Talk:2005 World Championships in Athletics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Athletics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Finland (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Do we want commentary?[edit]

Just a thought. Is commentary for each event useful or even appropriate? I have left room for such an option but I think the tables would be better with out comments David D. 16:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If by commentary you mean the boxes labeled 'insert write up', then yep, I see no problem with them. Over the years many events have had changes in results or exceptional circumstances that need to be noted, this year is unlikely to be any different. I see these spaces as ideal for including a brief note for these occurances, rather than noting them seperate somewehre else on the page. I'd guess it would be possible to delete any boxes which are unused at a later date, and I'd consider their deletion to be easier than having to add them in if they were needed for one or two events. But feel free to disagree. Evil Eye 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, more detailed info could be included in the boxes. I've just been looking at the 2004 IAAF World Indoor Championships page and they have separate tables for each event with 'commentary' write-up in between. The info given there works very well in my opinion. Though there will be a slightly differnet page layout here I still think it will work well. Evil Eye 22:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

All valid points evil eye. i'm fine with the set up I was just wondering about getting some feed back since I had changed the layout on this page. In fact, the page used to be like the indoor one you cite, but I tried to maintain the character by keeping the cemmentary boxes. All those small tables did not work for me, so I modified it to what you see now. I also modified the 2003_World_Championships_in_Athletics page, which previously had all the small tables. I also added the 2003 womens results, since previously there were none. I think the comments still work well in that format. What do you think? David D. 23:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I do actually like the layout better with these new tables you have done. I've now looked at the 2001 page and it's easy to read tomments while being easier to follow and easier to skim over the results compared to those for the indoor world championships. Any chance you have the time to convert the indoor pages too? Evil Eye 01:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's on my list to do. i wanted to see how this 2005 page goes during and after the championships. I didn't want to make too many changes in case the previous contributors didn't agree. I figured they'd show up in the next three weeks or so and have a chance to comment. David D. 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I like the small boxes, they seem to be about the right length, I've written a couple of concise write-ups in them. There is a risk that they could clutter the page if there were lengthy entries. Someone started going with bold for the names in the write-ups, I copied that and would be happy to see that become standard.MLA 07:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


Evil Eye, what do you make of the changes one user has made to all the other WC pages, for example, 2001_World_Championships_in_Athletics (note added later: here is a link to an old page for reference). All those little flags drive me nuts but the anon user is still adding them despite a message I left on each page to discuss the issue. It is a huge amount of work for that person so I hesitate to revert but I think it looks really cluttered and adds no extra information. With all that work the user could have been adding the results. David D. 23:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have reformatted 1999 World Championships in Athletics and 2001 World Championships in Athletics Those championships dating prior to 1999 still have the flag clutter and no results. For example, 1983 World Championships in Athletics. David D. 06:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I have just gone and added the results and reformated the table on the 1983 page so that it's in the form of the more recent ones. (I chose that one just in case you were online and doing the 1997 page.Evil Eye 15:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that was a nice surprise!!!! Thanks for the help I really appreciate it. As you now know it is a slow process David D. 16:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I like the idea of using flags, but it does make the page very clutttered and harder to follow (you have to spend more time adjusting your eyesight and then even more filing through the extra info). I agree with a comment you made on one of the pages that there should be no flags in amongst the results themselves, but that there are some in the medals tables. Evil Eye 01:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping the anon contributor will respond. I resorted to leaving messages on the pages themselves since I got no response from his/her talk page. We'll see. I might add whom ever is adding the flags is also adding other good info so they obviously mean well. David D. 01:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'mnot sure if it's the same person who added them before, but someone hs begun to add flags back onto at least 3 of the pages again. I'm leaving it for now though to see what happens and see if other people have anything to say on the issue. Evil Eye 13:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Almost certainly the same user. I have set up a special talk page to try and address this issue. David D. (Talk) 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Athletics world championship reformating efforts[edit]

Thanks for all your help Evil Eye. It's more fun when someone else is working beside you. I'm not editing anymore today, so you don't have to worry about us working redundantly on the same page. From now on, if I have time, I'll work from 1999 down. That way we won't duplicate effort. Again, thanks for the help. David D. 17:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can see there is a lot of work invloved in doing all the pages and I was looking for something to do, so seen as I have the results all on my computer I thought I might as well. Also, that link you ound containing the bit of history looks useful. I might have a good at incorporating some of the data etc into the article if I get the time. Also, I might try to add results like these to other Championships as I think I have the results for others too. Evil Eye 15:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Metric versus Imperial re: Olympic games[edit]

You wrote above "Also, I might try to add results like these to other Championships", so you should read the following discussion: Wikipedia:Measurements_Debate#A_succinct_solution

It turns out that the Olympics are not as easy to correct with regard to the results since someone has been adding the imperial results. I am loathed to delete them, so I have left them, but included metric too. I suppose our American friends really do have a problem understanding the metric results if they take that much effort to convert them. David D. 15:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That is interesting. It hadn't occurred to me yet that there might be different people wanting results in different units. I'd tend to the point of view that (in athletics anyway) that as everything seems to be measured in metric units in the events themselves, that is what should bhe used here. But thanks for making me aware of this. I've just read some more of that article and will try to read some of the dicussion when I get the chance. Evil Eye 16:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Since you're intending to go into teaching you'll love this. In the US they still teach in feet, inches etc. Obviously this is one of the major reasons they can't switch because even the younger generation don't get metric. Even more strange is that in high school they don't run the 1500 m. You'd think they would substitute for the mile right? Wrong, they run the 1600 m. Does that make any sense at all?
With regard to the imperial units, my policy has been to incorporate them into the results if someone has taken the effort to do that. However, I am not willing to do the conversions, especially since they are not literal conversions, there are official tables. For example, the official height of 5.00 m in the pole vault is converted to 16' 4 3/4" where as the exact conversion is 16' 4.85". I assume they round down to the nearest quarter. Since everything is actually measured in metric I see no logical or useful reason to convert anything to imperial. David D. 16:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Country name or abbreviation?[edit]

I have to admit that I have been using the three letter abbreviations for the WC tables since my source for the results had that formatt. In contrast, when I started the euro championships pages I used the full country names. I am leaning to full country names since some of the abbreviations are too cryptic. I also notice that the wikipedia country pages do not reference the three letter abbreviations typically used at sporting events. Which do you think is better since it would be good to come to a consensus sooner rather than later? David D. 17:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I've just seen that I've been using the full names and that you have been placing the abbreviations. I was using the full names as they were already in the table. I also think they are better as they are the only indication of country and we need something which would be unambiguous, but, as you say, the abbreviations can be cryptic. So I suggest we use the names. Evil Eye 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
This is just too easy. Aren't we supposed to argue about things like that? We had better get them changed quick before someone disagrees ;-) David D. 18:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Aye OK. I'll start and do 1999 and 2001 if you want.Evil Eye 18:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I finished 2003. Note this recent edit on one of the olympic pages . This is the same user that is adding all the flags. In retrospect s/he probably got the flag idea from the olympic pages. David D. 19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Alternative formats[edit]

Check out the Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics page. I had never really taken much notice of it before. If you click the event on the left in the table it takes you to the details results. Although with all that effort you'd think they'd have the reaction times and wind readings too. David D. 19:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm astounded by the effort gone into that. It would be great if that could be done for the World Championships, but it would take some serious work and a lot of info gathering. Perhaps we should try something like that for the upcoming world could pretty much be set up beforehand, like the page you've already done. The format could be copied from the Olympic one (though perhaps a table for each race would look bettwe/be easier to follow than the way it is on that page). I'd be able to have a go at starting the pages for some events tomorrow if you like. Evil Eye 20:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Personally that seems like a massive amount of work and I'm not sure it is worth the trouble. I have been to that page quite a few times and never thought to click on the links for full results. I think a better strategy would be to link to the IAAF pages that will document each event in a huge amount of detail ( IAAF W100 mH heptathlon ) including photofinish pictures. A link at the bottom of the page (ideally this link) may actually be more efficient than linking to all the heats and finals. It will also be a hard copy record. Remember these wikipedia pages get vandalised all the time. In summary, the more pages you make the more difficult they are to navigate and the harder they are to maintain. David D. 20:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Another good reason to link to the IAAF site is that if there are DQ's due to drugs they update the results accordingly. It was interesting to note that Dwain Chambers was stripped from the results in 2003, even his heats and semi final results! David D. 20:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess it would be so much work and it might never get finished, so it would be betetr to have simple links to where the info already is than to have some events covered in detail and other not. Evil Eye 13:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

50 km race walking for women?[edit]

I entered the comment in the background section , that for the first time in an international athletics championship, the event program for men and women is the same. In the medal winner table, this is the case. But I suddenly got my doubts. According to the official site (, there is no 50 km Race walking for women on the time schedule. Perhaps we have to edit my equal rights section - and the medal winner table as well? Rekjos 12:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you are right. I have removed the event from the table and tried to reword the background appropriately. David D. (Talk) 13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent - Thank you Rekjos 08:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :-)

Dummy results[edit]

I removed dummy results predicted by User: as they are not encyclopedic and also original research. And mostly because they confuse readers who might believe it's factual results. The user could move his or her predictions to a user page. bbx 16:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Punkmorten 17:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Come on guys that person that predicted his results put his own time to make some realistic predictions and i think we should give him more credit for it

  • It was interesting to read, but sadly it had to be deleted for reasons stated above. And just why did this user vandalise my user page? Punkmorten 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Current sports events[edit]

Too bad the championship isn't at all mentioned in the daily current sports events bulletins (which, if you'll pardon me for saying so, has a totally U.S. sports + cricket bias...). Maybe we should add super-concise snippets of each day's finals results? --Wernher 17:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree. That would be great. - Darwinek 17:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


I just know WR = Word Record NR = National Record But there are many abbreviations, who knows the meaning? e.g. WL, CR, PB, SB, etc.

I think that meaning of these abbreviations is known to every fan of athletics. - Darwinek 19:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, we're working on it and hasn't yet made a template. Will be done shortly. In the meantime, here they are. Of course not everyone knows about them, since not everyone can actually be expected to be a fan of athletics. :-) --Wernher 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Update: a hopefully unintrusive abbreviation list has now been made and placed below each results table. That should help against this specific problem. --Wernher 02:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

by the way someone forgot to add United Kingdom on the medals counting list

Medal table[edit]

The WC is over, it'd be nice to update the medal table. (I personally don't have time right now.) The official medal table is here . --rydel 22:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


I was thinking of adding something about the interruptions and reschedulings caused by the rain storms, but I don't see any place in the article where such a note would fit in. Just for the record, today's Helsingin Sanomat included an interesting piece of news: With a total monthly rainfall of 180 mm, this was the most rainy August in Helsinki within recorded history (regular measurements began in 1845). 20:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it could go in the background section. The rain certainly had an effect on the championship. Surprisingly the times did not seem to suffer. For example men's 400mH was fast despite the wet conditions. David D. (Talk) 02:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IAAF World Championships in Athletics which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:World Championships in Athletics which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 World Championships in Athletics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)