Talk:World Athletics Championships

London WC 2017 - How Much This Time?

As it is Armistice Day (11/11/2011), and UK Taxpayers learned earlier that they have 'won' the the burden of paying for the 2017 World Championships, are there any links to the cost estimates made BEFORE the bid was forwarded? There is criticism that this was this just a 'legacy' bid to save Sebastian Coe's face, as he was responsible for the massive overspend on the 2012 Olympics - do the figures back this up, given the prevailing long term economic climate. It appears to many , particularly on Armistice Day, that taxpayer's money could be better spent assisting those who have actually served this country in a uniform (unlike Coe and Boris Johnson) - particularly people like former soldier Mark Mullins and his disabled wife, who the Daily Mail reported commited suicide today [<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059238/Army-veteran-Mark-Mullins-wife-Helen-driven-suicide-poverty.html>] after 18 months of struggling to survive on the £57.50 Jobseeker's Allowance payments. Mr Mullins, a 48-year-old former Army physical training instructor, was unable to cope on this paltry sum, had not served sufficient length of time to claim his pension, and was forced to walk 12 miles each day to eat free soup at a Salvation Army soup kitchen. How many ex-forces personnel could the cost of the 2017 Championships keep from this level of destitution? 79.70.224.251 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)twl 11/11/2011 We Shall Remember Them 79.70.224.251 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be possible to include more history on this page? Comapred to the general page for the the Indoor World Championship there is very little here. The sorts of things I mean are like who decided to set the competition up, the presnet list of events and any changed to the events (if any have been dropped and when new ones added, like I think this year womens steeplechase is added for the first time). I'd try to do this myslef, but I don't know enough for a starting point and sadly don't have enough time to start researching the topics from scratch. Evil Eye 22:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this link when I was looking for something else. I agree there seems to be a lot of interesting history short history of world championships. David D. 18:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I think some good arguments were made on both sides, and this probably boils down to a battle between WP:CONCISE/WP:CONSISTENT (the short IAAF World Championships version, which also matches FIFA World Cup), and WP:COMMONNAME, which may be "World Championships in Athletics". The Ghit results show a slight leaning towards the "World Championships in Athletics", in common usage, so it's a valid reason to keep the status quo, but the supporters make some good arguments too.

Given that it's no consensus, this means the pages should retain their longstanding stable titles. This includes this page, which was moved from IAAF World Championships in Athletics to World Championships in Athletics while the request was still ongoing. I am therefore reverting that back to IAAF World Championships in Athletics, which I think is fair since (a) the move was out of process while this request was going on, and (b) all the opposition !votes came in before the move was made, so nobody was under the illusion that the current title was the stable one, and actually nobody presented "World Championships in Athletics" as an alternative option during the discussion at all. Since this is a no consensus close, there is no prejudice against a follow up RM, should someonbody wish to make the csae for moving IAAF World Championships in Athletics → [//en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=World_Championships_in_Athletics&redirect=no World Championships in Athletics. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Looking at how the IAAF branded the last several editions, it seems that the exact name for the event that they use is IAAF World Championships (it doesn't mention athletics in its title, and even if it did it probably wouldn't use the somewhat clumsy "championship in athletics" vs "athletics championship"). But since this event is akin to some other large sports events like the FIFA World Cup, the sport does not need to be added to the title (much like the IAAF Continental Cup). And since all editions since 1983 have been organized by the IAAF, why not just simplify the naming scheme and rename all events in the category in the form "XXXX IAAF World Championships"? InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC) --The Athletics WikiProject was apparently notified only yesterday. Give more time — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as nominated. The policy of en.wp is that articles are titled according to their WP:COMMONNAME, but the nominator offers no evidence that the proposed titles are the common names.
The evidence offered is of official usage, but per the essay WP:OFFICIAL, that is not of itself the basis for naming an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a generic name to begin with ("World Championships") so I don't know how to find evidence for it. Where would one find evidence that say "World Cup in Football" is less common than "FIFA World Cup", the title Wikipedia uses? Likewise, there is no evidence that ""World Championship in Athletics" is the most common form either (if anything, "World Athletics Championship" would be closer in line with existing sports articles already on Wikipedia, per consistency requirement at WP:COMMONNAME). In fact we already have both patterns in use - the least used pattern across Wikipedia is the one with "–in sports" phrase affixed. See European Athletics Championships and Asian Athletics Championships. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some Google searches for the 2015 Championships in Beijing. I searched specifically for 2015 "iaaf world championships" and 2015 "world championships in athletics", both times excluding Wikipedia and the IAAF official website to try to isolate third-party use as much as possible. It appears that the proposed title is much more common than the current title (463k vs. 186k). Using the News search, the margin is even greater, 19,800 vs. 2,490. -happy5214 19:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Happy5214: sorry, but those searches are all deeply flawed. First, general google searches are fairly useless for these purposes, because they include lots of unreliable sources (blogs etc). That's why WP:COMMONNAME advises using Google Books and Google News.
  When using any Google search, the headline figures on the first page are utter nonsense -- you need to go through to the last page to find how many hots there actually are. I did that with your Gnews search, and find that there are https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=2015+%22iaaf+world+championships%22&tbm=nws&start=350 357 hits for 2015 "iaaf world championships"] and 421 hits for 2015 "world championships in athletics".
  So Gnews suggests that "world championships in athletics" is marginally more common. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of usage. Following my reply to Happy5214, I did a little more searching, and here is a consolidated table of search results, without a year qualifier:

Search type	"iaaf world championships"	"world championships in athletics"
Google News	798 hits	401 hits
Google Books	72 hits	71 hits
Google Scholar	731 hits	779 hits
JSTOR	4 hits	4 hits

That shows the two terms level-pegging in Gbooks and Gscholar searches, but "iaaf world championships" leading by about 2:1 in Gnews. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Does that mean that the evidence shows that "IAAF World Championships" is the common name based on the Google News hit count, or that there is really no significant difference in usage between the two terms? We have to consider which of those sources we would consider "reliable" as well. -happy 5214 22:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note It appears that the IAAF branding changed starting with the 2011 edition, based on the logos on their articles. -happy 5214 22:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy5214: Per WP:AT, we attach most weight to the most reliable sources, and WP:RS says "when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". So that says means we should attach most weight to Gscholar and JSTOR, where the two terms are roughly equally used.
Given that the similarity in usage, I suggest considering another WP:AT principle, that of recognizability. It seems to me that for the general, non-specialist reader for whom en.wp is written, "World Championships in Athletics" is much more recognizable and self-explanatory than "IAAF World Championships". Unless the reader is already very familiar with the administration of the sport, the initialism IAAF will be uninformative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Makes sense. I also feel that "IAAF World Championships" by itself could be ambiguous, given that the IAAF holds several World Championships in different disciplines. That's the reason the target page title currently acts as a disambiguation page. For those reasons and the issue that there seems to be no obvious common name in reliable sources, I oppose the proposed moves. -happy 5214 23:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think I'm responsible for starting this move proposal. Yesterday, I reverted two page moves similar to the ones proposed here. -happy 5214 23:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I haven't noticed your reverts so no, this proposal is unrelated. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and procedural note. You are perhaps also proposing moves for pages such as 2007 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres, etc. I estimate there to be several hundred pages if not four-digits. Also note that there are templates and categories with the naming scheme "World Championships in Athletics". Does WikiProject Sports know about this change? Does WikiProject Athletics know about this change?? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they know, perhaps you could notify them if they don't. I could have been bold and moved these articles myself but I thought starting a discussion here at the main article would be a better route. The number of sub-articles requiring move is irrelevant. In any case, the consensus seems to be building against the move proposal, even though the current format is against consistency with other similarly themed articles - we have IAAF Continental Cup which used to be called IAAF World Cup (doesn't mention sport in title), and we have IAAF World U20 Championships and IAAF World U18 Championships (likewise). On the other hand, we also have IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics (a Wikipedia invention), but every single related article in its category and 19 sub-categories doesn't have "athletics" in its title. I understand the need to make titles as concise and precise as possible for readers and that perhaps many people don't know what IAAF stands for - but then we've got FIFA World Cup, FIFA Club World Cup etc. If we really need to modify the title then the format European Athletics Championships or Asian Athletics Championships is much more common and logical (see FINA World Aquatics Championships which are also officially called just FINA World Championships). Looking for answers by comparing Google results is irrelevant here, as sample sizes are just too small and news articles will always take the descriptive route while scholarly journals will go with whatever is the official name. Therefore we have to go with consistency across our own articles, which in my view trumps analyzing double-digit Google Books hits vs single-digit JSTOR results. This isn't paleontology we are talking about. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on ambiguity. Thanks to @Happy5214: for pointing out above that IAAF World Championships is a disambiguation page. I hadn't spotted that, but since the IAAF organises six separate sets of world championships (in difft branches of sport), the proposed renamings would create massive ambiguity. I presume that the nominator @InflatableSupertrooper was unaware of this ... but now that it is pointed out, would they consider withdrawing this proposal? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of these six is actually called IAAF World Championships. And what I hope to achieve is consistency across all IAAF articles, which is something we don't have at the moment. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@InflatableSupertrooper: I'll be blunt. That reply is plain daft, because IAAF World Championships is clearly ambiguous, which is why we have a disambiguation page of that name. What on earth is the point of creating avoidable ambiguity in all these article titles?
There might be some point in renaming these articles to 1983 IAAF World Championships in Athletics etc (per the head article IAAF World Championships in Athletics), if you feel that adding IAAF is helpful. But removing the word "athletics" creates avoidable ambiguity for no evident benefit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be blunter. IAAF World Championships is the only event which is actually called that way in the real world, precisely because it is the only one where no modifiers are necessary (it is not for juniors, it is not held indoors, it is not about cross-country racing, it is not a cup, there are no continents competing against each other, etc). All other events need to be descriptively described, but this one does not. That's the situation in the real world. Just like FIFA World Cup does not need to explain in title that it's about association football, featuring national teams (as opposed to clubs), who are all seniors (as opposed to juniors). As for Wikipedia, if one insists our readers are just too stupid to realise what IAAF stands for, then why do we have such a clumsy postmodifier (...in Athletics) which barely any article outside athletics uses? Why can't it be called the same way FINA World Aquatics Championships are called? And if our readers are indeed that stupid, how come we have IAAF World Cup, IAAF World U18 Championships and dozens similarly titled articles? Then all those articles should get "...in Athletics" postmodifier. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InflatableSupertrooper, I urge to get a grip on yourself and on your manners, and to try to learn to distinguish between the concepts of a) stupidity, and b) lack of awareness of the meaning of a 4-letter initialism. If you really hold such deep contempt for non-specialists that you deride them as "stupid" because they don't know a particular piece of jargon, then I suggest that you look at the results of a Gbooks search for IAAF World Championships in Athletics. Presumably you will you now try to tell us that these books are written by or for stupid people, and similarly that the 36 scholarly papers which use the phrase "IAAF world championship in athletics" are written by or for stupid people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that stupid was not an appropriate term to use in that case, but books and scholarly papers are not exempt from use of improper phrases, such as "FIFA Soccer World Cup". Infinite mission (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The FIFA World Cup is a poor example IMHO. In the U.S. and Canada, at least, the "World Cup" is the FIFA World Cup. -happy 5214 23:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am in favor of the move with a redirect for World Championships in Athletics and a hatnote like this:

I am also in favor of moving the articles of the 2011 edition of the event and forward to coincide with the change in branding. The articles for the FIBA Basketball World Cup and editions of that event from 2014 (which similarly had a change in branding) and forward can be used as an examples. Infinite mission (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Please consider the descriptive value of a phrase "World Championships in Athletics". In the actual article title it is of lesser importance that the Championships were held under the auspices of International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), a mere acronym of a company. "Athletics" is a key word here. Poeticbent talk 16:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Current titles are clearer. WP:Readers first. — JFG ^talk 07:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. The proposed titles are more accurate indeed (they are the official championship titles, after all) and about as equally common as the alternatives. I don't think that readers would be confused by the title not containing "athletics", particularly as redirects are cheap. I also strongly reject the arguments about ambiguity – this is the IAAF World Championships (which should at minimum redirect here rather than be a dab page), as all other events are of lesser importance and qualified by an additional attribute ("indoor", "junior" etc.); the proposed title is equally (un)ambiguous as the World Championships in Athletics in this regard.
That being said, I feel that benefit vs. cost ratio of such move is rather low: there are hundreds of individual event pages to be moved along, maybe even hundreds of categories, that it would probably require a bot to perform, or human editors with quite a lot of time to invest into. No such user (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two edits, one each by Infinite mission and myself, resulted in a modified lead. The word "commonly" may be disputed, and I have no objections to replacing it with a more precise word or no word at all, but I believe the lead should briefly mention the former name and the fact that it can still be found in reliable sources. I am fine with the official name being used as the primary name in the lead. -happy 5214 00:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment If the official name of the FINA World Aquatics Championships is indeed the "FINA World Championships", then I believe that whatever result comes from this discussion ought to be applied to that event and all of its attendant articles. Same goes for any similar <governing body> World <sport> Championships/Cup and <governing body> <sport> World Championships/Cup articles listed below whose official names are simply <governing body> World Championships/Cup. In other words, I think this discussion needs to set a precedent. -happy 5214 00:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data

I compiled a list of world championships from a wide variety of sports, including all Olympic and select non-Olympic sports. I then sorted them by the format of their article titles. Here are the Olympic sport championships:

<governing body> World Cup/Chps: BWF World Championships; FIBT World Championships; FIFA World Cup
<governing body> <sport> World Cup/Chps: FIBA Basketball World Cup; FIVB Beach Volleyball World Championships; FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship; ICF Canoe Slalom World Championships; ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships; UCI BMX World Championships; UCI Mountain Bike & Trials World Championships; UCI Road World Championships; UCI Track Cycling World Championships; FIS Alpine World Ski Championships; FIS Nordic World Ski Championships; FIS Freestyle World Ski Championships; FIS Snowboard World Championships
<governing body> World <sport> Cup/Chps: FINA World Aquatics Championships; IHF World Men's Handball Championship; IAAF World Championships in Athletics; IAAF World Race Walking Team Championships; AIBA World Boxing Championships; FEI World Equestrian Games; FIL World Luge Championships; FIL World Luge Natural Track Championships; ISSF World Shooting Championships; ITU World Triathlon Series
World <sport> Cup/Chps: World Archery Championships; World Curling Championships; World Fencing Championships; World Gymnastics Championships; World Artistic Gymnastics Championships; World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships; World Figure Skating Championships; World Speed Skating Championships; World Short Track Speed Skating Championships; World Judo Championships; World Modern Pentathlon Championships; World Rowing Championships; World Table Tennis Championships; World Taekwondo Championships; World Weightlifting Championships; World Wrestling Championships
<sport> World Cup/Chps: Biathlon World Championships; Hockey World Cup; Ice Hockey World Championships; Karate World Championships; Rugby World Cup Sevens; Trampoline World Championships

Here are selected non-Olympic sport championships:

<governing body> World Cup/Chps: IFAF World Championship
<governing body> <sport> World Cup/Chps: FIRS Roller Hockey World Cup; FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup; FIFA Futsal World Cup; UCI Mountain Bike Marathon World Championships
<governing body> World <sport> Cup/Chps: IAAF World Cross Country Championships; IAAF World Half Marathon Championships; IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics; WTBA World Tenpin Bowling Championships; FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m)
World <sport> Cup/Chps: World Armwrestling Championship; World Lacrosse Championship; World Indoor Lacrosse Championship; World Polo Championship; World Professional Darts Championship; World Squash Championships
<sport> World Cup/Chps: Bandy World Championship; Cricket World Cup; Racquetball World Championships; Rugby World Cup; Rugby League World Cup

Make of that what you will. -happy 5214 01:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IAAF doesn't include "Athletics", particularly in the newer editions.

https://www.iaaf.org/competitions/iaaf-world-championships/history

It's also consistent with their naming for the U20 and U18 championship.

I don't see how it's any more ambiguous than FIBA World Championship was for naming. (FIBA opted to change that later themselves, but as World Championships "Basketball" was explicitly NOT included.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inter DSM (talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a list of official names. This is a list of existing article titles. I provided it in the event that it would be helpful, or perhaps inspire an RfC-type discussion for consistency across sports. Reply above, not here. -happy 5214 00:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've Notified the Athletics Wikiproject. Not entirely sure why this wasn't done earlier given it is a top importance article. Thanks SFB 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move to either "IAAF World Championships" or "World Championships in Athletics". The current title is deficient in that it's neither the official name (the former) nor a common term to refer to it (the latter). I think the move to the new official name has two problems: (a) the IAAF hosts multiple, top-level World Championships (Cross Country, Half Marathon, etc.) so the absence of qualification makes this title more ambiguous, and (b) in common parlance the event is not known as the IAAF World Championships – it makes it more difficult to locate when the sport is not in the title, as the federation is not so well known as, say, FIFA or FIBA. The main proposal here fails the first three points of Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title in my opinion. SFB 17:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. There is no reason to depart from the common names. Nor is there any reason to see this as a precedent affecting other sports. We only need detailed naming conventions for those (relatively) rare subject areas where there is commonly an ambiguity problem, such as the names of kings. Andrewa (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are we moving pages already? This discussion is not yet closed. -happy 5214 19:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IAAF World Championships 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026025504/http://www.iaaf.org/history/index.html to http://www.iaaf.org/history/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is Events count in Multiple Medallist table?

Is it disciplines? Then e.g. the number for Veronica Campbell-Brown should be 3 instead of 2, since she won medals over 100m, 200m and 4x100m.

Or should it rather be the number of appearances in World Championships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2028:84F:6501:C2D:DC52:F38A:FFB1 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple medalists

Were there athletes who at senior level medaled in field (including multi events) and track/road/cross at WCh (indoor and outdoor combined)?
Were there athletes who at senior level medaled in multiple throwing disciplines (indoor and outdoor combined)? 213.149.62.160 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1000km race walk

S. Ladany won World 100 km walking title at the 1972 World Championships in Switzerland according to http://www.jewishsports.net/BioPages/Shaul-Ladany.htm https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/la/shaul-ladany-1.html ; so it seems there was a WCh in 100km race walking. it should be added 213.149.51.188 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaul Ladany won a 100 km race in Lugano in 1972 but I doubt it was recognized as a World Championship by IAAF. It appears there was only a 100 km race. A contemporary source https://racewalk.com/ORW/ORW%201972-11.pdf just calls it "the Lugano 100 km". Some later sources about Shaul Ladany call it a World Championship but don't say whether it was recognized as such by any organization. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming name change, page title change?

With the IAAF set to change their name soon, should the title of the article simply become "World Championships in Athletics" or perhaps "World Athletics Championships"? Infinite mission (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly shouldn't be moved now. IAAF is still in the official name of the September 2019 edition [1], also in news from yesterday.[2] "The new name and logo will be introduced in October after one last edition of the world championships under the IAAF banner".[3] We can discuss when the name actually changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't pushing to change the name now, just looking to start the discussion. Infinite mission (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's months away and we don't even know what the official name will be so I see no reason to spend time on it now. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GB not UK

Team GB is the name used by British Olympic Committee.--Arorae (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but (a) the full name is actually "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and (b) for the cities and countries table, it's the nation state which important and the 2017 host city of London is located in the United Kingdom, not in "Great Britain", which isn't really a jurisdiction at all. — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. London is of course in the UK.-Arorae (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100m world record

100m world record? 105.165.153.185 (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sweeps

What countries have had a sweep in the hundred meters 2600:1700:E260:6A10:A87E:5F18:72F3:D807 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of World records

Would it make sense if current world records would be highlighted in the table, for example by green background? Those are Kostadinova, Powell, Edwards, Bolt x2, McLaughlin, Amusan and USA mixed team 2023. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]