2017 World Championships In Athletics

When you click on Gatlin's 100 m time, the "MWR" link goes to the athletics abbreviations article, but it's not listed. best, 82.46.64.88 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

it's masters world record - see the 100m article for more info Rolapib (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Is listing the previous Gibraltarian and Slovak records together with the area records a tad excessive? The national records are perhaps sufficiently covered by NR in the results, and certainly by the second table. See e.g. WP:BALASP. I'll add that as far as the first table is concerned the previous national records are not listed in the citation given. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's excessive and should be removed. Also, as for information that is not supported by sources cited, it can (and should) be removed as well. Also, this "Selection" of records is completely indiscriminate. What matters is what records secondary sources discuss in connection to this competition. That should be our selection as well. In articles, preferably, records standing before the competition should be discussed in prose, in any case only when secondary sources also discuss them (such as when a previous record is broken and coverage in news journalism is generated concerning this). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
In hindsight, adding the previous national records, which I'd done whilst adding new records to each event article is excessive and un-sourced. I've removed these from all the articles I'd updated to date (all mens + women 100,200,400), along with changing text to "Before the competition records were as follows:" and "The following records were set at the competition:"/"No records were set at the competition.". I'll use the same approach for now whilst updating the remaining women's articles. Rolapib (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that the competition is complete, I think it would make much more sense to the average reader for the results to be presented in the following order: Final > Semi > Heats.

Similarly the Qualification standards would make more sense to go after the results.

I can also see no benefit to keeping the Schedule sections as a) I assume nobody will be needing to check the schedule anymore, and b) all of the information within it is already presented in the infobox and results.

I've created a mock up here User:Rolapib/sandbox.

Thanks, Rolapib (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the approved and long standing section order according to all the championships articles with chronological structure. F.e. in swimming also articles start with standards and then heats, semis and finals.Montell 74 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Montell 74, I can understand that you prefer that format as it's what your used to and consistent (at the moment) with other similar articles. But do you really think it makes sense for the majority of readers? Rolapib (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes I do. On top of the article readers are informed about winners. Also official documents don't start with finals. Main articles start with history and process, not medal tables. At least who are the readers you mean? The one who do not have any disagreement over years??Montell 74 (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Montell 74, thanks for the input, I think there are a number of distinct questions here:
• Taking each event page article on it's own, would it make more sense to change the order of the results subsections to Final > Semi > Heats and to move the qualification standards section to after the results section??
• I think it is a fair assumption that more readers are interested in notable summary level information than relatively less notable detailed information
• As you point out a small amount of the most notable summary level information (medalists and winning mark) in the infobox at the top of the page
• However, the next most notable information, e.g. other finalists, is at the bottom of the article
• Looking across different sports both approaches are used, there is no standard across wikipedia from what I can see
• I understand it may be good practice to align to official documents, but taking this competition as an example I haven't seen any official documents that cover the event from end to end - have you got any examples?
• Taking each event page article on it's own, would it make more sense to remove the schedule section on the individual event pages? Noting that:
• I assume nobody on the planet any longer needs to find what time an event is scheduled in order to watch/listen to/monitor it?
• All the information provided in the schedule section is already shown in the infobox at the top of the page
• All the information provided in the schedule section is already shown in the results section which immediately follows it
• All the links provided in the schedule section are already shown in the contents at the top of the page
• If it was agreed taking each event page article on it's own changes would be beneficial, would the inconsistency with previous competition, and similar events, and/or the effort needed to change these other articles, negate the benefits of the change?
• As you point out, main articles start with history and process, not medal tables:
  • But, this information is brief in comparison to multiple detailed tables of less notable results present on event pages before the final results
  • Perhaps it would also be beneficial for the majority of readers to move the entry standards and schedule sections to the end of the article (this has already been dealt with to some degree by collapsing these tables)
• Regarding consistency with previous/similar events, yes this is a consideration, but I don't think it should be a deal breaker - it's very rare for every event article across all of history to be consistent within a competition, and much less so across competitions and sports - this is probably because over time people realize there would be benefits to change? As such I don't think it is necasary to update all other articles as inconsistency is already accepted, however, given the nature of the changes (re-ordering sections), if people wanted to improve consistency the effort would not be overly high.
I don't understand what you mean by "The one who do not have any disagreement over years??"
Rolapib (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think so. They were never a team, like IAAF indicated, it was basically every man for himself. Scrabble Scribble (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. there isn't at IAAF official web site medal table. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The changing of name Macedonia to North Macedonia has messed up the template:flaglinkteam link. It's a red-link in the participants list and similarly for other championships. 86.138.105.254 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)