Talk:Usain Bolt/Archive 1

Nickname

kiko his favourite football team is manunited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.235 (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Put his nickname (Usain "Lighting" Bolt) in his quick bio under his portrait like on Michael Phelps' page (The Baltimore Bullet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.5.180 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they call him thunder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.212.10 (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Music&ThunderBolt

In the article someone said that Usain likes music, we can also see this while watching him on olympic games, but none said what kind of music it is. unsigned comment added by 213.77.74.11 (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He likes reggae music. I have a source and I'll add it to the personal life section. In other minor bits of information that I discovered while researching this are - He likes chicken nuggets and yams. He started balding from his late teens. His sister Sherine predicted he would run 9.68 seconds in Beijing. Bolt didn't take athletics too seriously in his early career and liked to go to parties every so often. Also, he is quite a loud character and Asafa Powell, as a quiet guy, tries to avoid him sometimes! It's all interesting, sure, but a bit too trivial for the article! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error[?]

At the bottom of the "World Record Breaker" section, it says "focussed" and not "focused" as it probably should. It's not strictly incorrect but "focused" is highly preferred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.92.8 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed this as the article uses British spelling (notice also medallist and metres). Jamaica uses British English spelling so as a result it is applied to the Jamaican runners article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal at all... but 'focused' is the preferred spelling in both British and American English. See British language website Future Perfect for more information. Brykupono (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OED tells me "focussed" is British but irregular. Obviously I'm an irregular type of guy! I'll fix it to one s. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo

In the atricle it says the athens olympics was in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.62.131 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Average Speed

I added the fact that his average speed over the 100 meters in the Olympic final was the first to be over 23mph (possibly excluding Gay's run which was wind assisted). It was removed, but I think it should stay as it is an interesting fact which can easily be interleaved in to the article. El Paulio (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I removed that because of Gay's run. It could be stated as the first non-wind assisted run at 23mph but the miles per hour mixed badly with the metres per second and 100 metres. Maybe try 37kmph? However this fact could constitute original research. Any reliable sources for the speed? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's average speed anyway, and as such, it's a trivial fact. It doesn't say anything about his actual top speed, and it's merely another way to say "he did it faster than anyone else", which the world record pretty clearly indicates on its own. TheHYPO (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite a feat to break the 23mph banner and I believe it could be interesting for people to know. It is hardly original research as it is simple mathematics to work it out (you know the distance and the time it was done in, therefore you can work out the speed) and can easily be varified by anyone. I'm fine with it being left out, but I leave it here as a possible inclusion if it is ever seen fit to include it. El Paulio (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

links, ref, template

I added this reference, template, and gma links; also, the previous record of 9.74sec set by compatriot Asafa Powell at Rieti,Afp.google.com, Bolt strikes for 100m world record at New York meeting</ref> and "world's fastest man."gmanews.tv, Jamaican sprinter is now the world's fastest man--Florentino floro (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

9.692

Watching the olympics right now, he just broke out from the pack and ran 9.692. He actually started slacking off with like 20 meters. Dont have a link just yet, but Im sure someone will soon. 69.123.33.176 (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC) the only man blots fear is kiko the guich

Hacking Emergency

Someone has hacked into this article (obviously). An administrator needs to fix this. I have tried but am unable to fix the article. HELP!!!!!! JakeH07 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this will be a popular article due to the subject's recent achievement and its link on the front page, there will be some vandalism. Accordingly, there will be a lot of registered users watching and removing the vandalism very quickly. Slow Graffiti (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You can consider me one of those watching users. Useless vandalism really frustrates me. Thanks for taking care of that one. JakeH07 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)JakeH07

The celebrating before the finish is reported in reliable sources, including the New Zealanbd Herald article which quotes Bolt himself confirming it. Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not racism if he did celebrate.JakeH07 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)JakeH07

What if?

It would be interesting to know what time he would have achieved if he had maintained his speed till the end of the course, instead of slowing down. Any estimates? --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

9.58 JakeH07 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)JakeH07

Ato Bolden, retired 100m specialist, commentator for NBC Television, estimated that had Bolt gone all-out to the line, he would have had a time of 9.59

Donovan Bailey, Olympic 100m record holder before Bolt reset it, commentator for CBC Television, estimated that had Bolt gone all-out to the line, he would have had a time of 9.55

- those two sentences should be added to the article. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, this is not exactly an appropriate place for such discussion. But for the record, all those estimates are far too low. While he did slow down a bit, it's not like he tried to stop running. Going through the line would have improved his time by 0.04 at best. However, had he also had a faster start, he could have also improved his time by an additional 0.05. Add tailwind, and that could have helped by another 0.08 maybe. Mipchunk (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record? This doesn't seem like an exact science :) --70.181.45.138 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Recorded splits confirm his assumption. Bolt is likely looking at -0.04 to -0.05 seconds if he runs through the line...nowhere near 9.55. Donovan Bailey is a sprinter, not a statistician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.7.114 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If Bolt had kept up his top speed through the last 20 metres he would have run a 9.60 time, as sprinters generally slow at the end of the race regardless he would probably have run 9.62ish. I base this on the 10m splits released for the run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.103.186 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Empirical evidence on Bolt's potential had he run through the finishline

This article [[1]] at the Herald Sun Website (Asia Pacific News Paper of the Year) cites physicists from the University of Oslo's Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics with calculations to appear in The American Journal of Physics [[2]] that Bolt could have run 9.55. Is that credible enough for you all???? Proberton (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is! I've added it now. Not sure what these multiple question marks are about though, this is the first time I've read this and the article was published less than two hours ago! Cheers for the source. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the overzealous use of the question marks lol it was 2am and I was feeling overly pugilistic. I like the way you added the information into the article, it reads very nicely, Well done.Proberton (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

the 9.72 was already a WR, notify it!

. 81.184.71.111 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Is there an issue here? BLP notice board or something else? I read above but if not, please unprotect, thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Should it read boasted or coasted in the last section. I just got home and haven't seen the race yet. Is this the same guy that basically trotted the last 20 yards looking all around in the semi finals yesterday and blew everybody away? Thank you, --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

He boasted, he admitted it, its amazing he ran a 9.692, the fact of the matter is he held his hands out in celebration. JakeH07 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)JakeH07

Holy crap, I watched the taped event last night. He kicked serious azzz, that wasn't even funny. He coasted and boasted!! :) I haven't even read the article yet, but I hope this doesn't get blown waaayy out of proportion. The guy pounded his chest before he crossed the finish line, good for him! Did you see the Romanian womens marathon runner waving to the crowd during her final lap before the finish line? Whats the difference? One is 26 plus miles and the other is 100 meters? If you got the goods and can blow the field away, whats wrong with the emotion? I loved how he handled the interview afterwards, he was asked about it and just said he was so happy to win. But back to the original question, can this please be unprotected? Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Watching the event (finally) on American TV just now, I noticed that the time was 9:68, according to the TV, although all the other sources say 9:69. Was this an error by NBC, or an error somewhere else? Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The time was adjusted after the finish to 9.692, it happens a lot in this race. JakeH07 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)JakeH07

Maroon

The Maroons formerly lived in Trelawny; is Bolt of Maroon heritage? Badagnani (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've overhauled the article as it may as well be a quality article given the amount of people reading it. I have written/rewritten all the info from early life to change to 100 metres. Can anyone expand the lead and rewrite the 100 metres section too? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. Perhaps I'll work on it if I have time. One thing we should try to do is really control the amount of change that people will inevitably try to force onto this article. While some of these changes will be beneficial, in general, especially with articles about people like Usain Bolt, inexperienced editors may insert random embellishments and weasel words that decrease the overall quality of the article. Mipchunk (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well all we can do is put this page on Watch and make sure all those inaccuracies (grammatically and/or factually) are ironed out :-). A Prodigy^Talk 13:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In the pro career, move to 100 metres section, near the end it reads:Not only was his time made with no tailwind (indicating the quality of his performance), but.... Can somebody remove the part in parentheses or add a fact tag? TIA --70.181.45.138 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is now rewritten - a full lead still needs to be written but the article is fully up to date as of the signature time. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Height

There should be a mention of the fact he is 6ft 5in somewhere on the page.

I added that information, but someone removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyjm84 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Height now listed and sourced. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He could have run 9.55

http://www.pjstar.com/sports/x1507910942/The-guys-entitled-to-brag-a-little-bit says: "Bolt could have run 9.55, maybe, without looking at the crowd, stretching out his arms, pounding his chest and coasting the last 20 meters before he crossed the finish line." Isn't this worth mentioning in the article about his phenomenal performance? --Tubesship (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No chance he runs 9.55. Look at the splits, coupled with the fact that all sprinters finish below their peaks (which can be verified by looking at just about every split available on professional sprinters), the absolute fastest he could have run was 9.60, and more than likely somewhere in the mid-9.6 range.

It's broken down in detail here: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/08/beijing-2008-men-100m-race-analysis.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.7.114 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling mistake?

"Usain Bolt in response to claims that he boasted at the final 20m at the Beijing Summer Olympics on 16th August, 2008."

Boasted, or coasted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.68.207 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Boasted. He put his arms down and beat his chest, slowing down. He also coasted, but people are noting him boasting, not coasting, or perhaps boasting and coasting. ;) Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

About the chapter about boasting

I would take that chapter away. Why bother trying to assure people that Usain Bolt was not boasting at the end of the race? There are jealous people always anyway and I'd even say that if you can run 100 meters in 9.69 seconds, you would be allowed to boast a little. :) 91.152.111.46 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's a valid source, then it should be in here. We aren't here to say whether we agree with it or not. --AW (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dimension issues

When his times are listed, they are noted at m/s for the 100m races, but they should have the dimension of seconds (s). (eg. 9.76 (+1.8 m/s) should read 9.76 (+1.8 s))

On a related note, it seems incorrect to have the following: 9.69 (+0.0 m/s). If the S.D. is not known then it shouldn't be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S climax (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

the 1.8 m/s refers to tailwind. Tailwind affects a runner's speed and thus affects the performance. Therefore tailwind is included to give a fair comparison of performance between events. A new record is disqualified if the tailwind exceeds a certain value. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is fair. However, I still think that, as written, the formatting is off. It implies that the dimensions for the time are m/s. Perhaps it would be better to write "9.76 s (+1.8 m/s)", but even that doesn't look quite right to me. When two quantities are to be added or subtracted, their dimensions must be the same. If they aren't to be added or subtracted, perhaps a symbol other than +/- would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S climax (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You might think that, but Track and Field organizations do not. The + means tailwind and - means headwind, and so the +/- are very important.

Neutrality

Does any other user feel this article is biased because of its choice of words? For example, this passage:

"Bolt did not disappoint and performed well in the qualifiers, finishing comfortably in the quarter and semifinals with 9.92 and 9.85 seconds respectively.[31][32][33] Bolt performed supremely in the Olympic 100 metres final, winning in 9.69 seconds. He shattered his own world record and was well ahead of second place finisher Richard Thompson, who finished in 9.89 seconds.[34] Not only was the record was set without a favourable wind (+0.0m/s) but he visibly slowed down to celebrate before he finished and his shoelace was untied."

"did not disappoint", "supremely", "shattered his own world record", and "not only" seem like words chosen to glorify him. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article is full of peacock terms. I may have a go at it later to make it more encylopedic in style - there's no need to boost Bolt's achievements, they speak for themselves! TrulyBlue (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've made changes to remove the peacock terms — see the fixes here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Usain?

Where'd he get that name? It's pretty unusual. --AW (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It has the same root as "HUSSEIN" and it has muslim roots. It is also spelled the same way. --Tubesship (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that is accurate. Sorry, can you provide a reference (other than people claiming this on a blog somewhere)? From what I have read it was a name that his aunt either made up or borrowed from an African name. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you still have that link, Gaff? --AW (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Article in the Jamaica Star: http://www.jamaica-star.com/thestar/20080816/news/news3.html. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "pronounced" and of course not "spelled". And no, I have read it but cannot remember where. The best would be to ask him. We should suggest this question to a reporter interviewing him. ;-) --Tubesship (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As to his name... I found this but I'm not "editor" enough to know if it meets the criteria for a proper source. http://www.jamaica-star.com/thestar/20080816/news/news3.html -- Maven369 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Lihaas (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone finds any relevant facts about the origin of Usains name he is welcome to post it here. Facts have nothing to do with original thoughts, dear Lihaas. --Tubesship (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Height (again)

I think his height should be mentioned... It would be nice if there was an info box for it, but if not, suggestions as to where it should go? IAAF reports it as "1.93".[3] --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lo and behold, there IS an info box for runners. I'm putting it in with very basic info, including height and weight as reported above. I'll let others fill out the rest. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Now there are two mentions of height: the other one (in Rise to prominence) says he was 6ft5 when he was 15. Has he really shrunk one inch since then? I've marked it as unsourced. Cimbalom (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we have conflicting sources - A thorough article from 2007 states he is 1.96 metres and this is the 6 foot 5 inches at 15 source too. The IAAF profile conflicts with this stating that he is 1.93 metres tall.

Both are from the IAAF website and I'm going to assume that the IAAF profile has made a mistake rather than that a well researched article has the mistake. Changing all instances to 1.96 (which correlates with the 6ft 5in cite). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplication

The "Personal life" and "Early career" seem to be near duplications of each other. I suggest one section is merged into the other (perhaps losing the Personal life section).–MDCollins (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Only two pieces of information are repeated -

1. That his parents are called Jennifer and Wellesey.
2. That he played cricket before athletics.

Both times the info is expanded upon - notice it says he grew up in Trelawny not just that he was born there. I did this to separate more trivial information that didn't directly relate to athletics. Also information such as who his heroes are and his love of dancing was found without a direct quote - thus hard to place chronologically. In addition it would be anathema for me to mix information about his world record and his sponsorship deal. The article would read like an advertisement. I imagine more information will become available for this section as his career progresses anyway. Are those reasons enough to keep them separated? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any duplication here. This article needs to be rewritten to conform to standards. Most of the information is very good and very detailed, but is completely disorganized because of duplication of info and also just simple lack of chronology. Information that is deemed "trivial" should also not be included in this article, as it isn't encyclopedic. Mipchunk (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the parents info to the personal life so it isn't repeated now. Next to nothing is duplicated in the personal life section from the main body now. What were your other concerns about duplication which made you suggest a major rewrite? Short personal life sections are usual for wikipedia style, in fact, one of the better sports biography articles has quite a considerable sized section (see here). Furthermore, for example, talk of Shakespeare's sexuality not only features in the William Shakepeare article, but has its very own article too: Sexuality of William Shakespeare. The precedent for including such trivial information seems to have been set. Trivial is only my point of view after all! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

9.59 / 9.55 - 100m

Ato Boldon, retired sprinter, commentator for NBC Television, estimated that had Bolt gone all-out to the line, he would have had a time of 9.59 (IHT)

Donovan Bailey, Olympic 100m record holder before Bolt reset it, commentator for CBC Television, estimated that had Bolt gone all-out to the line, he would have had a time of 9.55 (NYT)

- those two sentences should be added to the article.

• International Herald Tribune
• New York Times

70.51.10.38 (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I noted it earlier in the 9.55 m/s section, and just because they are sprinters does not mean that they are correct. Noting that they said that gives credence to their estimations, which were obviously just pulled out of thin air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.7.114 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you have to note that reality have prove them right and you wrong as it is now obvious that it was not "pulled out of thin air" but based on good sense of reality and experience. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

19.30

He runs 19.31 into a headwind, reduced to 19.30 by recordkeepers. He runs straight to the line, dipping. First to win the double (100+200) since Carl Lewis. Breaks 19.32 Michael Johnson's 1996 world&Olympic record. (like breaking the Olympic record for the 100, also set in 1996) 70.51.10.38 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Metres, Seconds

...beating Don Quarrie's 200 metres national record with a run of 19.75 seconds and winning gold in his 100 metres debut with 10.03 metres

The 'metres' at the end should clearly be 'seconds'. Will someone please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipster (talk • contribs) 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

never mind, I've changed it myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipster (talk • contribs) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead

"Bolt had his most successful Olympics to date at the 2008 Beijing Games" makes no sense as there wasn't anything to measure against and reads clumsily as well. Brilliantine (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

fixed TheHYPO (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is, his won no gold medal in his previous olymic in 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badfella (talk • contribs) 08:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar?

The sentence that ends "19.30 seconds, respectively." doesn't require the comma.

fixed TheHYPO (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect time at bottom of page

At the bottom of the page in the Statistics>Achievements section there is a sentence saying:

"Bolt has now followed with a world record in the 200m sprint with a record time of 19.31s"

The correct time should be 19.30s (which is actually correctly listed elsewhere in the article). The initial TV scoreboard after his race in the Beijing Olympics said 19.31, but it was immediately updated to the correct 19.30 by the computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.45.11 (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong/Misleading statement regarding 200m WR time

At the bottom of the page in the Statistics>Achievements section there is a sentence saying:

"Bolt has now followed with a world record in the 200m sprint with a record time of 19.31s in a headwind of -0.9m/s making his official time 19.30s"

This an incorrect sentence; the wording suggests that Bolt's "true" time was 19.31s but "because" of the .9m/s headwind, the time was adjusted down to 19.30s. THIS IS INCORRECT. Track times ARE NOT adjusted for the wind (+ or -). The mention of the wind should in fact suggest that Bolt could have run even faster without the headwind. But the adjustment from 19.31 to 19.30 had nothing to do with the wind, it had to do with the reviewing the computer tape of the finish and reporting the accurate time. This is done at the end of every race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.45.11 (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

IOC chief: Bolt should show more respect

Please add this article: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/08/21/rogge.bolt/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.242.130 (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the article now. Jacques Rogge is right - Bolt didn't even slow down to cheer them on as they passed the line. What cheek! :) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

trivial info is trivial.--85.216.207.251 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

timing and wind

Thinmembrane (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I agree with the comment regarding the 19.31 seconds and wind assistance and urge it to be changed as it does imply that times are adjusted for wind- which they are not.

Additionally some other points of this article that are subjective are the use of "strong wind" when referring to measurements of less than 2 m/s (example "aided by a strong tail wind of 1.7m/s) are misleading as, in fact, under 2 m/s wind is very minimal assistance and wind conditions- I would like to see the word "strong" or similar, removed from the article please.

There is another comment in the talk section here citing a time of 9.692 seconds. The IAAF standard for timing is inline with other organisation's standard practice where timing to 1/100th of a second is the result. That being that ANY time is rounded up to the nearest 1/100th of a second. Times are NOT rounded to the closest 1/100th as is commonly thought. This has caused some issues in the past where splitting of athletes has also meant giving a time that does not obey this rule. For instance, one athlete may run 9.689, and another 9.690, effectively 1/1000th of a second between them. Using the timing standard, one athlete will be awarded 9.69 and the other 9.70. This occurs EXCEPT where there is an obvious case to modify- both athletes are usually rounded up to (9.70 in this case) but split into their respective placings. The dominant part reason for this is the difficulty discerning such a small time increment via the photo finish, and the actual wording of the part of the body that crosses the line- as well as perspective issues such as twisting of torsos. Other aspects are inaccuracies in the pressure sensitive blocks and the digital timing mechanism itself, the latter being subject to the usual application of error to +/- 50% of the lowest possible, "discernable" timing increment. In this case 1/100th of a second. Effectively this approach assures- or at least minimises the chance that any timing is "better" than that actually achieved. Thinmembrane (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed both issues TheHYPO (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Who has Bolt as a "rival"?

I saw something on the news about another sprinter considering Bolt to be a bad sport. I think his last name was "Rogue" (not 100% certain), and I can't find any articles in the 2008 Olympic Athletes category. I also saw something that Bolt's competitor was criticized for making that remark about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.206.206 (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• It wasn't actually another sprinter, it was the IOC president. You are almost right about the name "Rogge".
  • It's added now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Too dry article

I think most of the people only read the charts. About 90% of the article are only times 9.69, 9.72... etc. , including all of his runs are unimportant and only makes a too long and boring article. And pointless, if somebody need his times then he checks the charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.242.130 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article, not an autobiography. It's designed to be informative, and when you have a famous sprinter, odds are most of the information is going to be about his notable sprints. TheHYPO (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you find talk of track tournaments, personal bests and finishing times boring then why read an article on a sprinter? Times and medal wins are the sole measure of a runner. You may as well say that the George W. Bush article is boring because it's all about politics. Also, not all of his runs are included: I picked only the most important runs out a hundred recorded times. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo

3rd paragraph: "Bolt turned professional in 2004, but missed of his first two seasons due to injuries." Guessing this is "missed most of his first two seasons" Jkmyoung (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

100 m(eters)?

Is it improper to list the races in the format 100 m rather than 100 meters? the 100m article itself uses '100 m' as its lead, while the 200m article uses '200 meter race' (not meters). Is there some standard for the what is the proper terminology? It seems like a space-taker to keep using '100 meters' and '200 meters' in this article where 100 m or 200 m would suffice. TheHYPO (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I wrote it out fully (metres and all) as there isn't really a precedent set yet - The only athlete FA's i can find are Ian Thorpe which uses the "100 m" and "9.69 s" styles once the unit it's established, and the Jim Thorpearticle which uses the "200-metres" format. The front page also uses the "200-metres" format for Bolt "in the news" which hardly helps things. I've got Dwain Chambers at FAC at the moment and no one has mentioned a problem with the units (and it's a pretty big article!).

• I would suggest moving to the Ian Thorpe style of using the m and s abbreviations after the units are established if no one objects. I'll do the same for the other two articles mentioned too. I'll get on the blower to the "in the news" people too. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not consistancy on wikipedia. No one says the other articles are any more proper. The issue is what is accepted in real life... for example, what the governing bodies of atheletics use to refer to the races, or the IOC, or other track organizations. It is very likely that there are multiple accepted stylizations. I was just wondering if 100 m is one of them (s for seconds is quite certainly accepted, as that is a standard abbreviation for the unit of time; however, the 100 m is a race event, not just a measurement of distance, so it should be checked against standards for the name of the event that I outlined.) I should note that Ian Thorpe is a swimmer, and while unlikely, it is possible that the governing bodies of swimming might agree on a different style of naming for swimming races than atheletics for foot races). TheHYPO (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Our main concern here is to stick to the wiki standard. If you think the standard is wrong then discuss it at WP:MOS. Either way the abbreviation for the event can be found in articles on the IAAF website (see here) and frequently elsewhere in the press. Additionally it prevents the more American-centric users from modifying "metres" to "meters" randomly in the article - as has been done throughout the article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'll set about changing it all in the body now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Steroids in Jamaica

Victor Conte article of NY daily news —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? There is more steroids in the US. Maybe they should test Phelps. Orane (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello...all the athletes are tested. Unfortunately, the drug makers are always steps ahead of the drug testers. --Wolfer68 (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify — this source urges for the creation of an independent athletics drugs testing body for Caribbean countries and more out-of-season drugs tests. Here is an important quote from Victor Conte "Again, I have no knowledge that these individuals were involved in wrongdoing. All I know is that they and other athletes come from regions where minimal offseason testing is administered." Drugs use in the Caribbean is implied but it is pure speculation anyway. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

I strongly disagree with this edit which caused the article to look like this. Information about his favourite cricketers seems really out of place, there is a needless one sentence paragraph in the rise to prominence section, paragraphs in early life seem a bit too short, the sponsorship info doesn't deserve its own mini section and the rest of the personal life info is still left in a section called "Nicknames" which only refers to the first piece of information.

I split that information from the article in the first place as I wanted to focus on his athletics career in the main body and leave minor, unrelated, verified info in an appropriately titled section. I'm reverting the changes now - feel free to change it back if you disagree with me though. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

He is also a big basketball fan and a fan of the Boston Celtics and is good friends with Kevin Garnett. This is according to the television broadcast of a Celtics playoff game where Usain was in the first row of the audience and what the commentators said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.188.12 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Home?

>is a track and field sprint athlete who competes internationally for Jamaica.

Is there a reason this was changed from "Jamaican sprinter"? As far as I've heard on commentary, while he was offered scholarship to American schools, he decided to remain in Jamaica, and that is where he was born. Is there some reason not to list him as Jamaican? I also don't see the need to have the phrase "track and field" in there. the article on Sprint (race) links to Atheletics/track and field. If someone doesn't know what sprinting is, they will find out at its article. TheHYPO (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think "a Jamaican sprinter" would suffice. "Track and field" and "athlete" are redundant as sprinter is unambiguous anyway. The only confusion could be that he is a sprint cyclist or paralmypic sprinter but I think that big picture of him jogging along makes things just a little obvious! If anything the current phrasing suggests that he isn't Jamaican! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Per MOSBIO, it should read "Jamaican sprinter" unless he holds other nationality. He was born there and is still a national. Can somebody please change that back. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

I should note now that, at least in my opinion, this article is now quite saturated with images (could even use a reduction of one, perhaps). While I believe they are all free-use images, that does not mean that the article should have as many of them as can be found. Once there is an image that illustrates his appearance (the infobox image is a good one for that), we don't need too many more images simply to show his appearance (as the Crystal Palace and Osaka images do). Images that show specific moments of notability, like the olympic race images are another story, but please take note if considering adding any more images of Bolt standing around. TheHYPO (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps we should remove the Crystal Palace one and move the Osaka picture in its place? Images can always be put back in if the text expands sufficiently and no more pictures are found. Talking from experience, we are in a very fortunate position that we have so many pictures to choose from! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think there is an overuse of images at all. They all illustrate stages in his career. Osaka and the Olympics are of clear note and we are lucky to have images of these which should be used The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has ballooned significantly since the original post was made (especially the sections above "World record breaker"). It looks fine now, though I would still say that it's plenty unless there is something different to be added (such as photos of him at the junior level or earlier). There are five photos of him in the article at this point. Three of them show in at the Olympics (August 2008). Two are showing important races, while one shows his general appearance. The other two images show him at the Crystal Palace (Aug 3, 2007 according to the photo page) and 2007 Osaka World Championships (Aug 29, 2007 according to the photo page). As stated, I have no issue with what's posted right now, but I think it's plenty unless something DIFFERENT is available. I don't think two photos of him standing around from two different races in August 2007 "illustrate stages in his career" more than one would. I also don't think that a 22-year old who has been racing since at least 2001 at the "Caribbean national level" (I have to make a comment about that below after), which is around 7 years ago, five photos from within a year of present do not display the stages of his career or life very much at all.

If something of him from some time after he turned pro (2004 on) became available, I'd suggest replacing one of these two images (it would go where the Palace image is, but that one could be moved down to where the Osaka image is now) rather than just adding it in. If an image of pre-2004 showed up, I think one of those two images could still be removed... maybe not. My comment was really based on my speculation that the odds are much higher that someone will add a new olympic or 2007-onward images than find a really old image that is free use. TheHYPO (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

controversy

is there no mention of rogge's comments about bolt needing to respect his opponents post celebration? if need be linford christie even came out and criticized rogge and supported bolt. Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is mention of both criticism and suport for Bolt on his 100 metres celebration: read the first paragraph here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Drug testing

Usain Bolt: "we know we're clean." Nice! I don't believe in it and the tests are storing for 8 years, so he can still fail. And if you see the record progression for 100 metres you can observe that there are too many cheaters on this. (purposefully unsigned IP address edit)

Indeed this has happened to many sprinters, as noted in the article. The question this section of the article infers is - Will Bolt be the saviour of sprinting or another fallen idol? Only time will tell I guess. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean national?

>Performing in his first Caribbean national event, Bolt clocked a personal best of 48.28 s in the 400 metres in the 2001 CARIFTA Games, winning a silver medal. The 200 m also yielded a silver as Bolt finished in 21.81 s.[10]

Is the implication of "national" here that the atheletes perform representing their nations? Because I think there must be a better way to phrase that; to me it currently reads as if to imply that it was his first event at which he competed against runners from all over "Carribea" is a nation, which obviously doesn't work. If it's just a typo, obvious fix. If it is meant to imply the former, perhaps a phrasing like "Performing for the first time representing Jamaica/his nation," or something like that... TheHYPO (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies, that is a little ambiguous. It now reads - "Performing for Jamaica in his first Caribbean regional event" Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)