Talk:Boston Marathon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Race date?

The first paragraph states it happens on April 19 and then a later paragraph says its the 3rd Monday in April? Which is it? RedWolf 01:43, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Their website says Patriot's Day is the 3rd Monday. I changed the first two paragraphs. Wake 04:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm tweaking that section as well: the Monday date is due to Patriot's Day, not Boston blue laws as suggested. - Pjmorse 12:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Professionals/Amateurs

I also notice the 1st paragraph is heavy on the professional aspect. However, amateurs far outnumber professionals. Wake 04:32, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Qualifier?

Is Boston the only marathon that requires a "qualifier"? When did that start? Is it just to keep the level of competition up?

It's probably just to keep the number of participants down. The New York Marathon has a lottery, although if you're a member of the Road Runners club and run a certain number of shorter races, you can be exempted from the lottery. -- Plutor 14:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The qualifying standard was introduced in an effort to keep numbers down. (Obviously, it "failed" in that numbers are much higher now.) The NYCM does have a qualifying standard, but it's faster and essentially only exists to allow talented athletes to bypass the regular registration hurdles, which are difficult due to high demand. - Pjmorse 12:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article says that the only other major marathon that requires qualification is the Olympics:

Besides the Olympic Trials and the Olympic marathons, Boston is the only major marathon that requires a qualifying time.

I'm pretty sure that the marathon at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics requires qualification as well, which would make this statement not entirely accurate.74.116.184.237 20:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Pikes Peak Marathon also requires a qualifier. So now the statement boils down to the definition of 'major'. The PPM has 800 runners, about 8x the size of the Olympic trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.163.55 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Length

The length has changed since 1897, when it was 24.5mi. Trekphiler 21:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Reverted copyvio from http://boston.about.com/od/sportsandrecreation/a/runners_city.htm -- Perspective 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Heartbreak Hill

The heartbreak hill section needs a more reliable source than a blog. -- MisterHand 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In Space

Should we include how astronaut Suni Williams will be "running" it this year on the ISS? [1] --zandperl 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rules?

What are the exact rules? Discarding clothing? Changing clothing? Changing shoes? (What are the best shoes for very wet conditions?) Leaving the course and re-entering? Links to complete rule details and discussions?-69.87.203.29 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Qualifying

Many of the racers are "fund raising", which is another way to enter (through organizations?), besides "qualifying" by time -- the article does not say anything about that! And if the article is not going to have more complete info about qualifying times, it should have a direct link there to such info. Here are some: [2] [3] -69.87.204.133 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Appearance fees

How many runners get paid how much in appearance fees, openly or under-the-table?-69.87.193.102 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That information, unfortunately, is not released to the public, but conventional wisdom in the running media (i.e. nothing that can be cited, again unfortunately) is that the total appearance fee budget for a marathon like Boston is on the same order as the total prize money pool. --Pjmorse 12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Death(s)

It seems a bit odd to me, after the preceeding paragraphs on the woman who cheated and the father-and-son team, to just have a one-item list of people who have died during the marathon. 1) Has anyone else died while running the Boston Marathon, and 2) Perhaps there should be a short paragraph, or even just a sentence or two, about each person. Does anyone have any further info? Jedikaiti (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Registration filled in a day

http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/articles/2010/10/19/marathon_fills_its_field_in_a_record_8_hours/?page=2

Here's something that could be relevant to the prose. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Location (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Is death actually a notable event?

In this article there is a section called "Notable events" with "Deaths" as a sub-heading. I see listed one "2002 – Cynthia Lucero, 28, of hyponatremia". The sad fact remains that deaths occur at marathon races every year, even half marathons, for a variety of causes. Is this one death that affected Cynthia Lucero actually a notable event? I see no reason to find it as such. Paal Rani Thirumalaiappan (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a google news archive search and there certainly is lots of coverage about it. The source I inserted said it was only the 2nd death ever at this race.

That said, I would much rather have coverage on notable runners, specific races, etc. There's not much of an option now. --CutOffTies (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This Monday

Marathon Monday is in 4 days, and so this page will be getting heavy traffic pretty soon. It'd be great if everyone involved would make a group effort with sourcing, etc... and push this up to a GA in the meantime.--Louiedog (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Map?

Anybody want to put a map of the course on the site? 66.70.12.254 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Katherine Switzer not a notable event ???

The first woman who officially finished the Boston marathon is not notable? And Roberta Gibb one year earlier? Even the German Wikipedia is better informed on this topic ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.226.32 (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Covered in History section. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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, 16 April 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, 16 April 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)

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[4], 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)[5] Apteva (talk) 06:12, 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)

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)

As indicated previously, this is not a case of "random distances not measured". The "about 200 yards" represents a slight rounding of the distance measured, on maps, using the published street addresses of the explosions. As for preferring metric first, WP has its own conventions, governed by the Wikipedia manual of style. Which goes first depends on (among other things) the regional orientation of the article. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Notable events

A suggestion - resequence Deaths and 2013 Bombing, so that the latter appears first. The text of 'Deaths' suggests that one has already read 'Bombing'. I'd also suggest that 'Deaths' indicate that the three killed in 2013 were spectators, not race participants. Irish Melkite (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestions. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Map

Where is the map in this article? It's the same route each year right?[6] 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. [7]. 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)

I drew the route and added the distance markers on top of the map. Dewclouds (talk) 20:03, 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)

Ah, because the marathon doesn't end at exactly 26 miles; that would be my bad. I've fixed it. No worries about the nitpicking; I too can be very nitpicky at times... Dewclouds (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it ready to go in the article? Yes? Yes? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The map looks good. For what it is worth, the start is at 42°13'47"N 71°31'06"W, and the finish at 42°20'59"N 71°04'43"W. Both are visible on google earth. Those coordinates have a resolution of about 75 (longitude) to 100 feet (latitude), and an additional digit or two can be added if desired. There are detailed maps of the start and finish here.[8] Apteva (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I added the map. I will leave it to others to enlarge if they see fit. Personally, I think it should be 350px with most other images much smaller, but that's just me. Thanks again everyone! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Length

I would recommend removing the word "revised". That is a horribly picky point that I do not believe needs to be included. Was the standard marathon distance 24 miles at one time? This is not an article about the revisions to the standard marathon length, but only about the Boston Marathon. Apteva (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you. As there was no previous standard (see this section's first three paragraphs), the statement would be more valid with the word "revised" removed. Good catch. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Women in the Boston Marathon

Surely, women's inclusion needs more coverage than it has been given. The attitude towards Kristine Switzer seems to say that she wasn't an official runner - but she was. She may have been disqualified at the end of the race, but on trumped up charges. There were no rules about the non-inclusion of women ... or about having to be chaperoned. So, she was illegally disqualified. Therefore, she should be recognised as the first woman to run this race. Comment, please. Francis Hannaway (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not an official runner. Kathrine Switzer received a number through a fluke in the entry process. Women did not become official entrants at Boston until the rules were changed effective with the 1972 race. A race history outline by years is found here. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying that women's inclusion needs more coverage. By Kathrine Switzer's account, she WAS an official entrant - having filled out the forms, and there being no stated barring of women from the race ... so that's hardly a fluke. Obviously, this is a contentious issue and would need further referencing. However, it seems to me that - not just her inclusion - women in general are part of the history of the race and should be written about, here. The article has a sort of anti-women feel to it, the way the Kathrine Switzer part is written. Francis Hannaway (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to state pretty factually what happened. The race organization might be have been anti-women back then or more correctly anti-women running, which seems to be expressed as well by the official trying to rip the number off. What are you proposing be added to the very short section about her. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Switzer's use of the term "official" is her own interpretation, unfortunately not strictly accurate, and is misleading. There was a press conference in 1971 welcoming women as official entrants at Boston (for the first time!) beginning with the following year's race. I remember seeing it covered in the local papers and on television. It was the AAU (Amateur Athletic Union) that had a rule barring women from competing in long distance road races, and the BAA had to comply until the rule was changed. AAU sanction was required for races such as the Boston Marathon, and AAU membership for the participants. I don't see any inaccuracy, let alone any "anti-women" tone, in the existing paragraph. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of what constitutes an "official" entry, and the rules governing whether women were allowed to run would help the article. If I understand correctly, the rule banning women was not explicit in the Boston Marathon rules, but was part of the overarching AAU rules. I'm not sure why, exactly, you claim that Switzer's use of "official" is misleading. She *was* officially entered into the race, and was disqualified on the grounds of gender. Unofficial entries generally don't merit disqualification. Roberta Gibbs, unofficially running the same race in 1967, was simply physically blocked at the end. Trishm (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little more, there needs to be clarification of the word "sanctioned"as well, as the article so far is confusing. It needs to reflect that Roberta (Bobbi) Gibb first ran the Boston Marathon, having had her registration declined on the grounds of gender. She ran the race in 1966, 1967 and 1968, and is officially recognised as the female winner of the "unsanctioned" era, according to the BAA website. Kathrine Switzer was the first woman to officially register for the race, although women running were unsanctioned, and she was subsequently disqualified. However, the coverage of her being manhandled by Jock Semple (not such an issue when he did the same thing to men) brought more attention to the issue of whether women ought to be allowed to run. Consequently, the AAU withdrew from its role in setting rules. Trishm (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know what rules Switzer and her coach read or missed, nor whether a male-only restriction was explicitly stated in the Boston Marathon rules. In 1967 women were not allowed to compete in AAU-sanctioned middle or long distance races. Per my recollection, the maximum distance allowed was something like 1.5 miles (ridiculous as it may seem today). Switzer was mistakenly issued a number through some carelessness in the entry screening process. Calling Switzer's entry "official" over and over doesn't necessarily make it so. You could argue that she was "officially" registered, but that would be be a personal interpretation and point of view, which, as you probably know, WP forbids. I think Switzer's and others' use of the term is misleading because it is ambiguous in this particular situation. But that's my POV.

Anything potentially controversial added to the article would have to avoid original research and would need reliable sourcing. I hope this helps. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Little person vs midget

First the little person wikilinks to dwarfism for people that are unclear of what they mean the can pretty easily figure it out. Note on the page dwarfism it also says that the preferred term is little person. The cited source for the runner also uses little person. Midget on the other hand is considered pejorative and generally refers to proportional dwarfism which there is no source stating that this fact for the runner. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above, although I feel the change to "person with dwarfism" is more plain English and understandable. We shouldn't have to interpret the underlying link to see what a word means, if possible. SFB 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer little person over person with dwarfism, mostly because that is what I would call the current plain English way of saying it. You version is more technical sounding. Note that the source uses little person not person with dwarfism or midget. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the source uses it. Still, I don't think it is universally recognized without the given context of dwarfism. See the examples from the Guardian website – many of which use the term in a non-dwarfism context. The only objection I have over the term is that I think it's not widely understood in the given context in the article. SFB 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a British vs. US English thing to some extent. The same search of nytimes shows references almost exclusively to dwarfism. But since your proposed verbage is understandable to people speaking US-English it seems to be the best option. Although this is all sort of mute since it has not been removed completely. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential new section

Hello, I am planning on adding a new section to this article about how the Boston Marathon has influenced feminism and changed women's sports. I will also be writing a little bit about Katherine Switzer and Bobbi Gibb, the first two women that had run in the race. Megancrowder (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I will be working alongside @megancrowder to add a section about the Boston Marathon and Feminism. We are doing this project for our Women's Gender Study class. We hope to expand the page and add more information about how the marathon has greatly affected women in sports throughout histroy. Allis17 (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I regretfully have reverted the entire section, as much of it (Switzer's career story, the Title IX material, etc.) is either not Boston Marathon-specific, and therefore off-topic for this article, or excessively detailed. The remainder is largely duplicative of existing coverage in the History section. Switzer's Boston experience is extensively covered in her own article, to which this article links. Perhaps a more appropriate place can be found in Wikipedia for writing about the linkage of long distance running history and feminism, or the history of women's running. There is also the possibility of trimming the potential new section way back, to focus strictly and narrowly on its intended topic. Best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

The final sentence of the first paragraph in the introductory section refers to the Boston Marathon as "one of four major events held in the United States through the years of both World Wars (Kentucky Derby, Rose Parade, and Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show are the others)," but does not clarify this statement or cite its source (one or both of which are necessary, according to Wikipedia's article/editing guidelines). This sentence is too ambiguous and unclear to qualify as "encyclopedic content," presently.

"Held through the years of" is unclear and imprecise. Does it mean that the marathon was [at some point] only a wartime event; or that it was already established and then "continued to be held annually, during" both wars? Or, does it mean that the event was established beforehand, then recurred at some point "during" each war (but not necessarily annually)?

A broader issue regarding classification, must also be addressed. What precisely defines a "major event?" Were these really the "only four," that occurred in the US during both World Wars? More importantly, are these four events even categorically similar enough to be grouped together? Without clarifying language to indicate how "major event" is defined, this represents a vague/ambiguous idea and as such something that can't possibly be verified. Suggestion: replace "major event" with "major sporting event". However, note that "Rose Parade" would then have to be changed to "Rose Bowl" (because the parade no longer qualifies as that type of event; it's the bowl that's the "sporting event").

The existing syntax does not clearly express the author's assertion, which is (presumably) that the Boston Marathon is one of only a few longstanding international sporting events hosted annually by the United States that was not disrupted as a direct result of World Wars I or II. (Source required) As far as citation is concerned, this sentence should have one. If this tidbit was acquired anywhere other than the author's original research, it needs a source and if it is based on the author's original research it needs to be removed from the article (per Wikipedia's article/editing guidelines). Original research is not verifiable. Zachforsberglary (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Removal of 2016 section

The IP gave valid reasoning for the removal, it certainly wasn't "nonsensical." The section only contains a first and a story about how the women's winner that year gave her trophy to the grand marshal. While both of these are heartwarming, they are practically irrelevant to the history of the race. The section was added 2 days after the marathon was held and I have no idea how it wasn't removed. GrossesWasser (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding a part to the infobox

Hello, I think it is a good idea to add a part to the infobox in Boston Marathon that has a redirect to the latest race. In this case, being the 2019 Boston Marathon. Also, please see Template talk:Infobox athletics race and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics Please ping me when updated or replied. IsraeliIdan (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)