Talk:2006 Commonwealth Games

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 Commonwealth Games article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: Melbourne / Sports High‑importance

	Australia portal 2006 Commonwealth Games is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Should it be using the olympic box? Items like the Olympic Baton need to be replaced.

Day 2/Day 3 Breakdown overlap

why is there women's 50m breaststroke in both days, with both days telling us we (the aussies) swept the medals? which day was it? Domza 10:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening ceremony moved

Shouldn't the opening ceremony stay within this article? Why was it moved out?Domza 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the opening ceremony was removed by American JP06035 so that the article would look more like the 2006 Winter Olympics main article page. Figaro 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok. Just was a shock this morning! Domza 01:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily to make it look like the 2006 Winter Olympics article, but to give this one more flow. If we give the page a "flavor of everything" so to speak, and link to the main pages of larger articles, the page will look more appealing to the reader, as it should. Figaro, you make it look like I did a bad think, refering to me as "American" (which I am). To tell you the truth I feel more at home at the Olympics articles (no offense to you Commonwealth folk). Haha. --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 20:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only commented that you were American because the United States is not involved in the Commonwealth Games. I did not mean to infer that your being American was a bad thing. Figaro 09:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just wasn't sure of your connotation ☺. --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 22:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The duck

who removed the information about the ducking being a goose? Because, it was a goose, and that should be left in the facts. Domza 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Break Down

Added Daily Highlights, will write them later tonight

Do we want to add a daily break down for each day? I think that would be kinda cool. just like a summary of the days events. All in favour say I Domza 23:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How will this be kept NPOV? It seems that every day someone will win gold medals. Do we list them all? Cnwb 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games Motto

Can someone who understands how to edit infoboxes please add a new field for the Games Motto United by the moment. Cheers, BrightLights 13:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Crazycrazyduck 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar rework & Medal Table

Can some one get the medal table up, i made the space for it already. I've also been working on the opening ceremony, adding detail, and rewriting poor reading areas. Domza 12:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs Revamping

The Commonwealth games is a major sporting event, second only to the Olympics. This article needs to provide more information, it needs a section on Stadia, More detailed info on sports, and a day-by-day event guide, like the Turin 2006 Winter Olympics. This article needs major editing.

Yes, I agree, there are also too many links to pages that don't exist. However, time is running out. Glennnnn 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the logos for the Federations should be removed. I will do so if noone objects, since it is at the bottom anyways. That will make the article cleaner. --Crazycrazyduck 08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, federation logos need to be removed, its very messy... and it looks out of place... maybe just a simplified list.Domza 12:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the logo list should be simplified. Simplifying to a easy to read list (without the federation logos) would be much neater.--Mitch119 12:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote me dump it, and start on the medal table, that way we can just pull the list of nations from that. Domza 12:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the federation logo's rather large and poinless. Delete, or at leaste make a great deal samller -- Glennnnn 10:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a link to a separate gallery where those interested can find the logos - however I think they should be retained as this is to become an historical document. Rhyddfrydol 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Roads

I read somewhere that they're planning on shutting off one of the lanes on each street in the city and other roads that lead from the village to the venues so games traffic is unhindered, has anyone else seen the article? It sure seems that the message they're sending out is they don't want anyone to go to work during the games. Comradeash 13:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes, I think this was mentioned on the news on one of the television channels (possibly Channel 7) last night. They said that for the two weeks, there will be special lanes painted with blue lines for use by Commonwealth Games team members, and it will be an offence to travel in these lanes. I couldn't find any correct sources for this information, but I definitely heard it on the television. Apple10 16:01, 1 March 2006 (AEST)

Official source: http://www1.dvc.vic.gov.au/ocgc/traffic%20and%20transport/guide/addressing-traffic-and-transport-needs.html#lanes --Evan C 05:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw a map of which roads would have these lanes, it may have been in the Herald Sun. Glennnnn 02:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Melbourne resident, I can state that yes, many roads and trams routes have been closed down or diverted, but some change day by day. For instance, yesterday (16/3/06) large parts of St. Kilda were closed for triathlon "course familiarisation", today (17/3/06) they are open but will be closed again over the weekend (17 & 18/3/06 ) for the triathlon & marathon. This is a movable feast- may be best served by referring to the official M2006 link.

Fish on the Yarra

I have quite have taken quite a large number of photos of the large metal fish sculpture that are floating on the Yarra. I was wondering how i coluld incorporate one of these photos into the article, perhaps a section could be created on the way Melbourne has been transformed for the games. Glennnnn 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put the fish in after the Opening Ceremony, when they get used. --Crazycrazyduck 08:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting

This article contradicts Commonwealth of Nations. it sys thalt all 71 states of the commonwealth are participating while the Commonwealth of Nations has 53 these either needs to be corrected or explained. Flying Canuck 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably needs some clarification but I don't have time to do so. However perhaps you can do it yourself. As the commonwealth of nations article explains, there are 53 sovereign states in the commonwealth of nations. 71 nations/territories are participating as distinct entities in the games (as is normal), but a number of these are NOT sovereign states. E.g. England, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man etc etc... Nil Einne 13:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note by the "71", that is taken from the generic Games page. I don't think it's formatted correct, but the content is there.--Andymarczak 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Well I have no idea why people felt the need to remove the daily overview, medal tally etc, so someone else can fix the article, Im not wasting more time on it. --Crazycrazyduck 00:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Ceremony

I'd pay a heap of money to the first person who explains what's gone on so far. I live here and I've got no bloody idea. Ducks? Koalas? A THONG? *cries*

My mum had no idea either. We liked the wheel with the many Games on it. The sailboats were great and it was nice to have some whimsy, innocence and fun in the opening ceremony, which is the boy and the duck. I too don't know what the koalas were doing there. And as for the thong ... do they go to opening ceremony school to learn this craft? The Aboriginal ceremony was so meaningful and so was the walking by region. I was afraid we were going to miss some African nations for a minute. Wasn't Delta great? And the guy from the Glen Waverley football club?

--EuropracBHIT 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The duck is a recurring theme in the work of cartoonist Michael Leunig, and he read one of his poems at the start of that sequence. --bainer (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of medals tally

I'm trying to revert the changes made by User:218.208.223.203 to the medal tally. However, my reverts don't seem to be working. Let's keep an eye on this user. Cnwb 01:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they reverted them themself, it seemed to be a test edit. But speaking of the medal tally, it clutters the page a bit and maybe it should be on a separate page with only the top 10 here, like with the 2006 Winter Olympics -- Astrokey44|talk 01:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The caledar on that page is excellent. I think we should replicate it here. Cnwb 01:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Cnwb. I finished the first three sports. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deffinatly, I'd like to see like the top 5 or top 10 in the medal tally on the main page under the news section under the subcategory "Commonwealth Games"

The calender

The Games Calendar section seems to link to pages relating to the 2006 Winter Olympics. Could someone fix this? Thanks. Harr o5 06:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll take care of it now. Remy B 14:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've got rid of all the Winter Olympics references, but there are no bookmarks in the links. Either way its better than linking to the wrong event :) Remy B 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God Save the Queen

What was the controversy over singing the royal anthem? The context? Or the anthem itself? The article doesn't say. Fishhead64 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm..because it's not the Australian national anthem?

A decision was taken by the Organizing Committee not to play "God Save the Queen" during the Opening Ceremony. This decision was highly disputed, especially as it was felt that not playing the anthem would be a sign of disrespect for the Queen. Red faces were saved by Dame Kiri ingeniously working the Royal Anthem into her "Happy Birthday" song to the Queen. Figaro 02:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps including some info. about this in the article might be in order, by someone who is aware of the debate. As it stands, it is offered without context. It does seem a little odd not having the royal anthem played when the Queen of Australia is present. I was at the Commonwealth Games in Victoria, and the playing of the royal anthem was absolutely uncontroversial. Fishhead64 07:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The playimg of the Royal anthem is not controversial in Australia, either. It was the decision not to play the anthem which polarized opinion in Australia. Figaro 10:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was God Save the Queen played in the KL games? Obviously there is a difference since Queen Elizabeth II is not the queen of Malaysia but I also question whether the queen should be offended by the decision of a independent country not the play God Save the Queen for her (even if she is the queen of said independent country). Nil Einne 22:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she should have been or was offended is beside the point. It's the royal anthem of Australia, an independent country of which she is independently sovereign. In any event, I only asked that someone provide some context, but perhaps they'll turn to the discussion page. Fishhead64 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not an Australian so don't know much about Australian law. I had thought God Save the Queen had no official/legal status in Australia as much as monarchists wanted it to but guess I'm wrong if it's the official royal anthem. In any case, it's not beside the point. Even if it is the official/legal royal anthem, I doubt there is any requirement to have it at every event she attends so the question should then become, should we have it at the Commonwealth games which is primarily about the commonwealth and the games, not the queen. Monarchists appeared to claim you must because it's the commonwealth (but the commonwealth is now largely a group of independent countries with British heritage of some sort not about the queen or the United Kingdom) or because it would offend the queen (Figaro mentioned this). Logic would suggest that by inviting the queen and giving her position of honour you are showing her respect and having the official royal anthem is superflurous especially since the event is more about the commonwealth and Australia (and hence the national anthem of Australia which is just as much her anthem) not the queen but I guess you can never talk logic to monarchists. But hey, at least it's only the official royal anthem there not one of the bloody national anthems like it is here in NZ... BTW, my original response was largely in response to Figaro who was the one who raised the issue how some people said it would be disrepectfle/offensive to not have God Save the Queen Nil Einne 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did not raise the issue. I was merely responding to a request for enlightenment about the controversy by Fishhead64 who was confused as to what the furore leading up to the Games was all about. He mistakenly assumed that it was considered controversial to play "God Save the Queen" in Australia.

I did not say that it would be disrepectful or offensive not to play the anthem (nor do I personally think this). I also did not say that the Queen would be offended if the anthem was not played. She was already aware of the intention, by the Organising Committee, not to play the anthem and was okay with it.

What I did say was that some people thought it would be considered desrepectful if the anthem was not played - or sung (there has been a lot of publicity about this in the media. I am only aware of both the decision, and the controversy, because of this factor). Figaro 00:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, God Save the Queen is Queen Elizabeth's own personal anthem as monarch. It is not the royal anthem of Australia - but it is the royal anthem of the Commonwealth as an organization. The anthem is described as the royal anthem because it is the Queen's anthem. Figaro 00:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthem should be played as it is respect for all Commonwealth Nations. They are NOT Australia's Games. We are only the Hosts. Therefore the Anthem which is universally Commonwealth should have been played. The accepted Anthem for the Commonwealth of Nations universally as a Single Group is God Save The Queen. Remember Australia was given the privilidge to host them, only; not own them. Kevin Lunny Sydney Australia.

Delta Goodrem

"adopted Melbournian"- ahem. Adopted by who exactly? More likely her presence was due to the fact that she is a relatively high profile Australian performer who was available & willing to song the middle of the road ballad that is the Games official theme tune.

Perhaps this is due to the fact that she used to be on Neighbours, which of course, is set in Melbourne.-- Glennnnn 10:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Events table: Swimming

Competition swimming is occuring on and between the 16th and 21st. Yet the Calender table lists it as competition occuring on the 21st and 22nd. Matthew kokai 13:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry: quickly read the turoials and fixed it myself Matthew kokai 13:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening ceremony

The opening ceremony section in its entirety should be moved to 2006 Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony (as perscribed by the calendar of events), as there is definitely enough writing there to make a whole page. Then, the ceremony should be summarized and a new heading under "highlights" should be made for it. This is just my suggestion, as it has worked well on the 2006 olympics page (see there for a guide). If someone thinks this is good, then please move it! --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that was the reason why you removed every single bit of information about the Opening Ceremony from the page, and left no information at all for people to work with. Figaro 17:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not gone, its on a separate page; if you deem it necessary to put a summary on this page, be my guest. On the 2006 Winter Olympics page, however, the page works well without one. Just maybe put a little about it underneath its heading on the highlights section. I don't have the time to do it and frankly I don't think it needs a summary; it's you're call though (or anyone else who thinks it needs one.) --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 17:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venues

Should the venues and locations being used for the games be listed, maybe list the sports that are played at the venues next to them. Or something like that. Regards Hossens27 13:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that information belongs in the articles for each sport, eg. Basketball at the 2006 Commonwealth Games. Remy B 13:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Rem. I think that a short list should be included, similar to the one on 2006 Winter Olympics. The Olympics pages should actually be the ones to go by, especially the 2006 olympics; anything there should be included here. --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 13:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 15:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is OK, but the photos are really detracting. This article is about the Commonwealth Games, not its venues. The photos should be left for the venue articles. Remy B 16:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. Because there's really no pictures for the actual games. I kept one there, though, because it is nice to have atleast one...and its a nice one! You can remove it if you feel it is unnecessary, though. --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section ordering

I think the ordering that was set out by User:JP06035 in this edit [1] is better than the current order. The impact on the host nation is not a primary piece of information on the Games, and should probably be down the bottom, at least past the medal list and daily highlights. The reason I bring this up is that the above ordering was quickly reverted. Rather than reverting without discussion, what does everyone else think is the preferred way to order the sections? Remy B 13:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second...what are you arguing? Do you like the way I restructured it or not? --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 13:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do like it. I just dont want people to keep reverting your change without us getting anywhere. Remy B 13:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, nevermind. I thought you were the person that reverted me! haha. --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting

Canadians more interested in the Winter Parolympics in Turin? I don't think so. I have barely heard or read a mention about those games, save the odd nod in the interest of Canada's state religion; political correctness. I think the apparent disinterest in the Commonwealth Games in Canada is mainly a result of the time difference (most events take place in the wee hours in Canada), the fact that the Olympics just ended (Canadians are still nursing their collective wounds about the Men's Hockey Team), the fact that it's still very much winter in almost all of the country, therefore it's winter sports like curling, and of course NHL Hockey which are getting the coverage, and of course, it's just not politically correct in Canada to associate with anything even remotely "British"; can't risk offending any of the other groups! I can see the conflict coming regarding who is going to open the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. Also, like it or not, the Games really are a second rate event with most of the world's major sporting nations not competing. There are only about half a dozen nations which field truly competitive teams. As for the CBC, I'm disappointed they've chosen not to provide more coverage, but there probably was a reluctance to see Canada's butt get kicked by the Australians, which has become the norm in all summer sports. --142.161.187.52 21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Well who can blame CBC for not wanting to broadcast the 2006 Commonweath games? The 2006 games didn't exactly offer breath taking sporting entertainment on a global stage(like when Usain Bolt won the 100m and 200m in Beijing 2008 breaking the world record on both occasions, or when Michael Phelps won 8 swimming gold). Where were the big stars? Ian Thorpe, Grant hackett, Cathy Freeman, Paula Radcliffe (who people most wanted to watch in action) - they were either retired or injured. Instead we got the likes of John Steffenson (who? A big nobody outside of Australia, that's who), winning 400m gold. Not exactly an iconic moment in athletics/ sporting history! I mean this guy finished last in the 400m at the 2005 World Athletics championship in Helsinki and crashed out in the semi-finals at the 2007 World Athletics Championships in Osaka (when facing a world class field).

Even Michael Johnson (olympic gold medalist) was quoted as saying "Too many people try to put these championships on a par with the World Championships or the Olympics but they are not - never have been, never will be." (see following link: http://www.smh.com.au/news/athletics/track-legend-dismisses-aussies/2006/03/26/1143330905616.html)

CBC must be kicking itself for not having broadcast more of this..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.104.7.12 (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Canada beats us (Australia) in Winter sports... :P Matthew kokai 07:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol you're so disinterested in the commonwealth games but you keep trying to host it? Nil Einne 23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? If Canada is trying hard to host the commonwealth games (according to Nil Einne), why do they put forward small towns as bid cities? Victoria hosted 1994, Hamilton bid for and lost 2010 to Delhi, and Halifax withdrew their 2014 bid. If Canada really wanted these games, then they would put forward the likes of Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Vancouver (which hosted 1954). Putting forward not very well known cities like Halifax, Victoria and Hamilton shows they are not really serious about bringing the commonwealth games back to Canada. Instead they are more interested in the Pan Am Games - Toronto (and surrounding towns eg. Hamilton) are bidding for the 2015 Pan Am Games.

List of participating countries?

Can we get a list of participating countries somewhere, since there will no doubt be some participants who don't medal? --Jfruh 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of participating countries is given at the bottom of the article page. Figaro 00:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also now put in a direct link to this information on the official website, from the Commonwealth Games Associations section on the main article page. Figaro 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medal table heading

Medal table needs an indication that it's only the top 10 places. Nurg 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medal Table is badly out of date, but the table is set out differently to other tables so am unable to update it, this infomation is still relatively current for Australia, but minor places are badly out of date.

Possible indicators of propaganda

I knew from the beginning that Australia couldn't be trusted with the Commonwealth Games. I have noticed that Australia, the hosts, have won more medals than anyone else. At the last count, they won 91 medals while New Zealand haven't even got 20 medals yet. In at least two events, they probably abused their position as hosts to take home gold, silver, and bronze. Is this a co-incidence or is it really what I first suspected? Scott Gall 09:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia got more than 80 gold medals at the last Commonwealth Games, so whats the difference here? Remy B 13:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have anything to do with you being a Kiwi would it? Which events d'you reckon they "fixed" then? Andymarczak 14:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, what about the Rugby 7s - where New Zealand won the gold medal and Australia came fourth (just missing out on the medals). How does Scott Gall feel that this result 'helped' Australia (or am I missing something here)?????

Australians have been disqualified at these Games. How does this square with allegations by Scott Gall of cheating?

I would suggest to Scott Gail to look up how well Australia has done in previous Commonwealth Games (and Summer Olympic Games), including the 1990 Commonwealth Games held in Auckland, New Zealand.

I would also suggest to Scott Gall that he learn about libel, and legal consequences thereof. As a 17 year-old, he is possibly too young to have learnt about this.

As a 17 year-old, Scott Gall is also possibly too young to have noticed, previously (or been interested in, previously), how well Australia had done. Figaro 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or he's like many New Zealanders when it comes to acknowledging the fact that Australia might be doing well; in denial. ;) --Mitch119 08:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the last count, they won 91 medals while New Zealand haven't even got 20 medals yet. In at least two events, they probably abused their position as hosts to take home gold, silver, and bronze. Is this a co-incidence or is it really what I first suspected?

Yes it is just a coincidence that we are ruling the Commonwealth Games (as we do every time), it just so happens that we (Australia) are a host nation this time. :) Nothin' better than winning on home turf. --Rachel Cakes 11:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not every time, Australia finished third as recently as 1986. Certainly the last few games though, and every one held in the Southern Hemisphere. As for New Zealand, the country is only one sixth the size of Australia.........so relax. It's Canada and England that ought to be somewhat more humiliated. --207.161.2.255 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two top nations at the 1982 Commonwealth Games were Australia and England, in which the two countries almost tied - in gold medals, silver medals, and bronze medals, as well as the overall total medals won. There was hardly any difference between the results achieved. For the record,Canada came third, Scotland fourth and New Zealand fifth. Figaro 00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1986, Australia have won all but one of the games (based on medals). It is natural for Australia to get even more medals when they are hosting the games as they are allowed to field a player/team in every event. It is the same story with the Olympics, the host nation will do somewhat better when they host it because they can pit a player/team in each sport. Sohan.s 12:47, 26th March 2006 (UTC)

So that's probably why the United States, despite having some of the best athletes in the world, didn't win any medals. And neither did Romania. NazismIsntCool 08:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, neither of those two nations are in the Commonwealth. Scott Gall 08:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Festival Melbourne

While I'm sure the person who put this new heading on the main page had good intentions, there is only one sentence under it, which could easily be incorporated into the main article (possibly at the top). The reason I say this is that the link only links to another page that says the exact same thing. I suggest moving this sentence to the top. Comments? --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 22:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it belongs at all. This article isnt about the ~two weeks in Melbourne that the Games are on, its about the Games themselves. Remy B 07:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about them. I agree with you that it should be removed if it is just a coincidental events happening on the same days. If it is related in any way, however, it should stay. --J @red ^[T]/_[+] 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell from the Festival's official page, it's directly linked with the Games. If you look at the Manchester Games page you'll see a similar event was held. I think the answer is to expand the section with a general overview of the festival and a link to the main article at Festival Melbourne and expand that. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 09:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a cultural festival is to run alongside every Commonwealth Games from Manchester onwards. As far as I remember the early Olympics had a cultural festival running in conjunction with them, and this is something that the Commonwealth Games is keen to do. I certainly went to many CultureShock events at Manchester, and it was quite clear that they were intended as the "Arts contribution" to the Commonwealth Games in Manchester. I think the Festival Melbourne page could be extended as per the CultureShock page, since this would be an encyclopedic record of the Arts festival in Melbourne. It will be interesting to see what Delhi does. Rhyddfrydol 01:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any coverage on non-sporting matters?

I came to this article hoping to read about the Sierra Leone athletes who went AWOL, but there doesn't appear to be anything about them. There's also the Indian masseur and the cleaner. - 211.28.80.58 09:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ive mentioned it now -- Astrokey44|talk 11:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation

What country organize these games? I was watching the Athletics this morning on the BBC and they were talking about the home nation England? How come? Was these games planned in Wembley or something like that and replaced to Melbourne?--83.117.110.67 10:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Home nations" is a term used in the UK to describe the four constituent countries that make up said poilitical entity. For eg. we used to have a Home Nations Championship every year in football. Briggsy

The Commonwealth Games were called the British Empire Games in the 1930s. So possibly the British started organizing these games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwerle1 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. of athletes?

Is there any data for number of athletes participating from each country? I was hoping to make a map like the one on the 2006 winter olympics, but cant find it from the official site -- Astrokey44|talk 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can search for athletes by country [2] on the official site, you could use the number of hits to determine the number of athletes. Thats the best i can come up with. Good luck with the map. Regards Hossens27 12:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes that would take a long time! You cant search by athletes separate from officials so it may not be reliable. I think its not worth doing unless theres a proper list.. oh well thanks for trying to find a way :) -- Astrokey44|talk 12:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There must be easy to obtain info somewhere, during the opening ceremony they often mention the number of athletes in the countries even the small ones. You could always contact the Games organisers directly. Hossens27 12:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I taped the opening ceremony, but since they had ad breaks while the athletes were walking in, the smaller countries were only shown very briefly. I just used the form on their site to contact them, perhaps they will email back -- Astrokey44|talk 03:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page here http://www.thecgf.com/search/search.asp which may help if it ever gets updated with 2006 data (looks like still need to search by country though)K3v1n 23:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medal table

Should Kenya and New Zealand really be equal on the medal table when New Zealand has more silver medals? On the full list, NZ is ahead of Kenya, but the top ten has them equal. Why? Wales is ahead of Cyprus, Pakistan is ahead of Papua New Guinea etc. I changed it to NZ being ahead but then User:PageantUpdater reverted it. Consistency please. --Midnighttonight 01:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to reply :) If you look at the Official Medal Tally you'll see that NZ and Kenya are 9=. I actually agree with your reckoning but I assume we should go by the official count. PageantUpdater 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a medals table organised like that one on the Melbourne 2006 site. I mean it places a country with 3 silvers equal to a country with a single bronze medal. Anyone with any sense can see they shouldn't be equal. I think we should remain with the system currently in use elsewhere on the site and in many other places, both on- and off-line, in which you look at numbers of gold first, then silver, then bronze. I'd imagine the "problem" on the Melbourne site might be that there is some sort of coding for ranking countries, but that the coding isn't full in so much that it only ranks according to gold medals, rather than then telling it to rank by silver and finally bronze. I'd hope it would be changed soon and not constantly left in it's present state. Evil Eye 20:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official tally has two ranking systems, rank by gold (number of gold medals won, on which NZ and Kenya are =9) and rank by total (number of medals won overall). You'll see that teams that are equally placed on the gold order are broken down in the usual way (number of silver, then number of bronze) and not alphabetically, so that counts as an official ranking. There's no reason why we can't have a table with a number of columns for placings, and in fact I'll do that now. --bainer (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good reason against what you have included is that it breaks consistency with all the other medal tally articles on Wikipedia. Another reason is that it clutters up the table with ranking information that is not officially recognised and so isnt really notable. Remy B 04:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually the offical tally uses only the two other ranking systems, and doesn't use the one that all the other articles use at all. --bainer (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what youre saying. Personally I would rather see a consistent ranking method across all Wikipedia articles, whatever that method may be. Unfortunately I dont have the know-how or the time to find some sort of Wikipedia-wide consensus on that. Remy B 09:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just stick with the standard format gold, then silver, then bronze rankings, official website or no official website. This is the 'way it is done' - if you want some authority, the BBC lists them in that manner [3]. Robdurbar 09:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has taken the other rankings out now, while I won't add them back in I'll just reiterate that the reason they were added is because there was an edit war brewing over where to place Kenya and New Zealand on the table. The official tally produced by Melbourne 2006 doesn't include the usual ranking system (which most other places use, and which I consider to be the better system). Inserting the other rankings was intended to avoid confusion when the official table and our table show different rankings. --bainer (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing

Was it two days ago...or three days!?

Anway...the boxing day...involving Nigeria & Scottish...

NIGERIA GOT BANGED BY THAT SCOTTISH SUKER:P

>x<ino 16:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections in past tense

I thought i'd mention that under "impact on host nation", it says "will house approximately 7,000 athletes and support staff during the Games". The games are finished. If anyone knows how many athletes stayed in the village, please correct the error and make it past tense. MichaelBillington 10:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive medal counts?

See here for the active discussion on whether the progressive medal counts should stay or go. → J @red 12:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

event count mismatch

the medal count reports 245 golds, the games summary at top of page reports 247 - who is right?

User:MichaelBillington/Sign I'd go with neither, this is either vandalism or an accident, so go to an official website to find the real count. MichaelBillington 12:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

See Talk:All-time medal tally of Commonwealth Games for discussion on this and other related merges. Kevin 05:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

DYN that the games used over 1000 intelligent lights for the Opening Ceremony

look at: http://www.martin.com/casestory/casestory.asp?id=1206

203.166.228.73 08:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zambia at the 2006 Commonwealth Games

I Just deleted [4] content from the article Zambia at the 2006 Commonwealth Games that said "by a xx-member strong contingent comprising xx sportspersons and xx officials" this article needs to be improved or deleted, please help it. Jeepday (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New External Link added

I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to video, images and text about the 2006 Commonwealth Games.Eleworth (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]