Talk:2020 Summer Olympics/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Africa Section

Hi. I hope I haven't angered anyone, but I've tried to clean up the South Africa section. I completely removed Cape Town as they are no longer in the running. I know people from Cape Town won't like it, but it's logical as this is the inappropriate page to keep a record of the internal (national) bidding process. I've also removed some of the quotations regarding South Africa's potential bid as I don't think they have any relevance and Wikipedia is not a news article. The section still needs a lot of work, but I think it's looking a little better now. GetDownAdam (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Official Bids

I think a section should be added for official bids. Some cities and/or national olympic committees have officially announced that they will bid for 2020, such as Rome. With some cities its not longer a proposal, its an official bid. I think a new section should be added for official bids. --Alextwa (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the actual bidding process does not start for several years, and bidding cities are notoriously changeable, we wait until we have a documented source from the IOC announcing actual bidding cities. There have been numerous cases where a city says they will bid and pull out at the last minute, or a seemingly minor bid suddenly emerges. Therefore, all cities should be kept under potential bids for the moment. However, you may continue to add detail to a bid; after all, the more documented the bid, the more likely it will become an "official bid".-Cbradshaw (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

NEW: The Olympic Rule

We should make a rule to only make a page for ONE (1) Olympic Game that have yet to be unassigned. For example... Since 2008 is Beijing, 2012 is London, 2016 is unassigned and thus the Olympic articles should stop. So when 2016 gets assigned, don't make a 2024 page until 2020 is assigned. Same can go for other events. So we're not just making pages for the sake of making pages, but we're not waiting until the last minute to make the page. It'll sort of be a compromise, so these pages don't get too far out of control. Agree/Disagree? Moonraker0022 08:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with not "making pages for the sake of making pages," but I think this one deserves to be here. The coverage is real and the nomination process noteworthy. \/\/slack (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about doing it this way? Combine the articles on the Olympics-yet-to-be-announced into a single article, entitled simply, "Future Olympiads", and just put it all in there? That way the article itself would continue to exist regardless of what had been announced. As it is, this article on 2020 is just ridiculously speculative, six years before even the host city is announced. Much of the 2020 speculation will probably overlap with the speculation for 2016 or 2024. Just put it all in one place. What do you all think? Unschool 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I may try in the future to join together the articles on all future Olympiads which do not yet have announced host cities, for the reasons given above. Unschool 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and done it. It certainly seems to me that there is entirely too much speculation in these articles, maybe that will be easier to see now. Unschool 04:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Auckland bid?

Can someone source a reference for Auckland's bid? It was added on 27 March 2006 in this edit by 210.54.173.115.

I've googled "auckland olympic games bid" and have found nothing that hints that Auckland might bid to host any Olympic Games, let alone games which are this close (with Auckland's developing public transport system and lack of sporting facilities, and so on). That "rumours" exist for Auckland to bid is insufficient; at least semi-solid evidence, or demi-semi-solid evidence needs to be present if Wikipedia is to claim that Auckland is a potential bid.

If no reference is given within seven days, that is, on or before 2 July 2006 (UTC), I will remove the entire section on Auckland. Neonumbers 07:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section on Auckland (three days after I promised to).

Please do not revert this edit. I feel I have explained the removal reasonably above. If you have a proper reference for the claim that Auckland is considering a bit, and rumours do not count as a "reference", then be sure to list the source on this page first (if this is the case then you can revert the change). Neonumbers 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

- Please take a look at 2024 Summer Olympics - there is a section on an Auckland bid there, which refers to a 2020 bid.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 06:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Slow news day

http://www.deadspin.com/sports/wikipedia/wikipedia-already-has-an-entry-for-the-2020-olympics-224006.php

Deadspin, a Google News registered blog about sports, has an article about there being an article on 2020. -- Zanimum 17:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Could somebody who is knowledgeable about the 2020 games please clarify the last paragraph about possible bidding changes after the 2016 games have been decided? Canada is also a part of the Americas, so that would also eliminate Rio. (At the very least, add South America or something) Thanks in advance. Crisco 1492 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bangkok

I removed this text because it clearly states no one from Thailand has even discussed a bid. However, it is well written, and since they may bid if the Youth Olympics bid fails, it will save time to keep it here:

Bangkok, Thailand
Whilst neither Thailand nor the city of Bangkok have officially expressed any interest in holding the Olympics, Bangkok's location in the world creates a great advantage for any possible bids. As the IOC have expressed interest to awarding the games to a city in one of the regions of the world where there has not yet been an Olympic Games hosted, along with Kuala Lumpur, The Thai capital's Southeast Asian location, prominence in the region and the fact that it is a well known city internationally, high population and advanced infrastructure (for the region) make it an obvious choice for applicancy. Most of the development in Thailand takes place in Bangkok, and the city has one of the highest GDPs in the region.

--Cbradshaw (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubai

Can someone clarify the five regions never to have hosted statement? It makes little sense and if no justification is forth coming I'm going to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.201.63 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hobart

That is comedy gold. Hobart! LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.1.209 (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is comedy gold... the bid was started by a pair of radio hosts on a local community radio station as a joke. However, it got people talking, the people mentioned in the section (Premier, lord mayor, etc) HAVE in fact given their in-principle support to the bid! The hosts are now taking it seriously, even gone so far as contact the AOC to endorse it! So I guess it is an actual bid and should stay! -- Chuq (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No its an april fools day joke - hence it was announced on April 1st. Hobart is large enough to host the Commonwealth Games and it is there that the City intends to place its attention. As Gold Coast have got 2018 expect Hobart to either be the next Australian city after Gold Coast or the one after that. Given that Australia gets one every four games probably will see Hobart host the Commonwealth games around 2030 or onwards.

Thank you above poster for not signing your comment, how nice. It started as a joke, and now has official backing by members of parliament so I would say it's less joke-like than other bids. 124.177.0.8 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

The government of the Dominican Republic is planning a strong bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics. Santo Domingo would definetely be the candidate city for this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.193.222 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Philippines

No news on this yet. The source is unreliable. I'm removing this for the time being. Whoever wrote it must be in for satirical purpose. I should know, I live in the country. ^__^ Xeltran (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good call. As I live in the country also, I'm having doubts about this. Did President GMA give an official statement? No. 121.58.205.126 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2008 (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) 05:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Some Recent Edits

I'm a bit shocked at some recent edits... it seems a few editors have been making tons of unilateral changes with no discussion. Many of the deleted potential bids should have been tagged for needing proper citations instead of just deleted. -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is of such a speculative nature that it is just begging for people to come in and add whatever notion comes into their head. The only protection we have against it becoming a place for psychic graffiti is swift elimination of all non-sourced speculation. I mean, even 90% of the sourced stuff is just speculation, but I'll respect it if it's actually coming from semi-official authorities.

Frankly, I'm not convinced of the wisdom in even having an article like this, when the beginning of the bidding process is still years away. But if it's going to exist, it needs not to be allowed to become a trash dump. Unschool (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in basic agreement with Unschool. I'd give some leeway to sourced speculation for now, though - since that's all a reader could expect if they were interested in the subject. Unsourced speculation should be removed and the article will need a lot of overhaul as facts eclipse whimsy. --Dystopos (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that a discussion is first needed before making revisions to unsourced potential bids, going for that method may entice other editors or anon ones to just keep adding more and just put a "citation needed" tag. For now, since the official bidding process is years away, we have to rely on sources that have original research and are reputable, like news sites, for instance. Xeltran (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ostensible Melbourne bid

Ron Walker has stated that Melbourne WILL bid for the 2020 olympics and the Premier of Victoria has also supported this decision. Well, first of all, Ron is no longer in any position of authority, is he? And even if he is, we need a source that is not just someone's personal fan page. I'm not doubting that Melbourne is going to submit a bid, I'm just saying, show some proof, just like all the other cities listed here. Please don't put this back in using this website as a reference. Unschool (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Australian OC has confirmed that if a bid will be logged from Australia for the 2020 Olympics, it will be Brisbane, not Melbourne that bids, although at this stage bid is more likely for 2024 Robert4011

Toledo, Ohio

the Toledo, Ohio article states that Toledo will be putting in a "strong bid" for the 2020 olympics, there is no citation and I plan to ask for one on that discussion page too. Anyone know anything about this? Mwv2 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane, Queensland

As cited in Reuters, the AOC states that the earliest Brisbane can bid for is 2020, with further possibility for 2024 and 2028. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foundationexpo88 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the earliest they can bid. Doesn't mean they will. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 10:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid reverting edits until a consensus is made whether Brisbane would indeed make a bid or not, if this continues, a violation of WP:3RR might be committed. I'll need to read the source first so I can give my own personal judgment. Xeltran (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. We really need to come up with some kind of standard for what constitutes a potential bid. If the minimum requirement is an article that notes that 2020 is the earliest year any city can bid, then this page is really going to fill up fast. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 10:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps when more editors participate in the article, a consensus can be met. For now, we need to stick to solid sources regarding potential bids. If we just keep putting up ^{[citation needed]} tags, the article will be swarmed up with dubious statements. Xeltran (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't even bother with the fact tags, I just remove them. We could start a topic at WP:OLYMPICS, but we should probably wait until after the current games are done because most of the Olympics editors are very busy at the moment. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 10:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane declared to be the next Australian host city? Only a matter of time before it returns to Australia? I think, considering these two facts, it is absurd that Brisbane, Australia is NOT mentioned. The only question is how long until -- not if -- it comes to Brisbane (something that can be said for only a handful of cities); and because 2020 has been mentioned, and because Brisbane is also officially bidding for the 2018 Commonwealth Games, and because the Games will have been to Asia, Europe (at least twice) and presumably the Americas in 2016 (and everywhere except Australia for the Winter Games) in the time since Sydney, a 2020 bid is highly likely and deserves a mentioning, especially at the moment while interest in the Olympics remains high.BowieX (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane has no intention of bidding for the 2020 games. Queensland and the Queensland government is concentrating purely on the 2018 Commonwealth Games. This section should be removed and replaced with the Hobart bid that has been removed for no reason

NYC 55david (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

New Delhi, India

Yes, New Delhi, India plans to bid for 2020 Olympics. India was planning for 2016, but decided to bid for 2020 instead. (Mahendra Singh, NJ USA). http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/6603449.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.211.109 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Saying that Delhi's bid is cancelled is a bit premature. Jacques Rogue has expressed willingness for Delhi to bid for the 2020 games. I am moving Delhi from the Cancelled to potential section.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/commonwealthgames/8040001/Commonweath-Games-2010-Indias-Olympic-dream-still-alive-says-IOCs-Jacques-Rogge.html Renegadegill (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadegill (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Portugal

In 2016 OG article, the Lisbon reference talks about a possile biding in 2016 or 2020, as it's not possible to host the 2016 OG, I think that the reference should [1] should be taken as a good reference and a true one. I ear by many time from now, the Portugal (especialy Lisbon, as it's the capital), wants to host the games, at least one time. In 2020, we will have a all new aeroport, TGV (Lisbon Madrid - Lisbon Oporto Valencia), a new bridge, many new construction and reabilitations all over the city, the underground will increase by 30Km conecting important parts of Lisbon, etc, I think with this reference, and with all this projects, Lisbon is really considerating hosting the games João P. M. Lima (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another reference that speaks about Lisbon 2020, an island to e constructed in Tagus (Rio Tejo), to be incorporated in the biding project for the olimpics. I will look up for more references, and i will put all of them here as i found them João P. M. Lima (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

another one [2] João P. M. Lima (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced bids

Both Monterrey and Guadalajara have multiple references, but all the referenced pages are either irrelevant or broken links. I'm going to spend some time trying to find a source of some merit, but if I cannot, I will remove both of these entries. If anyone can source a government official or planning committee, please feel free to include that city again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

After continuing to look through the sources, I've managed to verify that all of the current Asian and African cited cities, all of these at least have some level of referenced verification, though tenuous. I'll check the rest tomorrow and probably strike the unsourced Mexico stubs. The section on Romagna, Italy also only cites two random italian language blog posts, as are the references for Lisbon. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Birmingham, Alabama Bid

I've added language to this section detailing the fact that this bid is solely an aspirational proposal of what appears to be a slightly delusional mayor. The cited articles show essentially no support on a local or national level and apparently Birmingham's mayor has a history of unfunded grandiose proposals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk • contribs) 15:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, double post.

UAE wants to host both Olympic Games and Expo in the same year?

I thought that was illegal to do that. After the fiascos that were Paris 1900 and St. Louis 1904, when they combined the Olympic Games into the World's Fair sphere, I thought that the IOC said back then that the Olympic Games will be independent of the World's Fair and it will not go through that "joint hosting" again. So, I hope that the UAE is not going to be foolish to do that and try to justify it to the IOC. It would result in the way Doha was denied bidding for the 2016 Summer Olympics as a candidate city. Rockies77 (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC) rockies77Rockies77 (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

US -no bids?

I restored US cities to the Cancelled bids section. The head/spokesperson for the National Olympic Committee has more authority than any city in bidding for the Olympics, as the city cannot bid without the approval of the NOC. Therefore, at this time, the US is out of the race. If we have documented negotiations of a city working with the NOC, we can re-add them later. Cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't specifically say they would not bid, he just said that at this time (with three years until a city is chosen), The United States doesn't have a bid planned, and won't until they have negotiated with the IOC. Hence, the cities are still appropriate, as they have announced their intentions to possibly bid, should the US change their mind. In my opinion, the other way is better, with the top of it being that the head of the USOC made that statement, and there isn't a plan to bid. Once it is official, as in not just a press conference statement, but an official release from the USOC, we can move them to the cancelled section. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay so i was looking up recently and found this article <http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/1216135029.html> It fully states that the United States will not bid - AddZack —Preceding unsigned comment added by AddZack (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

2020 (or 2024) Summer Olympic candidate cities/ bids

Please note not every single city has a source, or through the local media, or just speculation. Paris was very close in getting the 2016 summer olympics, or would be the substitute/alternative site in case Rio de Janeiro can't host the games on schedule. The 2028 summer game thing is based on petition and just talk by the cities. Also included are 2018 or 2022 winter olympic candidate cities (the most likely are Denver, Colorado in the USA- declined to host the 1976 winter games; Munich, Germany - if approved, they are the first city to host both summer and winter olympiad events in its history - Munich 1972; and Santiago, Chile, if approved may be the first winter games held in the Southern hemisphere, although South Island, New Zealand is on the list). The high interest of a future summer olympic game event in Italy and Australia, and winter olympic games in Switzerland and Sweden are indications of these countries want to host the sets of next IOC games. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The redundant listing of every potential IOC site for the Summer or Winter olympic games was deleted. The articles are already edited for the highest standard of accuracy. The chances of the mentioned cities above are not exact predictions, but are based on its qualifcation and credentials. The IOC requested that the United States not apply for the 2020 Summer games and to give the chance for Africa and Asia outside of the Orient (i.e. India and the Middle East) the previously not awarded the (Summer) Olympics in their history. The first Summer Olympics held in Africa, esp. South Africa would be a historic feat indeed in the continent known for olympian talent, and Russia seems to hold potential of hosting their second Olympic games in its history: In 1980, the Summer Olympics were in Moscow in the then-Soviet Union. + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

GamesBids.com

This website is notoriously unreliable and should NOT be used as a Primary Reliable source in a bid citation. This website expected more than 20 bids for the 2018 Winter games and in truth, there were three. This blog does not cite sources or official support, but posts about quasi-possible bids coming from cities that have made little or no support for an actual bid. At some point we'll need to trim down this list to include cities that have some kind of official support. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The website did not "expect more than 20 bids for the 2018 Winter Games", it predicted about four. It reports (as we do here) cities that "indicate interest", hence potential bids. Whether or not the cities which indicate interest actually apply is not the fault of the website. A definition of an unreliable source in this context is, for example, a Facebook support group. A city official, reported in the news-and by extension-on Gamesbids, is reliable.-Cbradshaw (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lima, Peru Bid

While Peru will likely bid for an Olympic games in the future, there is no official or unofficial support for a 2020 bid. During the bidding process for the 2015 Pan-American games, Peruvian officials suggested that the infrastructural investment for those games might Eventually lead to an Olympic bid. Even then, there was no talk of a bid in 2020, more likely 2024 or later. Since Lima lost the Pan-American games to Toronto, this timeline may be pushed back further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As unlikely as a successful bid for Peru in 2020 may be, the article that you deleted clearly said "Woodman said Peru would also try to bid for the 2020 and 2024 Summer Olympic Games." -Cbradshaw (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hobart bid

This is not an April Fools joke, this page was vandalised with somebody claiming it to be an april fools joke. If you read the above quote from the person saying about the bid no longer being a joke you will find that to be true. Brisbane are no longer bidding for the games in 2020 as the Gold Coast are bidding for the 2018 Comm Games. The bid for the Hobart games is official and does have support. Unfair edits and removal of sources etc keep being made for no reason with people doing so with no knowledge of what is happening with the bid itself.

NYC 55david (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was an April Fools joke nor did a bloody vandalise so I suggest you get the facts right. The content you are adding is not OFFICIAL a Government bid (second source states that on the end if you bothered to read it) but just some crap from a wanna be radio station advert/promotion and does not belong here on Wikipedia as it isn't notable and a crystal ball. You also have a COI with the radio station. Bidgee (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It did start as an aprils fools joke - see my further comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&action=edit&section=20 - and http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135135.html Satu Suro 14:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

it did not start as an april fools joke. I am inovled in the bid, live in Hobart so I am aware of the bid and know it's legitamacy. If you feel it is illegitame then you clearly do not know the full details of it and are basing your opinions on that of edits claiming it to be an April Fool's joke. Please point out this 'evidence' that shows it was an April Fool's joke. A vandalism post by another user clearly does not back this up. As for Bidgee your comments, again, coming from somebody involved, I think I would know how it is legitimate and if we have spoken to the government or not. Brisbane has no intent to bid for 2020 yet remain on this page, so where is the balance in that?

NYC 55david (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Games Bid article (Which is really story which they lifted from the AAP which is the only media org to write about this with 3 other media outlets reprinting the AAP [Really only one media outlet has reported this]) does say it started as a joke, it also has no support from the AOC nor the Tasmanian or Federal Government. You also have a COI and all your claims are OR. Bidgee (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It did start as an april fools joke - and as I have said elsewhere until such time as there are 'reliable 3rd party sources giving any credence to any sense of an official bid - then it all this is continuing Soapbox material and not wikipedia standard material. Satu Suro 08:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It did start as a joke, it is no longer a joke. As detailed in a reliable 3rd party media source (ie: AAP, Australia's national news agency, perhaps the MOST DEFINITIVE media source in Australia). The story can be read in the Sydney Morning Herald, http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/hobart-olympic-bid-is-serious-20100415-sgnh.html a major newspaper read nationally. While it may be considered that only one 'media outlet' has written about this, it's clearly not true. AAP is owned and controlled by News Ltd., Fairfax, West Australia Newspapers, and Rural Press Limited - who own pretty much every major media source in Australia. If something was reported on Fox News and in the Wall Street Journal, they would be considered different stories. More information on the bid can be found at http://www.hobart2020.org/why/faq which includes the admission that no federal, state or local government authority has given official backing to the bid. In terms of IOC, I am not involved in the bid apart from having joined the facebook group as a joke when the bid was a joke. Methulah (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Fairfax (Rural Press), News Ltd and WAN is typical at using any story from any of its newspapers to use in other newspapers but it is still one source as it was written by Australian Associated Press. This joke does not belong here as it is not an official bid but a bid by some wanna be little known small time radio presenters. Bidgee (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't really care if they're wannabe small time radio presenters, or even if this is a calculated career move to gain them personal publicity. It isn't Wikipedia's place to decide what constitutes a valid tentative and speculative unofficial bid. It is easily verifiable that there is discussion in Hobart and a movement to make a bid for the games. That's more than most cities on this list. Wikipedia does not just report things which you find non-ridiculous. 59.167.203.48 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fact is a single purpose account who also used an IP was using Wikipedia to publicize there joke/unofficial bid (A breach of WP:SPAM and WP:ADVERT) which isn't notable since it is unofficial (As stated by the AOC in the only article published by the media). Bidgee (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel it matters if the account is an SPA, or if they didn't log in to edit, either. I'm also not sure that there is such a clear cut distinction between advertising and reporting upon, and I know for a fact that there is no iron clad rule against someone reporting upon an area in which they are involved, and I strongly feel that such a rule would be against the ethos of Wikipedia. The bid is notable because it exists and has attracted national media attention. It's as notable as most of these bids listed (considering that so far, very few of them are 'official'). Certainly, Brisbane's bid is unofficial, and there has been less discussion in the media about that than there has been about Hobart's. In fact, I would ask you to point out the differences between Hobart's bid and Brisbane's, neither of which exist at this stage in an official capacity. Could the main difference to you be that you feel that Brisbane would be taken seriously? Methulah (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that most expected bids stated are not yet official so why is the Hobart bid being taken as a joke. It now has official backing by members of parliament, which is more than Brisbane's "bid" can say. Brisbane has also stated that they do not intend to make a bid, so even if the AOC wants Brisbane to be the next bid, they don't want it. 124.177.0.8 (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed with above comment. The bid has support from members of parliament and has more public support than the likes of Brisbane, despite no official backing from the AOC. Auckland was added to this page on the basis of a comment by the cities Lord Mayor, and has no backing from the NZOC or Government either. Hobart has a lot more support and backing than Auckland does, but is constantly belittled due to it's public perception and size. If anything Hobart has more right to be on this page than both Auckland and Brisbane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.202.91 (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Time Zones

Since when have Time zones ever been a factor in the awarding of Host Cities. One user went as far as to say that The Americas are all in the same time zone, which is why the IOC would not award the 2020 games to a North American City. Well considering that Rio is UTC -2 and the eastern most North American city likely to bid (New York) is UTC -5 and the Western most city likely to bid (Seattle) is UTC -8. I don't feel time zones will be a factor. To further reiterate the point look at the map on the following Wikipedia Page.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas]

To any readers miffed by my choice of the cities, as likely to bid. I used those cities as examples only. As they are both on either sides of the continent.--Subman758 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Brisbane wants to host both the Olympic Games and an Expo for 2020?

Again, I'm sorry, but I believe that is not acceptable to the IOC. Also, I believe that a decision was made after the fiascos called Paris 1900 and St. Louis 1904 by the IOC. I hope the Australian Olympic Committee does not pursue the wrath of the IOC by going through with this decision. Rockies77 (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm against deletion of this article. We're only 2 1/2 years away from when the host city is confirmed, and the info relating to what host cities are possible is slowly gaining. Georgia guy (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that deletion tag is from 2005. The article is safe. Cbradshaw (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The IOC has started the election process. Hektor (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

US Bid Potential

There seems the be a slight potential of a last minute US bid. The US was put back into the potential bids section under North America. I'm not sure if it should or should not be put in there yet. If there is a bid, it would be due by september 1. A bid must be put together and for several cities this could be hard due to the fact that some cities have few venues and would need to build a lot of new ones. LA might be the easiest city to put forward technically speaking. Putting a bid together takes some time. The clock is ticking for the bids to be entered. So far there are two solid bids and two others that should come to its fruition. Thoughts? --MusicGeek101 (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hobart?

I know it is taken as a joke but it is being supported by top Tasmanian government officals including the Premier. Also the bid has been featured on newspapers and news stations. The bid also has relased a 3d version of the stadiums they plan to make if the bid goes far. I know the bid isnt supported by the National Olympic Commitee but with Tasmanian government support i think it should be put on the list. If you look at the St. Petersburg bid it only says the governor announced his intention but it says nothing of the Olympic Commitee suport. Spongie555 (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking that. Surely Hobart, Australia should be on the list.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you guys can see they have support from notable people, [3], even the priemer of Tasmania. Spongie555 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is, no matter how much support the bid has received, nor how much coverage it has gotten, the people on this site clearly have an agenda against it. The bid itself received more support and attention than any bid for Brisbane yet is not included on here. It has even annoucned it's intention to bid for the 2022 Youth Olympics but still nothing. It has more support and coverage than the majority of cities on this page yet gets ignored just because it's Hobart and people think it's a joke. Something needs to be done about this because there is something unfair going on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.234.192 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As what has been pointed out in the past, that Hobart's so called bid isn't not notable and never had the support of or pre-selected by Australian Olympic Committee, nor was there a lot of media coverage. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Never had a lot of media coverage? The bid was covered throughout the world on numerous news sources, clearly this shows the agenda against the bid. What has the bid for Brisbane done besides having 'being pre-selected by the AOC'? Nothing. No talk of a bid whatsoever, yet they remain on here due to a few comments by the AOC. There are cities on this page that have had nothing mentioned about a bid but are on here due to their size and what people perceive as 'realism factor'. The bid for Hobart got more attention and public support than the majority of bids on this page but still remains to be segregated by the 'admins' on this site. How the small piece mentioning it as a cancelled bid and that it intends to bid for the Youth Olympics (with several notable sources as well) relates as something that should be deleted is extremely confusing, considering the other small pieces on this page with hardly any references at all. This addition should remain in some form, and has also been mentioned the same by other users on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.8 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:SOAPBOX, we have been here (discussing why Hobart's bid isn't notable nor was it really a true bid) before. Bidgee (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm a sports nut. I live in Melbourne, an uninvolved city pretty close to Hobart. Apart from this material on Wikipedia (which I saw, of course, because my sports obsession leads me to click on all sorts of links about sport), I have seen nothing at all, anywhere, about a Hobart bid. Please share some examples of this global coverage with us. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a one line mention of the bid is not out of line. I have seen multiple articles about the bid ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] The assertion that "the AOC never sanctioned the bid" does not discount its existance. Similar situations for Nagasaki, Japan, and several cities in Italy and the US were not endorsed and we briefly mention those cities. Cbradshaw (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot read anything about the Hobart "bid" without placing it in exactly the same category as the Smiggin Holes 2010 Winter Olympic bid. Plenty of celebrities and VIPs "supported" that bid too. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

the difference between Hoabrt & the Smiggins Holes bid is that the SH bid was known to be a joke, whereas the Hobart one is being done as a serious attempt. As previous person mentioned above, Nagasaki Japan and the Italian and American cities were never endorssed but mentioned, so what's the difference? The clear difference is the agenda held by the few people 'in charge' of this page that is clearly why they refuse to keep it on this page. I highly doubt that anything less than seeing a flame lit above Hobart will change their minds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.122.108 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Even the source provided says it is the plan of two radio hosts. Unless sources showing supoport from someone relevant, i.e. someone from the Australian Olympic Committee or a senior member of the government, are provided then this bid has no place here. Please stop readding the "bid" in its current form - Basement12 (T.C) 13:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record - I am a Tasmanian. This so called bid IS NOT OFFICIAL. The political backing that you have seen is just the same sort of political attention that any people involved in a harmless hobby recieve from people in Politics. Neither the State Government or Hobart City Council have any involvement because they are quite realistic about the fact that Tasmania will never host an Olympics unless it takes part in some kind of triple hosting affair down the track, perhaps sharing with Adelaide and Perth. (Not suggesting - just saying that is the only way it would happen). These are just a bunch of young lads with media connections and a lot of your standard hopefuls along the lines of what you would find in any community hoping for the impossible. Having said that, Hobart could host a Commonwealth games at some stage and would even benefit from it with improvements that are at present non-existant and things like an athletes village becoming much-needed housing. In fact Hobart has already been investigated as a possible host for a Commonwealth games once before by the Federal Government and most likely at some point will host one at some time in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Durban

I entered Durban into the potential bids section. It looks like the issue will be re-examined soon, so I feel it is necessary to keep Durban in the potential bids section for a while longer. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Title

Is that really the proper title ? I believe the subject matter covered by existing sources would be best described as "Bids for the 2020 Summer Olympics". To me, this article is juste a 'detailed article' of the future one on the Olympics to come, a 'See also', but not the main article. --Azurfrog (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The nature of this article changes over time. For the time being, it is just about bids or potential interest. As it gets closer to the election process, only actual bidding cities are detailed. Finally, once the host city is selected, the bidding information is moved to a "Bids..." page and information about the actual games only is included. So, actual bidding cities will be announced by Sept 1. Look for a change in content and format at that time.Cbradshaw (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

anti-doping paperwork which was due July 29

The filing of anti-doping compliance paperwork does not indicate that there will be an official bid from that respective NOC. It does however make it look more possible that a bid may happen. As for Doha, Qater; the qatari NOC did file that paperwork but a Doha bid has not been make yet. Same deal with south Africa. Official bids are due on September 1. There are four bids so far. If and when Qatar, South Africa, US (possibly) make bids then they should be included in the official bids section. Until that time, they should remain in the potential bids section. After September 1, this article can be consolidated because the official bids will have been received by the IOC. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Official websites

The only bid that has an official website as of now seems to be rome. does anyone know if Tokyo, Madrid & Istanbul have official bid websites out there? We could include them in the external links section. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hobart Bid Deletion

I'm not trying to draw argument though I'm against the deletion of the Hobart bid. If you look at former Olympics' wikipedia pages they commonly include cancelled bids which were even less serious. The Hobart bid was being pushed for, and did gain a large amount of international public attention and support (over 12,000 people liked the Facebook support page), and was therefore highly notable. If more people are against its deletion than it remaining then that's fine. The now-deleted text is pasted below encase people decide that it deserves to remain, and that its deletion can no longer be undone.

Hobart attracted much attention for it's public run bid, which many initially believed to be a joke. The bid attracted over 12,000 followers on Facebook, and part of the plan involved the construction of a 100,000-seat stadium. The project was eventually cancelled by the campaigners in order to instead focus on a possible bid for the 2022 Youth Olympics. [42] LabradorGroup (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles 2020 ?

Why when I put los olympics into google, did "los angeles 2020" be so prominent in the drop down list? When I came on to this Wiki. article about the 2020 Olympics, there is no mention of Los Angeles 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.157.90 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's because Los Angeles isn't bidding for them - nor is anywhere else in the Americas. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hosting possibilities

Is this section really necessary, now that we know the official applicant cities (especially the part saying how long it'll have been since each continent last hosted the Olympics)? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. I think it becomes redundant once official applications are in. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring Manner of Style in Bids which did not go to application section

There's no good reason to particularly do this. In particular, if there is a list with flag icons then it must include country names by first flag use: flag icons can be confusing and can look very similar on low resolution screens (eg on a small screen, how is someone who does not know what country Brisbane is in able to tell that it is in and not ? Or that Bucharest is in and not or ? And do we expect people to instantly recognsie the difference between , and ?). Secondly, bullet lists are less preferable to prose if possible. As articles such as Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games can work without bullets for this section, so can this article. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

2020 Paralympics

Do we know if the 2020 Paralympic Games will be hosted in the same city that hosts the 2020 Olympic Games? I don't know which year the IPC agreement with the IOC goes up to. I feel that info on this could be included with this article and/or we can start a page for the 2020 Paralympics. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bids which did not go to application section

To clear up any misunderstanding or difference of ideas, feel free to discuss this issue here. I have reverted edits in the bids which did not go to application section for a few reasons:

1) The section Potential cities overview on the page 2016 olympic bids looks like how I arranged the section on this page. I have done this to keep consistency and follow precedent. 2) It is easier to look at and its easier to find information without reading a detailed description. These are after all, cities/NOCs that did not bid.

--MusicGeek101 (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Just to clarify, I originally posted at #Ignoring Manner of Style in Bids which did not go to application section at the bottom of this page. With regards to the above:

1. Granted, but Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games and Bids for the 2008 Summer Olympics do not have bullet lists, but prose instead. So there isn't one precedent here. Furthermore, I think the 2008/2012 articles do a better job (if you don't mind me saying!).

2. The problem with the list is that it can be less clear than the prose. As I say below, flag icons can be confusing and can look very similar on low resolution screens (eg on a small screen, how is someone who does not know what country Brisbane is in able to tell that it is in

and not

? Or that Bucharest is in

and not

or

? And do we expect people to instantly recognsie the difference between

,

and

?).

Prose is better in an encyclopedia than a bullet list if possible. I'm not going to keep pushing this too much, but I do think that having a concise description is better than a list. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Inserted the names of the countries to avoid flag confusion. Clicking on flag will take reader to page on the country. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rome problem

Does the recent edit to Rome's section prove Rome won't bid?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Italian PM has confirmed that Rome will not bid, see here, among others. Will be "officially" confirmed tomorrow when they fail to submit their full bid book to the IOC. Ravendrop 23:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Map Update

Can someone with a knowledge of how to edit maps please remove Rome from the map showing the bidding cities. They have now officially stopped their bid with their failure today to submit their candidate file to the IOC. Ravendrop 20:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the "click on circles" function working on this map ? is it dependent from the type of browser for instance ? Hektor (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ATR Powerindex

Does anyone think we should include the Around the Rings poweindex for the bids?

Here is the link to their report: http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=39388

--MusicGeek101 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fukushima Radiation

The Fukushima issues really don't have any bearing on Tokyo's bid for the summer Olympics. Assuming that the reported incidents of thyroid cancer from Fukushima are correct and caused by exposure to radioactive iodine in the period immediately after the initial meltdowns (which are not certain), 1) there is no radioactive iodine anymore - radioactive iodine decays quite rapidly -in a couple of days- and there is no detectable radioactive iodine anymore 2) the children who were exposed all lived in Fukushima, which is hundreds of kilometers north of Tokyo. Tokyo never received any radioactive iodine. 3) none of the proposed venues is located anywhere near Fukushima 4) athletes visiting would only be in Japan for a few weeks, rather than the years and decades of long term exposure for other remaining radioactive substances like cesium (which has never been linked to thyroid cancer in any study by any reputable scientific group) 5) athletes would undoubtedly receive much more radiation in the process of flying to Tokyo than they would from any conceivable stay in Tokyo related to the Olympics. This is fear mongering and probably an attempt to undermine the Tokyo bid by putting extreme disinformation on a highly visible site like Wikipedia.

130.207.62.67 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I am trying to keep the small section on Tokyo short. That section should be short. As for the page on the bid, I mentioned the issue, but it does not need to be long. And yes, with the vote coming up, it is easy for fear mongering to take place on a site such as wikipedia. This is why it is important to keep everything here simple and to the point and not to distract from what this is; an Olympic bid. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi Protect Request

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I feel this page should be semi-protected for the next few days because the election of the Olympic host city is about to take place (Sept 7). The closer we get to the date, the more it is in the news. The more it is in the news, the more likely it is for unregistered users to put things here that either do not belong, are not relevant, vandalism etc. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This is not the place to request page protection. Please go to WP:RFPP and follow the instructions. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I feel this page should be semi-protected because of edit waring from unregistered users. Information that does not belong on this page keeps getting put in when it has been clearly stated that it does not belong here. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Again, this is not where you request pages to be semi protected. You do that at WP:RFPP. However, pages are only protected if they are already being vandalized. Pages are not protected (except when they appear on the main page) due to the possibility of vandalism. Ravendrop 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Typo in "Development and preparation" section

I believe the last sentence in the "Development and preparation" section contains a typo. It says Hakubun Shimomura will "oversea" the preparations, instead of "oversee." Vegeta897 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out. It has now been fixed. Unfortunately, due to the high level of vandalism on this page, new users are not able to edit it at present. --DAJF (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As expected. By the way, what constitutes a new user? I registered this account 3 years ago :) Though I almost never use it. Vegeta897 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case, users need to have made at least 10 edits, even if they aren't technically "new". Details here. --DAJF (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Stadium budget

before stating my point i'd first like to express my hopes that this wiki article will not become the kind of fluff normally filling articles of japanese topics; people writing the japanese articles often gloss over certain truths or ignore them altogether... this article is also in danger of falling under the "control" of chamber-of-commerce-like interests in keeping everything happy and cheerful... anyone attempting that will hear from me again here! (not that i wish to demean Japan in any way; just in the interest of Truth!) that said, i believe the topic concerning public (& locally political?) protests of the MAIN STADIUM BUDGET (?国立競技場/kokuritsu kyougijo?) MUST be noted here; it was enough of a topic to receive mention in international press, therefore its a well-sourcable topic of interest which would add to encyclopedic context here, if not under a new heading of "controversy/criticism" then at least within the section mentioning construction/etc... i'd add it myself if the page weren't locked... Japanglish (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Way Too Many Translations

This might be me nitpicking again, but do we really need four different titles (and thus, four different translations) of "Tokyo 2020 Olympics"? Most of the other recent Olympics pages (Beijing, Athens) only have a single translation, while some (Rio, Barcelona) only translated the motto. This is pretty much the only Olympics page to receive four different translations in the section header.

It's kinda cluttered and unnecessary, IMO. Also, the motto isn't translated yet. ↢ Remor A ↣ 17:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The motto is also poorly translated. It's closer to 'Seize the Future' than 'Discover Tomorrow.'

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)

Europe, excluding Russia

If I'm not mistaken Europe means the European Union since you used the EU flag. Then of course, Russia is not included. There is no need to emphasize this as if this resulted from the Ukraine conflict. Russia probably will have their own channels to broadcast the event. --2.245.186.183 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think they may have sold the rights separately there. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

North Korean broadcasting rights

SBS is a South Korean network. The reference source, nor the SBS wikipedia page, states anything about availability in North Korea. Supertanno (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The IOC's recent practice has been to sell the rights for both Koreas as a single package. The reference confirms this clearly. Whether or not SBS is available in the north, is irrelevant here as it is SBS that owns those rights. Ravendrop 23:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to 2020 Summer Olympics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add south africa (SABC & Supersport to South african broadcast rights) Tshepiii (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The calendar is wrong!

The calendar given in this page is very different from the one given in the cited source (on page 10 of the cited pdf document). For example, the schedule for table tennis is totally different, and there will be only 4 medals, not 5 as it is in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.105.122 (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Went through and checked every event. Table tennis was the only event that I found to be wrong. Definitely not "totally different", but thanks for pointing it out. I have fixed it. Vanderdecken12 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2020 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 07:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Self-contradictory tag

The section now reads It was confirmed in February 2012 that the Olympic Stadium in Tokyo would receive [...] full–scale reconstruction. As a result, a design competition for the new stadium was launched. – if the existing stadium is undergoing reconstruction, why there was a design competition for a new one? It looks like a result of some sloppy editing, and that someone overwrote the lead sentence but did not address the rest of the paragraph, breaking the chronological flow. No such user (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It probably could be written slightly better, but you can probably blame Reuters rather than the editor. It's a pretty faithful representation of the wording in the original source. One thing to consider is that "full scale reconstruction", especially given that the £1 billion upgrade price tag alone would make it the 6th-most expensive sports stadium ever built, would undoubtedly require the services of a design team. This is especially evident if you note the comments about doubling the capacity and movable seats; this is an entirely new stadium they are talking about.
I've added the Reuters article as a new reference, and changed the sentence to It was confirmed in February 2012 that the Olympic Stadium in Tokyo would be demolished and reconstructed, and receive a £1 billion upgrade for the 2019 Rugby World Cup as well as the 2020 Olympics. This matches the wording in the New National Stadium (Tokyo) article as well. CThomas³ (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for providing information about qualification tournaments to the Olympics. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.10.142 (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

So, you have no listing for the individual races to be held

So, as of February 2018, you have no listing for the individual races to be held. I have just read elsewhere that of the summer of 2020, there will be the longer race of 1500 meters freestyle for the women. Now, what about anything else new, such as 800 meters freestyle for the men, since the men already have 1500 meters, but not 800 meters.
By the way, in the last Pan-Pacific Games, Katie Ledecky won the gold medals at 200, 400, 800, and 1500 meters, freestyle. That was a whale of an accomplishment.47.215.180.7 (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg

Valentina Matvienko, Peter's mayor said in July 2007 that St. Petersburg hoped to host the games of 2020...“We will not put off these plans. Certainly, we will not apply for hosting the Games of 2016, because we understand: there exists a principle of continents’ rotation. But we will definitely apply for the next Olympics,” said she.^[7] ^[8]. I'm certain that St. Petersburg will bid for 2020 games.

St. Petersburg is irrelevant! Tokyo was awarded this Summer Olympics (2020) years ago, and the two runners-up were Istanbul and Madrid. There is no such thing as rotation by continents, and especially since South American has received the Olympics once, and Africa not at all. Furthermore, there is no kind of rotation by continents:

Athens -->> Peking -->> London -->> Brazil -->> Tokyo -->> Paris.

Out of six, this gives three in Europe; two in Asia; and one in South America,

with none in North America, Australia, Africa, or Western Asia.

47.215.180.7 (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/youth_olympic_bids/other_youth_olympic_news/1216135737.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135681.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135663.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135602.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135229.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135135.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ http://www.kommersant.com/p780874/
^ http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/story.html?id=fe5c8543-4cc3-40a3-acf7-d5a3119d4797&k=15194

"Tokyo Bay Zoning Dispute"

I removed the edits which had changed the "Tokyo Bay Zone" subsection heading to "Tokyo Bay Zoning Dispute".

This subsection is within "Venues and Infrastructure" section, following "Heritage Zone" and preceding "Sites farther than eight kilometres (five mi) from the Olympic Village". It seems as though this subsection should primarily be detailing the venues in the Tokyo Bay Area, therefore reverting back to the "Tokyo Bay Zone" subsection heading (as per prior to the October 16th edit) seemed preferable.

Also, the text regarding the 'dispute' didn't make much sense. Zoning for what? How does this impact venues? The dispute is between Ota-ku and Koto-ku? Or between the Olympic organisation committee and another party? As this information was unclear, it seemed best to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.107.169.134 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

All of that about "zones" and "areas" is nonsense. Tokyo and its surroundings are in their own "prefecture", which is similar to a state in the United States, Australia, Mexico, etc. It is just as if the United States had sliced off New York City, and adjacent parts of New Jersey, Connecticut, Yonkers, etc., and made that into the 51st State. Then the Prefecture of Tokyo is divided into "wards", but those wards are like the "boroughs" of New York City, and not like the voting wards in various countries.47.215.180.7 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Tokyo 2020 Olympic Mascot.png

File:Tokyo 2020 Olympic Mascot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new picture of the mascots: File:Tokyo 2020 mascots.png with a fair use rationale. Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Tokyo 2020 Olympics logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"In Fiction" section to mention Akira?

Perhaps worth mentioning that the 2020 Summer Olympics were anticipated in fiction in the manga and film "Akira": https://kotaku.com/the-2020-tokyo-olympics-were-predicted-30-years-ago-by-1276381444

Arided (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2020 Summer Olympics marketing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge. Consensus was that the 2020 Summer Olympics marketing is a separate topic which deserves its own article. Rollidan (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The content of 2020 Summer Olympics marketing was split out of 2020 Summer Olympics#Marketing on January 2, 2019. I think it is too soon for a separate marketing article to exist about the 2020 Summer Olympics at this time. Indeed, many of the sections in the split article are totally blank, and there's nothing there that can't be comfortably presented here. Mz7 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No - It seems there are plenty of sources showing the notability of the subject as an independent entry already included on the page. Isingness (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Isingness: I think notability is a separate issue from what I'm talking about. There really isn't that much material in the marketing article right now. Merging the article would make it so readers can find all the information they can about the 2020 Summer Olympics in one place. There simply isn't enough information for a fleshed-out subtopic article at this time, which is why the subtopic article should be merged to the broader topic. See WP:MERGEREASON. Mz7 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Support: That action was done unilaterally with no consensus. It feels awkward to separate those topics, since it's quite intertwined. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No - Olympic marketing should have their own articles as they talk more about logos, mascots and other symbols. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No - The marketing is very different to the sporting side of the Olympics, and they should remain two separate pages Playlet (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No - per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No - Because the Simoul-Tonkyo 2020 Campaign it's so easy!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chinese Taipei out of order

In the Participating NOCs table, Chinese Taipei appears out of order alphabetically, between Switzerland and Thailand. Of course I understand that this is because "Chinese Taipei" is the IOC's designation for Taiwan, which would sit correctly in this position alphabetically. This has been the case ever since 1984 and looking back I can see that all the summer olympics articles since that date make this same mistake. The fact is that, politics aside, the name "Chinese Taipei" should sit alphabetically between China and Columbia, and not to do so just looks plain incorrect! I have noticed that the winter olympics have Chinese Taipei correctly positioned in the list. So I would like to make the correction for summer articles. Please speak up if you object. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Football venues anomoly

According to the table of football venues, in the women's competition there will be THREE semi-final matches and TWO 3rd place play-offs. Check it out:

Women's semi-finals (x3): Yokohama / Saitama / Kashima
Women's 3rd place (x2): Saitama / Kashima

This is obviously wrong. Please can someone find out and put it right, thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Now corrected according to official Olympic Competition Schedule. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Games motto

Please can we sort this out. The games are just over a year away and we still can't confirm the official motto/slogan!? The "Discover tomorrow" motto was removed by an unregistered IP in this edit on 22 June. Edit was uncontested. Another unregistered IP is today claiming that the motto is "Seize the Future!" taken from a rough translation in the Hungarian wikipedia which is hardly a reliable source.

The official "bid slogan" for Tokyo's bid back in 2011/12 was "Discover Tomorrow". Can anyone confirm one way or the other that this remains the slogan through to the games themselves. Various sources to look at...

I would suggest we reinstate the content that was removed 10 days ago unless anyone has strong objections. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As no-one has expressed an opinion on this, I have to assume that the removal of motto on 22 June was either vandalism or a genuine error, so I'll reinstate "Discover tomorrow" tomorrow. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Checking online I don't think the official motto has been released yet, with it due to be announced by the motto selection committee this summer. Here's something from the official website which you can translate: https://tokyo2020.org/jp/news/notice/20190614-01.html. Abduba (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Phew, thanks for clearing that up Abduba, good job I didn't go ahead and reinstate the old motto as planned (got distracted and never got round to it in the end). Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if the motto selection committee came up with "Discover Tomorrow" in the end anyway... Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the maps and graphs of the qualification of athletes and participating NOCs

There are maps and graphs that count the recent athletes that have been qualified even though there are given numbers according to each of the articles of the participating NOCs. Same with the the countries that are participating. This is why these pictures and graphs of NOCs participating should be kept. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Recovery Olympics"

An unregistered IP has added Recovery Olympics to the opening paragraph as an alternative name for the 2020 Games. I've added in the citation that was provided in the edit summary. However, I'm not entirely sure this is the best place to put this information – how controversial/topical/political is it? Maybe we'd be best putting in a less prominent section lower down the article highlighting the relevance and background to the nickname? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding Surfing Qualification

I am not much connected with surfing in Wikipedia. But I created a surfing related article So Sri Lanka Pro 2019 as I noticed some Sri Lankan sources say it is also a qualification criteria for the upcoming 2020 Summer Olympics. However this is not an annual event as it is proposed to be conducted after 8 years. On the other hand, I heard about the participation of former world champion Mark Occhilupo who has now completely retired from the game for a long time. Also the website of global federation World Surf League mentioned this event as one of the international surfing events. However it didn't mention or specify anything about the Olympic Qualifications regarding this event. Can somebody please help me out on this issue?. Thanks. Abishe (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked into this. The So Sri Lanka Pro 2019 is part of the 2019 WSL Qualifying Series, which is part of the qualifying for the 2020 WSL Championship Tour. However, it is the *2019* Championship Tour which is an Olympic qualifying event, so the Sri Lanka event is not even an indirect qualifier for Tokyo 2020. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Logo

Just something neat found on the web. http://www.xs4all.nl/~fwb/hano2020.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Euro 2016 - Denmark

Here it says that Denmark is bidding for the Euro football championships with Sweeden in 2016, yet if we look at that page, it says that the Bid is Sweeden and Norway??? TJ 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Header in search bar

When searching for the 2020 Olympics, the search bar bit where it gives extra information about the event says it's hosted in Ombues de Lovalle. Is that a prank of some sort, or I am misunderstanding something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.59.148 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Recovery Olympics" in lead

A couple of days ago, User:yeungkahchun removed the alternative name "Recovery Olympics" from the lead but I put it back because it's been established for some time now so it's probably best to discuss it first. I understand that this alternative name may be controversial and I wonder if we should include it as a note rather than putting it up front in the first paragraph, which gives it the same emphasis as the more prominent names "2020 Summer Olympics", "Games of the XXXII Olympiad" and "Tokyo 2020". The note would read: "An alternative name for the 2020 Games is the Recovery Olympics (Fukkō Gorin (Japanese: 復興五輪), in reference to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster recovery) + existing source. I also notice that the alternative name (and questions surrounding it) has not been included as a controversial aspect of the Olympics, when maybe it should? All available sources mention the fact that victims of the Fukushima disaster are being overlooked and resent the fact that the government are spending so much money on the Olympics, etc. etc. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, no response to this after 7 days so I'll go ahead and change as I see fit. My reasoning for this is that the name is possibly controversial, it's not in common use, and I feel that we should give it rather less emphasis than the more prominent names stated in the lead ("2020 Summer Olympics", "Games of the XXXII Olympiad" and "Tokyo 2020"). Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW closed. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics → Second Tokyo Summer Olympics – I've picked up evidence that they won't be until 2021. Georgia guy (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: Wait. What? Evidence please. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Do a Google news search and you'll get a few articles saying that people support this. Georgia guy (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Here is a relevant Google search. I find zero results that use Second Tokyo Summer Olympics as a proper name (with Second capitalized). This may be the second Tokyo Summer Olympics (the first of which, ironically, was cancelled too), but that doesn't mean that's the common name. We have 1940 Summer Olympics, but not First Tokyo Summer Olympics (by which count this would be the Third Tokyo Summer Olympics, anyway).Renerpho (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment. First letters of Wikipedia article titles are always capitalized. Georgia guy (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose and revisit when warranted. If they move to 2021, then 2021 Summer Olympics should become the title. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please note the reason I'm proposing the title is because it has been suggested that they won't be until 2021, not because they have been moved to 2021. Georgia guy (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It's looking very likely now that they will be postponing the event, but surely we need to wait until they've made a definite decision and made an announcement before we think about changing the title? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That is the reason I am not proposing a move to 2021 Summer Olympics. Georgia guy (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The games have not yet been cancelled. This RM is very much in good faith, but premature. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose – though there is now doubt about when or if these Olympics will take place, I haven't seen any sources referring to them with the suggested title. Keep it at "2020 Summer Olympics" for now, revisit if needed per Randy Kryn. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - WP:TOOSOON. As for possible future scenarios, if the event is cancelled completely then the title may as well stand as it is. If the event is postponed (standing contracts with the IOC would allow the date to be moved to the end of 2020, but to no later than that[4]), the title would still stand. Moving to 2021 would require the contracts to be changed, and that's WP:CRYSTAL. I see no need for a move yet. Renerpho (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CONSISTENCY- 2021 Summer Olympics would become the title. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose lol is this a joke? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
SNOW CLOSE "Move this page because an un-named source has told me..." Not good enough. Not credible enough. Next. doktorb _words^deeds 23:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adopting our language to the possibility of cancellation

When most of the text in this page was drafted, the occurrence of the games seemed a lot more sure than it does now. Phrases like "these will be the fourth Olympic Games to be held in Japan" at this point make me uncomfortable per WP:CRYSTAL, since while it's still more likely the games will take place in some form or just be postponed, there's a non-trivial possibility of outright cancellation. Can we change the language throughout to something more akin to "these are planned to be the fourth Olympic Games to be held in Japan"? Sdkb (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Skimming through the article, it looks okay to me. There is always a possibility of changes to future events; that was true six months ago and it is true now. Also, most of the "will" language is not about dates, so it should remain accurate even if the games are postponed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Right now, cancellation isn't even "on the agenda" according to the IOC [5]. I think "planned to be" is implicit in "will be"; I don't think there's any need to change that specific wording at this time. Mz7 (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Request Title Change from 2020 Summer Olympics to 2021 Summer Olympics

The IOC is expected to postpone the 2020 Summer Olympics Games to 2021 and a title change and details should be updated Efuture2 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Expected to" but have not yet. And it is not clear that 2021 will be where they end up (though it seems most likely). It's a little premature to change the title, though of course the text should include discussion. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to wait until official announcement. Dick Pound has said as much, but it's not yet official.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jonel, Crumpled Fire, Jonas kam, and ApprenticeFan: I earlier semi-protected this article. But given all the recent changes to the infobox by autoconfirmed users based on rumors, I am inclined to full-protect the article until there is an official announcement. You four seem to have been involved recently in keeping the article honest; do you think it should be locked? and if so, I wonder which version to protect: "July 24" or "TBD"? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It may have to be locked if the edits continue, and if so I would favor the "July 24" version as the status quo until we get an official proclamation.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You got it. I'm going to lock it for 24 hours, I suspect that will be enough. When something definite comes out, ping me or anyone; I hereby authorize any other admin to unlock it as soon there is something definite to add. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN confirmed delay. Starzoner (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Article will still be 2020 Summer Olympics despite being moved to 2021, no change or rename. Period. Example, Miss Universe 2016 was held in January 2017 that wasn't held on the entire calendar year of 2016. ApprenticeFan work 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Games of the XXXII Olympiad is the official name, and that won't be dependant on date. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The Olympics will still be on its official name Games of the XXXII Olympiad and still entitled 2020 Tokyo Olympics along with the official postponement announcement. ApprenticeFan work 12:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 March 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to 2020 Summer Olympics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rewrite lead to indicate that the Games have been postponed to 2021, now confirmed. Indicate in body that the move was suggested by Japan, and today agreed by the IOC. Sourced to "Tokyo 2020: Olympic Games organisers 'agree postponement'". BBC Sport. March 24, 2020. Retrieved March 24, 2020.

This comes before discussion of and without considering a page move to '2021'.

...is an upcoming international multi-sport event originally scheduled to take place from 24 July to 9 August 2020 in Tokyo, Japan, with preliminary events in some sports beginning on 22 July. → is an upcoming international multi-sport event originally scheduled to take place from 24 July to 9 August 2020 in Tokyo, Japan. Due to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, it will take place in 2021.

Cut the last paragraph of the lead, to be placed in a new section titled 'Postponement', above the current 'Concerns and controversies'. Kingsif (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2020 (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. Interstellarity (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nominated for the main page at ITN

{{ITN nom}} -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

[http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/youth_olympic_bids/other_youth_olympic_news/1216135737.html-1] Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/youth_olympic_bids/other_youth_olympic_news/1216135737.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135681.html-2] Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135681.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135663.html-3] Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135663.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135602.html-4] Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135602.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135229.html-5] Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135229.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135135.html-6] Cite error: The named reference http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216135135.html was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[7] ttp://www.kommersant.com/p780874/

[8] ttp://www.canada.com/topics/sports/story.html?id=fe5c8543-4cc3-40a3-acf7-d5a3119d4797&k=15194

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]