Talk:List of world records in athletics

Needs[edit]

What does this article need to reach (perhaps) featured standard?

We need a section about the movement to strike all world records before year 2000.
Pictures?

Punkmorten 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few off the top of my head.

Need a section on how a record is ratified. What makes or breaks a record?
An explanation of how records are timed to the thousandths but rounded up to the nearest hundredth. Case study Gatlin WR where they accidently rounded down.
When an athlete is busted for PED's which records get removed? How far back and why?

I'm not sure about pictures, what did you have in mind? David D. (Talk) 06:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the 100m world record actually 9.19s? The video links to a video of Bolt running it in 9.58s, not 9.19s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.161.82 (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The records page is vandalized on a regular basis and is constantly corrected by several people who watch the page. What you saw was a few minutes of vandalism before it could be corrected (about 4 minutes after you posted your comment). Unfortunately this page is too ripe of a target for some people.Trackinfo (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need the 5 & 10 mile road times, given that there are other road events on here (e.g. half-marathon)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperHans2010 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe under "non standard events" is the right place for these times.Montell 74 (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World record progression articles[edit]

The current world record progression articles are listed on Category:Athletics records. These should be re-named consistently, as there are currently different schemas used. Some possibilities:

World record progression for the G/gender's event
World record progression in the G/gender's event
World record progression for G/gender's event
World record progression in G/gender's event
World record progression event gender
Event world record progression

I'm not sure which would be the most suitable, so ideas are welcome. Prolog 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be either:

World record progression event gender

or

Event world record progression gender

I don't have a very strong opinion in this issue though. David D. (Talk) 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article titles should be as usable (for other editors) and readable (for users) as possible. The best arrangement for that purpose is a full phrase and not a series of concepts tied together by space. My suggestion would be "World record progression for the Gender's event". This also keeps in line with what I found by google searches for "men's 10,000m" (thousands) vs. "10,000m men" (few hundred) and the order of concept used by the IOC. In staying with order of specificity for adjectives, this also makes sense as it is more specific for 10,000m to be modified by Men's than vice versa. Whether it is the Men's 10,000m or men's 10,000m is a different question though, and I'm not sure I have any feelings one way or the other on it. ju66l3r 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

2006 IAAF World Athletics Final used the likes of "3000 metres steeplechase women", so I'm still a bit undecided. "World record progression for the Gender's event" might be the best alternative, but I prefer lowercase (gender) as it seems much more common on Google and looks better. Prolog 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain whether you're refering to the wiki article for the IAAF World Athletics Final or the IAAF page itself for that Final. I noticed that the link provided in the wiki article goes to a .de (German) website. I haven't boned up on my word order in German, so I don't know if it's just a translational issue for putting the gender after the event. But I do know that this page at the main IAAF website for listing the current rankings seperates by gender first, then by event and the individual gender-event pages list it as "Men's 1500m". I agree that as an article title in Wikipedia, "men's" may be more appropriate and better looking. ju66l3r 05:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. I meant the television broadcasts of the final, which was competed during last weekend (Sept. 9-10). I'm for "for the gender's event". Prolog 08:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

animal records[edit]

it would be interesting to include a list along the lines of one here, where the winners are listed by species. The "World records in athletics" title doesn't specify humans, after all! 131.111.220.6 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "athletics" does imply humans. The term "athletics" implies running or fielding events, either road or track, by humans. Regardless, athletics is a human sport, even if animals can theoretically participate. Mipchunk 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not ratified records[edit]

People have been changing some of the records to reflect unofficial world records. This is unacceptable. Remember that a world record, by definition, must be accepted by the IAAF. Mipchunk (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should clarify. Do you mean we should not update the page until the name appears on the IAAF record page - for example in World Outdoor Records - Men, which currently shows Usain Bolt as the 100m record holder, along with Dayron Robles as the 110m hurdles record holder and in World Outdoor Records - Women, where the records or Tirunesh Dibaba (5000m), Dire Tune (Hour run) and Yelena Isinbaeva (Pole vault) are displayed (at the moment these have a mark to show they are not ratified)?

Or do you mean we should wait for the actual ratification process to be completed, and the "waiting for ratification" mark to disappear from the IAAF record page?

In the later case it seems that what you might be suggesting, is that we should take action to remove all of those records marked as unratified, from all of the wikipedia pages that they appear on? I think that if it is acceptable for the record to be published on the IAAF record table, it is acceptable for us to publish them here (with perhaps a footnote to mention that records are subject ratification). --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 08:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Miles[edit]

There are currenty (20-July-2008) times listed in the article for the Two miles race, for Men's and Women's Outdoor and Men's Indoor, but not Womens' Indoor. But should the Two Miles even be listed here? It is not a world record kept by the IAAF (or any other international body), so the "record holder" can only be determined by examining unofficial lists. The best Two Mile performances are considered to be World Best times not World Records.

The same is true for the 5 kilometres road race, 8 kilometres road race, 10 mile road race, etc. Performances at these distances are also World Best times, not records. Does anyone have any objection if we remove the Two Miles from this page? The Two miles will still have it's own page of course. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 03:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WR videos.[edit]

I added videos for the women's 1500 and 10,000 WRs. As most of you will know, videos of those remarkable Chinese are hard to come by and the quiality isn't as I'd like - just a few snippets amongst chinese documantary programs. The 3,000 WR of 8:06.1 is also shown very briefly in the 1500 link.

Does anyone have have access to higher quality footage or even full races? They're obviously out there somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.170.233 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

An IP editor added these to the list of non standard events. It was obviously out of format but these marks seem legitimate. If nobody gets to it before I do, I'll research these later but I don't have time now.

Add.men One Hour indoor 18.796 Erik Bergquist (Sve) Stoccolma 2-3-67 /Marathon indoor 2.27.21 Michael Wardian (USA) Arlington 01-07-2010 60 yards Hurdles 6.82 Renaldo Nehemiah (USA) Dallas 30-01-82 Trackinfo (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest 50 and 60 meter splits[edit]

That should be Usain Bolt's split times 5.4?+ and 6.31+ seconds (during his WR run 9.58 in Berlin 2009). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.20.16 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself are making estimates. Show some legitimate statistics, a source making the calculations, and how they did it. There are groups who have set up laser timing at 10 meter intervals at major races like this. Did they do it during Bolt's run? Are those results posted anywhere? Wikipedia does not post one person's guesses, opinions or conjectures. In this list, when we deviate from the posted work of the official statisticians of the sport, we need to back it with a reputable source. Who said it and how did they derive their calculation? Trackinfo (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

200 meter for women's[edit]

Hi why is Allyson Felix listed as the fastest time in the 200m while Flo Jo's fastest time was 21.34?? That was an official time so I'm very confused as to why it isn't list here when this is world records including times run in the olympics.Mcelite (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Allyson Felix is listed as the fastest in the non IAAF World Record events for the straight 200, as opposed to the World Record event around a turn on a track, which is set by Florence Griffith Joyner. That whole section was created to differentiate various, legacy, non-standard events that have been run over the decades (particularly for men). While the conduct of these demonstration races are made by well meaning meet directors, these races are not necessarily conducted to the same standards, nor does the "best" go through the same scrutiny of an official IAAF ratified world record. Felix set her best in a race on a specially constructed track on a city street. Trackinfo (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see that makes sense. Just checking. Have a good day. :)Mcelite (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor women's 2000m steeplechase[edit]

Add. women 2000 m steeplechase indoor 6.06.11 Yelena Orlova (Rus) Moskva 12-02-2012

Done Trackinfo (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

I have removed the Video column. Most links were to Youtube and most of those I checked breach WP:COPYVIO. It is unlikely that most records have a publicly available non-copyvio video so the web, so including the column will just invite people to add illegal ones. jnestorius^(talk) 10:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnestorius: videos have been restored since. I think they should be removed again. Many of those videos are clearly copyright violations (WP:YT) that we shouldn't link to. The rest are cleraly WP:ELLIST that should be removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treadmill record[edit]

I added the 7 day treadmill world record [1] it is a verified non-IAAF World Record event. Why was it reverted? 90.193.161.157 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the governing body of the sport, the IAAF, does not recognize the category. If we open the door to this record, why not also also the myriad records for, say, non-metric distances? Potato sack records? Tossing a stone? A telephone pole? Standing long and high jumps? How about establishing "records" for distances not recognized by the IAAF, like the 20-metre dash? We could construct a page 10x the length of this, though its relevance to sport would be greatly diminished IMHO. Canada Jack (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Canada Jack, with the exception of Standing events. We actually have an IAAF legacy to three standing events that were held in the Olympics a hundred years ago. By the way, the Stone Toss does also have a home in the Highland games. This "device" based endurance record however has noting to do with events held on a running track, in a public arena, or under an IAAF affiliate's jurisdiction. It belongs in something related to Guinness World Records but has no association to the sport umbrella of Athletics. Trackinfo (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

250 meters: 26.25 Christophe Lemaitre (France) Oyonnax 12-5-2012 WBP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.35.243.33 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious records[edit]

The article needs to be clearer that a number of these records, especially some women's records, are viewed with great suspicion by many people. 81.159.109.127 (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.240.107 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question (though the organization is known as IAAF for a couple more months before the name changes). Has anybody beaten Rick Wohlhuter's 1:44.1, June 8, 1974? Trackinfo (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "A" to distance record[edit]

Several experienced editors have been inserting a completely irrelevant note to the recent 4x1500 women's record - an "A" added to the mark. The ONLY time we should be adding a note of this sort is if the mark is potentially assisted by it being set at altitude. Distance events are not assisted by altitude - which makes its inclusion irrelevant. If we are to start adding notes to records which were set under less-than-ideal circumstances, how about adding an "R" for any record set in pouring rain? or "B" for "barefoot" when Bikale and Budd set their records?

But more than than, simply affixing the "A" implies there is something significant about the mark being set at altitude in terms of record-setting. Since the ONLY time I have seen records with "A" at the end is for marks which statisticians know are assisted at altitude, this looks like to someone who doesn't know better that this mark was an assisted mark.

Finally, since the IAAF on its record page does not note the "A," neither should we. http://www.iaaf.org/records/by-category/world-records#results-tab-sub=1 Canada Jack (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canada Jack. Thanks for comment. Please just for my interest: Can you give a note or reference why distance events are NOT assisted by altitude instead of other disciplines? Furthermore I think there is a significant difference between rain, barfoot and altitude. For example long standing records of Beamon and Mennea set in Mexico City always where declared as records set at high altitude, maybe to give people a reason why these records were unbroken for years.Montell 74 (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It has long been known that altitude affects athletic performances because air resistance is reduced the higher you go. The trade-off is in terms of oxygen - at a certain point, the advantage of reduced air resistance is offset by the reduction in oxygen needed by the athlete for an optimum performance. So, the jump events gain an advantage, as do the sprints, but beyond 400 m the air resistance advantage is offset by reduced oxygen. This article [2] discusses this effect, with a chart showing how sprint events gain an advantage which increases with altitude, and how distance events suffer, referencing a paper by Peronnet etc [3]. The article mentions how that even at the 520m elevation of Munich (1000 m is the cutoff for "A" marks), a 2:06:50 marathon effort would result in a 2:08.50 time. The 1,500m is not as affected, but at 1,000m, a time run would be about 1.02 x the time for the same effort at sea level.

My essential point is the "A" should only be affixed to ASSISTED times, as they were to the Mexico City marks you mentioned. For a 1,500m event, the performances would be hindered, not helped, by altitude. This has long been known in track and field circles and there are reams of research to corroborate this. My comments about barefoot and rain were simply to make the logical argument to its absurd point - if we are to make notes on marks which were hindered - setting a record at altitude is a lot tougher than at sea level, though in this particular case, the event is so rarely run it is not as remarkable as it seems - we should also note those marks made in the rain, those marks made while barefoot etc. Canada Jack (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabour the point here, but I notice that on other marks set at altitude but not in events normally considered to be assisted, there is no "A" for "altitude" affixed. One good example is Ralph Doubell's 800m world record 1:44.3 set at the Mexico City Olympics in 1968. While I have seen the "A" after the 100m, 200m, 400m, long jump records set at those Olympics, I've never seen it affixed to Doubell's record, for the simple reason his mark wasn't considered assisted. Canada Jack (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So do you know what is about technical disciplines (without a sprint element) like discus, shot put or hammer?Montell 74 (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that throw events would be similarly affected, but I've not seen anything specific on that. The athlete is in a more anaerobic event, less reliant on oxygen, and lower air resistance would presumably allow longer throws. From what I can discern, only the women's shot saw a world record at Mexico City in 1968, and that record stood for only six months or so. It would seem that those events aren't generally helped by altitude, but that is only a guess on my part. Canada Jack (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Key[edit]

Hi, the key to the symbols used ("ht = hand timing; + = en route to a longer distance; etc.") is rather lost at the end, seemingly attached to a section about women's indoor non-IAAF events, and with unclear scope. If its scope is all the tables in the article then I feel this could be presented better. Perhaps put these explanations in their own section headed "Key" or something?

Also, the symbol "i", which is attached to the men's outdoor pole vault record, and which I assume means "set indoors but counts as an outdoor record", or something like that, has no explanation. Because I do not know the exact correct wording, I would rather let someone else add this in. 86.169.184.128 (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the key should be listed after each section. It may be repetitive, but I agree one gets lost trying to find it. One quibble I have on some of those marks is the "ht" sign indicating "hand timed." While this is almost certainly true for marks to the tenth in the 1960s, is that the case with some of the later marks? A mark rendered to the tenth does not automatically indicate it was hand-timed as the rounding rules in effect then meant the record was indicated to the tenth even if electronically timed.

As for the "i," you are confused about what records are listed here. There is no category called "outdoor" world records; there are "World Records" and "Indoor World Records." World Records can be set indoors or out, as long as the specifications are adhered to. In a practical sense, (I believe this is so) since almost no indoor meets meet the track specifications for world records (ovals are typically too small and often banked), only the jump records potentially can be set indoors, and thus far only the men's and women's pole vault have had world records set indoors. Canada Jack (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it is not me that is confused, but rather the article, for including a symbol "i" -- which I think I tried to make sense of in a reasonable way -- without explaining what it means. 86.169.184.128 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my point was that there are no "outdoor" records per se, just "world records." But you do have a point - the IAAF doesn't make the "i" note on their list of world records. As it stands, the fact it was set indoors is trivia, as the IAAF makes no differentiation in this event. Some may not agree, but since the IAAF doesn't note it, neither should we. In my view, we should only have the notes if there is a mark potentially assisted - such as putting "A" for "altitude" as that affects certain events. Canada Jack (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women's marathon world record is missing[edit]

I'd fix this myself, but my coding skills are suspect... The women's marathon record listed is missing the IAAF-recognized "women-only" mark also set by Radcliffe. The IAAF recognizes TWO wolrd records in this event. [4] The record listed currently is the "mixed" race record, someone needs to add the "women's-only" record. Canada Jack (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I'm not sure the layout is perfect but at least the situation is explained. I tried to force narrowing the space allotted but women's event names are still significantly wider than men's to the detriment of the information columns to the right. Trackinfo (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - looks good to me. btw, while we are at it, we should probably remove Mutai's Boston run as the new pending record is faster - and Mutai's 2:03:02 was never ratified for anything so it can be replaced by the new faster unratified time! Canada Jack (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

I have moved the main references to "Sources" from "External links". The "Refs" column in the tables is not the main reference, the IAAF official report is the main reference (for IAAF-recognised events). A news report the day after a record is broken cannot prove that the performance was ever ratified, or that it has not subsequently been broken elsewhere; therefore this supplementary reference is only useful for details not available on the IAAF site, such as the particular meeting at which the record was broken. For the same reason, all the current non-IAAF-event references are inadequate. What is needed is a single reliable source that maintains up-to-date lists of non-IAAF records; maybe the Association of Track and Field Statisticians' most recent annual has some, or the website of one of its members.

Also, I think the {{Youtube}} links should not be in the Refs column. I deleted the separate "Videos" column in 2012; if there are enough non-WP:COPYVIO links it could be restored, but using <ref> tags as the {{Youtube}} output is too wide for the table.

jnestorius^(talk) 13:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking a record by a minimum amount in other events than the pole vault[edit]

The article says In other disciplines this issue does not arise, since it is practically impossible to deliberately break a record by a small margin, except in the high jump. I don't see why this wouldn't be possible in the long distance races by careful pacing, or the decathlon and heptathlon, by pacing the final race (assuming of course the athlete would be capable of 'smashing' the record, as stated in the text). Gap9551 (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course possible, but I don 't know any existing case. In the multi-events this will probably not happen as you can only do 2-3 competitions a year, and you never know if you really can do better in future. Nico (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, in long distance running specifically, you just don't get one more immediate attempt if another athlete manages to beat you just before the finish line. Plus, by not keeping your distance from potential competition you risk helping someone else as their transient pacer or windshield. Long distance world records tend to be set on IAAF RR Label events which require certain minimum elite competition. So the temptation for trying this is essentially non-existent. Lalaith (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia in criteria section; Indoor track records[edit]

There has been a back-and-forth with jnestorius over some changes he put into the "criteria" section. He added a note on road races records which mentioned mixed-race records are kept, saying that an attempt to change this was pushed back after protests over losing Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 record. While the original source didn't address that point - the rule was pushed back because of protests, it does discuss Radcliffe's particular record though - this is nevertheless trivia and of no particular relevance. This was a rule change reverted - one of perhaps 100s of rule changes which affected the various events, and there is nothing here to indicate why this rule change was more earth-shattering than any of the others. As for the relay record, more trivia, which doesn't even apply to a current record and which, if it did, more appropriately would be a note to the actual record.

As for the indoor track record point, you are simply wrong on this one. Sure, most indoor tracks have small, banked surfaces. But there are indoor 400-metre unbanked tracks. There'sone in Anchorage, another in Ottawa. And since there is now no rule excluding facilities with roofs from records, a world record could therefore be set in one of the complainant stadiums. Canada Jack (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of world records 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of world records 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 03:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of world records 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doping cases[edit]

@Montell 74: Read my comment properly. There're too many doping cases in athletics. You either list all of them or nothing. You can't update 100m only. This is not right. And don't forget about East Germans. Yes, officially their results aren't annuled but we all know that they were juiced. Awaiting your response. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not of your opinion. First it's not a bit necessary to list all doping cases. What special doping case do you mean? The world record article just mentions a few annulled times better than the actual records. World record progression articles just mention annulled but former records and yes its needed for all progression articles, not only 100m. Do you know another annulled former world record? So please add or tell. At least what a statement about East Germans? Are you serious? What about the Russian, American, Chinese, Kenyan.... What do "we" know?? Do you "know" that Usain Bolt is spotlessly clean? Sorry Cskamoscow100, but we know nothing. Wikipedia is the possibility to give all information that is possible. For everyone here is to see that records were annulled and why. To delete is the last way wikipedians should act. Montell 74 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. One question: what database do you use to find all the former WRs (especially those that are set not in the World Championships or Olympics)? Cskamoscow100 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First source of official record progression is IAAF. So you can use IAAF Statistic Handbooks. But IAAF delete doping cases (like you do), so you can't use recent statistic handbook (London 2017), better Berlin 2009, shanghai 2011... I think it's very improbable, that there is a former world record that is not listed here. Annulment of doping records we know since the late 80's, so which record should be forgotten here?Montell 74 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. Just interesting where you get all this information. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You wrote "There're too many doping cases in athletics. You either list all of them or nothing. You can't update 100m only." This indicates that there a missing cases in other progression articles (200m, 400m etc.).Montell 74 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand by that point. You can't track them all. But I decided not to argue with 'you' because it seems pointless to me. Instead I ask where you get the information regarding junior, national and other records. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So my thesis istead of is, that all doping cases which dates back completely listed. Cases, which will be uncovered in future, will to be marked too.Montell 74 (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I suspect that you might be biased in favour of East Germany. The fact that you question the existence of a doping program in this defunct country is saddening. There's a separate section in this article about the development of state-sponsored doping in East German sports. I think you need to read it. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that Usain Bolt may legally sue you for accusing him of being a drug cheat? What you're saying is horrendous. 'Do you "know" that Usain Bolt is spotlessly clean?' That is your quote. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to share your sources is also disturbing. Your behaviour contradicts to what a good Wikipedian should do (be helpful, share sources and so on). Cskamoscow100 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of world records 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 km (road), 20 km (road), 25 km (road) and 30 km (road) aren't IAAF World Record events anymore![edit]

The Rule 261 was changed. This events aren't IAAF World Record events anymore. For both men and women. Instead the 5 km (road) is a new IAAF World Record event. You can look up the changes in the last offical List of IAAF World Records on the page of the indian athletics Federation.

Xorp (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the 5km to both men and women outdoor lists and moved the other distances to world bests. I've also added the women's only time for the Ekiden/road relay. 83.55.221.102 (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's indoor 2,000m world record[edit]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see the 2,000m indoor world record listed here - held by Genzebe Dibaba - despite it not being an indoor world record event (though this mark is the World Record, most of which are set outdoors). Shouldn't this be moved to the section showing World's Bests? Canada Jack (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Indoor Mile record ratified[edit]

I see that the IAAF has ratified Yomif Kejelcha's indoor mile record.... page needs an update. [5] Canada Jack (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non iiaf world record half mile[edit]

In the section on world records in nonmetric units, i was surprised to see nothing on the half mile. why is this?Rich (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good question (though the organization is known as IAAF for a couple more months before the name changes). Has anybody beaten Rick Wohlhuter's 1:44.1, June 8, 1974? Trackinfo (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And has anyone beaten Mary Decker Slaney’s record of 2:02.4?Rich (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple records for one event[edit]

Why do we have multiple records for one event? World record is just one and it is confussing to have several lines for the same event... Marathon (men): three marks are listed, two of which will never be ratified because they were set in non-IAAF complying races. I would just erase those. 5k road (men): similarly, there are four marks here... just keep the official one. Half marathon (women): same case. 3000 m steeplechase (men): why keep Boulami's mark if it was erased from the rankings because of doping violations. I would just list Shaheen's mark. pole vault (men): just keep Duplantis' latest record with a note indicating that is awaiting ratification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trantor2312 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes World Athletics does not ratify some performances for various reasons; this happened recently with several pending indoor records. For this reason, I think it is better to keep official records on the list, because the new ones may never become actual records. As for performances rejected by World Athletics (for doping or any other reasons), I would actually be happy removing them. The only problem is that some people might remember those performances and wonder why they are not in this list; as it is now, that person would immediately find the reason.--Gorpik (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women's marathon and Men's indoor 4 x 400 records ratified[edit]

Someone should do the honours and update the page.... here is the link to IAAF/World Athletics: https://www.worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/kosgei-marathon-world-record-ratified Canada Jack (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Gorpik (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5,000 m world record needs update, with new pending mark added to existing record as per ratification procedure[edit]

I've twice had to revert the new pending world record of Joshua Cheptegei in the 5,000m as several editors in good faith have removed Kenenisa Bekele’s record and replaced it with Cheptegei's even though Bekele's record still is the official world record, until the ratification procedure is completed. [[6]] Could someone do the honours and add the new record as a pending record, retaining the old one? Canada Jack (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplantis 6.18n and Yeshaneh's 1:04:31 ratified by World Athletics[edit]

Time to update the list as World Athletics has ratified the Men's PV and Women's half-marathon would records. [7]

Here we go again - any new world record is PENDING until World Athletics says otherwise[edit]

Once again, an editor has jumped the gun with the new 1-hour women's world record. (...and we may get the same on the men's side...) The old record IS STILL THE WORLD RECORD until the new mark is ratified, so as with other examples on the page, the new mark can be added with the "pending" identification, the old mark stays on the page until World Athletics ratifies the new mark (which usually takes a few months). Canada Jack (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this happens all the time, and the chances for people who do it to read the Talk page before editing are slim. I think we better fix those edits and get on with our lives :)--Gorpik (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm too lazy most of the time to do it myself... Canada Jack (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial ultramarathon records not indicated as such[edit]

In the list I see various ultramarathon records that are not recognised by World Athletics. Only the 100 km (road) (source) and the 50 km (road) (source) seem to be currently ratified as world records by WA. Shouldn't therefore the other ultramarathon records in the lists be indicated as 'not ratified or later rescinded by World Athletics' (pinkish background of row)? Cheers Mill 1 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take another look. The non-WA events are all in their own separate list. Best performances in non-WA World Record events. If by error one or more are listed in the wrong list, please move it to the appropriate list. BFG (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I wasn't looking the straight; the ultramarathon records I mentioned are already in the appropiate World best tables. Sorry for the confusion. Mill 1 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation of Records[edit]

Hello, the tables are very informative but awkwardly laid out. Surely when consulting it, a reader will wish to see the name of the record holder immediately after the relevant event ‐ and not to have to scroll across infuriatingly to do so. The average speed, height, distance, etc. is important information bit in he wrong place. This is especially relevant on a mobile phone, which I believe most people now use fir net use. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the most important info (record holder, performance) should be in the first columns. I propose moving the Notes column just before the References, and move the Average Speed somewhere near the end of the table. This would leave Event - Performance (incl. Wind) - Athlete - Nationality - Date at the beginning of the table, and everything else afterwards.--Gorpik (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only encourage you to WP:BEBOLD. In addition, I think this list could benefit a lot from becoming a WP:Wikidata object. This would make it much easier to update and maintain in multiple languages. BFG (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if there is a consensus, albeit a small number of people, after almost a week. Please go ahead with the changes Billsmith60 (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crouser's 23.38 no longer on WA lists[edit]

I've not seen anything official anywhere, but it looks like Crouser's 23.38 will not stand as the World Record and Indoor World Record. It's no longer on the year's lists, and WA no longer has it as a pending world record on their relevant lists. But as I said, I've seen nothing official. Canada Jack (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still listed here https://www.worldathletics.org/records/by-category/world-records as "Pending ratification", which is expected. GoPats (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see Crouser's performance there either; only the 3000 m and pole vault are pending ratification. I've gone to Crouser's page in the WA web and that performance has no score attached and an IRM remark; I don't know what it can mean. Well, since World Athletics always includes a section on ratified records in their newsletters, we may find an explanation in the next one. Gorpik (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, GoPats, it's not on either the indoor or outdoor list, pending or otherwise. And Duplantis's more recent 6.22i is on both. Canada Jack (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see Crouser's 23.83 is back on the page with a background indicating it won't be ratified. The note indicates why it won't be an overall World Record, but doesn't say why won't it be ratified as the Indoor World Record. Is there a source for this? And if we are to include on the indoor record list, we should probably include it in the overall record list as it would have been a record, it seems, save for that. Canada Jack (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the improvements you suggest. I did not add a source because I could not find one; we usually don't add sources for the non-ratification reasons, but I think we should. If we can find them; WA tends not to keep those things in their website, and they are difficult to find elsewhere. Gorpik (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This mark does not exist anywhere on the WA website, other than in the news report at the time. While the mark may have a place, even if not ratifiable, on the world record page here, I question its inclusion when WA seemingly won't even list the mark on its regular lists.

It would be best to have some word from WA why this mark isn't listed, but in the meantime it seems the best course of action to remove this mark from our pages. Canada Jack (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a source in Spanish explaining that the throwing circle was sligtly raised above the ground level, so the line between the throwing and landing points was steeper than the allowed maximum of 0.1 % downwards. When I get an English language source, I'll add it. Gorpik (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorpik: Ref.: No April Fools’ Gag — Crouser’s 76-8½ Nixed. Track1News (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that seals it. We need to remove Crouser's marks from the lists. Just the 23.38, of course, fortunately he is still the WR and WIR holder! And, unlike in the cases where a mark is not counted for wind or a drug infraction, or illegal pacing etc yet we still show it, the issues here were the non-level field and the bigger throwing ring, so the measurement is not comparable. Canada Jack (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed both Crouser unratifiable records for the 23.38 he threw earlier this year. Unlike with, say, a drug suspension or a mixed-national relay, where the time and distance run is not in dispute, the distance thrown isn't comparable as the field wasn't level within requirements, and the throwing circle was too big. No more than including a mark for the 100 m run over a 99 m distance. Canada Jack (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed nationality relays[edit]

I recently added a line for the performance by the University of Arkansas that exceeds the Women's record for the indoor 4 x 4. I realise the mark is unratifiable due to mixed nationalities in the team and so I coloured it in pink. My update was deleted with a comment that such a performance does not comply with WA rules for records (I'm well aware of this). If such a performance is not to be listed on this page (which would be a shame as it is surely of some interest), we should be consistent and remove all other performances that don't comply with WA rules for records, such as requirements for doping controls or assisted road races. Ianb GB (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added as it is interesting information. Someone may read about this performance, then come to this page and wonder why it is not listed as a record. Gorpik (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment - I'll wait a couple of days for any more feedback Ianb GB (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorpik: Because it is not a record, it's not even world best (according to World Athletics nomenclature), contrary to US collegiate magazines. @Ianb GB: Add this performance - I see that we have mixed nationality men's relays included (and they shouldn't). But contrary to what you wrote this is a different case than those mentioned. I can take Salwa Eid Naser, Shaunae Miller-Uibo, Marileidy Paulino, Britton Wilson and Femke Bol and start rewriting the record books any day: indoors and out. You have to understand that this result is NCAA specific as relays are national "by design" and outside of the collegiate world no one is interested in the mark achieved. I can have much better time with athletes I mentioned any time. Track1News (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you, Track1, but Ianb has a point - this is not handled consistently. Those athletes toed the line with the knowledge this couldn't be a record - much as Eliud Kipchoge did when he ran his sub-2:00 marathon. Yet we list the latter. I suggest that we put on the list with a colour code performances that, save for a failed instrument like a wind-gauge, or lack of drug test (or failure thereof) would have set a world record. For other marks like the mixed-nations relay, or Kipchoge's completely artificial record set-up for his sub-2 hour marathon, we insert a note somewhere. Canada Jack (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of records - looks like we should remove Crouser's 23.38 as it's been removed from the WA lists. Which means it won't be ratified. Maybe once we know what the issue with the performance was we could put it in - with the appropriate colour-code. Canada Jack (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 4x400 Mixed nationalities could be listed under 'Best performances in non-WA World Record events'. It would be consistant to move Eliud Kipchus sub-2 marathon there.Nico (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This "impossible record run" should be listed here for informational purposes, under WA sanctioned events. I suggest not to over-bureaucratize but to use colour code and declaration.Montell 74 (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short track[edit]

I don't think the indoor field events and the indoor 50/60 metres with and without hurdles should be labelled 'short track' as they are now. (source) – Editør (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The new criterion for WA is that there is a unified ranking/record list for all track & field events (route remains separated), excepting for races run in the ring, which are separated into overall and short track. Distances run on a straight track and field events are unified and should only appear in the overall list. Gorpik (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1600 & 3200 metres[edit]

I notice that performances have recently been added for 1600 and 3200, some with a "+" and some without. Are these actual measured performances or are they estimates from actual performances at 1 mile or 2 miles ? If they are estimates they probably don't belong in the list. Ianb GB (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]