Talk:Boston Marathon

Dick & Rick Hoyt

A simple Google search of "Rick Dick Hoyt 30th boston marathon" shows that they are in fact notable and a part of the Boston Marathon. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I suspect that the challenge to this section stems from editor conflicts elsewhere. Location (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 Boston marathon

In what article should this be placed? Should there be an article 2013 Boston marathon as well as the attack that took place during it? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's one source for news; I'd recommend something like 2013 Boston Marathon explosion as a start for a name. It's too early to use the word "attack", that hasn't been verified. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed a one-liner inserted near the end of the article that lacked a source and summarized the explosions very broadly and very poorly. Details are still sketchy at this point (two dead according to the NY Times), but there are plenty of sources available for doing something better than this. Allreet (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that's already happening with the article being discussed above. Good job. Allreet (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Seems a bit undue to give so much prominence to the "For the 2013 bombings, see", doesn't it? That topic has its own article, and is linked in the relevant section here. This article is about a 116-year-old race. Like this, we're giving the impression that the explosion is hugely significant in the broader picture, and is what people coming here might reasonably expect to find. Seems more reasonable that they'd be Wikilinked here from the explosion article, doesn't it? And then they're redirected back? If someone's looking for the bombing, they should type bombing. If someone is here to learn about the marathon itself, it's insulting to imply they mistakenly came to the wrong place. This isn't Google, where we work with keywords to help people find breaking news. It's an encyclopedia. Agree? Disagree? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Mostly agree. Undue weight but not necessarily insulting. However, no fewer than 26 redirects are already in place to facilitate finding the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings article, so no great need for the hatnote. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Not "spit in your face" insulting. But a little annoying to be told what you meant to search for, when you already know better. Again, we're not Google. Insulting or not, that's definitely enough redirects. Does anything redirect here? (Nevermind, we've got Boston marathon and The Boston Marathon). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely undue weight. Taking it out of the lead. Apteva (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Link at top

Yesterday, this article has received 10x more traffic than the 2013 Boston Marathon article, and many more times than the bombing article. Could we link to the bombing from the top of this article, for the next week or two? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My vote is no. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Scream Tunnel

I would recommend a separate subsection for this. I learned about it from reading the 2013 article, and realized it needed a section. Apteva (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done (as a spectator phenomenon. Thanks for the new material & refs.) Hertz1888 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not as a section of the course? It is a spectator phenom and deserves mention there as such, but it is primarily a section of the course, and not a characteristic of all spectators along the course. I actually would recommend two additional subsections for the course: Start and Finish. Apteva (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Course section is about the physical characteristics of the course and their effects on the runners. Unless you regard the Wellesley students as a physical characteristic, it would not be logical to put them (or other crowd-related material) there. Cheers. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Map

Where is the map in this article? It's the same route each year right?[1] I can't find a map at commons either. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Boston Marathon route map - 01.png

Okay, here's the blank map. Now, if someone can figure out how to stick this under it and trace the route onto this blank map, we will have a Boston Marathon route map. I don't know how to do it. Please, someone, take over and put it together. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to reinvent the wheel. A course map and elevation profile are linked to through the BAA website, currently ref. no. 30. I have added a direct link to the map in the External links section. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to reinvent it. Just to install it. :) I really think a route map would serve visitors, and should even be considered an essential part of the article.

It's like saying we don't need a picture of a chair at Chair because there are external links. An image of people running conveys far less than a route map. Every marathon article should have such a map image as an important representation of the event. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a higher res version to work with.

Apteva (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a good one. Hopefully someone watching this with the skills will figure out how to trace the route onto it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A KML file could be another option. {{Attached KML}} -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the route to the finish area map about 13 hours ago. Come to find out it's not quite right, but the error is not crucial to the information being conveyed. [2]. The map should also include a scale and, if the scale permits, detour destinations. If nobody beats me to it, I'll have another go at it later. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I made a map of the route using Apteva's image as a base. Please inform me of any errors you might spot. Dewclouds (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon route

Thanks, it's a good beginning. Start is too far west. Starting line is almost exactly opposite Ash Street. Course otherwise looks correct. "Start" and "Finish" labels obscure detail and should be moved down (off the course). Distance markers needed. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've uploaded a new version with the changes you suggested. I'm going to sleep, so any other changes will have to be made tomorrow (or really, later today). Dewclouds (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yay!!! You are all supercool! Who did it? I'm confused. The image shows only Dewclouds. Who did it? Who did it? I love it! Please, do the honours and add it to the article. Thank you, thank you, thank you!! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dewclouds, great job! Let me just pick one very small nit: if the 26-mile marker were moved back the slightest amount, a hint of blue course would (properly) show to the right of it. After that there's only one thing left to say: Publish! Hertz1888 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Dimensional conversions

It is incorrect when converting dimensions between SI & USC to be overly exact if the original dimension is approximate. A distance of about or approximately 200 yards is equally about or approximately 200 m, not 183 m and vice versa.

Unless the dimension can be proved to have been measured precisely in one set of units, then and only then is it correct to use exact conversions. Can't seem to understand why some people have trouble comprehending this. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The correct method is to keep the same number of significant digits. So yes, to one significant digit, 200 yards is 200 meters. The map File:2013 Boston Marathon bombings map.png does not show a scale, but does seem to provide a location. The article about the bombing does not seem to be interested in providing any location information. How about something like, within 300 yards (300 meters) of the finish, about 200 yards (200 meters) apart? The map came from[3], which is scaled, so if someone wants to try to pin down the distances closer or if they find a source that gives the distances, we can use those. (what we are doing is using a published map of the locations)[4] Apteva (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct when a distance is actually measured and is then converted. The converted dimension can not be more accurate than the original measurement, thus the attention to significant digits. However, as in the case of random distances not measured, it is not right to just convert as one would do with measured distances but to round the value to the same degree of roundness the estimate was given to.

Someone changed my addition of 200 m to an "about 200 yards" to 180 m, when the "about 200 yards" is a vague reference and not an exact measurement. I reverted it back to 200 m.

I would also prefer to see the metric first as SI is the preferred system of measurement for the whole world, even in the US per US government executive orders.68.105.199.216 (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Already done, to better than one-digit significance. The distances currently given are scaled using the published addresses, with two-digit accuracy, then slightly rounded. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)