This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
There reads: The qualification period for the 10,000m, marathon, race walks, relays, and combined events runs from 1 January 2016 to 23 July 2017.
But, no entry standard is given for relays. The previous games qualification article tells "Top 8 at IAAF World Relays plus top 8 ranked teams". It could be the same, though it is not mentioned anywhere. 85.76.118.86 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I created the Authorized Neutral Athletes at the 2017 World Championships in Athletics article today to consolidate the list of athletes who are allowed to compete. I tried to sort through the list of athletes on five IAAF sources, having to delete athletes designated only eligible for the U18 Championships. As far as I see, the pomp and circumstance of the event were not discussed.
This being an ongoing process, the IAAF will only make announcements as and when decisions are made . . .
Note This identical question was also posted at the WP:HD and the responses by me and Seagull123 were copied here by the OP. (He has now asked again at the help desk). Eagleash (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish Wikipedia have an external Perl script to update automatically medal table (at 5 minutes periods). I am the author of that script, and I can modify it to update the medal table of this Wikipedia, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoaquinFerrero (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The templates used in this articles are rendering "GBR" as "Great Britain" rather than as the correct name of "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" per the IAAF website. Can anyone advise the best way to get this corrected please? -- de Facto (talk). 12:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiDeFacto, fair point! I'm no expert on flag templates and country data, I assume the proper solution would be to modify/create new flag templates and/or country data, and Template:Country data Great Britain and N.I. does already exist but currently just redirects to Template:Country data Great Britain, but their does appear to be a manual work around:
Thanks Rolapib, I've implemented your workarounds in he article for now. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of them can create/update the appropriate templatessometime. -- de Facto (talk). 07:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiPeterwlane, why is United Kingdom not being used throughout? Because the UK athletics team choose to be called Great Britain and N.I. at the World Championships and the IAAF recognise this as per DeFacto's comments above. The United Kingdom is properly called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but lots of terms are commonly used to mean the same thing: United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain, GB, Great Britain & NI. I think to date it's fairly well accepted that Great Britain (GBR) is more appropriate for athletics articles on wikipedia, but, given DeFacto's observation that the IAAF refer to them as Great Britain and N.I. I think it's worth discussing whether and how to make changes to reflect this.
Is listing the previous Gibraltarian and Slovak records together with the area records a tad excessive? The national records are perhaps sufficiently covered by NR in the results, and certainly by the second table. See e.g. WP:BALASP. I'll add that as far as the first table is concerned the previous national records are not listed in the citation given. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's excessive and should be removed. Also, as for information that is not supported by sources cited, it can (and should) be removed as well. Also, this "Selection" of records is completely indiscriminate. What matters is what records secondary sources discuss in connection to this competition. That should be our selection as well. In articles, preferably, records standing before the competition should be discussed in prose, in any case only when secondary sources also discuss them (such as when a previous record is broken and coverage in news journalism is generated concerning this). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, adding the previous national records, which I'd done whilst adding new records to each event article is excessive and un-sourced. I've removed these from all the articles I'd updated to date (all mens + women 100,200,400), along with changing text to "Before the competition records were as follows:" and "The following records were set at the competition:"/"No records were set at the competition.". I'll use the same approach for now whilst updating the remaining women's articles. Rolapib (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the competition is complete, I think it would make much more sense to the average reader for the results to be presented in the following order: Final > Semi > Heats.
Similarly the Qualification standards would make more sense to go after the results.
I can also see no benefit to keeping the Schedule sections as a) I assume nobody will be needing to check the schedule anymore, and b) all of the information within it is already presented in the infobox and results.
I prefer to keep the approved and long standing section order according to all the championships articles with chronological structure. F.e. in swimming also articles start with standards and then heats, semis and finals.Montell 74 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiMontell 74, I can understand that you prefer that format as it's what your used to and consistent (at the moment) with other similar articles. But do you really think it makes sense for the majority of readers? Rolapib (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. On top of the article readers are informed about winners. Also official documents don't start with finals. Main articles start with history and process, not medal tables. At least who are the readers you mean? The one who do not have any disagreement over years??Montell 74 (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiMontell 74, thanks for the input, I think there are a number of distinct questions here:
Taking each event page article on it's own, would it make more sense to change the order of the results subsections to Final > Semi > Heats and to move the qualification standards section to after the results section??
I think it is a fair assumption that more readers are interested in notable summary level information than relatively less notable detailed information
As you point out a small amount of the most notable summary level information (medalists and winning mark) in the infobox at the top of the page
However, the next most notable information, e.g. other finalists, is at the bottom of the article
Looking across different sports both approaches are used, there is no standard across wikipedia from what I can see
I understand it may be good practice to align to official documents, but taking this competition as an example I haven't seen any official documents that cover the event from end to end - have you got any examples?
Taking each event page article on it's own, would it make more sense to remove the schedule section on the individual event pages? Noting that:
I assume nobody on the planet any longer needs to find what time an event is scheduled in order to watch/listen to/monitor it?
All the information provided in the schedule section is already shown in the infobox at the top of the page
All the information provided in the schedule section is already shown in the results section which immediately follows it
All the links provided in the schedule section are already shown in the contents at the top of the page
If it was agreed taking each event page article on it's own changes would be beneficial, would the inconsistency with previous competition, and similar events, and/or the effort needed to change these other articles, negate the benefits of the change?
As you point out, main articles start with history and process, not medal tables:
But, this information is brief in comparison to multiple detailed tables of less notable results present on event pages before the final results
Perhaps it would also be beneficial for the majority of readers to move the entry standards and schedule sections to the end of the article (this has already been dealt with to some degree by collapsing these tables)
Regarding consistency with previous/similar events, yes this is a consideration, but I don't think it should be a deal breaker - it's very rare for every event article across all of history to be consistent within a competition, and much less so across competitions and sports - this is probably because over time people realize there would be benefits to change? As such I don't think it is necasary to update all other articles as inconsistency is already accepted, however, given the nature of the changes (re-ordering sections), if people wanted to improve consistency the effort would not be overly high.
I don't understand what you mean by "The one who do not have any disagreement over years??"
The changing of name Macedonia to North Macedonia has messed up the template:flaglinkteam link. It's a red-link in the participants list and similarly for other championships. 86.138.105.254 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The official name change shouldn't determine which editions get the name change and which don't. "World Athletics Championships" is more common than "World Championships in Athletics". Infinite mission (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lugnuts. We should not go back and change names that were not used in history. It is the same as putting Caitlyn Jenner running in the 1976 Olympics, which some have done then claimed women's world records. All the contemporary references will use the names we have now. If you think there would be some confusion, you are welcome to build redirects, but wikipedia should always keep the proper name. Trackinfo (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have bought into the official name situation exactly. The IAAF is rebranding as World Athletics. They changed the name of their World Championships at the beginning of 2019 to conform with the re-branding. Prior to the name change, these titles ARE what the championships were formally called. Wikipedia does this all the time. There is only one official song title, book title or movie title. Wikipedia consistently uses that name. It then produces redirects to the potential common names these works could be known as (also allowing for disambiguation situations). Trackinfo (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was already aware of everything you've stated. Once again, Wikipedia prefers the most common title, not the official title used by an organization. I changed it much the same as anyone else may change an article to give it a more common name. Just because it had that title here before, doesn't mean that's how it should be. I can only imagine that if this was a more popular article or subject overall, it probably would've come up already, even before the organizational rebranding.Infinite mission (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the unsigned comment below is concerned, it was stated above that the new event has been renamed, but that this does not change the name of older events. Results from Google News are unlikely to be able to show that common usage has changed for the older events. It is more likley that they show the newest event(s) is/are being covered in the news. Dekimasuよ!16:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu: I am not saying that the organizational rebranding warrants the changes, I am saying that the most common reference to the events warrants the changes. There is a possibility, though, that the most results for some past years can be found by using the official name at that time, the "IAAF World Championships". Search results may fluctuate year by year between the three discussed titles. I propose using "World Athletics Championships" for all editions. Infinite mission (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts:,@Trackinfo:,@Dekimasu:, Google News search results yield the following: 13,900 results for "World Championships in Athletics" [2], 88,800 results for "World Athletics Championships" [3], 796 for "2017 World Championships in Athletics" [4], 3,610 for "2017 World Athletics Championships" [5]Infinite mission (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It makes sense to name these competitions as they were officially named, rather than retroactively apply the current (very new) name. This approach is consist with other sporting events (e.g. Category:EFL Cup seasons) and keeps us from having discussions like this that have very little benefit for readers, who can easily locate the 2011 World Championships in Athletics article whether they search for "2011 World Championships in Athletics", "2011 IAAF World Championships", or "2011 World Athletics Championships". There are significant editor overheads to this proposed moved as it will result in the need to move nearly 1000 articles. Our efforts are clearly better spent on developing the content, rather than regularly opening up such discussions. SFB23:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
You might find what you are looking for in the article Authorized Neutral Athletes at the 2017 World Championships in Athletics. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. Seagull123 Φ 21:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain &NI, however, if it's updated here it would also need to be updated on numerous other articles relating to this championships and probably other champs too. Rolapib (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain & N.I. (GBR)*
