Talk:2007 SEA Games

Fair use rationale for Image:SEA Games 2007 Logo.png

Image:SEA Games 2007 Logo.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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale added Aldrinv (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Medal target

Many nations make target on gold medal, but is that necessary to include? Per policy, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". So, if Malaysia failed the target, is that another column to add "failed"? Another things, i don't see any major Games coverage, mainly Olympic Games, Asian Games had put Gold medal target, is that USA did not set target? So, that is unnecessary at all. I'm sure participation is more important than the target. --Aleenf1 08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The column is added to bring perspective to the medal list, since medal targets are announced and published in the first place. They are not targeted at any one country, and this is far too early to tell if any country exceeds or fails to meet their own targets. Do not interpret wikipolicies in creative ways for vested national interests, else we could very well say you are censoring wikipedia. Your final comments sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cum WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You sounds funny, medal tally is screw up with medal target, both are not related at all, it should be in other place, medal tally is ACHIEVEMENT until XXX times, medal target is just a target, it cannot review as real things, mixed in medal tally, another things, one nations participating in any Games, just for medal hunt, I'm sure they have hidden objectives, how you to explain this? Gosh, many country make SEA Games just for gold medal hunt... but they are no real progressive in Olympic Games. --Aleenf1 10:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another things, i like you write in sentences, rather than put the target in table, because not all nations set the target/or you unable to find sources, also medal tally is achievements at XXX times, the target cannot review as medal tally table. --Aleenf1 10:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just remember that nations have own article in SEA Games, so it is better write in there also, instead screwup in medal tally table. --Aleenf1 10:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning you attempt to put up to remove that column are feeble at best. There's nothing in the rule books saying a medal tally cannot include additional supporting information if it is relevant. A column do not need to be complete for it to be included, since it should only contain published sources (which also rebukes your earlier claim that "Many nations make target on gold medal". Well apparently not all of them do in this case). Medal targets aren't as "unreal" as you claim, since they are official announced targets...every single one of them. You appear to have grave problems just explaining why should written sentences be any better than a simple column to illustrate the exact same point, or why hiding these information in country articles should be a better option (which by your own argument, not all countries have article tables, don't you know?). It is none of mine of anyone's business what "hidden objectives" there may be, because wikipedia is based on published, vverifiable sources only. Please think of better excuses to revert next time, thank you very much.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove the medal targets, the section says "medal tally", and medal "targets" aren't part of the "tally." If you people insist, devote an entire section for medal targets. --Howard the Duck 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are not part of the tally, else we will be summing those medals up in the total medals column as well.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. The organizers do tally the total (G+S+B) medals too. So if it the the targets are not part of the tally, why are they located in a "Medal tally" section? I have yet to see a medal tally (in any sport) where a gold medal target is included. --Howard the Duck 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You will not get it, because what you fear will happen isn't quite happening yet, if it ever will. Which logical person is not going to be able to differentiate between medals won and medals predicted? Never seen a medal table of this format? Well is there no room for changes then? Observe the format that Aleen is attempting to enforce now, and see if it is a better solution.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What was Aleen's format? The "Country-G-S-B-Total" format?

So if it not a tally, then why is it in a section called "Medal tally"? It's like putting a Manchester United in a section for "Russia" in List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries.

So if I've never seen a table table like this, is it original research, even if the "gold medal targets" are properly sourced? --Howard the Duck 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be reminded that WP:OR refers to content, not format. Compilation of information from verifiable sources is strictly not original research. There is not such thing as a "original format" violating any wikipedia guideline. If it can be proven that a collation of published material helps to present useful, contextual information to the reader, than there is little argument against it.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is also content, since I can't find a website that combines both the medal tally and their gold medal targets. If I saw several websites that do this (both tally + gold medal target in ONE table) then I might even think about it being added.

It's like this: suppose the England football team said they're having a target of about 10 goals in the 2006 FIFA World Cup group stages, and suppose several other teams do too: are you going to add their "goals scored targets" in the "Team-Pts-W-D-L-GF-GA-GD" table (so it becomes ""Team-Pts-W-D-L-GF-GA-GD-GST") even though no one is doing it? --Howard the Duck 07:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back to basics then, since even something as simple as "content" isnt understood here in the context of original research. The basic reason why WP:OR exists is to guard against anyone claiming that the Philippines topped the medal table in the 2007 Southeast Asian Games without a credible verifiable source, for instance. The number of medals, and their ranks in the table are a content issue. The way this same information is presented is clearly not. Quote me any wikipedia guideline which defines otherwise. Quote me any quideline which guards against the compilation of information from verifiable sources, which in this case refers to the compilation of the medal tally and medal targets. I do not need to find any source out there presenting this information as such, because it is not a requirement for wikipedia to dublicate presentation styles of published sources. In fact, an important guard against copyright issues is precisely to present the same accurate information in a unique way. This happens to text in the form of paraphrasing. This happens to tables, statistics, lists, etc, by presenting information in a way deemed more useful to readers. In this case, comparing medal targets (and also number of participants) against the medals won is an obvious case of informing the reader that each country's performance cannot be compared solely vis-a-vis each other, given their vastly different sizes, resources, and sporting prowess. Adding the scoring tagets in a football team, in comparison, adds little value, because ultimately it is the number of games won which is the primary ranking criteria, followed by goal difference. Which soccer team do not aim to win all their matches? And is it common practise for soccer teams to declare their target number of goals in a tournament the world over, and to then congratulate themselves if they do hit the target, or sack their coaches if they do not? Kindly cite a better illustration to advance your position, which is obviously poorly presented at best. I will proceed to restore the information if no better counter-argument can be put on the table.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't putting the medal tally and the gold medal target in one table not done before? Ergo, it's original research, no matter how you spin it. Since no media outlet presented it that way, why should we do that, isn't that, original research? Anyway, the two-column suggestion was a good enough compromise since the medal tally and the gold medal targets appear together, side-by-side, that's rather good enough.

I'm not talking about the "number of participants in a football team", where did you pick that up? (LOL) I'm saying about their goals scored target, suppose several of the teams pronounced that they were targeting a specific amount of medals in the group stages, would you add that in the table's team standings? --Howard the Duck 11:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my comment before repeating a phenomena you observe? You are not even exactly explaining why we cannot have this presentation other than "it's not done before", and I have said at length why it is not a requirement to follow precedents. If you insist on not understanding the differences between content and presentation, then I leave it to you to go do some reading through the help section yourself. Your two-column suggestion messed up that section, if you did not realise, and it was removed promptly. I will restore it as one table soon. Finally, my bad, but I wasent able to correct my own comment fast enough with regards to that comparison with soccer before you read it. Still my comment stands. Try harder next time with a better illustration.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's not done before, so it's original research, no matter how hard you say it isn't.

And why change it? Since you're rather an expert on Wikipedia's policies, ever heard of consensus? I know for a fact why it was screwed up (due to the infobox), and there's a relatively simple way to remedy that.

P.S.: On my soccer example, are you willing to add a "GST" column in the table? --Howard the Duck 12:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you have now proven to be basically incapable of understanding basic English, and has proven to be obstinate for the sake of it, I will proceed to restore the information now. And do not tell me about "concensus". It is two vs two at present, btw, which means there is no consensus to remove the information either. Given this stalemate, simple logic and the rule-of-law shall prevail and I believe I have given ample reasoning to explain the inclusion of the said contents and proven that what I do is not against WP:OR or any relevant policy. I have also debunked your counter-arguments with full facts and references, while you could not offer a response in return. The result is plain clear. As for "your soccer table" (ever seen WP:OWN), no I have no interest in adding that column, I am afraid, for I see very little value in doing so over there as elaborated at length above. Perhaps it is you who should be telling us why it should be added, since it is your suggestion anyway? ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So it's 2-2, no consensus; and since it wasn't there before, the default is to keep the things as they we're before, so they're not merged at the table.

Counter-arguments? Where? Ever heard of Stare decisis? That's a compelling enough argument (since courts use it) - since no one does and did it, why should Wikipedia be? After, all the gold medal target is presented at the article already, and I can remedy it by placing it beside the medal tally, and I can even order it by number of gold medals, just as what is illustrated below. --Howard the Duck 12:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah precisely. Your counter-arguments are practically non-existent, so don't ask me where. As for Stare decisis, well I am sorry, but that is not wikipedia policy (whereas WP:OWN certainly is. You simply do not claim ownership to medal tables, I am afraid). Wikipedia is not compelled "to stand by things decided" because concensus can change. And in the first place, has anything been decided here? Nope. I inserted the data without protest for several days. A Malaysian comes forward and insists on removing it, which coincidentally is in the wake of some kind of fear flamed by news reports saying that country may be unable to meet its medal targets. I let him have his way for the next few days, by which time Malaysia exceeded that target. In the current attempt to restore that information, he no longer appears interested in the debate, but who else takes over? You guessed it...a Filipino, from a country which arguable faired the worse vis-a-vis their medal targets by the end of the games. Now of course I could assume good faith, but when both detractors are unable to even put up a convincing reason to remove that column other than "it is not done before" and "they targets and tallies are not the same", one can't help but wonder what the fuss is all about. I am restoring the data once again until a better argument can be put forth. Seriously, if one is going to expend so much effort with a parallel table (which simply do not work correctly by the way), they better tell us why one table cannot do a better job.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care about our medal standing, to tell you frankly, the reason why the Philippines "won" last year was because we're the hosts.

WP:OWN? Yes I don't own the article, so does you, don't force your own views. How about for the 2008 Olympics? Would you add that there?

I don't know what is a better argument for you. You keep dismissing stare decisis as inappropriate (LOL) since it is not a Wikipedia policy. Sure it is not, but when no one is doing it, then how can you cite that? Only Wikipedia would have a table like that, and Wikipedia is supposedly uses second-hand information -- information relayed somewhere else.

I place this in dispute resolution, I'd hope all parties will abide to the consensus of that place, despite it will be "not binding." --Howard the Duck 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That the Philippines topped the medal tally two years ago (last year? Time flies, I suppose) is irrelevant to this debate. I certainly hope you are true to your word, such that I can assume good faith once again. As for WP:OWN, putting forth an argument involves owning an article? 2008 Olympics? We will get to that when it comes, but till then, how will it influence the argument here? You are questioning me on citing official policy, and for rejecting your attempts to justify your actions based on...what? A law concept which is not accepted in wikipedia? Try harder next time. If you cannot agree to basic policy, you either try to gain community consensus to change it, get yourself to accept it, or leave the project altogether. Not by wiki-warring with someone over an argument you cannot win. Finally, I am not going to elaborate yet again on the basic difference between content and presentation with regards to that table. Use dispute resolution if you wish, but if the current version [1] of having that dividing column is your idea of a compromise, I think I can live with that for the sake of ending this ridiculous debate.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you like that compromise, fine. --Howard the Duck 12:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know about this (since I'm quite a newbie here), but I think there's no harm in adding the MEDAL TARGETs which are to be included in the MEDAL TALLY, nor does not affect the essence of the entire content of the article, which is to provide information (as time will pass many probably will benefit from the medal targets), but, I MY OWN opinion, I suggest that we spare the medal targets for a moment (like what Aleenf1 did.. but I don't know how to fix the tables hehe), and a narrative form of it would be helpful, probably as a form of evaluation of how each team participated performed in terms of medal tally (as basis.. I guess) on the part of the reader/s in the future.. after the event ends. I don't know.. just my opinion I guess.. you decide.. Aldrinv (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a good way of making them appear "together" is to use columns, like this:

Medal tally

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
1	Thailand (THA)	119	102	83	304
Totals (1 entries)		119	102	83	304

Gold medal targets

Many countries had set the aim on winning the gold medal, among them, they are:

• Thailand: 150 gold medals

Also, I don't think the targets section should be a subsection of the "medal tally" section, they should be two separate sections. --Howard the Duck 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why targets and results are distinct and separate entities? Kindly do not simply use precedents as an excuse.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Targets" and "results" are two separate entities in such a way that white and black are two separate colors. --Howard the Duck 07:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure. I suppose you must belong to the odd minority who takes examinations without a target to aim for, and looks at his results without knowing what the total score or the respective grade banding scores are. Your attempt to distinguish two closely intertwined concepts certainly needs to be fleshed out better than highlighting supposed differences between two colours (which by the way are very relevant indeed to each other since both are colours in the same spectrum!)--Huaiwei (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

White and black are two separate entities otherwise they're of the same color and hue, heck there should only be one word to describe them if they're of "one entity".

Now you're saying they're two "intertwined concepts." Sure they're "intertwined concepts" but they're "distinct and separate entities", otherwise there should be one word that'll be used to describe the phenomenon. --Howard the Duck 11:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, the level of intellect is sweeping the ground in this little conversation here. Kindly tell us what is the difference between a car and an automobile, just for the fun of it?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure.

• Automobile - passenger-carrying road vehicle

• Car - subset of automobile.

--Howard the Duck 12:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Tell that to the British, and please rush to remove this entry in Synonym!--Huaiwei (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No! Or else I'd have to define holiday and vacation too, LOL. --Howard the Duck 12:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, this is off-topic already: "Targets" and "results" are two separate entities that are intertwined, but still are separate and distinct. --Howard the Duck 12:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Target and result aren't synonyms. --Howard the Duck 12:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you may raise the bar of intellect a little higher, you claim the existence of two different words must mean they are "distinct and separate entities". Well if that is the case, why do synonyms exist at all in the English language then? Since you want to play word games just to bolster you viewpoint, be my guest.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms exist, but they're not really exactly the same; for example, cry and weep, they may represent the same event, but they're of different levels. Crying is just plain crying, while weeping has other emotions.

So tally and target is a synonym? In your report card, assuming you'd have a target, do you have a column devoted for your "targets"? Most of the time, the report card is solely for the "tally" of your grades. Same case here, I'm not even advocating the removal of these targets, just for them to placed in their proper place. --Howard the Duck 04:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I challenge you to go to the Synonym article and tell everyone that all synonyms aren't exactly synonyms since they are "not really exactly the same". Say....tell everyone what is the "teeny weeny difference" between "baby" and "infant" for starters, and work down that entire list. Quote me any of my comments stating that "tally" and "target" are synonyms. Perhaps you are suggesting "intertwined concepts" is the same as "synonyms" as well? :D Now obviously my report card will indicate clearly the targets. Do your examination results not tell you the maximum point attainable? Does it not tell you what points are required for each grade? Hence my original enquiry: do you go into examinations not knowing what grade (and therefore the points) you want to attain? Without the existence of a target score, is it possible to access the results earned? When student A goes into the examination hall aiming to obtain at least 90 points to score an A grade, student B does the same examination aiming just to pass with a score of at least 50. If student A gets 51 points and student B 50, is it fair to declare that student A has performed better than student B in all aspects, without any consideration for expectations and potential? Seriously, is this concept that difficult for you to grasp?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Of course not all synonyms are "exactly" the same, although they may describe the same event. Cool, it is you who insisted that targets and results should be under "medal tally" hence they're the same. Cool, last time I checked my report card, there were no "expected/target grade column." Cool, read the first line in synonym: "are different words with identical or at least similar meanings", hence they're not "exactly the same as you put it." Cool, you'll get away with that intertwined concept of yours; the fact that you can't answer any of my questions if you'll apply it to any other concept (such as soccer and report cards) says it shouldn't be together with the "medal tally" table. It can be beside, above, under it, etc. I find it even laughable you insist to add a "gold medal target" column in a table located under the "Medal tally" section. Why? Because they're intertwined? LOL. That's cool reasoning. --Howard the Duck 12:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased Edit, Remove Controversy Section

Under the controversy section it talks about biased judging. This is of a point of view, mainly because the resentment from the Philippines to the Thai when the Thais accused the Philippines of biased judging at the 2005 SEA Games. Since the accusation was removed from the Philippines SEA Games page, it should be removed from the Thai Sea Games page. The post itself is biased and an opinion. It is not from a neutral view. This is merely to get back at the Thais from the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Effortles (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversies surrounding the Philippine hosting of the 2005 SEA Games were removed from the main page, but it has been relocated at the page Scandals of the 2005 Southeast Asian Games.Nixenzo (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind either side that ultimately, WP:NPOV prevails and not WP:CENSOR. Movement of contents, especially notable ones with verifiable sources, to secondary pages or outright deletion can be interpreted as an attempt to censor and must not be encouraged.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

While I would agree that the current section is not written in a neutral manner, the section is notable and deserves to be there. There is a lot of controversy attached to these games, and suggesting that these claims are due to resentment or are there to 'get back' at Thais is not constructive. The section should stay, and people should improve it.Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is rather short, so if there comes a time that the article gets very long we can split sections into their child pages. --Howard the Duck 07:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This section definitely deserves to be there, but the content is biased and definitely not acceptable. I would suggest the removal of the section unless appropriate and neutral content can be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.84.5 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

what is target?

I still do not understand what target means in this article and also why target should be put on that table. Is it really necessary? You 2 persons (you know which 2 persons I mean) spent most of your invaluable time to argue each other in order to show your smartness. Actually I don't think it is impressive. These are all waffle. Go to the article 2007 Asian Indoor Games and take a look. It is clear and easy to understand. Coloane (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe impressing anyone is any of our intentions. If you cannot understand what a medal target is, perhaps you might wish to read the relevant sources first before telling people information should be removed due to your ignorance.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so are we going to actually do this too at the upcoming Olympics? For sure several countries will issue targets. How about total medal targets? That anyone have that for this year's SEA Games? --Howard the Duck 12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are able to find gold medal targets for at least half of all countries participating in the Olympics, you are most welcome to add that column. As for total medal targets, not many seem to publish this, hence their omission. Nothing is to stop their addition if more information can be found thou.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ignorance? I don't deny this and if I am, so what? it won't lose a penny in my wallet. I think that I had better read some relevant sources to figure out what target is and you Singaporean Huaiwei should go to the article of 2007 Asian Indoor Games to figure out what brief and wonderful table that we Macau people made. What do you think? PS: BTW, pay attention to the ranking of Macau and Singapore over there. Coloane (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes precisely, Coloane. So what if you are ignorant? I repeat my message: do not use ignorance as a excuse for deletion. And please lah. Is this some kind of a lame attempt to hard sell the 2007 Asian Indoor Games, which btw hardly makes the news in this region compared to the Sea Games, it seems? In all honesty, I have no idea who won that Gold medal for Singapore, but at least I do not go to the extreme of demanding an article deleted just because I "do not understand it"!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty laughable. For what I did is simply give you a comparison, but nothing related to unnecessary advertising. May I quote what you said from above? I guess this is some kinds of a lame attempt to hard sell SEA Games, what do you think? but you know what, it doesn't matter actually if it is a SEA Games or AIG. Who cares SEA Games? Singapore has neither power to win many medals nor capacity to launch any games locally. I peronally want to puke after reading the result of 2007 Asian Indoor Games for Singapore. No wonder you don't know who won the medal for Singapore. Probably Singaporeans received too much corporal punishment (i.e. caning) from the Govt. that they are now basically semi-handicapped. Yeah, it may affect the performance somehow. I understand that!!! Coloane (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mere comparison? Well I would be wondering just what sentences like "wonderful table that we Macau people made" is supposed to add value to this discussion then to tell others that a mysterious bunch of Macanese people has someone claimed ownership of a table, which is actually used in this article also. And oh yes you are certainly right, tragically. Poor Singaporeans are being flogged so badly that they can't exactly do much exercising due to their bleeding backsides. Would you like to make a donation to save us from our intense suffering?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that "target" is infringe the crystal ball policy, honestly "target" is not a fact, it is a prediction by one country, so it could be crystal ball, while even it is verifiable, but is not a "fact", this info should be avoidance. I do not support this kind of info insert into Olympic Games, clearly it is violate the crystal ball ruling, don't you think predictions should be avoidance? Is hard to say because people who add it are try to defend it, but the fact is, it just a "predictions", while we already have the fact inside. --Aleenf1 06:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that I have constantly refer back to policies and guidelines, but if there is an obvious misinterpretation of policy, I think it must be corrected soonest possible. WP:CRYSTAL clearly states that wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. It elaborates further: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis" The said medal target column has a referenced source for each individual entry. None of those figures were conjured up by the whims and fancies of any one wikipedian. Therefore, User:Aleenf1's claims that the column is an infringement of WP:CRYSTAL policy is completely unfounded and not tenable. It is also entirely false to claim that wikipedia is against reporting on "speculative" information. The key element is not speculation. It is verifiability. Verified speculation is certainly acceptable in wikipedia.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have taking this to village pump, certainly they said "speculation" or "predictions" from the news source should be avoid. I think you want to defend what you edit, a policy also state "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.", this can use also. I think you don't aware that the Games fact is that, certainly you revert the history by putting the future predictions, target, that is nonsense. --Aleenf1 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would just like to encourage all editors to comment on content, not contributors (or their race, nationality, or ethnicity). Insulting other editor is neither civil, nor productive, and will not result in anything of use to anyone. In short, refrain from personal attacks and ensure that your discussion on these pages is cool, calm, and collected. --Haemo (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

request semi protection

{{editsemiprotected}} There is someone who try to add criticisms section on the article, however, there is no citation, biased and is subjective which can cause conflict between nations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Megazawa07 (talk • contribs) 21:07, July 2, 2009

Not done, requests for protection/unprotection go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.seagames2007.th/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=421&Itemid=107
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-26 03:01:04, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-27 15:18:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-06-15 17:58:44, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.2007seagames.com/MAPBangkok/tabid/282/Default.aspx
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-26 03:01:09, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-27 15:18:20, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-06-15 17:58:57, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.2007seagames.com/MAPChonburi/tabid/283/Default.aspx
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-26 03:01:09, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-27 15:18:20, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-06-15 17:59:03, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.seagames2007.th/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=107
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-26 03:01:06, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-27 15:18:16, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-06-15 17:59:13, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.thekoratpost.com/mainpage.html
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-26 03:01:09, 404 OK
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-27 15:18:20, 404 OK
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-06-15 17:59:26, 404 OK

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.thekoratpost.com/stadiumphotoupdates.html
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-26 03:01:09, 404 OK
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-27 15:18:20, 404 OK
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-06-15 17:59:34, 404 OK

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.thekoratpost.com/SEAgames2007.html
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-26 03:01:09, 404 OK
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-05-27 15:18:20, 404 OK
  • In 2007 Southeast Asian Games on 2011-06-15 17:59:44, 404 OK

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2007 Southeast Asian Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.2007seagames.com/eng/Home/tabid/153/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2007 Southeast Asian Games. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213093117/http://www.seagames2007.th/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=421&Itemid=107 to http://www.seagames2007.th/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=421&Itemid=107
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217104611/http://www.2007seagames.com/MAPBangkok/tabid/282/Default.aspx to http://www.2007seagames.com/MAPBangkok/tabid/282/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224044859/http://www.2007seagames.com/MAPChonburi/tabid/283/Default.aspx to http://www.2007seagames.com/MAPChonburi/tabid/283/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213074202/http://www.thekoratpost.com/mainpage.html to http://www.thekoratpost.com/mainpage.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509032315/http://www.thekoratpost.com/stadiumphotoupdates.html to http://www.thekoratpost.com/stadiumphotoupdates.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204122943/http://www.thekoratpost.com/SEAgames2007.html to http://www.thekoratpost.com/SEAgames2007.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.2007seagames.com/eng/Schedule/Complete_Schedule/tabid/192/Default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.2007seagames.com/eng/Sports/Events_Medals/tabid/242/Default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/sports/16iht-games16.8769008.html/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://asia.news.yahoo.com/071215/afp/071215173924top.html

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) 23:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2025 Southeast Asian Games which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Southeast Asian Games which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2023 Southeast Asian Games which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)