Athletics Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion.AthleticsWikipedia:WikiProject AthleticsTemplate:WikiProject AthleticsAthletics articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 25 June 2012.

For a number of years now, there have been 25-deep lists of top athletes in many if not all of the major athletics / track and field events. But there has always been a problem with these lists - how to present marks that are not personal bests by the athletes but would otherwise be on the lists? And how many of these other performances should be noted? For the sake of discussion, I am calling these "secondary" marks.

The present approach is clumsy, arbitrary in how many performances are on the list, and the information contained so hard to discern, it's almost useless. For example, on the all-time list for women's 5,000 metres, we have the 25 top women in question, followed by this list of secondary marks:

Below is a list of other times equal or superior to 14:29.82:

• Letesenbet Gidey also ran 14:23.14 (2018), 14:26.57 (2020) and 14:29.54 (2019).
• Tirunesh Dibaba also ran 14:23.46 (2008) and 14:23.68 (2013).
• Almaz Ayana also ran 14:14.32 (2015), 14:16.31 (2016), 14:18.89 (2016), 14:21.97 (2015), 14:25.84 (2013), 14:26.83 (2015) and 14:29.19 (2014).
• Meseret Defar also ran 14:16.63 (2007), 14:24.53 (2006), 14:25.52 (2008), 14:26.90 (2013), 14:28.98 (2005) and 14:29.52 (2011).
• Genzebe Dibaba also ran 14:19.76 (2015), 14:21.29 (2015), 14:25.22 (2017), 14:26.89 (2018) and 14:28.88 (2014).
• Hellen Obiri also ran 14:20.36 (2019), 14:21.75 (2018), 14:22.12 (2020), 14:22.37 (2017), 14:25.78 (2016), 14:25.88 (2017), 14:26.72 (2019) and 14:29.77 (2016).
• Vivian Cheruiyot also ran 14:22.51 (2007), 14:25.43 (2008) 14:26.17 (2016) and 14:27.41 (2010).
• Senbere Teferi also ran 14:23.33 (2018),14:29.82 (2016
• Agnes Jebet Tirop also ran 14:24.24 (2018).
• Sifan Hassan also ran 14:26.26 (2019).
• Konstanze Klosterhalfen also ran 14:28.43 (2019).

Surely I am not the only one to ask how this mess is useful and informative to anyone. First, why is Gidey at the top here even though there are FIVE other athletes with superior secondary times? It makes little sense to have her on top of the others, even if she is the record holder, because so many have better secondary marks. And, why list a time of hers which would not even make the 25-list if made by another athlete! And, speaking of that, what is the criteria for cutoff for what secondary marks make it to this list? The cutoff time of 14:29.82 is slower than the 25th woman on the overall list - 14:29.50 - so why are we listing it here? I count four performances here that wouldn't even make the list! Most other lists have cutoffs with no discernible rhyme or reason and are as strangely specific as that (though most only have marks which would otherwise make it to the 25-list).

I propose a redo of these lists to address these issues. Instead of a list 25-deep of performers with an arbitrary list of secondary performances below, make the limit of all-time performances also 25 - and have a single list that goes 25-deep with the performances, adding the additional performers to make 25 of them. In this way, we can instantly see which athletes are the dominant ones, with many marks sprinkled through out the top 25 - the old approach makes any effort to figure that out tedious.

There is a further advantage in that this approach instantly allows a reader to know how a new mark ranks all-time. So, on the list below we can see that when Jakob Ingebrigtsen ran a new European record in the 5,000 m last week, he also ran the 20th fastest time in history. With the old lists, you'd have to pick out all the times faster than his time from the hodge-podge of times listed below the main list, and add them to how many runners were ahead of him all-time. If he or someone runs 12:41.00 tomorrow, we'd know right away that that is the 6th fastest time in history - his placement being 5th fastest runner in history, depending on whether it was a PB or not.

Someone better with making tables should do something better than this - like maybe italicizing the secondary times and rank numbers, and drawing a line after the 25th performance to indicate no more secondary marks, etc. In the end, this approach makes the lists far more user-friendly for the casual reader, and we don't need to constantly check those secondary marks - once one goes under #25, it's off the list!

This list, by the way, is accurate as of today, per World Athletics.

Canada Jack (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I really the only one who sees a need to clean up these pages? Thoughts anyone? Maybe I should start changing these pages myself? Canada Jack (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Canada Jack: I agree that the additional notes are a bit disorganised and I often disregard them. World Athletics allows for top 25 viewing on a "best by athlete" and "All" basis[1] and I think the best solution is to mirror that and have two lists, one for top 25 performers and one for top 25 performances. This will allow readers to see the rank of both performers and performances and is a bit easier to maintain than a combined list where it's likely that some editors will miss off performances and/or edit war over whether it should be a performers or performances list. SFB 09:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same opinion as SFB, 2 separate lists will be easier to read.--Arorae (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'm seeing these changes and am reacting negatively. Well, here's a problem to this approach; the tables will become drastically too long, as athletes run these races over and over again throughout their careers. This is especially true for the shorter races. Furthermore, you'll then have to dig up the best times from athletes from yesteryear for the sake of consistency. Otherwise, cut out all the times that no longer fit the Top 25. To simply put, one way or the other - but not both. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments - I've changed the lists a bit to make them more readable, here is the latest one I did - for the men's long jump.

Example. Can you name Mike Powell's top 10 jumps? I refuse to believe that he jumped the all-time best, without jumping previous distances. Surely, he's jumped at least 8.6 meters multiple times. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings from WP:WikiProject Women in Red! Starting 1 July, we’re going to have a three-month focus (July, August and September) on the women of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Your participants are warmly welcomed to join us for the event, documenting as many women as possible; additionally if you have relevant lists of red links that we should encourage participants to take up, we’d love to know. Thanks very much!--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for the 2020 Summer Olympics, World Athletics just edited a wonderful and uptodate statistics handbook (download here. As the editor insists on, the book modifies a lot of doping cases since the last 20 years, solved or not yet solved, giving the medal to the right athletes. But this huge work will never finish, because IOC or IAAF/WA (for legal reasons with WADA) have not decided yet to reward the right athletes, and in some cases, giving a gold medal to a doped second athlete, is worse than taking off the medal to the bad guy or girl. By the way, I would like some opinion about the Medal tables that are edited by users without corresponding to the official sources (IOC, WA, EA and so). I think it is against WP rules, and especially WP:NOR to modify the official published tables, without any official source of the same level. Am I right?--Arorae (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arorae: We don't necessarily need to align articles with official sources, as long as sufficient sources exist to justify that difference and explanatory notes are provided to describe the existing differences between the sources. You can see that on the approach on Olympics articles that incorporate info on the 1906 Intercalated Games (not officially recognised by the IOC but acknowledged by many other sources). We've also had to take that approach where errors in statistics have been identified - such as the 1951 Pan American women's javelin winner.

In terms of the specific issue of how to approach medal tables and Authorised Neutral Athletes (ANA), we should explain that World Athletics does not class this as a team or rank it in the medal table, yet many other sources do. A quick search for the 2017 World Championships medal table shows sources including Xinhua, Eurosport, London Evening Standard, and The Guardian all included ANA in the medal table and also ranked it as a team. That needs to be acknowledged because that means some sources will say Germany ranked tenth in the medals and others will say Germany ranked ninth. Our job is to gather and explain these multiple truths, rather than decide which one is right. SFB 10:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You focus only on ANA case, but I have a wider approach. When The Guardian published a Medal Table in 2017, it may change since, quite rapidly after late DQ. and ANA athletes are not a "team". We do not read the same sourcing.--Arorae (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For competition record tables, such as in Jean Paul Bredau, are we meant to exclude events for which they didn't make it into the final heat? Or do we include them but leave the placement blank? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a further question, which events qualify for the competition record? Do they have to be a national, continent-wide, or worldwide championship? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created the article year ago and kept it until before the Olympics following the rules of Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Manual of Style/Biographies. Now I will arrange the article step by step according to the MOS of the project and detailing every single change in the "edit summary" of the article after each modification. But I'll go into more detail on my edits, explaining its, in this section.

1. In the MOS first goes the biography section (which eventually includes the career section) and then the statistics section. --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. World, European and National records need a specific section in the Statistics section. --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Also national titles need a specific section in the Statistics section. --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Add Others international meetings section (why national meetings and not Diamond League?) --Kasper2006 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure how the Athletic Project sees this so I thought I'd at least bring it up. We have an edit at Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics that is of interest and a related discussion at Talk:Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics. Just an fyi. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure exactly what your intention is, Fyunck(click), but MOS:DEADNAME applies to Olympic articles just the same as it does everywhere else, per WP:CONLEVEL. Newimpartial (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just said to look with no quantifiers. I have no idea how others look at the situation. It's just to let the listed projects know what is being discussed. There will probably be a formal RfC on the article where more can speak their minds and it's always good to have more viewpoints. You on the other hand have inserted your own biased opinion on the subject here. Shame on you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For me the name of Bruce Jenner must also be kept. As for athletes who changed their name from married (e.g. Jessica Ennis). --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kasper2006: that should be mentioned on the talk page discussion listed above where it will carry more weight. This was really just an fyi no matter anyone's feelings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing is, consensus within one project must defer to WP community consensus, per WP:CONLEVEL, the same way Talk page consensus does. What we have in MOS:DEADNAME is one of the most widely discussed guidelines in the project - and the argument, "but our project does X because of our sources", was explicitly brought up and rejected in the large RfC on the revision in question. A formal RfC on the article does not set aside site-wide consensus.

And Wikipedia does handle name changes when transitioning differently from other name changes (and has for nearly a decade). You don't have to like it, but the community has spoken on this, and the idea that they should be treated the same has been rejected, over and over. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey all,

New here but wanted to update the logo for the 2022 World Athletics Championships in Oregon, but have no idea how to go around that. Would anyone be willing to help me out?

Cheers!

A bunch of Athletics related categories are being attacked.

• Masters M85 triple jump world record progression
• Athletics Asian Indoor champions templates
• African Champions in Athletics templates
• Asian Athletics Champions templates
• Athletics European champions templates
• Athletics European Indoor champions templates
• Athletics World Indoor champions templates
• Athletics World Cup champions templates

These need some comments from knowledgeable people. Trackinfo (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was an RfC on WP:NOLY a bit ago to change olympic notability from competition to medalist. The RfC dos says in the close This is should not be read to wholly supersede all other established subject notability guidelines listed within WP:NSPORT that involve the Olympics in some way. Editors may find that, for some Olympic sports, individuals beyond medalists may be reasonably presumed to be notable owing to their status as a participant or owing their place earned. Notwithstanding, does the rule have competed in the Olympics, the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, or the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships (former IAAF World Road Running Championships) still apply? I figure it would, but I just thought it would make sense to get input from people with much better familiarity in this than me. snood1205 19:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvador Alanís. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. And this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And one more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Prehn. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NTRACK/NATH] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are several proposals located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability to either abolish or significantly rewrite WP:NSPORT which may be of interest to this project's editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be more specific, your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:

• Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
• Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
• Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
• Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
• Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
• Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
• Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
• Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You may or may not be interested in the following discussion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Álvarez (sprinter)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A request was received at the Help Desk, purporting to be from John Young, requesting that an article be written about him. The original request is at Wikipedia:Help_desk#John_Young. Apparently he was a New Zealand-based runner, so I thought somebody here might like to take it on. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:APPNOTE - "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion."

I'm looking for some information regarding Paralympic athletics sport categories (or somebody who knows about sport categories in track and field). I'm going to update the Paralympic track and field medalists and I'm going to organise the medalists tables to sort them out into sections i.e. a table for amputee athletes, a table for wheelchair athletes etc. I've been looking at the 1980s Paralympic Games but I'm really confused on the categories A to J, I know that category A is for amputees, B is for blind athletes but I'm not too sure on C to J. If someone is willing to help, that would be very grateful. Thanks! SarahTHunter (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I am wondering if somebody else wants to participate in this discussion I'm having with Arorae:

Sorry to not agree with your comment here. Portugal is not relegated but Ukraine will be in 2nd Division (no more Leagues in 2023). I will not revert your undoing but please try to rephrase and to give better info. Thanks again. Arorae (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole 2021 Championship page reflects the promotion/relegation (Super League, 1st League, 2nd League, 3rd League) as it was planned back then. You only changed relegation of Super League with incomplete info. It would be better to mention the reformat in a way that the page wouldn't be only partially updated. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here you have ordered in alphabetical order the 16 countries, thanks for that, but the previous order was not alphabetical, but closer to the last edition's order. --Arorae (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Things have changed since 2021 and you cannot write that Portugal will be relegated when it will not. --Arorae (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about adding 1 column for each standings table:

Pos	Country	Pts	Note	2023 position after reform
	Poland	181.5		1st Division
	Italy	179	Did not start in men's high jump (received 0 points)ref
	Great Britain	174
4	Germany	171
5	Spain	167
6	France	140
7	Portugal	97.5	Should be relegated to the 2023 First League
–	Ukraine	withdrew		2nd Division

Pos	Country	Pts	Note	2023 position after reform
	Czech Republic	320.5	Should be promoted to the Super League 2023	1st Division
	Belarus	315
	Netherlands	300
4	Switzerland	278
5	Turkey	267
6	Sweden	263.5
7	Finland	263
8	Greece	255
9	Norway	243		2nd Division
10	Belgium	242		1st Division
11	Romania	207	Should be relegated to the Second League 2023	2nd Division
12	Estonia	157
	Ireland	withdrew		3rd Division

Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks 🙏 very much for your proposal.

I think that the same text (“should be relegated to…”) would be better than “Relegation to the 2023 First or Second League.

Do you know why Belgium is ahead of Norway in 2023?

Yours, Arorae (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about the text in the last column? The Norway-Belgium case is a mystery to me too. Is it possible that Belgium actually finished ahead of Norway? Maybe somebody got DQ later, a doping violation or whatever. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for not replying to you last year, I did not see it.

Norway will be promoted to 1st division, replacing Belarus.

now that we are close to Silesia 2023, we should modify the 2021 last edition, shouldn’t we? Arorae (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there such thing as a notability guide for sports results? I've noticed that almost all of the Paralympic Games results are redlinked. I've looked in the Wikipedia guides but can't see anything so I assume that any results for sports competitions are notable? SarahTHunter (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see Wikipedia:Notability (sports). it has a section called: Athletics/track & field and long-distance running, but I don't know how to link to a section on a page. Cottonshirtτ 05:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it's Page#section Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been working my way through the AAA Championships starting in 1880 and working up, and in each article I wikify event names so that they link to their own articles. Hammer, for example. but some of the events either don't have articles, the 4 miles run, for example, or because they are old they use the imperial distances, 880 yards for example. what do other editors feel is the appropriate way to deal with this? some options might be:- 1. create an article for events that do not currently have articles, 4 miles, etc. 2. link imperial events to their metric equivalents, 880 yards to 800 metres, etc. 3. ignore this, it is not an interesting question and the potential number of links is too small to make it worth bothering. 4. some other option I have not thought of. Cottonshirtτ 05:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I edit in WikiProject Schools, and I've noticed that in the athletics sections of Connecticut high school articles, there's a lot of mention of "Class S", "Class L", "Class M", "Class SS", "Class LL", and "Class MM", or at least something of the sort. What does this mean? Looking it up, it seems that it indicates size of the school/team in the same way Class A, AA, AAA, etc. does, but where does Class SS and Class MM fit into this, if at all? And is there a way to clarify this to people outside of Connecticut, like with a wikilink or expansion of acronym or something of the sort? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the information you want is on the website of Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference. you click on the sport you are interested in and it will show you a page for the divisions for that sport. they appear to be different for boys and girls, so make sure you click the right one. Cottonshirtτ 01:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have an issue with an editor deleting material on an athlete, but cannot encourage cogent explanations, and he has had the article locked. Discussion efforts are here, and third party input may be of assistance. 2603:7000:2143:8500:454D:C167:FEDF:A728 (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone interested in helping with this article Draft:Track and field in the United States would be appreciated. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Please note that Canberra Marathon, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Can we move ((IAAF Challenges)) to Template:World Athletics Tours and add Continental & Indoor Tours (merge ((World Athletics Indoor Tour)))? And also split the defunct hammer throw challenge into seperate template? Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pelmeen10: Done :) SFB 21:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anybody who's willing to help out with Draft:Track and field in the United States I would be extremely grateful. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to ((WikiProject banner shell)), which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to ((WikiProject banner shell)), and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass ((WPBannerMeta)) a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last February I created Draft:2023 German Indoor Athletics Championships (it was not yet a draft then). It was moved to draft space because of lack of notability (?). Of course many German newspapers have commented this event. If it is not enough could someone here help me to move this article in the main space ? Thanks Arorae (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✅ Arorae (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Track and field has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sport of athletics#Requested move 18 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Yosemite Horizon League that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tartan track#Requested move 11 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a project-specific guide for the importance assessment of athletics articles? If not, could such a guide be created? – Editør (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps something like this?

• Top:
  • sports (e.g. track and field, road running)
  • WA events (e.g. 100 metres, shot put)
  • essential athletes (e.g. Dick Fosbury, Usain Bolt)
• High:
  • non-WA events (e.g. 300 metres hurdles)
  • main attributes (e.g. javelin, starting block)
  • Olympic champions/championships (e.g. Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics)
  • world champions/championships (e.g. 2023 World Athletics Championships)
  • world record holders (e.g. Faith Kipyegon)
  • world record progressions (e.g. Women's 200 metres world record progression)
  • countries at the world championships overall (e.g. United States at the World Athletics Championships)
• Mid:
  • countries at the world championships edition (e.g. Jamaica at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics)
  • events at the world championships (e.g. 2019 World Athletics Championships – Mixed 4 × 400 metres relay)
  • silver/bronze medalist at Olympics or world championships
  • area champions/championships
  • area record holders
• Low:
  • national champions/championships
  • other athletes

– Editør (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, in order to avoid continuing a slow-moving edit war on Camille Herron I am requesting a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. I am pretty confident that these edits violate both the Manual of Style and sourcing requirements, but the editor in question doesn't seem familiar with Wikipedia policies at all, considering they've repeatedly uploaded copyvio here or at Commons, and aren't providing rational arguments or really any arguments based in policy at all. Thanks for anyone who can take a look and weigh in. Steven Walling • talk 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When an editor appears unfamiliar with policies, one can probably best assume good faith and point out the policies in question. I noticed that you've already posted a message on the user talk page, where you've addressed some of your concerns. If this doesn't help, you could also consider discussing these matters on the article talk page and invite recent/regular contributors to the article to respond.

Perhaps it can also be helpful to review this section WP:SELFSOURCE about using Instagram or personal websites.

Are there specific issues with the current version of the article Camille Herron that you want someone to look at? – Editør (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should Track and field in the United States be merged into USA Track & Field or should Track and field in the United States be made a separate article. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Femke Bol was nominated as good article (sports). You can help review it. – Editør (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've nominated Dutch Athlete of the Year as featured list candidate. Feel free to leave comments. – Editør (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This candidate still needs additional support to be listed as featured list. You can help by leaving comments or casting your vote. – Editør (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've nominated List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon as featured list candidate. Feel free to leave comments. – Editør (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This candidate also still needs additional support to be listed as featured list. You can help by leaving comments or casting a vote. – Editør (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to communicate here that on Wikidata, d:User:wikiTrackBot will be testing every "old" ((World Athletics)) ID as following:

• A) If the ID is a redirect, it will create the new ID and deprecate the old ID,
• B) If the linked ID page is a 404, the ID will be deprecated,
• C) If the ID is a redirect, but the redirected page is a 500 error, the redirected ID will be noted but both will be deprecated. (this is a rare case)

The consequence of this will be that the categories Category:World Athletics template with ID not in Wikidata (for case A) and Category:World Athletics template missing ID and not in Wikidata (for cases B and C) should become more populated now. For the former category, ideally these hard-coded IDs should be removed from Wikipedia, and I will see about doing a WP:AWB run to remove or replace them. For the latter category, we will have to manually find replacement IDs. The bot isn't really creating any new problems, it is just exposing problems that already existed by actually testing the URLs.

Let me know if there are any concerns. More details can be found here: d:User_talk:Habst#WikiTrackBot_changing_IAAF-IDs_to_deprecated

--Habst (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The task is done -- all the old format IDs are deprecated and replaced in Wikidata, and all three of these categories are now empty:

• Category:World Athletics template with ID not in Wikidata
• Category:World Athletics template missing ID and not in Wikidata
• Category:World Athletics template with ID different from Wikidata

--Habst (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]