Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Portal   Project   Project talk   Olympics Project  
WikiProjectAthleticsLogo.png

To start a new discussion section, please click here

WikiProject Athletics (Rated Project-class)
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.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 

Images of the 2016 European Championships in Athletics[edit]

To let you know, I added about 100 image of the 2016 European Championships in Athletics at Wiki Commons. See Commons:Category:2016 European Championships in Athletics. Happy editing! Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 22:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Olympic event articles[edit]

Please note that there is still a lot of work to do in creating the Olympic event articles. You can use the 2012 article set as a template for this year's ones. Timetable information can be found here. If you want to add preview information on defending champions, world leaders etc. then the IAAF preview articles here will be useful. I've done the relay articles already. I don't think start lists have been released yet, so best just to leave the result tables empty if you're adding those too. Thanks! SFB 23:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with a draft[edit]

I recently moved an article to User:Buchbibliothek/Doping victims of the GDR. The article had no context to explain the material, which is related to Doping in East Germany. I figured that moving it would help give the user (Buchbibliothek) time to work on the page, as well as to show where the list wouldn't be best served as a section in the main article. It's fairly short, so unless there are more names this could probably be included relatively easily. It could also be made into a category as well, since that's a possibility.

I'm a little concerned as well over potential BLP issues, since this type of thing would need to be very well sourced. The term "victim" is also mildly concerning, given that the term can mean a great many things to different people and if there were any athletes that did this willingly (or were largely perceived as having done it willingly) then the term could be seen as invalid or technically incorrect. Renaming would probably be a good idea and I've left a suggestion on the draft's talk page, although that one would still need a lot of work.

I figured that this would be the best place to look for help, given that I rarely edit athletic related articles and aren't as familiar with the overall guidelines as others may be. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. BLP problem is the most serious one: per WP:BLPSOURCES, the entire content can (and perhaps should) be deleted on the spot (as WP:BLP extends to drafts too), so my advice would be to provide sources ASAP and delete everything that's unsourced. GregorB (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

World Championships in Athletics article rename[edit]

Please note there is a move discussion at Talk:IAAF World Championships in Athletics proposing that the article (and its related articles) be moved to IAAF World Championships. Please join the discussion. Thanks. SFB 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

IP Vandal[edit]

Our IP results vandal continues their dastardly ways. I have tracked their recent IP's beginning in 84.13. to Northern England, Newcastle and Coxhoe specifically. A deliberate moving target. The pattern is meticulous results editing, improving the marks of particularly English athletes creating fictitious seasons bests all dully notated. It is obvious if you compare to the sourced results, but if you let the edits go by, obviously wikipedia is reporting incorrect information to the world.

To all of us, please watch IP edits to our results articles carefully. Very, very few typos exist in these results so numbers should not change. When they do, please check the source and revert the vandal. Trackinfo (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Now it is changing lane assignments. Here's an example. Its little stuff but inaccuracy (when we had it right) makes us look bad. Trackinfo (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon[edit]

Hi. Members here may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African women athletes for instance. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African athletes, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

...and for the members of this project, this would be the list of articles to take a look at (assessed as Stub for both WP Athletics and WP Africa) - 303 at the moment. Many (perhaps most?) of them are apparently not really stubs anymore, so reassessing them while one's at it would also be a good thing. GregorB (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
May I also add, there are many red links on the Template:National members of the International Association of Athletics Federations, particularly in Africa. I've created a few which can be embellished but many are simply missing information. Trackinfo (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for HH:MM:SS in Wikidata[edit]

Just an FYI - I've made a proposal to allow input of times in Hours:Minutes:Seconds format in Wikidata as part of this year's m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. Such a change would finally allow us to add records, results and personal bests for events longer than the 400 m. SFB 00:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've just made a brief comment on Meta. I think this is an important proposal that would really be beneficial for this project.
Voting on the proposals will start on November 28, so I'd like to ask members of this project to take part and support this idea. GregorB (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Athletics Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on template display options[edit]

There is an RfC about a template that falls into the purview of this project. Your input is requested at the template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

With the holiday season over, I thought it might be worth bumping this discussion. Primefac (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian WBYPs/WLs[edit]

I was trying to update the women's race walk WBYP footer, and I wasn't sure whether Lashmanova's 1:24:58 should count as the World Best Year Performance or not, given that Russian athletes (or at least the All-Russia Athletic Federation) were suspended by the IAAF throughout the year. "Follow the sources" doesn't give a clear answer; IAAF shows Liu Hong as the world leader and relegates the Russian marks to an appendix, but other sources like T&FN and Tilastopaja give Lashmanova as the world leader. We had a rough consensus a couple years ago that when the IAAF annuls a mark due to doping, we follow suit and no longer consider that mark the WBYP; but I'm not sure whether that is applicable here. Another possible precedent might be the suspension of apartheid-era South Africa; we do list Zola Budd as the women's 5000 world leader for 1983, though not, I think, as the result of any consensus. Any views - should we consider Lashmanova and Vera Rebrik the 2016 world leaders, even though the IAAF does not? Sideways713 (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sideways713: You could hedge it and put both? There are reasonable arguments either side. I find racewalking rankings to be a bit of a nonsense though. The judging element means many of the best times are found in races where only national judges are present. I often find it an incomparable sport in terms of time. SFB 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

16,000 BLPs moving out of mainspace[edit]

Hi. Some of you will be aware of an ongoing issue of BLP articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel. The background at ANI can be found here. The discussion on the cleanup can be found here. In short, 16,000 BLP articles are being moved out of the mainspace to draftspace. This has already started following a Bot Approval. This should be complete in the next 48hrs or so. Articles will remain in draft for 90 days. In that time, they can be checked, and if OK, moved back to the mainspace. Anything not checked after 90 days will be deleted automatically.

So how can you help? The BLPs are broken down by occupational area. If an one of these interests you, please help. Even if it is checking one article. Check the article that has been moved to draft that a) it meets the notability requirement of the occupational area in question and b) that the facts in the article are supported by the sources. This includes, but is not limited to, the dates of birth, who they represented, when they were active, etc. If there are elements that can not be supported by the sources, they must be removed. If you are happy with the article, then move it back into the mainspace. DO NOT move anything until you have checked the sources, or supplied other reliable sources to support information in the article that may not already be cited. More information can be found here.

This is not going to be an easy task. I don't think there's too much support to check 16,000+ articles and I suspect that most of them will be gone after 90 days. If you have any questions, please raise them here. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 11:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Athletics articles up for deletion[edit]

FYI - a large number of multisport articles have been put up for deletion by User:Sportsfan1234, including several on athletics, such as the entirely of Athletics at the National Games of China. Please contribute to the discussions. Thanks. SFB 00:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Mumbai marathon - gold label?[edit]

In this edit someone added (without ref) the claim that the Mumbai Marathon is one of the IAAF Road Race Label Events. The event's article makes the same claim. But neither has a ref. The event is not listed in {{IAAF Gold Label}}, which (if it really is one) it should be. What's actually true? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Mumbai Marathon was an IAAF Gold Label Road Race from 2010 to 2012 and an IAAF Silver Label Road Race before that, but no longer has any Label status. I have reverted the edit you linked. Sideways713 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

200 Athletes up for deletion[edit]

A review in to the work of one editor has resulted in 200 athlete articles requiring review and they may be subject to deletion. Please help review the affected articles at the links below and restore the articles to the mainspace if they contain no biographical issues. Thanks SFB 20:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Routine[edit]

Not that I want to distract us from rescuing 16,000 articles, but we have another infection on the horizon. An editor has successfully deleted a few Masters athletics related articles based on WP:ROUTINE, as in; the mentions of their world championship results and world records are merely routine coverage. So much of the coverage of our sport is statistics. If this logic persists, whole swaths of our content, innumerable stub articles that only mention an athletes's world championship medal for example, could be deleted on the same grounds. There is a whole diseased group of wikipedia editors who get their jollies out of deleting content. They have an echo chamber of robots who will say "me too to anything in an AfD. I'm used to winning my AfD arguments but its always a battle vs the mindless. I think we as a project should protect our content by clearly defining what is valid and what is ignorable ROUTINE coverage relative to our sport. Trackinfo (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I doubt we as a project can define ROUTINE differently from Wikipedia as a whole; and even if we could, we shouldn't. Statistics are an enormously important tool when it comes to sourcing athletics articles, but in most cases they don't establish notability; they're either too routine, or don't amount to significant coverage of any specific athlete, or both. Athlete pages on stats sites like all-athletics and Tilastopaja are routine because those sites cover too many athletes, including some with absolutely zero claim to athletic notability. Lists of world records usually only mention any one athlete in passing, so they fail SIGCOV. Meeting reports in news sources can sometimes provide significant non-routine coverage, but more commonly they just go "athlete A of club B, who won events 1 and 2 and placed second in event 3, was the top athlete of the meet" which is neither significant coverage or non-routine. The problem with mentions of world championship results, world records or anything is that mere mentions, even if not routine, aren't significant coverage.
Statistics are the backbone of most athletics articles, but they're not sufficient basis for creating an article in the first place. If they were, we could flood Wikipedia with stat articles about completely non-notable athletes, some of whom might have a real claim to notability through something other than athletics. Sideways713 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Did the articles in question meet WP:NTRACK? You're mentioning WRs, so I'm assuming they did, because masters WR holders are presumed notable per WP:NTRACK #7. If that is the case, then I believe WP:ROUTINE is being misconstrued. WP:SPORTCRIT says e.g. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. Furthermore, WP:ROUTINE says Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. I believe this means the following: while one cannot use coverage of routine sports events (e.g. sports league matches) to establish notability, setting a world record is not a routine event and therefore does not fall under WP:ROUTINE. GregorB (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, the editor causing the problem is deliberately trying to deconstruct WP:NTRACK based on discrediting sources thus the athletes assumption of notability and subject matter does not meet WP:GNG. When articles with 11 sources can have all those sources Xed off by being called ROUTINE, then there is no stability to our articles about athletes. Trackinfo (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
While WP:ROUTINE has been cited in some recent AfD discussions for masters athletes, it seems to me that an even more commonly cited issue has been that sources only mention the athletes in passing and don't provide significant coverage; which is understandable, since many of the deleted articles have been full of sources like that. Nothing wrong with that - sources like that can be very good sources, and even very good non-routine sources - but, even when there are 11 (or 21, or 50) of them, they don't establish notability. As both GNG and SPORTCRIT note, notability requires sources that discuss the athlete directly and with some depth and detail; and lists of records and championships medalists, while not routine, seldom have such in-depth coverage. Sideways713 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree - while I think WP:ROUTINE is a weak argument here, WP:GNG is much tougher to argue against. However, if in this particular case WP:NTRACK is simply trumped by WP:GNG, then we might as well abolish the WP:NTRACK altogether. I'd still say that huge list of criteria at WP:NSPORTS exists for a reason. GregorB (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
A literal interpretation of WP:Routine would see half the biographies on Wikipedia deleted. It makes the mistake of judging an article on the source rather than the subject. I always consider whether the person has done something of long-term significance before writing an article. NTRACK does a good job of that, focusing our efforts on covering major medallists and record setters, global level competitors, nationally important people. I think we're heading to point where there is a general push back against sports articles. I don't think athletics is very responsible for this, but rather team sports where sports-specific notability rules have come to include people who played one game for Oldham F.C. in 1995 or handball players who played ten minutes as a substitute for Macedonia in European qualifying. The tide is firmly against broad sports coverage – a thought-out or detailed reason for deletion is no longer required for deleting certain sports articles, as shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weightlifting at the 2013 National Games of China. SFB 14:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As I was finishing the last athlete from the SvG cleanup Ivan Shablyuyev, it proved the point. He, a WC participant from Russia has less available information than the deleted Ihar Dolbik. Galina Kovalenskaya sat in the same limbo but was successful based on the weakness of available sources from behind the former Iron Curtain. Four other articles Sue Yeomans, Terhi Kokkonen (athlete), Fatiha Idmhand and Bianca Schenker were successfully deleted All had more information and at least equitable sources. As SFB said, half or our articles, or at least the stubs, could get wiped out if someone were to go on a rampage. There are those kind of creeps on wikipedia. That is why I think we need a specification to NTRACK to explain that lists are a key component to the coverage of athletics and are not merely routine. This IS a lot of the coverage we get, even at the Olympic level, however it is significant to our sport. Trackinfo (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal Bests and disqualifications[edit]

Further to the news today regarding Mariya Savinova (and with other suspended / disqualified athletes) am I right in believing this also invalidates other Personal Bests / National Records / Championship Records etc? Koncorde (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In Savinova's case, all marks set between 26 July 2010 and 19 August 2013 have been nuked, and thus aren't eligible to be bests or records of any kind; though it's better to note those marks as nuked than to erase any mention of them. If it's not clear whether a given mark (or a given record) has been nuked, we must be very careful. Sideways713 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
We have always mentioned, for example, Ben Johnson's marks, etc etc. And we do mention disqualifications throughout those occurrences. Do not erase. Trackinfo (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As usual, the real trouble here is that her IAAF profile still lists some marks which are or should have been expunged as her PBs. IAAF.org is still a reliable source (even if it's obviously not up to date sometimes), and I wouldn't support saying any of the marks were annulled without a reliable source that says exactly so (i.e. WP:SYNTH is not needed to reach that conclusion). GregorB (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
As a relatively inexperienced editor on these sort of things I tend to keep clear. I just noticed that someone had made the effort to DSQ most of her achievements, but other values remained populated. Good to know for future reference. Cheers all. Koncorde (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I always try to retain the original marks – I find it very confusing to see a retrospective DQ in the final list, but no original place or timing to show whether that person finished 1st or 8th! SFB 14:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)