Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Someone is able to create {{Infobox athletics event}}?

As this fr:Modèle:Infobox Épreuve d'athlétisme. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would check in at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Someone there should be able to help you. Location (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The template already exists (it is a bluelink) and has done since 21:47, 31 August 2011‎. What is the problem? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

per Redrose64, {{Infobox athletics event}} already exists—and is transcluded by:

• 400 metres
• 2011 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres
• 2011 Berlin Marathon
• 2011 Chicago Marathon

Template usage examples

Athletics 400 metres
The closing stages of a men's 400 m race.

Men's 100 metres at the 2011 World Championships
Yohan Blake became the event's youngest ever champion.
Venue	Daegu Stadium
Dates	27 August (heats) 28 August (finals)
Competitors	74 from 61 nations
Medalists
Yohan Blake (9.92)  Jamaica (JAM)   Walter Dix (10.08)  United States (USA)   Kim Collins (10.09)  Saint Kitts and Nevis (SKN)

38th Berlin Marathon
Patrick Makau crossing the line in a world record time
Venue	Berlin, Germany
Dates	25 September
Medalists
Patrick Makau (2:03:38 WR) Florence Kiplagat (2:19:44)

34th Chicago Marathon
Amateur runners in the mass race
Venue	Chicago, United States
Dates	October 9
Medalists
Moses Mosop (2:05:38) Liliya Shobukhova (2:18:20)

We can't just replace this with a translated French template, as that might break these four pages that already use it.

Would you like someone to "create" Template:Infobox athletics event/doc? – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone translated the French template, they would create {{Athletics competition}} – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I mean "athletic event" like these (the template don't exists at the moment):

See fr:Modèle:Infobox Épreuve d'athlétisme --Kasper2006 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I finally understand. You want an English Wikipedia version of fr:Modèle:Infobox Épreuve d'athlétisme which is designed to be transcluded on 100 metres and similar articles. Modèle:Infobox Épreuve d'athlétisme translates to Template:Infobox athletics event (Google Chrome poorly translates it to Template: Athletics Competition). We can't use the name Infobox athletics event on English Wikipedia because it's already used for a template which serves a different purpose (the usage examples I hid above). But we could give it a new, slightly different name such as {{Infobox athletics competition}}. Or another name you prefer. Do I understand you correctly now? Wbm1058 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that "100 metres" is an event not a competition. Therefore you call it "Template:infobox pincopalliono", but the important is to create. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the existing infobox was only use on 3 articles, I've moved it to {{Infobox athletics competition}} and started a new version at the old location, {{Infobox athletics event}}. Athletics event needs further work though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! French template has even more information as "Olympic and World Champion" and others things you can see here fr:400 mètres. --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand. It's a fairly complex template which uses several sub-templates which will all need to be copied & translated from the French templates as well. The current template which WOSlinker created uses the basic, standard {{Infobox}}, which the French template does not. Guidelines, I believe, say not to make things "unnecessarily pretty", but I like the French version too. If there are no objections to using this more custom, prettier template, I think I can handle the work. May take me a while, though. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I had second thoughts about trying to copy too much French template-building infrastructure. I created a sandbox for this template, which is now in sync with the live template. The live template began use in 400 metres, and is already transcluded in several others, e.g. 100 metres and 200 metres. Glad to see that. I may come back and try more later, but others feel free to step in and help. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hurdlers

Hardly ever athletes specialists of the 110 metres hurdles so are the 400 metres hurdles. I propose to create two subcategories of Category:Hurdlers: Category:Hurdlers (high hurdles) (110) and Category:Hurdlers (low hurdles) (400). On it wiki, is similar but wrong. For 110 is it:Categoria: Ostacolisti (velocità), "velocità" is sprint (running) and for 400 is it:Categoria: Ostacolisti (giro di pista), "giro si pista" is "lap of track", and is OK, but 400 metres is also a sprint race. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this has been avoided because "High hurdlers" is technically correct, but not instantly familiar to people with less knowledge of the topic. A better split would be Category:Sprint hurdlers (covering 60m-100m-110m) and Category:400 metres hurdlers. SFB 19:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to further break down to types of hurdlers. I realize the distinction and have included remarks in articles about versatile hurdlers. In masters divisions, where we have a variety of distances and heights, we call them short hurdlers (sprint hurdles), and long hurdlers. Men and women have different heights, leading to further confusion without more explanation than we need to do in a category description. Low Hurdles, because it was a pre-1961 IAAF official event, is an incorrect term to use for intermediate hurdles. Trackinfo (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

OK Track, do not make the distinction on the heights, but let the one proposed by SFB. The main concept is that is that the specialists of the lap are not even sprint (they are two completely different specialities). When you give me the OK I start the split. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

David Hemery Gold Medal WR 400H, European Champs silver medalist 110H after, Don Styron WR 200H, top 5 American in both 110H and 400H, Laurent Ottoz Italian NR 110H, various international medals 400H. Even Kevin Young started as a short hurdler like so many of them probably did. Calvin Davis was so bad its hard to categorize him as a hurdler, but was so strong for 400 that he got a bronze medal in the Olympics. The vast majority specialize by the time they get to the elite level, but obviously there are exceptions. So do we double list the multiple specialists? Trackinfo (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think people like Ottoz, Hemery and Styron are more the exception than the rule. In any case, these types of people would be categorised under both proposed hurdler categories, as we do with Angelo Taylor being in "sprinters" and "hurdlers". I would argue that we should not categorise people like Kevin Young as sprint hurdlers because he didn't seriously compete in the 110mh at Pac-10 level, let alone a global one. For the sake of category clarity we should ignore these minor aspects (e.g. who would be looking for Robert Harting in hurdlers?). Calvin Davis on the other hand would be benefited by the change – showing that he was a "400 m hurdler" but less so a "hurdler", as he is currently defined.

I've just looked through all the 400m hurdles entrants at the 2012 Olympics. Only one out of the fifty (Jamele Mason) has competed to a reasonable standard (PR: 13.76 s) in the 110m hurdles at the senior level (the level we should be using for categorisation). I don't think I can demonstrate any clearer the difference between these events at the elite level. In true event-crossover categories, like middle distance, it's hard to find an athlete who hasn't seriously competed as a senior in multiple events within that scope. SFB 12:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Chrischataway.jpg

file:Chrischataway.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Female athletes

For some time I had noticed this the subcategories of Category:Female athletes. It is a "Container category" and these must also be the subcategories contained in it. Since it is virtually impossible that each of these subacategories is properly populated (37 female discus throwers in the world? Maybe 37 just at the last Summer Olympics), one needs to do in order to create subcategories by nationality. As I began to do myself in Category:Female high jumpers. --Kasper2006 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Long-distance running move

Kaspar2006 has raised a request to move Long-distance track event to long distance running. As part of this discussion, I suggest we should also discuss whether the long and middle distance running articles should be hyphenated or not (it's currently half and half). SFB 19:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

athlete categories by gender, event and nationality

I've added a discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion proposing to delete subcategories that divide athletes by gender, event and nationality (e.g. Category:New Zealand female javelin throwers). Please contribute here. SFB 19:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

National Distance Running Hall of Fame inductees – 2011 class?

I can't find whether there was a 2011 induction class for National Distance Running Hall of Fame. Anyone at this WP know whether there was one or not? Jrcla2 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if there was one. The article lists a couple press releases stating that induction classes over the past few years have been suspended, and the website doesn't appear to have been updated in recent history. Location (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

List Backgrounds

Another editor has wholesale removed the alternating gray backgrounds to our annual performance lists in all major events. Was there any discussion about that move? How do we feel about that? It wasn't my invention, but someone put a lot of work into making that format. I think the subtle alternating grays actually helped the readability of that data, without it, it makes them a little stark. However we feel about it, this is a major format change, and I think we should discuss before making such a wholesale change. Trackinfo (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken notice of the changes, too. Lists are common in Wikipedia and most do not have the alternating background colors. I'm OK either way. (I've notified User:Make91 of this discussion.) Location (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I made the change, because I thought it made it easier to read. Also sorting is much nicer without a background colour, because when the table is sorted the colours no longer alternate. More than half of the articles didn't have background colours to begin with, now they're all similar in that sense.Make91 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There's some interesting discussion of zebra stripes here. When a table is likely to be sorted then these stripes become an issue because they are hard-coded (as opposed to being dynamically programmed to consistently appear in an alternating fashion). From a readability perspective I don't see the stripes providing a benefit in many cases on the athletics lists (stripes/no stripes), principally because they aren't really long enough for the eye to get lost.

By the way, from my point of view the overwhelming feeling of established editors on Wikipedia is that images and colours are to be avoided wherever possible. Here, readability is conflated with aesthetics. Icons are superfluous, obtuse and childish. Obviously they don't look very closely at the rest of their screens littered with these useless things. Or at award-winning website layouts like this that are full of superfluous colour. The crowd is very useful for gathering information, but seemingly oblivious to how presentation affects comprehension. SFB 22:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hyphenate Cross Country

I invite you over to Talk:Cross country running where someone is proposing to hyphenate Cross Country. I've had my say in the article, but when crazy ideas like this get a foothold here on WP, they tend to snowball. Trackinfo (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I can sense the hyphen-fever! SFB 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

IAAF biographies broken

All the different wikis have been tweaking to squeeze past the IAAF's new website changes and they've now blocked off a workaround for our old biography links. We have two choices.

• Choice #1: Start replacing all 7243 transclusions of the {{IAAF name}} template with the updated {{IAAF profile}} template.
• Choice #2: Change the IAAF name template to use the old mirrored IAAF website at iaaf.net (e.g.).

Judging from the fact that our original workaround lasted barely two weeks before the IAAF webmaster blocked it, it looks like the second choice will be a stop-gap at best.

This is going to be a bit of a headache. You might also have noticed that most of our old IAAF article links are also down. I've no idea why the webmaster is so keen to break all the links from what is probably the biggest non-search engine generator of hits for their site. SFB 22:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only cite my own personal experience. I have repeatedly been sending off e-mails as USATF has done similar mangling of their website links--to a lesser extent. I'll add I am on multiple USATF website committees, so they should pay attention. It culminated in a face to face conversation with the USATF webmaster, who apparently only made the changes out of an attempt to "advance the site" which I read to mean use technology he understood, rather than having to learn the technology of his predecessor. I guess it also works for job security--if he had wanted it. He quit less than a month later to take a much better paying position. That's how it goes. Now we have a new webmaster personalizing the site yet again. I suspect the IAAF person, probably a one man band, is new and doing things his way and has no idea how much he is screwing things up. I have tried writing to IAAF, but then I've tried to write IAAF in the past with no response. Even when I worked for them, yes I've been paid by the IAAF (or maybe because they were so late in paying me), I couldn't get a response. Trackinfo (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've emailed their webmaster. The more I look the more I realise it's pure website harakiri. Look at Patrick Makau. 20 external links/16 to IAAF/12 broken IAAF links. We'll see how their advertisers react when their traffic suddenly drops by 10%. SFB 12:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

IAAF redirects are working! Obviously my email made a pretty convincing argument. The old "id=" style biography links are working again and, perhaps more importantly, old article links are working too. This restores my faith somewhat in their web management! SFB 11:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Florence Griffith-Joyner

Can somebody responde in Talk:Florence Griffith-Joyner#Surname? --84.245.229.37 (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – SFB responded; article was subsequently moved to Florence Griffith Joyner. Location (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Merger Proposal

It has been proposed that 2010 South American Under-23 Championships in Athletics be merged into Athletics at the 2010 South American Games. >>>Discuss here<<<. Additional input welcome. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Junior record pages

We have the following AJR/NJR pages:

• North, Central American and Caribbean Junior records in athletics
• Oceanian Junior records in athletics
• Asian Junior records in athletics
• United States Junior records in athletics

On the other hand, the WJR page is at List of world junior records in athletics. Two questions:

1. Should we move these area/country pages to "List of..." to maintain consistency?

2. Why is "Junior" capitalized here? Sideways713 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Junior doesn't need to be capitalised here. That is an error. Although the style guides say the "list of" prefix is preferred, I personally don't see the advantage to it in the case of athletics records. For example, at British records in athletics we could cover more than just the list, including a history of the nation's records and records of note (long-standing ones, world records etc). Same goes for List of world records in athletics. Most people would look for this without the "list of" prefix. I think it's always worth evaluating the benefits of the common model before applying it for consistency. SFB 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Birthday template

I'm working on a self-updating template to indicate which notable athletes have birthdays this week. Do you think that's a good idea, and where would such a template belong? I've experimented with several locations on both the portal page and the project page, but haven't come up with anything brilliant yet. Sideways713 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The left column is shorter than the right one on the portal so it could probably fit in there somewhere. Athlete-wise, I'd stick to major names, medallists, world record holders etc. Traves Smikle is of little interest to even the most ardent fan! SFB 18:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The more I work on this the more I feel we'll have to make it daily rather than weekly, or the lists will get uncomfortably long... but I'll keep experimenting.

Totally agree about major names only (even with daily lists), but I figured some upcoming talents would help spice it up. Smikle may still be a bit too obscure though :) Sideways713 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dibaba's birthday

Found a discrepancy regarding Tirunesh Dibaba's birthday...

We currently give 1 June 1985, the date given by IAAF, alltime-athletics, All-Athletics and sports-reference.

On the other hand, what appears to be her official website says 1 October 1985, in agreement with Tilastopaja and this biography. Bafflingly, IAAF's Daegu handbook also implies this date.

Which date should we prefer? Or should we note the discrepancy in a footnote? Sideways713 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I would go with her official website and place the IAAF website in a footnote. Also, the IAAF has been responsive to inquiries and corrections, so I would send them a brief e-mail and point out the contradiction. Although it wasn't necessary, I received credit in the Daegu handbook for sending in a correction about the marathon progression that we found here in Wikipedia. Location (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely worth an email to them. Most likely this is a classic Ethiopian calendar error. By the way, I can't find any active links for the Daegu handbook since the redesign. Does anyone have a link? I think the marathon correction is testament to Wikipedia's role in refining knowledge online. By bringing together diverse sources we often create new interpretations. SFB 18:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Will contact them, but haven't done so yet. In the meantime, I've found conflicting versions of Ejegayehu Dibaba's birthday as well. Sports-Reference cheerfully lists her as born on June 25, 1982... but Wikipedia, Tilastopaja and alltime-athletics all give March 21, 1982. For a fifth opinion, I had a look at her IAAF profile...

DATE OF BIRTH 13 JAN 1982

Huh? Another IAAF biography gives the March 21 date, though. Sideways713 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you hear anything back from them? SFB 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Tried contacting them twice (once through e-mail, once with their website contact form), no reply either time. Sideways713 (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That has been my experience in trying to contact IAAF. If anyone has a functional method to reach the information people at IAAF, I'd love to know about it. Trackinfo (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The athletics journalist Elshadai Negash was involved with the creation of her website. Maybe ask him on Twitter? SFB 16:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on Twitter; if you want to ask, go ahead. Sideways713 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

IAAF profile alert

A lot of our IAAF profile links using Template:IAAF profile are broken due to not having the athlete's ID as part of the namelink. However, links using Template:IAAF name and Template:IAAF simple work fine. (Note that some Template:IAAF profile links also work as they do include the ID.) I've updated the documentation for the "IAAF profile" template. Sideways713 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed all the namelinks. Now let's pray IAAF doesn't change the URLs again... Sideways713 (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. Turns out my workaround caused another mess! SFB 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

José Marín's 50k time in Helsinki '83

We give José Marín's time at Helsinki 1983 as 3:43:42, citing this source. This is also the time currently given by IAAF in its result archive. It's wrong.

What's less clear to me, though, is the correct time. I have a copy of Juoksija's 1983 WC book, which gives Marín's time as 3:46:42. (This time is also given by several online sources, including alltime-athletics.) On the other hand, IAAF's Daegu handbook says 3:46:32. This YouTube video (obviously not a reliable source) clearly shows Marin still walking at 3:46 but unfortunately doesn't follow him home.

Any suggestions? Should I contact IAAF about this as well? Sideways713 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just discovered Tilastopaja also gives 3:46:42. Is that good enough for us? Sideways713 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It's worth emailing the IAAF to point out the error in the results page (at least they've already got it right in the handbook). It might be worth putting in a note on the results page to highlight the common discrepancy. This should prevent errors in future. SFB 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The 1984 ATFS Annual (covering the 1983 season) has Marin's time as 3:46.42 PatBirgan (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Habesha names

According to WP:GIVENNAME, Ethiopians should be referred to by their given names (as they don't have surnames for us to refer to them by). On the other hand, most of our sources (not being familiar with the topic) treat the patronymics as if they were surnames, and most of our articles seem to follow this. (As a notable expection, Haile Gebrselassie speaks of Haile, not Gebrselassie.)

Do you think we should attempt to follow WP:GIVENNAME? Sideways713 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I try to follow this on all the Ethiopian/Eritrean athlete articles I write (e.g. Dejen Gebremeskel). It is a hard habit to enforce on a broad editorship though. Sometimes it can be a good idea to point out the style within the text if the article is substantial (as I did on Zersenay Tadese). That said, I'm not going to criticise anyone who gets it wrong – it would be ridiculous to expect them to get it right! SFB 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Biography style guideline

I've done an overhaul of the Biography style guideline given that the previous version contradicted a lot of site-wide guidelines and contained numerous spelling and typographical errors.

I also removed the part referring to the number of international caps. While this idea is very common in other sports (football, rugby etc) things like United States national athletics team feel a little alien. Statistics of this type aren't readily available or even recorded for most athletes. In the several years I've been reading about the sport, I've found discussion of international selections in the sources only once (Manuel Martínez Gutiérrez). Unless someone can prove that this information is widely discussed and recorded then I see no reason to mention it in our standard format. Manual collation of this information is problematic because international selections also include non-championship events like the Aviva International Match. SFB 17:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

PB section is redundant if is already in the template. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletionists got Bert Nelson

The creeps that like to delete content got us apparently. Today someone posted a notability "attack" TAG on Track & Field News because it was unreferenced. I found a few places where the magazine was referred to, added sources and deleted the junk tag. Frankly I didn't find a lot of stuff to go on, just enough to get rid of the tag. But in the process, when I started fixing the article, the creator of the magazine--an article apparently labeled Bert Nelson (athlete) was a blue link. I didn't bother to look at it, it wasn't on my watch list. In the time it took me to hunt down T&FN links (overnight), that article has disappeared. Had I known the Bert Nelson article was under attack, I'd be defending it. As a journalist, we should all know he was the core of the sport for decades. Obviously it was off my radar and I assume off the radar of other Athletics project supporters who would know who he was. And now we lose content. If any of you have Admin capabilities, perhaps you can find out what happened and can initiate whatever procedures it takes to get it back.

On a wholesale basis, all members should be aware that there is this force amongst a faction of wikipedia editors who seem to love to delete content. This is the worst aspect of wikipedia. They are searching out lesser articles and attacking. Those tags are poison. The first step that leads to removal of content. If you see a tag, fix the article or at least watch it, because the TAG is the first step to deletion. It will take the diligence of all of us to try to defend the information we have already assembled, about this sport, about anything. Trackinfo (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We never had an article on Bert Nelson. It was a blue link but it actually pointed to a disambig page; User:Niceguyedc fixed this, which is why it's a redlink now. Sideways713 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who questions the notability of T&F News is clearly quite outside their area of expertise, but as always the best defence is to make sure articles always have a couple of citations. We currently have no articles on the Nelson brothers, but if anyone wants to work on them there is good source material out there. SFB 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Done.Trackinfo (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cooperative WikiProject

WikiProject Globalization, with assistance from Outlines WikiProject, has drafted an Outline of globalization. We welcome your input, additions, and comments. Meclee (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Birthday template now ready...

...and live at the athletics portal. Full list of included athletes here.

My next project is to turn all the redlinks in there into bluelinks, starting with the higher-notability ones. Obviously I wouldn't mind help :) Sideways713 (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Extensive! SFB 21:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good and pithy summary, but my estimate was that more than 90% of athletes notable enough for Wikipedia articles are not (and should not be) in it. (And undoubtedly there are many who should be in there but I overlooked.) There have just been so many big names over the years. Sideways713 (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability of event articles

I'm starting this conversation in reaction to the growing number of event-level articles, by which I mean things like 2011 World Championships in Athletics – Women's 100 metres.

The coverage of athletics championships and games has really improved over the last couple of years, largely thanks to a small group of dedicated editors. I think this is unambiguously a good thing. The next step that is being followed is to go one step further and expand from championship-level coverage into event-level coverage. I have mixed feelings about this. I think some of these are straying into areas that barely fulfil Wikipedia:Notability.

First off, I think Olympic and World Championships coverage is wholly suitable. These events are individually discussed at length both in the global media and among fans – they represent the peak (or one of the peaks) of the year for athletics. Practically all the athletes involved in each event are worth talking about individually and should have their own articles. To a slightly lesser extent, I think this also applies to the European Athletics Championships: it is the highest standard continental championship and almost all the athletes involved are worth their own article (e.g. 2010 European men's 110 hurdles).

I think once we go beyond that level, an event-level article is straying into more obscure realms. Take this for example, where few of the athletes merit their own article. If we cannot find a source which discusses that specific event on its own (not just results, or as only part of a championship review), then the article will almost certainly fail notability criteria. If someone puts that article up for deletion now, it won't stand a chance.

The worst thing that could happen would be if this was just deleted and information (and the effort writing it) is just lost. Will that article's creator still be around to defend its value in ten (or even two) year's time? My guess is no. I suggest we do our best to preserve this material by putting it in a presentable format that won't be an easy target for deletion. My recommendation is to have three levels of championships coverage:

• 1) Olympic, World Championships, World Indoor Championships and European Championships – full event level articles are created to match the high profile, coverage, and standard of these events
• 2) Other major games and championships (e.g. Asian Athletics Championships, Athletics at the Summer Universiade) – summarised results articles for the next level of top continental/regional/world events (e.g. Athletics at the 2013 Mediterranean Games – Results) that contain information of the event finals, showing that coverage of the competition as a whole is worthwhile but individual events have little notability in and of themselves
• 3) Lesser competitions (e.g. national championships, Athletics at the South Asian Games, Central American Championships in Athletics) – just pages for the edition of each championships with a full list of medallists, showing that individual events are rarely analysed on their own

What do others think? SFB 18:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with the dividing line. However, when we do coverage of a championship without covering the progress of the individual events, we should do better coverage of that championship including: deeper results beyond the medalists and more prose, possibly even segmented above each set of results, particularly when something significant happened--obviously if the information is available. Finalists, for example, are notable; the final itself should be covered fully.

This might into Wikipedia sourcing guidelines, but because it affects what I have written for recent coverage, I'd like to address it: The prose I have written about each event initially comes from watching video and adding analysis. Every word we put into wikipedia involves analyzing what is in the source, the source here being video rather than printed words. Frequently what I write is also observed by someone in the print media and we will find it duplicated later, when challenged. I don't make this stuff up. But there is a constant battle vs the deletionists who like to say this is unsourced material (and remove/revert it). As hard as it is to keep our material clean from the vandals and the overzealous promoters of their favorite athletes, I feel like I spend as much time defending what I saw happen because it is not (yet) in print. I think I've exhibited a good track record of picking up the significance of something well before it gets in the press, maybe the press is tipped off to what is significant by reading wikipedia. In either case, I don't think it merits the constant battle. I'm anticipating more of the same during the World Championships. Trackinfo (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with SFB. After all I had already commented on this here. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The division presented seems quite sensible with lesser events stored on one page rather than having individual articles for them. One major problem, however, is the number of competitors for some of the events which can sometimes be too big for such an article. I also don't think that we should limit the results to finals only. Sometimes notable athletes for one reason or another don't make the final even at such events and it is worth presenting the competition in its fullness. On the other hand, notable-to-be athletes may not yet be on the level to reach the final. Also this would favor the events which feature only one round, like the 10,000 meters. I'm aware that the level of participation varies hugely between individual events for such competitions, cf. 2012 African Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres and 2012 African Championships in Athletics – Men's hammer throw, but we probably need a consistent policy on that.

Personally, I would expand the first level of coverage to European Indoors, African and Asian Championships, Pan-American, African and Asian Games and also the Universiade, largely because of the significant participation and numerous nations represented which all could make a one-page article look too cluttered. Other events like South American Championships, CACAC, Mediterranean Games, Ibero-American Championships and so on are better off in one article. All of these competitions feature a number of notable athletes and having some form of detailed coverage helps to follow their career progression better. These are also often starting points of great careers of athletes which may become notable only after a couple of years. This is quite normal that recent events on this level feature a lot of debutants and thus red links but this changes with time.

I'm not really in favor of covering in detail non-senior level competitions because, as history of such events shows, even the medalists of such events, for one reason or another, often quickly fall into obscurity and never achieve much as seniors.

Lastly, to put things into perspective, I would like to point to the coverage depth of other disciplines, like football or other team sports. These feature a humongous number of bio articles for players of dubious notability who happen to play in the highest-level league of any (!) country, no matter what's its level. I think, in comparison, what we do in our discipline doesn't really stretch the notability policy all that much. After all, we don't create bio-articles for all the competitors but rather create links for them anticipating them to become notable. This, naturally, doesn't always happen but just because there is a large number of red links doesn't mean the event is not notable. I mention this mostly to show that the tendency of sports coverage on Wikipedia seems to go more and more towards inclusion. Pietaster (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments sought

I invite people to comment on the choice of lead picture in the infobox at the article on Mo Farah. My opinion is that the action shot File:20081214 mo farah.jpg is more relevant and should be preferred since it shows him doing the activity for which he is notable. Another editor prefers the picture at File:Mo Farah3a.jpg. No one else has expressed an opinion. We need a number of editors interested in this subject to express their preference. I am happy to go with the majority opinion. Please comment at Talk:Mo Farah#Lead image. Thanks. 86.128.1.121 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Order of medals

Please comment here. Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

London ststs book

Hi! Has somebody got the direct link to stats book for London OG? This link doesn't work (from this article). Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

See IAAF Profile alert above. IAAF is doing everything it can to keep a lid on publicizing the sport they claim to promote. Trackinfo (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

But isn't there the pdf link in some article here @ wiki? Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Try this. CroesJ (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! We can continue in my talk page. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments sought (again)

Please see "Comments sought" section above re the lead image for Mo Farah. Only one (new) person seems to have expressed an opinion. It is important that we get more comments because editors cannot agree. Could I please encourage you to comment at the thread linked above. Thanks. 86.160.217.199 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Athletics Race template issue

I can't for the life of me get the template for Athleticrace working with images....can anyone help? --Grapeman4 (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. :-) GregorB (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks appreciated! --Grapeman4 (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates on Championships pages

Hi everyone. I've done an overhaul of the templates to be used on the championships articles. I saw there was an awful lot of information repeated over and over on 2013 World Championships in Athletics. About a quarter of the whole page was just code fluff! I've devised two new templates and modified two others.

First off, {{AthleticsLink}} can now be used to automatically create the "details" link to the event sub-article. Secondly, {{Athletics championships navigation}} will automatically create the section links to adjacent editions (those "2009 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | 2017" style links).

On top of these two I've added a new functionality for {{FlagATHCH}} and {{FlagATHCHathlete}}. These link to the "Nation at X" pages and now automatically use the current page name to create the page link.

You can check 2013 World Championships in Athletics to see how all these are used in action. This should make things easier to create and more intelligible in edit mode too. A sample medals table can be copy/pasted from here for quick creation.

One other thing that came out of this: all the Marathon articles have wrongly capitalised marathon (which is not a proper noun) and will need to be moved. SFB 13:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ottoz family 17 October has celebrated 99 years of Gabre Gabric

Help! Please see here and here. ;) --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Athletics abbreviations

I created the article Athletics abbreviations recently. Received a thank you from SFB, you're welcome. Obviously there is still room for improvement. The question is how to incorporate it into the various articles that need the explanation of the abbreviations? Yes, most have legends but our sport's use of abbreviations is so common that many of us even miss that an abbreviation was left hanging=unexplained, because we are used to seeing them. To an uninformed novice, we leave them uninformed, which isn't exactly what wikipedia is about. Can we compress it into a template of some sort, to link such readers? Trackinfo (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of Glossary of cue sports terms (note the use of {{term}} and {{defn}} therein)? GregorB (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I should glean from that article. My question was intended to be: How do we make it easy for a novice Athletics statistics reader to find the article. Can we create and post a template or mini-infobox? An expandable legend? Would something like this be useful on all our results pages and articles that reference statistics? Trackinfo (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What I had in mind was merely using wikilinks that point to anchors (i.e. terms) in Athletics abbreviations. A legend box might be a better solution, though, as it requires less work to implement. GregorB (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there could be such template {{athl abr|NR}} and it results NR. Of course, there could be such features like displaying the full name (National Record; like in the {{convert}} the abbr. can be displayed). --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

@Trackinfo:@Edgars2007:@GregorB: Done! Please see Template:AthAbbr for more info. SFB 23:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopian flag (1996-2009)

Working on the IAAF World Cross Country Championships I faced the following problem (mainly affecting the coverage of athletics between 1996 and 2009): It appears that there is some confusion/discussion on which Ethiopian flag to use between 1996 and 2009 (see, e.g. here). There is a flag variant dubbed Flag of Ethiopia (1996-2009).svg on Template:Country data Ethiopia suggesting its use between 1996 and 2009. However, Wikipedia's main article on the Flag of Ethiopia states that the current version of the flag was already adopted on 31 October 1996, supported by an official Ethiopian publication (see also the discussion on the Flags of the World webpage. Therefore, I intentionally used the actual flag version for the period after 31 October 1996. I would like to draw attention to the problem and get consensus on the use of the flag to avoid the toggling the flag between the variants (because I noticed that the 1996 flag variant is frequently used until 2009 in the coverage of athletics).CroesJ (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this flag got limited usage before the updated one, but I haven't been able to find any source saying that exactly. If in doubt we could just use the current flag if needs be and maybe try starting a conversation to get the "(1996-2009)" flag file moved to a different name to prevent confusion. SFB 23:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Gender categories

Hi all. I've gone through the whole of Category:Pole vaulters and added the "male" and "female" categories to the relevant pages. We've got 403 male vaulter articles and 131 female vaulter articles. The coverage of these categories is still quite haphazard, even though it has been a couple of years since their creation.

Can people add these categories when editing an athlete bio page? This should speed up the process. I will also look into seeing if any automatic tagging can be done. SFB 23:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Clare

Dear athletes: The above old abandoned Afc submission was declined as non-notable because the subject did not win a medal at the Paralympics. It's about to be deleted as a stale draft. He does seem to have some other accomplishments, though, and there is [1], [2], [3], [4] and likely more, as I stopped looking at this point. Is this a notable athlete, and should the article be rescued from deletion ? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Flags

User:‎Redhill54 has been making extensive edits changing flagicons and national affiliations across numerous Athletics articles. I already caught and reverted the removal of the Nazi swastika flag from several 1930's German records. Further research showed [change] for a 1934 100m record was accurate in that the Swastika was not adopted until 1935. But with [like this] I don't think this user was being that precise. These changes seem much more wholesale, self-assured and unsourced. This is more of a format and look issue, but could also hold a hidden agenda t rewrite history. I don't know enough about each of these details without researching each one. [edits] included the nuance between the PR (People's Republic of) China, converting this only to China. This is more of a nuance than I can handle alone. I think we need some community guidance and knowledge to make sure these changes are accurate to the way we wish to portray these countries at each of these stages of time. Trackinfo (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Flags

User:Redhill54 notes the above and is not upset at the tone of the comments, though they do not seem to be helpful, encouraging or respectful. All that I have been trying to do is to correct errors, and do appreciate the pointing out to me that the German national flag was changed in 1933, and then found that it changed again in 1935.

I have put in where relevant correct flags and designations for British, Canadian, South Afrcan, and German athletes. If you look at the Wikipedia entries for Template:Country data Germany etc you will see the details of the correct flags and state names which should be used. In particular I have learnt from the Wikipedia pages on national flags about the unified German team and its special Olympic flag in the period 1956 to 1968.

I have also corrected place names, but have always tried to make the naming format uniform, so if a country and not a state title is used generally that this is applied consistently in the list. If anyone has further light to shed on these issues their contribution will be welcome.

I have noticed that there appear to be major problems with the information on the womens' 80 metres hurdles world record progression entry. Names of athletes, dates and places of competitions appear to be incorrect, or garbled. Checking and correcting this entry is work of a different type, as the substance of the information may need changing, not just the format of details.

Redhill54 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern is: Of the first 4 edits you did of this type, to our Athletics articles, three were wrong, and the fourth was only correct on a technicality (by one year) that you even now admit was not a specification you understood either. You have now done a lot of flag and country changes to Athletics articles. Without researching the historical and political details of each change, I don't know if they are correct. Do you? We have had many editors post this information which has been public for many years. Much as I abhor world politics being a part of our sport at all, the fact is they are. Particularly as related to the evolution of Germany from the pre-warGerman Empire form through the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany its split into West Germany and East Germany, but competing in the Olympics as the Unified Team of Germany and on to its reunified form of today, the naming and flagging of each related athlete at a particular point in time is complicated. Those are exactly the items you are changing. I had to familiarize myself with the subject. We are in the business of delivering accurate information. I want the others of our project, who might understand these details to look over all this. Trackinfo (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bubba Thornton (Track and Field Coach)

Dear athletics experts: I'm pretty sure that this is a notable track and field coach. Right? It's a stale draft from Afc. Should it be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Yes. Coach of an Olympic national track team should say as much. Quite a storied career in the NCAA.[5] He's also probably notable for his professional football career as well. What extra is required? SFB 21:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I have added a couple of refs about his retirement and moved it to mainspace. I guess it could use an infobox, a photo, and more specific sources about his work. Sorry, I am not a follower of competitive sports; I am just searching through the old drafts to save good material before it disappears. I don't know one team from another, but the word "Olympic" caught my eye. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I previously wrote Anne but since she didn't feel qualified to help, so I'll throw this out to the group. Normally such an article would list the notable athletes directly coached by this individual. I also don't know much about U Texas track, so I don't have a good path to start on. Texas I first thought of Sanya Richards, but sources show there is a rift between Thornton and the former women's coach, Beverly Kearney. That would indicate he doesn't have much to do with the success of Texas women. So in his time, what UT male athletes did he coach who went on to further success? Trackinfo (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of redlinks from Template:National Members of the International Association of Athletics Federations

I don't like this edit. Just created (and going to create) a couple of OAA member federation articles. It's annoying always having to edit the navbox. What do others think? CroesJ (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of the existence of this template, but conceptually I think it is fantastic. This also corresponds to the acronym section Athletics abbreviations article I started a while ago (and haven't yet figured out how to utilize effectively). I see Montel74 already reverted this user quoting scripture (WP:policy). I'd join Montel in the fun of reverting but it would just turn into a needless edit war. Perhaps if several of us users were to contact this user as a group representing the Athletics project, we could convince this user that the layout as a whole with the red links is far more useful to show what articles still need to be written. It is obvious that the red links are being filled in and each of those red links will be a notable entity when the work is done. I congratulate you on the fine work so far. I'll comment further that I use this same technique as I build layouts and then fill in the blanks later. If it is to be enforced so rigorously, I guess I have an issue with the "policy" itself, which gets in the way of positive editing. If the user doesn't come to his senses, a unified attack on the policy would be the next order of business. Trackinfo (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of viable red links is a terrible idea. This is one of the primary ways in which new articles get created. Wikipedia:Red link says as much. There was a recent discussion that covered the same ground. You'll notice that all the pages which support red link removal are user essays, never guidelines or policy. I kind of agree with their exclusion if the article is a non-existent split (e.g. band discography when the discography is listed on the main band page instead), but in practically all cases it makes sense to include them. Normally I can see reasoning for editing differences, but this case of "helping build the encyclopaedia" vs "hiding ugly red-coloured words" is beyond my comprehension. SFB 23:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't confuse a nav box for content space. The part of a series arguement is entirely superflous, it is not a series. Series implies a sequence and there is not one. Plus arguing the essay vs policy argument essentially suggests WP:EXISTING can be ignored at whim and that it should not even exist (ironic huh?).

Articles should be created first. You want the redlinks, use a WP:List article, that fufills all the requirement listed above of helping build the encyclopaedia. --Falcadore (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, by being an essay, you are reporting the consensus of one person. If you are an experienced editor, you should know there are plenty overbearing blowhards who populate wikipedia's inner working. A policy at least has been debated. The failure of an essay to become policy in itself would indicate that there was not a consensus reached. Or maybe the proponent didn't have the balls to take their opinion before the voices of other people, even the other blowhards who are the most common respondent. But the first line of the policy you cite says: "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." That doesn't say it is mandatory. It certainly doesn't tell you, an uninvolved editor, to delete it. You have 4 of the most prominent and active members of this WikiProject who are all in favor of retaining the template as it exists with red links. We are the ones most likely to know that these articles are or will be notable. We are probably the most likely candidates to write such articles, CroesJ actually is in the process of filling the template. So he has clearly stated these articles are in development. Having researched these articles and having edited several of those in the template (I can't recall if I actually started any of them but it is likely), I'll tell you these are difficult to source without inside knowledge. The point of red links are to encourage people to fill in the blanks. All credit to CroesJ for digging up the information and filling in the blanks but there are dozens of these that are sourced to obscure websites in a huge variety of languages. We need people with local knowledge to help. We need to cast a wide net. By your constantly deleting the links, you increase the workload and at the same time hide the invitation to those in the know to contribute their knowledge. And that's the bottom line of what we are doing here, we are building an encyclopedia, collecting knowledge. Trackinfo (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Which comes back to what I said before about ignoring it. If it is something to be ignored because only blowhards ever refer to it then it should be deleted. If the document has no point.

Because rather than promoting the construction of new articles what it has been doing is proliferating the creation of redlinked templates. There are now hundreds of these redlinks, a couple of thousand. You can find a Badminton governing body template which has maybe four links in it and over 150 redlinks and there is no obvious indications of any expansion.

Not exactly setting a good example. --Falcadore (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Redlink as a guideline specifically states that redlinks can be included in the manner I state above. WP:NAV (a user essay) disagrees with that, but guidelines trump user essays in terms of showing an editor consensus. A series of articles is by definition a group of related articles. If you choose to interpret that strictly as a sequence of articles, that is your call, but it has no basis other than your own opinion. The above template in question is clearly a series. As far opinion contrary to your own being just a bunch of people saying I DONT LIKE IT, I have clearly laid out what I believe are the benefits of such links above. This brings me to the following question: what detriment do red links in a nav template cause to a reader/editor? SFB 19:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Stating series implies sequence instead of group is very plainly not an interpretation. I refer you to Wiktionary as a dictionary example of how that an un-sequenced group is either inappropriate, inaccurate, or both. --Falcadore (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Surely a list article is more appropriate than creating a nav box full of material that is very plainly not a series of any kind. The list article satisfies the redlink argument without creating huge slabs of deadlinks in a nav box whose purpose is to link to articles. --Falcadore (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair I'm talking crap here. I suppose I've always thought of a series as a group of linked concepts, rather than successive ones. That's my lesson for the day! Still, my point stands as they do constitute a whole, defined set, which is also mentioned. I still don't know of the detriment to users of red links in navboxes when they are valid topics within the defined topic group. SFB 22:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You still don't know of the detriment? REDNOT spells it out plainly these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles.

Again I ask, why is a List article not considered a more appropriate method, seeing it has the advantage of being a content page first and formost, and has the added benefit of being able to expand abbreviations and add explanatory text. --Falcadore (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You again, don't get it. This package of organizations, NGBs will be far better served by displaying what we, primarily English speaking editors from large countries, DON'T know of other, perhaps lesser known countries. I am quite impressed with what we have accumulated, but the failures to complete the collection, CURRENTLY, is not a problem. We hope it is seeking a solution, which will be expedited by displaying the red links. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right I don't get it. A list article serves every purpose you claim the nav box does as far as redlinking and does not simulateneous misdirect people using nav boxes who are inexperienced wikipedia users. And this despite stating in both policies and essays that nav boxes should not have redlinks. I don't get how something stated so simply and clearly can be twisted around as it is clinging to the slightest exemption suggestions.

A list article performs the function you desire not just perfectly, but better.

Can you explain to me why it is so important that this be featured in a nav box? What about the nav box format is so important compared to alternatives? --Falcadore (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, look at that. While you were so busy yapping, I was able to look at the list, see what was missing and hey, I can fill in one of those. So I just created an article. And the core information needed is right there because the template is so well constructed. So seriously, if the red links bother you so much, get off your ass and create some articles yourself. Trackinfo (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So that's the attitude? Avoidance? --Falcadore (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

REDNOT specifically states that redlinks are a good idea if topics are part of a defined set. It does not support your argument. The disadvantage of removing such a red link from a navbox and replacing it with an in-article link would mean that an uncreated article such as Atletska Zveza Slovenije would be linked from two pages, rather than the current fifty-two. This would serve to make the absence of this topic much less prominent among the article base, thus reducing the opportunity for the article to be created on that topic (none of the mentioned links have had their potential notability questioned). I also think it is important to highlight the topic's absence on WP but existence in the defined topic set. Link omission means things are less clear for our readers in that they do not know if (a) it is omitted because Slovenia does not have an athletics federation, (b) it does have one, but there is no article for it, or (c) it does have one and there is an article, but it is not linked. Given this, what are the advantages of placing the redlinks on this template to a list on IAAF and removing them from the navbox? SFB 10:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Indoors/Outdoors

I had recently brought this up on SFB's talk page here but now we have the real issue rather than theoretical. With Renaud Lavillenie setting the World Record in the pole vault, this is the first World Record application of IAAF rule 260.18a where a record set in a facility with a roof is eligible to be considered THE World Record, not just the Indoor World Record. How that applies to wikipedia is that all of our event pages show separate Indoor and Outdoor best performances. Once the ratification process completes itself, the official World Record will be the Indoor mark, while our Outdoor best is essentially showing the deprecated data of a mark set without a roof (Bubka's 6.15 was grandfathered, set before the rule went into place). There are other Indoor bests that would rate on other event lists. So the question is, do we want to maintain Outdoor bests exclusively separate from Indoor bests, or do we convert to match the ranking in terms of eligibility to the World Record? Trackinfo (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Current model of world record and world indoor record sections looks good to me, although I would also like if indoor-set world records could be highlighted in the main list in some clearer way. SFB 22:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Bernor

Dear athletics experts: I'm not sure if the above old abandoned Afc submission comes under this project or not. There seem to be some claims to notability as a powerlifter. The article needs trimming for NPOV, but I am willing to do this if the subject is a notable one. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Powerlifting is not within our scope, and although a couple of lifters and strongmen (like Jon Cole (weightlifter) and Geoff Capes) are also notable as T&F athletes most aren't, and this guy isn't. Sideways713 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay; "Bodybuilding" appears inactive, and is not quite right anyway; I will try "Health and Fitness". Thanks for taking time to reply. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

From the looks of it, he appears notable (he made this person's world record list, but powerlifting is not a strictly organised sport so it is quite difficult to assess how important that is. SFB 10:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Rae

Can anybody find good coverage of Jeremy Rae? Instinctively I'd think a WUG silver medallist would meet GNG, but he's borderline; the best I could find were this and this (which are mostly the same), and I don't think that's quite enough. Sideways713 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag usage on sports articles

A discussion has begun to outline usage of flags on sports articles and to review their usage. Sports articles have long diverged from what is stated in the manual of style. Please comment on the proposals and add suggestions by contributing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Thanks. SFB 13:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Randall Cunningham II spike

In the first 20 days of this month Randall Cunningham II had 720 hits (36 per day). Today, the article is looking like it is going to get 700 for the day. Can anyone help me find a story that might explain this. Please drop a note at Talk:Randall_Cunningham_II#Unusual_spike.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT athletes may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

country at world champs

We need to focus on the athletics world champs wikipedia coverage is very limited on this subject. Only a handful of countries have the page: Country at the World Championships in Athletics. or pages for "Country' at the "xxxx" World Championships in Athletics — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickGibson3900 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@NickGibson3900: Hi Nick. I agree there is lots of work to do there. These are essentially inter-sectional articles that will be some of the next targets for article development. Only recently have we added articles for all the results. The "country at X" category is still a relatively unexplored one. It's mostly used for the Olympics and other big multi-sport events, plus a small number of football ones. I think something like United States at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics is a great idea for an article and a fascinating one at that. Feel free to make a start on these types of article! I've been working on a different topic intersection (in Javelin throw at the Olympics etc), but the country one will probably throw up just as many interesting facts. SFB 19:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Mark Winzenried

I see Mr. Guye has tagged my new article on Mark Winzenried as non-NPOV and promotional. To be perfectly honest I'm not quite sure why; as far as I can see, the "colorful adjectives" he cites reflect the facts and the sources (and aren't all that colorful anyhow...) Certainly, I didn't intend to write a promotional article. But I'd appreciate it if uninvolved editors who understand athletics gave the article a lookover and reworded anything they find promotional or unencyclopedic. Sideways713 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sideways713: I've done a few tweaks and now I think the article is fine. Some editors are cautious about using words like "triumphed" and "superior", but I believe that's a needlessly conservative approach in this given context. SFB 19:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment for Australia at the World Championships in Athletics

I would like Australia at the World Championships in Athletics to be assessed thanks - NickGibson3900 (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Start class. Will provide a comment shortly. GregorB (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Side comment: What does assessment do? Does it mean some mysterious crew comes through and attends to improving an article? Or is it just a waste of time as some self-important individuals put a grade on the work of others? I suspect the latter as I have never seen an assessment do anything to any article. Trackinfo (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't really agree. While you're absolutely right in that an assessment by itself doesn't do a thing for an article, or maybe even Wikipedia as a whole, its very existence is beneficial simply because - from Stubs to FAs - people do strive to move their articles one rung higher. It's a benchmark. Surely, we'd have great articles without assessments, but they are useful both as an incentive and as an overall measurement of progress. For example, this project has 24 GAs and 162 Bs at the moment, while a year ago there were 23 GAs and 144 Bs. Maybe it's not that important in the grand scheme of things, but nice to know nevertheless. GregorB (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @Trackinfo: In combination with the importance rating, the quality ratings are useful for seeing what needs work and what doesn't. It might just be that you've never looked before at the pages where this is collated. For example, we can check the standard of the most viewed articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Popular pages and improve them accordingly. If you look at the statistics section on the left of the main project page you can quickly see we have two top importance articles that are classed as stubs (Athletics at the Summer Paralympics and IPC Athletics World Championships). As GregorB says, it does function as a kind of editor reward mechanism, but I think it is more powerful as a tool to ensure the highest priority articles get attention from editors. SFB 11:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment for Hamish Peacock

@GregorB: thanks for the above. Would you be kind enough to assess Hamish Peacock as well. If not could someone else please. Thanks in advance - NickGibson3900 (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Stub finder

Just thought I'd share my discovery of the "stub threshold" function under "Preferences-->Appearance". This tool will show links to small articles in brown, given your chosen length threshold (I chose 5000 bytes, which seems to catch all articles consisting of only a few sentences). Just because an article is no longer a red link, this tool can help us see which articles still actually require work. I've found this really useful on lists like at Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres as it becomes immediately apparent where further edits are needed – not all blue links are equal! SFB 19:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of it, but I like it! Cheers! Location (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Shared project watchlist

Another interesting tool I've come across: https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/transcluded_changes.py?page=Template:WikiProject_Athletics This link will generate a shared watchlist of all the articles tagged with the project's template. Useful to find articles you haven't touched before and also trim your personal watchlist if needed. SFB 12:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)