Jump to content

Talk:Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metres

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WR or not WR?

[edit]

The article currently has a table which lists the WR as 47.4, but has a disclaimer that indicates this was for 440 yards. This I understand. It goes on to say the WR was beaten by Liddell with a time of 47.6 (I guesss referring to the prior 400m record and ignoring the 440y record). This seems inconsistent to me - either:

1. The 400m WR at the time was not 47.4 (i.e. the 440 yards time in inapplicable and we should update the table to show the WR for the 400m and exclude any references to 440 yards), or 2. The 440y and 400m records are fungible and so the time of 47.6 was not a new WR

I'm not fussed which one of these options is picked, but the current article does not make sense (how can we claim the WR was 47.4 and then 2 lines later say it was beaten in a time of 47.6). Is there anyone who can give a definative answer on this? 87.114.112.26 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metres. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]