Los Angeles is, the Wikilink will tell them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Since LA already wikilinked. based on what you said, it should already been adequate. It also works across consistency of all Olympic Games infobox which is host city and country. --Aleenf1 07:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

text: This is ridiculous.  In the U.S. we include the name of a state with its city, particularly when United States is also used.  The same is true of Canada and I believe Australia, where provincial names are used.  Consequently there would never be a scenario where we use Los Angeles, United States.  It's wrong, full stop.  Aleenf1 seems to want to come up with an arbitrary rule for identifying city names in Olympic articles all their own, refuses to discuss and insists on edit warring. There is no logic in their rationale for doing so.  City names should be listed in Olympic articles the same way they are anywhere else in WP.  There's no good reason to do otherwise. --Dr.Margi ✉ 07:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia isn't as obsessed with states as much as the US. The Infoboxes of the two articles on Olympics that have been held in Australia (Melbourne and Sydney) just show the Wikilinked city name, and "Australia", not Wikilinked. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

text: What is the point to Wikilink the city if keep repeating the same geopolitical way? And when you said "consequently there would never be a scenario", what is consequently scenario will happen? And what is wrong for whole scenario? I'm refuses to discuss, or you? You made reversion and saying, people are wrong without indicate the rationale. Like HiLo48 said, it will perfectly adequate to simply say the "LA" due to is already Wikilinked. --Aleenf1 08:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems likely that 2 persons fear of losing out, didn't comment, still biting out other people, let's see if more come to voice, Template:Infobox Olympic games stated only [City], [Country], with also stated MOS:OL should be obey, and also MOS:SOB, additionally i'm stated. --Aleenf1 08:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lot of way to make article colourful also can make something simplified, is not hard for people to press the link if it was wikilinked. Rather than just populating something which "irrelevant", people will be remember LA 2028, rather than "LA California 2028". --Aleenf1 08:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Like it or not, American city names are always listed with their corresponding states. This ridiculous little campaign for some sort of uniformity among Olympic cities flies in the face of what is done all over Wp.  It's interesting none of you is American; it might serve you well to listen to those of us who know how American cities are identified instead of making up some screwball rules.  I have restored the long-stable version of the city name, which includes California, and will treat attempts to remove it as disruptive.  ----Dr.Margi ✉ 13:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's just rude! Apart from "That's the way we Americans always do things and we don't care what anyone else thinks", what purpose does the name of the state actually serve? HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

text: As you 'now' know, edit-warring (5-reverts within roughly a few hour) isn't going to accomplish anything. You're welcomed to give your input at the aforementioned RFC, when you're able to. PS - If you do show up there & give your input? I recommend that you not arrive there, with the wrong attitude -- GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Host city 

message: The 2024 Summer Olympics, which are scheduled to take place in 2,5 years still don't have one. There should be consistency with paragraphs about local opposition on the Olympic Games pages: either the situation is specified regarding every host (including polling), or this information is deemed not noteworthy and excluded. Similarly the racist scandal which led to the resignation of the board member is not linked directly to the Olympics, hence I think this information should be featured only on these individuals' pages.
If there're no universal standards as to what is/is not included in the controversies section, people will just add all the negative stuff that can be linked to the Olympics without any vetting. If nothing is done, the controversies section will grow exponentially with little to no quality control. 84.251.164.85 (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If (as suitably cited) the staging of the games there is in itself controversial, then obviously not. MapReader (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true, though. The Games aren't controversial by any standard. A few sources that are provided either describe the activities of a fringe group called NOlympicsLA or are unrelated to LA 28 at all (one reference described how NOlympics LA disrupted an IOC press conference in Tokyo). Either provide reliable mainstream sources describing the Games as controversial or I will remove the section altogether. 84.251.164.85 (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Any time is too early for a Controversies section. Our policies discourage the existence of one, and they inevitably become a platform for complaints by people with (usually) political points to try to score. They never add anything useful to our Games articles. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can that section be removed then? It clearly fails to meet encyclopedic standards. 84.251.164.85 (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if it’s reasonably cited.  The Olympics is such a big-money event that some level of local protest is inevitable and should be reported if sufficiently notable.  An unregistered IP editor seeking to remove content from an article isn’t a good look IMHO.  MapReader (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Report protests if you must, but don't add political point scoring to our Olympics articles. Do it somewhere else. It's obvious to me that most of the content  of these sections is from the protesters themselves. That's not what Wikipedia is for. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether I am registered or not does not matter, and I would like to ask the editor in question to stop using ad hominem arguments. If no reliable mainstream sources (as opposed to NOlympicsLA primary sources or sources describing their activity) are presented, that section will be removed. , what is required to do that? 84.251.164.85 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: At this stage with this article, anyone can remove content. Unfortunately, those who like to use Olympics articles for protests tend to have very firm views. I have removed a lot of "controversy" content in the past, only to have it instantly restored with angry Edit summaries. I have given in, probably too easily. But I will keep making my point on Talk pages. As for you being unregistered, I agree that isn't necessarily a problem, but I would recommend registering. Other sites may have some negatives involved with registering, such as unwanted junk mail, but not here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your advice. I have created an account, and hopefully changes can be made to the article once more editors weigh in on the issue. However, if no further comments are made, I will consider removing the section in question in a few days. Rennespzn (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too early for a 'controversies' section? 

message: For the spot where it says “Potential Football Venues”, the references are outdated. Can we confirm that they are still true? 2603:6081:7841:3F43:8136:478:E863:B6F3 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Venues  

message: I have changed it to read, "Various venues in Downtown Los Angeles, Exposition Park and USC."  Expo Park and USC are a couple of miles away from Crypto.com Arena (I'd know, I've walked it).</ins> pbp 14:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please DISCUSS your revert and/or respond to my rationale? pbp 19:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downtown Sports Park 

message: The redirect United States 2028 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  until a consensus is reached.  Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:United States 2028]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]