Talk:Marathon year rankings

Great Britain versus Wales or England

Why is Paula Radcliffe listed with the British flag, whilst Steve Jones and the male English runners are listed with the Welsh and English flags??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatlot!! (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This list is essentially copied from the ARRS. It appears that they inconsistently use "GBR". I've changed this list to reflect more accurately what they have noted (i.e. Radcliffe w/ ENG). If we are going to copy their list, we might as well do a good job of it. Our list also uses the 1948 South Korean flag for some of the Korean runners of the '30s (who were under Japanese Rule). Location (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Derek Clayton in 1969

Why is Bill Adcock's rather unremarkable 2:11:07 listed for 1969? Is there something inofficial about Derek Clayton's 2:08:33.6 run on May 30 1969 in Antwerp? Everywhere I look it is considered to have been the world's best until December 1981. Afasmit 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems, for no given reason, to be absent from the ARRS source from which all the data is taken. I've gone ahead and replaced Adcock with Clayton in 1969. Afasmit 09:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. If you click on the 1969 link within the ARRS source, you'll see a footnote at the bottom that explains that Clayton's 1969 performance was on a course that was ~500 meters short. Location (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the hard evidence that it was 500 metres short? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.177.228 (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking for a document stating who actually remeasured the course? I think you would have to take that up with either the IAAF, ARRS, or AIMS. The Antwerp course was reportedly measured with a car's odometer, a method known to be very unreliable.[1]][2] Information in Wikipedia needs to conform to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR, so please let us know if you have another reliable source (preferably from some road racing authority or governing body) that lists the top marathon performances for each year. Location (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

I've given the list a bit of a once-over in terms of capitalisation. The dates should probably be put in a less numerical form too (e.g. August 1, 1999). We should probably include a link to the marathon race at which the year's best was completed – logically this would be in the second to last column before the location.

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that this topic needs its own article, but I'm not overly concerned about it and it seems to work quite well on its own here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 11:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute tag in various "Marathon Year Ranking" articles

I have placed a {{disputed}} tag on this article, as well as the five articles regarding the rankings for the specific years:

• 1980 Marathon Year Ranking
• 1981 Marathon Year Ranking
• 1982 Marathon Year Ranking
• 2000 Marathon Year Ranking
• 2001 Marathon Year Ranking

First of all, this article is a copy of unofficial rankings published by the Association of Road Racing Statisticians [3]. The problems is not that this is copied, but that the ARRS is a non-governmental body that has different standards for recognizing rankings and performances than what is recognized by the official International Association of Athletics Federations. In other words, this article should be entitled Unofficial marathon year rankings as published by the Association of Road Racing Statisticans. Second, there are similar inconsistencies in the articles that list the rankings for specific years. For example, the 1980 article uses data listed on an Italian website (i.e. http://digilander.libero.it/Mennea/Stagionali/WRL/1980/Mar.htm) for the men and data from the Association of Road Racing Statisticians for the women (e.g. http://www.arrs.net/MaraRank/ATM_Mara1980.htm). It is not clear from the Italian source as to whether this reflects official IAAF data or if it has been independent compiled. It is also not clear why the ARRS data for men (which differs from the Italian website) was not used instead. In the 1980 article, the difference between the official IAAF records and those noted unofficially by the ARRS is highlighted in the statement that Grete Waitz did not set a world record at the NYC Marathon - the official record progression has been noted Marathon world record progression and the IAAF definitely notes Waitz in the progression. Location (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am redirecting the various marathon year ranking articles to this one per WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTSTATS, as well as to help alleviate concerns outlined at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo. Location (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that articles created solely on the basis of "season's top X" are not great for Wikipedia lists. This is mainly because (outside of IAAF/ARRS disputes) the content is simply not varied enough from the original sources. Why have our own direct copy when a link to the official lists provide exactly the same content?

I've mentioned it before, and I will again: 2001 in marathon running/2001 in the marathon would be a much better topic area to explore – such an article could contain, say:

• (1) the top twenty men's/women's times of the seasons
• (2) the winners of international marathons
• (3) marathon medalists from that year's championships
• (4) brief results/summaries of the World Marathon Majors (where appropriate)
• (5) new/abolished marathon events
• (6) participation data
• (7) doping and other noteworthy bits of news

There is probably more, but I think this could provide an immensely more satisfying article for readers and statisticians alike. I've been working towards something similar at 2009 in athletics (track and field), but obviously the scope for that topic could yield a much bigger article. SFB 11:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Since annual lists are a factor in establishing notability WP:Athlete, we do need a source of said list. IAAF site already provides such a list back through 1999, for track and road standard distances. Our first issue lies in what acceptable body could provide such notability qualifications for athletes before 1999. At this point I refer to whatever source I can find. I've been criticized, just this week, for using sources that are hosted on some individuals' personal website. I've found anybody fanatical enough to keep such a list to be highly accurate and frequently the only retention of such information that might have been generated by more official sources in the era of paper lists, but such a source doesn't meet the standards of the oligarchy who likes to remove content.

I think providing a wikification of official lists is appropriate for convenience. Same thing for official results that otherwise are lost to time. Darius Dhlomo did us a great favor by wikifying that information, although its all getting removed because he essentially copied everything from their original source. Sports statistics, I think, are publicly released by the generating body (IAAF for us) to the news media of the world to repeat. In that respect, WP is news medial, repeating that historical information. It shouldn't be a copyright violation. If text needs to be written to provide analysis (so the article is not challenged), we certainly have experts here to write such (I've written several myself), though there are non-athletics people that would potentially challenge that analysis as WP:OR or WP:POV. Its happened.

Toward consistency and protection of our content, we should write our own standard for what such an article should contain. It could be a goal for incomplete articles, but also would serve to delineate what is appropriate material for non-athletics people to try to understand (at least enough to keep their stinking paws off of our content). We have our articles rated into classes, most recently based merely on length (though they say they have turned that off). If we have specific points to define completion articles, certainly statistical based articles, we can then establish a scale of completion to assess such a rating. It would be a far more rational assessment of the status of our articles. Trackinfo (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While an athlete may need a reliable source outside of Wikipedia to establish notability in congruence with #8 of Wikipedia:Athlete#Athletics/Track & Field and long-distance running, that does not mean we need an article devoted to the rankings of athletes for each year. (By the way, do you know why "top 12" was chosen instead of "top 10" in #8?) I did view your recent edit history and I think this is the "personal website" to which you referred. The trouble with using that as a source, similar to the trouble with the Italian website I referred to in the beginning of this thread, is that we don't know who compiled this data or who to attribute as its source. At least when the records of the Association of Road Racing Statisticians differ from those of the IAAF, we know the name of the source, we know that the source meets WP:RS, and we can even explain why the data from that source differs. On your next point, I agree that wikification of lists and results can be convenient, and that there are generally no copyright issues with copying them. Given the vast amount of lists, stats, and results that are out there (see www.ARRS.net, for example), I do think we need to make sure that our articles are encyclopedic and also in line with WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTSTATS. Finally, on "write our own standard", I think a MOS for articles about athletes, events (i.e. marathon), and races (i.e. Berlin Marathon) is a great idea and something that should be raised at WP:Athletics. I'm not completely against the various tables that Darius inserted into many athlete articles, however, I think there should be more discussion about their appearance and what is noted in them. Location (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict - reply to SFB] I like your suggestions. I have three points to reply on right now: 1) Rather than putting all of the above into 2001 in marathon running/2001 in the marathon, I would be perfectly happy seeing that in a subsection of 2001 in athletics (track and field). The subsection could certainly be split-off at a later date if it or the main article became too large. 2) Regarding the top 20 times of the year, that would essentially be listing what Darius had done. I would keep it at five each for men and women and make the original source and link clearly and readily accessible to ensure consistency within the articles. As I mentioned above, Darius was mixing references with conflicting data and that can be troubling to those of us with OCD: "No. Alberto Salazar did not have the top time in 1981 because the course was short." 3) Regarding international marathon winners or new/abolished marathons, we may have to have some discussion to define the criteria for which marathons would be listed. For example, without any standard for inclusion, List of marathons has gotten way out of hand. Location (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the list of marathons is "out of hand". Sure it's a little messy and could do with a bit of tidying, sourcing and prose, but otherwise I don't think keeping track of the 200 or so marathons in existence is an unmanageable task at all. I think it remains a very useful list and it still gets thousands of views every month.

I think there is a categorical difference between listing the top twenty times of the season (a task comparable to a World 10,000 metres final) and Darius's listings of 50–100 marathon runners' best times of the season. Obviously if this type of information was placed within a section of the respective yearly sport article, then the top five is a more appropriate size to maintain balance. However, I would imagine that a marathon specific article would expand upon that (i.e. having just five men's and women's times for a whole page is a little pointless).

Trackinfo – Location has not redirected those articles on a copyright basis; they are "clean". In terms of NOTMIRROR/NOTSTATS, I presume he believed there was not significant enough "explanatory text". I very much agree, thus my suggestion for a larger topic scope which would provide the basis for a relevant context to such stats. A pure rankings list without context isn't really a basis for a Wikipedia article: a yearly rankings list as part of an article discussion of that event and its competitions during a season most certainly is. SFB 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

SFB, I would be happy discuss my issues with List of marathons on its talkpage, but what I was trying to point out is that there needs to be some standard for inclusion if we are going to list winners of international marathons (i.e. what defines an "international marathon"). Trackinfo helped define the notability of road racing events in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics/Track & Field and long-distance running, so maybe he has some suggestions. Location (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I try to avoid black holes of subjective discussion such as these! We all know the real answer is there is no concrete definition of a "notable marathon". I'd generally stick to listing the marathons that we can source reports for (note that I say reports not just bare results). This will be nigh on impossible on earlier articles, however. I find that far too much of my valuable time is spent trying to figure out arbitrary restrictions. I prefer to stick to a common sense approach of listing a select number of the truly top class marathons and just let other people get on with it as they do. Trying to tame the open-for-edit Wikipedia beast is something I do not have the desire to attempt. Feel free to have a go yourselves if you wish though! SFB 23:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)