Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics

Latest comment: 5 days ago by Arorae in topic German indoor championships

To start a new discussion section, please click here

WikiProject Athletics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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 This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Proposal for all-time 25 athletes/25 performances lists for each eventEdit

For a number of years now, there have been 25-deep lists of top athletes in many if not all of the major athletics / track and field events. But there has always been a problem with these lists - how to present marks that are not personal bests by the athletes but would otherwise be on the lists? And how many of these other performances should be noted? For the sake of discussion, I am calling these "secondary" marks.

The present approach is clumsy, arbitrary in how many performances are on the list, and the information contained so hard to discern, it's almost useless. For example, on the all-time list for women's 5,000 metres, we have the 25 top women in question, followed by this list of secondary marks:

Below is a list of other times equal or superior to 14:29.82:

  • Letesenbet Gidey also ran 14:23.14 (2018), 14:26.57 (2020) and 14:29.54 (2019).
  • Tirunesh Dibaba also ran 14:23.46 (2008) and 14:23.68 (2013).
  • Almaz Ayana also ran 14:14.32 (2015), 14:16.31 (2016), 14:18.89 (2016), 14:21.97 (2015), 14:25.84 (2013), 14:26.83 (2015) and 14:29.19 (2014).
  • Meseret Defar also ran 14:16.63 (2007), 14:24.53 (2006), 14:25.52 (2008), 14:26.90 (2013), 14:28.98 (2005) and 14:29.52 (2011).
  • Genzebe Dibaba also ran 14:19.76 (2015), 14:21.29 (2015), 14:25.22 (2017), 14:26.89 (2018) and 14:28.88 (2014).
  • Hellen Obiri also ran 14:20.36 (2019), 14:21.75 (2018), 14:22.12 (2020), 14:22.37 (2017), 14:25.78 (2016), 14:25.88 (2017), 14:26.72 (2019) and 14:29.77 (2016).
  • Vivian Cheruiyot also ran 14:22.51 (2007), 14:25.43 (2008) 14:26.17 (2016) and 14:27.41 (2010).
  • Senbere Teferi also ran 14:23.33 (2018),14:29.82 (2016
  • Agnes Jebet Tirop also ran 14:24.24 (2018).
  • Sifan Hassan also ran 14:26.26 (2019).
  • Konstanze Klosterhalfen also ran 14:28.43 (2019).

Surely I am not the only one to ask how this mess is useful and informative to anyone. First, why is Gidey at the top here even though there are FIVE other athletes with superior secondary times? It makes little sense to have her on top of the others, even if she is the record holder, because so many have better secondary marks. And, why list a time of hers which would not even make the 25-list if made by another athlete! And, speaking of that, what is the criteria for cutoff for what secondary marks make it to this list? The cutoff time of 14:29.82 is slower than the 25th woman on the overall list - 14:29.50 - so why are we listing it here? I count four performances here that wouldn't even make the list! Most other lists have cutoffs with no discernible rhyme or reason and are as strangely specific as that (though most only have marks which would otherwise make it to the 25-list).

I propose a redo of these lists to address these issues. Instead of a list 25-deep of performers with an arbitrary list of secondary performances below, make the limit of all-time performances also 25 - and have a single list that goes 25-deep with the performances, adding the additional performers to make 25 of them. In this way, we can instantly see which athletes are the dominant ones, with many marks sprinkled through out the top 25 - the old approach makes any effort to figure that out tedious.

There is a further advantage in that this approach instantly allows a reader to know how a new mark ranks all-time. So, on the list below we can see that when Jakob Ingebrigtsen ran a new European record in the 5,000 m last week, he also ran the 20th fastest time in history. With the old lists, you'd have to pick out all the times faster than his time from the hodge-podge of times listed below the main list, and add them to how many runners were ahead of him all-time. If he or someone runs 12:41.00 tomorrow, we'd know right away that that is the 6th fastest time in history - his placement being 5th fastest runner in history, depending on whether it was a PB or not.

Someone better with making tables should do something better than this - like maybe italicizing the secondary times and rank numbers, and drawing a line after the 25th performance to indicate no more secondary marks, etc. In the end, this approach makes the lists far more user-friendly for the casual reader, and we don't need to constantly check those secondary marks - once one goes under #25, it's off the list!

This list, by the way, is accurate as of today, per World Athletics.

All-time top 25 athletes, top 25 times, men's 5,000m
Ath.# Perf.# Time Athlete Nationality Date Place Ref
1 1 12:35.36 Joshua Cheptegei Uganda 14 AUG 2020 Monaco
2 2 12:37.35 Kenenisa Bekele Ethiopia 31 MAY 2004 Hengelo
3 3 12:39.36 Haile Gebrselassie Ethiopia 13 JUN 1998 Helsinki
4 4 12:39.74 Daniel Komen Kenya 22 AUG 1997 Brussels
5 12:40.18 Bekele #2 01 JUL 2005 Paris
6 12:41.86 Gebrselassie #2 13 AUG 1997 Zurich
5 7 12:43.02 Selemon Barega Ethiopia 31 AUG 2018 Brussels
8 12:44.39 Gebrselassie #3 16 AUG 1995 Zurich
9 12:44.90 Komen #2 13 AUG 1997 Zurich
10 12:45.09 Komen #3 14 AUG 1996 Zurich
6 11 12:45.82 Hagos Gebrhiwet Ethiopia 31 AUG 2018 Brussels
7 12 12:46.53 Eliud Kipchoge Kenya 02 JUL 2004 Rome
8 13 12:46.79 Yomif Kejelcha Ethiopia 31 AUG 2018 Brussels
9 14 12:46.81 Dejen Gebremeskel Ethiopia 06 JUL 2012 Paris
10 15 12:47.04 Sileshi Sihine Ethiopia 02 JUL 2004 Rome
11 16 12:47.20 Mohammed Ahmed Canada 10 JUL 2020 Portland
17 12:47.53 Gebrhiwet #2 06 JUL 2012 Paris
18 12:48.09 Bekele #3 25 AUG 2006 Brussels
19 12:48.25 Bekele #4 18 AUG 2006 Zurich
12 20 12:48.45 Jakob Ingebrigtsen Norway 10 JUN 2021 Florence
13 21 12:48.63 Jacob Kiplimo Uganda 08 SEP 2020 Ostrava
14 22 12:48.64 Isaiah Kiplangat Koech Kenya 06 JUL 2012 Paris
15 23 12:48.66 Isaac Songok Kenya 18 AUG 2006 Zurich
16 24 12:48.77 Yenew Alamirew Ethiopia 06 JUL 2012 Paris
17 25 12:48.81 Stephen Cherono Kenya 12 JUN 2003 Ostrava
18 12:49.04 Thomas Pkemei Longosiwa Kenya 06 JUL 2012 Paris
19 12:49.28 Brahim Lahlafi Morocco 25 AUG 2000 Brussels
20 12:49.50 John Kipkoech Kenya 06 JUL 2012 Paris
21 12:49.71 Mohammed Mourhit Belgium 25 AUG 2000 Brussels
22 12:49.87 Paul Tergat Kenya 13 AUG 1997 Zurich
23 12:50.24 Hicham El Guerrouj Morocco 12 JUN 2003 Ostrava
24 12:50.25 Abderrahim Goumri Morocco 26 AUG 2005 Brussels
25 12:50.55 Moses Ndiema Masai Kenya 01 JUN 2008 Berlin

Canada Jack (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I really the only one who sees a need to clean up these pages? Thoughts anyone? Maybe I should start changing these pages myself? Canada Jack (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Canada Jack: I agree that the additional notes are a bit disorganised and I often disregard them. World Athletics allows for top 25 viewing on a "best by athlete" and "All" basis[1] and I think the best solution is to mirror that and have two lists, one for top 25 performers and one for top 25 performances. This will allow readers to see the rank of both performers and performances and is a bit easier to maintain than a combined list where it's likely that some editors will miss off performances and/or edit war over whether it should be a performers or performances list. SFB 09:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same opinion as SFB, 2 separate lists will be easier to read.--Arorae (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'm seeing these changes and am reacting negatively. Well, here's a problem to this approach; the tables will become drastically too long, as athletes run these races over and over again throughout their careers. This is especially true for the shorter races. Furthermore, you'll then have to dig up the best times from athletes from yesteryear for the sake of consistency. Otherwise, cut out all the times that no longer fit the Top 25. To simply put, one way or the other - but not both. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments - I've changed the lists a bit to make them more readable, here is the latest one I did - for the men's long jump.

Example. Can you name Mike Powell's top 10 jumps? I refuse to believe that he jumped the all-time best, without jumping previous distances. Surely, he's jumped at least 8.6 meters multiple times. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ath.# Perf.# Mark Wind m/s Athlete Nationality Date Place Ref
1 1 8.95 +0.3 Mike Powell United States 30 AUG 1991 Tokyo
2 2 8.90 +2.0 Bob Beamon United States 18 OCT 1968 Mexico City
3 3 8.87 -0.2 Carl Lewis United States 30 AUG 1991 Tokyo
4 4 8.86 +1.9 Robert Emmiyan Soviet Union 22 MAY 1987 Tsaghkadzor
5 8.84 +1.7 Lewis #2 30 AUG 1991 Tokyo
6 8.79 +1.9 Lewis #3 19 JUN 1983 Indianapolis
7 8.76 +1.0 Lewis #4 24 JUL 1982 Indianapolis
7 +0.8 Lewis #5 18 JUL 1988 Indianapolis
5 9 8.74 +1.4 Larry Myricks United States 18 JUL 1988 Indianapolis
5 9 +2.0 Erick Walder United States 02 APR 1994 El Paso
5 9 -1.2 Dwight Phillips United States 07 JUN 2009 Eugene
8 12 8.73 +1.2 Irving Saladino Panama 24 MAY 2008 Hengelo
13 8.72 -0.2 Lewis #6 26 SEP 1988 Seoul
14 8.71 -0.4 Lewis #7 13 MAY 1984 Westwood
14 +0.1 Lewis #8 19 JUN 1984 Los Angeles
9 14 +1.9 Iván Pedroso Cuba 18 JUL 1995 Salamanca
17 8.70 +0.9 Myricks #2 17 JUN 1989 Houston
17 +0.7 Powell #2 27 JUL 1993 Salamanca
17 +1.6 Pedroso #2 12 AUG 1995 Gothenburg
10 20 8.69 +0.5 Tajay Gayle Jamaica 28 SEP 2019 Doha [1]
21 8.68 +1.0 Lewis #9 05 AUG 1992 Barcelona
21 +1.6 Pedroso #3 17 JUN 1995 Lisbon
11 21 +1.7 Juan Miguel Echevarría Cuba 30 JUN 2018 Bad Langensalza [2]
24 8.67 +0.4 Lewis #10 05 SEP 1987 Rome
24 -0.7 Lewis #11 06 AUG 1992 Barcelona
12 8.66 +1.6 Louis Tsatoumas Greece 02 JUN 2007 Kalamata
13 8.65 +1.3 Luvo Manyonga South Africa 22 APR 2017 Potchefstroom [3]
14 8.63 +0.5 Kareem Streete-Thompson United States 04 JUL 1994 Linz
15 8.62 +0.7 James Beckford Jamaica 05 APR 1997 Orlando
16 8.60 +0.7 Miltiadis Tentoglou Greece 26 MAY 2021 Athens [4]
17 8.58 +1.8 Jarrion Lawson United States 03 JUL 2016 Eugene [5]
18 8.56 +1.3 Yago Lamela Spain 24 JUN 1999 Turin
18 +0.2 Aleksandr Menkov Russia 16 AUG 2013 Moscow
20 8.54 +0.9 Lutz Dombrowski East Germany 28 JUL 1980 Moscow
20 +1.7 Mitchell Watt United States 29 JUL 2011 Stockholm
22 8.53 +1.2 Jaime Jefferson] Cuba 12 MAY 1990 Havana
23 8.52 +0.7 Savanté Stringfellow United States 21 JUN 2002 Palo Alto
23 +1.8 Jeff Henderson United States 22 JUL 2015 Toronto
25 8.51 +1.7 Roland McGhee United States 14 MAY 1995 São Paulo
25 +1.7 Greg Rutherford Great Britain 24 APR 2014 Chula Vista

Women in Red hosting Olympics and ParalympicsEdit

Greetings from WP:WikiProject Women in Red! Starting 1 July, we’re going to have a three-month focus (July, August and September) on the women of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Your participants are warmly welcomed to join us for the event, documenting as many women as possible; additionally if you have relevant lists of red links that we should encourage participants to take up, we’d love to know. Thanks very much!--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cannabis and sportsEdit

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medal tablesEdit

for the 2020 Summer Olympics, World Athletics just edited a wonderful and uptodate statistics handbook (download here. As the editor insists on, the book modifies a lot of doping cases since the last 20 years, solved or not yet solved, giving the medal to the right athletes. But this huge work will never finish, because IOC or IAAF/WA (for legal reasons with WADA) have not decided yet to reward the right athletes, and in some cases, giving a gold medal to a doped second athlete, is worse than taking off the medal to the bad guy or girl. By the way, I would like some opinion about the Medal tables that are edited by users without corresponding to the official sources (IOC, WA, EA and so). I think it is against WP rules, and especially WP:NOR to modify the official published tables, without any official source of the same level. Am I right?--Arorae (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arorae: We don't necessarily need to align articles with official sources, as long as sufficient sources exist to justify that difference and explanatory notes are provided to describe the existing differences between the sources. You can see that on the approach on Olympics articles that incorporate info on the 1906 Intercalated Games (not officially recognised by the IOC but acknowledged by many other sources). We've also had to take that approach where errors in statistics have been identified - such as the 1951 Pan American women's javelin winner.
In terms of the specific issue of how to approach medal tables and Authorised Neutral Athletes (ANA), we should explain that World Athletics does not class this as a team or rank it in the medal table, yet many other sources do. A quick search for the 2017 World Championships medal table shows sources including Xinhua, Eurosport, London Evening Standard, and The Guardian all included ANA in the medal table and also ranked it as a team. That needs to be acknowledged because that means some sources will say Germany ranked tenth in the medals and others will say Germany ranked ninth. Our job is to gather and explain these multiple truths, rather than decide which one is right. SFB 10:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You focus only on ANA case, but I have a wider approach. When The Guardian published a Medal Table in 2017, it may change since, quite rapidly after late DQ. and ANA athletes are not a "team". We do not read the same sourcing.--Arorae (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Competition record tableEdit

For competition record tables, such as in Jean Paul Bredau, are we meant to exclude events for which they didn't make it into the final heat? Or do we include them but leave the placement blank? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a further question, which events qualify for the competition record? Do they have to be a national, continent-wide, or worldwide championship? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marcell Jacobs sudden popularity led to too much confusion in the articleEdit

I created the article year ago and kept it until before the Olympics following the rules of Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Manual of Style/Biographies. Now I will arrange the article step by step according to the MOS of the project and detailing every single change in the "edit summary" of the article after each modification. But I'll go into more detail on my edits, explaining its, in this section.

  1. In the MOS first goes the biography section (which eventually includes the career section) and then the statistics section. --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. World, European and National records need a specific section in the Statistics section. --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Also national titles need a specific section in the Statistics section. --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Add Others international meetings section (why national meetings and not Diamond League?) --Kasper2006 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner Olympic articlesEdit

Not sure how the Athletic Project sees this so I thought I'd at least bring it up. We have an edit at Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics that is of interest and a related discussion at Talk:Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics. Just an fyi. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure exactly what your intention is, Fyunck(click), but MOS:DEADNAME applies to Olympic articles just the same as it does everywhere else, per WP:CONLEVEL. Newimpartial (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just said to look with no quantifiers. I have no idea how others look at the situation. It's just to let the listed projects know what is being discussed. There will probably be a formal RfC on the article where more can speak their minds and it's always good to have more viewpoints. You on the other hand have inserted your own biased opinion on the subject here. Shame on you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me the name of Bruce Jenner must also be kept. As for athletes who changed their name from married (e.g. Jessica Ennis). --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kasper2006: that should be mentioned on the talk page discussion listed above where it will carry more weight. This was really just an fyi no matter anyone's feelings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is, consensus within one project must defer to WP community consensus, per WP:CONLEVEL, the same way Talk page consensus does. What we have in MOS:DEADNAME is one of the most widely discussed guidelines in the project - and the argument, "but our project does X because of our sources", was explicitly brought up and rejected in the large RfC on the revision in question. A formal RfC on the article does not set aside site-wide consensus.
And Wikipedia does handle name changes when transitioning differently from other name changes (and has for nearly a decade). You don't have to like it, but the community has spoken on this, and the idea that they should be treated the same has been rejected, over and over. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "400m Hurdles Semi-Final Results" (PDF). IAAF. 28 September 2019. Retrieved 28 September 2019.
  2. ^ Jon Mulkeen (30 June 2018). "Echevarria extends long jump world lead to 8.68m in Bad Langensalza". IAAF. Retrieved 12 July 2018.
  3. ^ "Long Jump Results". 22 April 2017. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017. Retrieved 22 April 2017.
  4. ^ "Breaking: Miltiadis Tentoglou terzo europeo di sempre nel lungo!". Retrieved 26 May 2021.
  5. ^ Roy Jordan (4 July 2016). "Six world leads on third day of US Olympic Trials". IAAF. Retrieved 4 July 2016.

Updated Logo for the 2022 World Athletic ChampionshipsEdit

Hey all,

New here but wanted to update the logo for the 2022 World Athletics Championships in Oregon, but have no idea how to go around that. Would anyone be willing to help me out?



A bunch of Athletics related categories are being attacked.

These need some comments from knowledgeable people. Trackinfo (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Rule 1 of WP:NATH still part of the SNG after the RfC on WP:NOLY?Edit

There was an RfC on WP:NOLY a bit ago to change olympic notability from competition to medalist. The RfC dos says in the close This is should not be read to wholly supersede all other established subject notability guidelines listed within WP:NSPORT that involve the Olympics in some way. Editors may find that, for some Olympic sports, individuals beyond medalists may be reasonably presumed to be notable owing to their status as a participant or owing their place earned. Notwithstanding, does the rule have competed in the Olympics, the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, or the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships (former IAAF World Road Running Championships) still apply? I figure it would, but I just thought it would make sense to get input from people with much better familiarity in this than me. snood1205 19:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvador Alanís. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. And this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And one more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Prehn. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NTRACK/NATH) an invalid argument at AfDEdit

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NTRACK/NATH] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Village pump proposalsEdit

There are several proposals located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability to either abolish or significantly rewrite WP:NSPORT which may be of interest to this project's editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be more specific, your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:
  • Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
  • Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
  • Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
  • Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
  • Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
  • Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
  • Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
  • Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. You may or may not be interested in the following discussion:

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article request - John YoungEdit

A request was received at the Help Desk, purporting to be from John Young, requesting that an article be written about him. The original request is at Wikipedia:Help_desk#John_Young. Apparently he was a New Zealand-based runner, so I thought somebody here might like to take it on. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD (2nd May 2022)Edit

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:APPNOTE - "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion."

Paralympic athletics categories help.Edit

I'm looking for some information regarding Paralympic athletics sport categories (or somebody who knows about sport categories in track and field). I'm going to update the Paralympic track and field medalists and I'm going to organise the medalists tables to sort them out into sections i.e. a table for amputee athletes, a table for wheelchair athletes etc. I've been looking at the 1980s Paralympic Games but I'm really confused on the categories A to J, I know that category A is for amputees, B is for blind athletes but I'm not too sure on C to J. If someone is willing to help, that would be very grateful. Thanks! SarahTHunter (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021 European Athletics Team Championships after 2023 reformEdit

Hi! I am wondering if somebody else wants to participate in this discussion I'm having with Arorae:

Sorry to not agree with your comment here. Portugal is not relegated but Ukraine will be in 2nd Division (no more Leagues in 2023). I will not revert your undoing but please try to rephrase and to give better info. Thanks again. Arorae (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole 2021 Championship page reflects the promotion/relegation (Super League, 1st League, 2nd League, 3rd League) as it was planned back then. You only changed relegation of Super League with incomplete info. It would be better to mention the reformat in a way that the page wouldn't be only partially updated. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here you have ordered in alphabetical order the 16 countries, thanks for that, but the previous order was not alphabetical, but closer to the last edition's order. --Arorae (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Things have changed since 2021 and you cannot write that Portugal will be relegated when it will not. --Arorae (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about adding 1 column for each standings table:

Pos Country Pts Note 2023 position after reform
    Poland 181.5 1st Division
    Italy 179 Did not start in men's high jump (received 0 points)ref
    Great Britain 174
4   Germany 171
5   Spain 167
6   France 140
7   Portugal 97.5 Should be relegated to the 2023 First League
  Ukraine withdrew 2nd Division
Pos Country Pts Note 2023 position after reform
    Czech Republic 320.5 Should be promoted to the Super League 2023 1st Division
    Belarus 315
    Netherlands 300
4   Switzerland 278
5   Turkey 267
6   Sweden 263.5
7   Finland 263
8   Greece 255
9   Norway 243 2nd Division
10   Belgium 242 1st Division
11   Romania 207 Should be relegated to the Second League 2023 2nd Division
12   Estonia 157
  Ireland withdrew 3rd Division

Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks 🙏 very much for your proposal.
I think that the same text (“should be relegated to…”) would be better than “Relegation to the 2023 First or Second League.
Do you know why Belgium is ahead of Norway in 2023?
Yours, Arorae (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about the text in the last column? The Norway-Belgium case is a mystery to me too. Is it possible that Belgium actually finished ahead of Norway? Maybe somebody got DQ later, a doping violation or whatever. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sports results notabilityEdit

Is there such thing as a notability guide for sports results? I've noticed that almost all of the Paralympic Games results are redlinked. I've looked in the Wikipedia guides but can't see anything so I assume that any results for sports competitions are notable? SarahTHunter (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see Wikipedia:Notability (sports). it has a section called: Athletics/track & field and long-distance running, but I don't know how to link to a section on a page. Cottonshirtτ 05:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's Page#section Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikifying non-standard eventsEdit

I have been working my way through the AAA Championships starting in 1880 and working up, and in each article I wikify event names so that they link to their own articles. Hammer, for example. but some of the events either don't have articles, the 4 miles run, for example, or because they are old they use the imperial distances, 880 yards for example. what do other editors feel is the appropriate way to deal with this? some options might be:- 1. create an article for events that do not currently have articles, 4 miles, etc. 2. link imperial events to their metric equivalents, 880 yards to 800 metres, etc. 3. ignore this, it is not an interesting question and the potential number of links is too small to make it worth bothering. 4. some other option I have not thought of. Cottonshirtτ 05:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Class S, L, M, SS, LL, MMEdit

I edit in WikiProject Schools, and I've noticed that in the athletics sections of Connecticut high school articles, there's a lot of mention of "Class S", "Class L", "Class M", "Class SS", "Class LL", and "Class MM", or at least something of the sort. What does this mean? Looking it up, it seems that it indicates size of the school/team in the same way Class A, AA, AAA, etc. does, but where does Class SS and Class MM fit into this, if at all? And is there a way to clarify this to people outside of Connecticut, like with a wikilink or expansion of acronym or something of the sort? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the information you want is on the website of Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference. you click on the sport you are interested in and it will show you a page for the divisions for that sport. they appear to be different for boys and girls, so make sure you click the right one. Cottonshirtτ 01:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone please help?Edit

I have an issue with an editor deleting material on an athlete, but cannot encourage cogent explanations, and he has had the article locked. Discussion efforts are here, and third party input may be of assistance. 2603:7000:2143:8500:454D:C167:FEDF:A728 (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any help with this article would be helpful?Edit

Anyone interested in helping with this article Draft:Track and field in the United States would be appreciated. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverageEdit

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Please note that Canberra Marathon, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

World Athletics ToursEdit

Can we move {{IAAF Challenges}} to Template:World Athletics Tours and add Continental & Indoor Tours (merge {{World Athletics Indoor Tour}})? And also split the defunct hammer throw challenge into seperate template? Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion regarding mass draftification of OlympiansEdit

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any assistance on Draft:Track and field in the United States would be helpful?Edit

Anybody who's willing to help out with Draft:Track and field in the United States I would be extremely grateful. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessmentsEdit

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German indoor championshipsEdit

Last February I created Draft:2023 German Indoor Athletics Championships (it was not yet a draft then). It was moved to draft space because of lack of notability (?). Of course many German newspapers have commented this event. If it is not enough could someone here help me to move this article in the main space ? Thanks Arorae (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]