Jump to content

Talk:2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portland/Birmingham

[edit]

How do you explain this sentence? It doesn’t make pretty much sense because:

  1. IAAF and IOC/CIO are two independent organizations and are making decisions independently of one another; IAAF makes decisions about World Championships (indoor and outdoor), while IOC/CIO organizes Olympics.
  2. How to explain that Birmingham was not given organization of 2016 Championships because IAAF wanted "more time between events in the UK with London hosting the 2012 Olympics" which was held 4 years ago and which is not in its (IAAF’s) jurisdiction, while it was given organization of 2018 Championships which is just 7 months after 2017 World Championships in Athletics which will be held in London and which is in its (IAAF’s) jurisdiction (not to mention 2016 IAAF World Half Marathon Championships for Cardiff).

However, citation is referenced properly but still doesn’t make sense. --Obsuser (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1, the IAAF made the decision in view of what the IOC did. Its like the NBA choosing to not play a game during the Super Bowl - the decision to hold the Super Bowl and when to play NBA games are independently made, but one can be a consideration of doing another. Likewise, the IAAF can choose to hold their event at a certain time in view of the Olympics. Regarding 2, there is a greater spread from 2012-2017 than 2012-2016, plus it gives a 5 year "cool off" from the 2012 Olympics to the 2017 Worlds. Also, the 2016 Indoor worlds would be in the winter, thus there would be about a 3.5-3.75 year gap as opposed to a 5 year gap. In other words, its not saving seven months, but really over a year from winter 2016 to summer 2017. RonSigPi (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do you mean there is a greater spread from 2012-2017 than 2012-2016 (2016 would be for Birmingham, not 2017)?
  2. Why did you i.e. why it is put England in infobox if UK is member of IAAF? Or it is just location of Birmingham, so UK can be added too? What about UK only? --Obsuser (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Corrected 2. I didn't write the infobox, so I don't know why I am being called out. Looks like you are going to have to talk to Radzinski about that one. RonSigPi (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not actually being called out (read one more time: "Why did you i.e. why it is put..."). This is a talk page for an article (not an user talk page) so Radzinski can get involved into discussion too.
  1. So, we concluded: IAAF thought about Olympics not being close to Worlds, not about Worlds being close to Worlds?
  2. This about England/UK has not been resolved yet. --Obsuser (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Authorised Neutral Athletes in metal table

[edit]

I'm aware the official IAAF metal table doesn't include it (as mentioned in the note), but I was thinking is it acceptable to include it *here* (without rank, still keep the note), since we're not the "official metal table" anyway? --fireattack (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to do that since ANA team doesn't exist on paper, they compete individually. Hence no need to further highlight their performance as a nonexistent single unit Scrabble Scribble (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were many cases when athletes participated as neutrals at the various competitions. However, their medals were not excluded from medal tables. Also, Wikipedia is not owned by IAAF.
Indeed, just like the 2018 Winter Olympics where OAR team was treated as such, was included in the official medal table by IOC, and is included therefore in the 2018 Winter Olympics medal table. Conversely, Authorised Neutral Athletes (ANA) team is not treated as a team in this competition. They are athletes representing themselves individually and therefore this non existent team does not belong in the medal table where only teams belong. Scrabble Scribble (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were INDEPENDENT Olympic Participants (ex-Yugoslavian athletes) at the 1992 Summer Olympics. There were INDEPENDENT Olympic Athletes (Qatari athletes) at the 2016 Summer Olympics. All they officially represented themselves, but their medals were included and ranked into official medal tables. Anyway, I don't propose to rank them as national team in medal table. This is just mentioning that three medals were won by ANA athletes (to made medal count full) - that's wrong with this? Are you so obsessed with Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion82 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need for name calling. The simple facts are that (a) Russia is banned from competing at IAAF events as their IAAF membership is suspended, (b) the athletes that hail from Russia represent themselves only in these competitions (as opposed to Olympic competitions you were referring to) and (c) medal tables are typically made up for for teams. As opposed to IOC which has a different practice and protocol, IAAF does not mention ANA in their official medal table and makes a note of that. I think that's exactly what Wikipedia article ought to, too. Scrabble Scribble (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is all besides the point. Wikipedia is showing a medal table, not a team table, and it's perfectly valid to show individual athletes winning medals and being unranked on the team competition. This prevents confusion around the number of total medals awarded, which was the reason why those medals were included on the 2017 World Championships in Athletics medal table. We have no need to mirror everything a sports body does, just do our best to inform readers. SFB 02:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but according to that logic why would you group medals won by Authorised Neutral Athletes with each other? They are not a part of the same team and represent themselves only. So if you really want those totals lined up you can then individually list every medalist competing as ANA. The medal table groups nations and their representations, this is how I see it. But that would be too clunky, hence the note solution (like the IAAF has it). We don't need to mirror sports bodies, but we have to understand the underlying logic in the decisions made by those bodies and reflect them here since this is IAAF competition, sanctioned by them and according to the rules set by them. We do list world records, National records etc just like the IAAF does so there is no need to diverge with the medal table. Scrabble Scribble (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Scrabble Scribble: Our presentation already diverges, as we show the total medals awarded in the medal table, which causes us a comprehension issue if we either show a total number of medals awarded that is less than was actually awarded or a total which does not correlate with the rest of the data in the table. Personally I felt that this addition was not ambiguous in any way about what that entry meant, whereas the current version is as we have a table showing a total of 26 gold medals at the competition with only 24 gold medals in that data. SFB 17:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well we have to agree to disagree here. You also did not respond to my point on the underlying logic of not having ANA in the medal table. I think we have to consider that logic too. I think it's pretty well presented when one sees the note below (1+2=3) and understands why totals are off. I think I rest my case. Scrabble Scribble (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with SFB. There was 26 set of medals at these Championships. You should either take away ANA medals from total number of medals (in this case, there should be 24 gold, 25 silver and 26 bronze in TOTAL) or make special note inside the medal table. You can't remove these medals from medal table without reducing of total number of medals. Also, Wikipedia is free encyclopedia and should not follow strict IAAF's rules. Your analogy with world records is not working - even if you will open Wiki page with list of official world records or world record progressions, you can see not only ratified world records, but also notes about results which were not ratified by IAAF as world records due to various reasons (strong wind, doping disqialification, etc) - these notes will not be reflected at IAAF's official page (just compare this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_athletics and this https://www.iaaf.org/records/by-category/world-records#results-tab-sub-men=1). If athlete was disqualified due to doping - it will be possible see his/her annuled detailed result at Wiki page, but not at IAAF official site - like here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_IAAF_World_Indoor_Championships_–_Women%27s_shot_put Hyperion82 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it logical to include them in the all-time medal table, when they "don't compete as a team"? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GBR should render as Great Britain and Northern Ireland

[edit]

As for the 2017 World Championships in Athletics, "GBR" in the 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships is short for "Great Britain and N.I." and not just for "Great Britain" (see the official website). It was fixed in the 2017 World Championships in Athletics article, can it also be fixed here? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: This functionality is now live in the {{flaglinkmedalist}} and {{flaglinkteam}} templates so no further action is required. I will, however, note that there's only thing that makes engineers more misanthropic than minor changes that require complete technical rebuilds – that's when the users come up with their own workarounds to a problem rather than asking the engineer to fix it SFB 03:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I tried to fix the same problem somewhere else before, but as the templates are quite daunting and used quite extensively, and GBR is sometimes "Great Britain" and sometimes "Great Britain & N.I.", I resorted to a "localised workaround" - thus probably creating more work for future editors. So this time I asked, hoping someone who knew what they were doing could fix it properly and permanently. ;) -- DeFacto (talk). 10:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

@Sillyfolkboy: I think this edit broke all the team links in the medal table. The new template creates names of non-existent articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: Work has started on writing articles at country level (see Category:Nations at the IAAF World Indoor Championships), mirroring those found for the outdoor championships (see Category:Nations at the World Championships in Athletics). The top country level articles are particularly low value links for this topic, so it's not much of a loss (on many articles, the country articles are actually delinked). The content for Category:National athletics teams has been particularly neglected for track and field, mostly likely for cultural reasons. Hopefully the red links push people in the direction to create the articles. SFB 23:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_IAAF_World_Indoor_Championships&oldid=1196755976"