User:Yboy83/Records in swimming project/Discussion

Use the sections below to discuss the project issues and questions here: User:Yboy83/Records in swimming project. Please sign your comments as per normal talk pages.

Please list your User name and XXXX records in swimming articles which you have created or regularly contribute to:

• User:Yboy83: GBR, World Champs, IPC World
• User:Andrwsc: Category:Olympic records
• User:Ianblair23: World, Commonwealth, Oceanian, Australian, New Zealand, Oceanian Swimming Championships plus the world record progression articles.
• User:Dropday: Italian, European, European Championships
• User:Smartskaft: Swedish
• User:Hooperswim: USA Records, Americas Records, African Records. National records for Americas related realm (I'm leaving Oceania to Ianblair23). Odds-and-ends commentary on other international-level articles.

I would prefer to group records together by length rather than by gender. That is keep it the way it is set up at the moment: men's and women's long course records under a "long course records" section then the men's and women's short course records under a "short course records" section. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agree. It's easier to see multiple records by the same swimmer (male or female) if their entries are not interleaved with the other gender. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Long before short as LC tends to be higher status. So we have:

• Long course
  • Men
  • Women
• Short course
  • Men
  • Women
• References
• External links

There are various uses of further wording as part of the LC/SC heading - which format is prefered:

• (none)
• ... (50 m)
• ... (50 metres)
• ... (50 m) records
• ... (50 m pools)
• ... swim pools

I'll start on User:Yboy83/Records in swimming project/Template Development shortly. Yboy83 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Page length issues should be kept in mind. I did a massive overhaul of the USA Records page after finding it so spread out that I could not really compare the USA National and Open records for a given event. The entry also was like 25+ pages long when printed.... Hooperswim (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the way that I have set out world records article just about covers it, that is Event, Result (could possibly be changed to Time), Name, Date, Location, and then a column for the refs. The only column that I have seen in other articles is an event column. Now when I was working on World record progression 100 metres freestyle I added the event column but as you can see because it can become so wide it makes the other columns so narrow that it ends up pushing some data over two or more lines. Does anybody know if we can hide columns in wikipedia tables, like in excel? That way we could add all the data and just display what we want. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking more about table layouts, and about making the tables sortable. For example, here's a portion of the world championships records page.

Why should they be sortable? Records pages will have what 13-16 events? I can see a need for sorting on record-history pages, which would have more entries; but not really on record pages. Also, the sort function does not work well with the events: once "sorted" to distance, how does one get it unsorted back to original order without reloading? Hooperswim (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Event	Result	Name	Nation	Date	Location	Ref
50 m freestyle	21.69	Roland Schoeman	South Africa	July 30, 2005	Montreal, Canada
50 m backstroke	24.80	Thomas Rupprath	Germany	July 27, 2003	Barcelona, Spain
50 m breaststroke	27.46	James Gibson	United Kingdom	July 22, 2003	Barcelona, Spain
50 m butterfly	22.96 WR	Roland Schoeman	South Africa	July 25, 2005	Montreal, Canada
4×100 m freestyle relay	3:12.72	Michael Phelps (48.42) Neil Walker (48.31) Cullen Jones (48.67) Jason Lezak (47.32)	United States	March 25, 2007	Melbourne, Australia

It would be useful to include the nationality a separate required field, rather than combining with the athlete's name which is more difficult to apply a sortkey. I would also consider it useful to sort by nation to easily compare the number of records held.

An issue with this is that the relays should be listed first under their country, then individual, the flip of the individual events which are individual-then country. Separate fields do not allow for this. Hooperswim (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sortkey for event is based on {{sort|##|Event name}} where ## is a two digit number. This allows the sortable to be sorted in the regular event order - i.e. how they are listed in the FINA records lists.

Sortkey for date is based on {{Dts|YYYY|Month|DD}} as I realised the [[Month DD]], [[YYYY]] format wasn't sorting correctly. Is this the best way to sort by date?

For relays I've been adding the sortname key to just the first person.

Yboy83 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've not prior experience of setting up templates, but I've had a go anyway. Starting off with Template:Record and Template:Record list by User:Smartskaft, I've prepared a series of 3 templates as a basis for development and testing. As I said, I'm no expert with templates and there is still work to do if we want to use them.

• Template:Swimmingrecordlisttop
• Template:Swimmingrecord
• Template:Swimmingrecordrelay

The test is here: User:Yboy83/Records in swimming project/Template Development, with some documentation on the template pages. Yboy83 (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What about trying to find a proper position for time splits and meet names? I was thinking about placing them beneath the time results and the location in a smaller size, but I don't know if this can mess the sortkeys up. Any ideas? Dropday (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Split times are not always available, and with the various race distances, it will make the tables looks uneven. With the exception of relay splits, I don't think further splits are sufficiently encyclopaedic - if we include a reference to event results, they can be found easily.

Meet field options:

• In <small></small> below location
• Additional column

The first option makes the table almost twice as long vertically. The second option we may have width issues, so may have to reduce the font size to lower than 95%, but then there are readability issues. Whatever we do, it needs to be an optional field - don't need this field for e.g. world championships records.

Also, the field contents should simply be "Olympic Games" (wikilinked of course) and not "2008 Olympic Games" as we already have a date column, and major championships are never held more than once per year.

Yboy83 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I saw split times listed in smaller case below the name of the athlete, and this can be an option to be considered: more horizontal space, thus less possibility to uneven the height of rows; this could also solve the meet field, which could be put below the location without any further height problems. I'll try to make an example with men's LC freestyle world records to make a comparison. As for the availability of splits, there's no problem with the most known records, e.g. world, americas, european, oceanian, they're easily available. Maybe some problems with asian and african, but this can be an optional split as well, so I don't see a great problem with that. Dropday (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sometimes I saw split times listed in smaller case below the name of the athlete." Please show me an example - there are no splits shown on any of the articles this project is involved with (Category:Swimming records).

I've now included a 'meet' field in the templates to appear in small text below the location. I'm not sure about this layout though - it makes the table less tidy. Check it out on the template development page.

Yboy83 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw it in some record lists outside Wikipedia, e.g. lists of Italian records, and it didn't seem so messed up. It still doesn't seem so untidy to me here on Wikipedia, it seems fair enough to have a full and comprehensive record list. Dropday (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what it would look like.

Event	Result	Name	Nation	Date	Location	Ref
50 m freestyle	21.28 [OC]	Eamon Sullivan 21.28	Australia	March 28, 2008	Sydney, Australia Australian Championships
100 m freestyle	47.05 * sf	Eamon Sullivan 22.44, 47.05	Australia	August 13, 2008	Beijing, PR China Olympic Games
200 m freestyle	1:42.96 *	Michael Phelps 24.31, 50.29, 1:16.84, 1:42.96	United States	August 12, 2008	Beijing, PR China Olympic Games
400 m freestyle	3:40.08	Ian Thorpe 25.33, 53.02, 1:21.27, 1:49.57, 2:17.38, 2:45.43, 3:13.04, 3:40.08	Australia	July 30, 2002	Manchester, United Kingdom Commonwealth Games
800 m freestyle	7:38.65	Grant Hackett 54.38, 1:51.89, 2:49.49, 3:47.17, 4:45.03, 5:43.55, 6:42.11, 7:38.65	Australia	July 27, 2005	Montreal, Canada World Championships
1500 m freestyle	14:34.56	Grant Hackett 54.19, 1:52.45, 2:51.29, 3:50.18, 4:48.82, 5:47.45, 6:45.96, 7:44.47, 8:43.05, 9:41.78, 10:40.56, 11:39.51, 12:38.51, 13:37.89, 14:34.56	Australia	July 29, 2001	Fukuoka, Japan World Championships

I used fixed column widths to have better proportion among them. What's your opinion? Dropday (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I really like this idea. It's less messy than the others. But what about relays? // SMARTSKAFT | ¿ 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

These formats do not allow for multiple records to be displayed side-by-side. Many countries have not only their own national record, but also a record for the fast time done on their own soil (US Open record, the Australian "All-Comers" record). This format doesn't allow for easy comparison of those. Hooperswim (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dates: Being from Australia, my preferred date format is dd/mm/yyyy and as such I have written the dates in that format in the AUS, NZ, Oceanian, Oceania Swimming Champs and Commonwealth articles. However, in the World article I have written it in mm/dd/yyyy format. Of course, as per policy, all the dates are linked and if you have an account you can display the dates in any format you wish. However, for those don't have an account or for those who do but have no date preference set, that is date format that they will see.

Looking here: Wikipedia:Date#Date_autoformatting, so long as the date is is in the format:

• [[May 15]], [[2005]]
• [[15 May]] [[2005]]
• [[2005-05-15]]

then for logged in users with a date display preference set, it's their choice. Which format however looks best for those not logged in? I'd suggest the first or second format. Yboy83 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the date linked? Is there really a purpose for it. I am not for linking the dates: it makes no sense to me. The one reason I could think of that it would be valid to have it so, would be if linking caused the record to be listed on that date's page. Does it? --Hooperswim (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Event naming: The only issue I see here is what to name the relays. I have always known them to be the 4×100 metres freestyle relay, the 4×200 metres freestyle relay and the 4×100 metres medley relay. However, I have heard them referred to as the 400 metres freestyle relay, the 800 metres freestyle relay and the 400 metres medley relay. What do you guys think? What does FINA officially call them? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have always presumed that 4×100 or 4×200 was the more appropriate name. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FINA uses 4×100 [1], and I agree that it is more appropriate. I understand the 400, 800 relay usage is used mainly by USA Swimming. By use of "4×", do we need to include the word "relay" as part of the event name? Yboy83 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually the word "relay" is included, and I think it's more appropriate to keep it. The US way of naming relays has always been quite a nuisance to me, but as far as they keep using it, I'd leave it only on the US records page. Dropday (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Yboy83 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving 400 and 800 at the US records page would only make it harder to understand. It's better to write 4×100 and 4×200 all over. // SMARTSKAFT | ¿ 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing the US page to what US people aren't used to looking at would make it harder for them to understand... Hooperswim (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The "400" usage is in more than just USA Swimming and more than just the USA. I believe historically that "400" is more true to swimming. My thought is that this is one of many things FINA is doing to make swimming more like the Athletics/Track & Field, and hence is attempting to shift the nomenclature on the relays to "4x100" from "400". I don't agree with this attempt by FINA. Hooperswim (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Higher level record notations: The way I prefer is simply using square brackets and the suitable marker in bold, like [WR], because I find it much clearer than any other. I also prefer not to link to the higher level records page every time I put a notation and I usually link to those pages in the introduction when counting the number of higher level records. Dropday (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See User:Yboy83/Records in swimming project/Template Development for my current idea on this notation. Now agree that linking isn't required. Yboy83 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would avoid to use such notations in meet records (Olympic, World Championships, European Championships and so on) because World and Continental records are likely (very likely, I'd say) to be broken after the meet; leaving an old notation into these lists is misleading and it's very difficult to keep them tidy in between two editions of the meet. Dropday (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Finals/Semifinals/Heats/Relays' first legs: I find it easier to refer to records not swum in a final with italic notations like sf for semifinals, h for heats and r for relays' first legs. Dropday (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to record this at all? Neither FINA, LEN, or British Swimming for example record this information on their official records listings. It's a record, does it really matter if it was a heat, final or relay? Yboy83 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an information that can be of some importance when it comes to main championships as Olympics and World Championships. For example, Popov's hystorical world record in 100m freestyle (48.21) was broken by Klim in the first leg of the 4×100m freestyle relay final in Sydney 2000 (48.18) and then shattered by Van den Hoogenband in the semifinals of the individual event (47.84). VdH then won the gold medal with 48.30. In the same Olympic Games, VdH beated Thorpe in the 200m freestyle breaking the world record in the semifinals (1:45.35) and then equalling it in the final, so they were two separate records to be counted, one in the semis and one in the final, even if they were the same time (and this is also important for records progressions). Last two examples, Coventry broke the world record in the semifinals of the 100m backstroke in Beijing, but failed to claim the gold in the final and Coughlin won it; or Spofforth's double European record, first in the individual final then in the medley relay final. There are loads of examples. I'd put it when this information can easily be retrieved, it's short but can be meaningful. Dropday (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In what session of an event a time occurred is helpful to note, for trying to track down/verify the time. Hooperswim (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

4×50 short course relays: these events are held in SC European Championships (they're actually the only relays held in the meet) but not in SC World Championships. I don't even know if non-European teams usually swim these events. There are world records (quite obviously held by European teams) but I have no idea if they're officially recognised by FINA. Should we add them in the WR page? Dropday (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FINA does not recognise 4×50 m relays - there is no official world record, so we will not include them. Any attempt to include any records (on any of the records in swimming articles) not officially recognised by a governing body would constitute original research. Yboy83 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They are recognised and defined world records by LEN, Europe's governing body, so including them as "unofficial records" should not constitute original research because it can be based upon official references by a high level institution like LEN. For example, the official result pages for SC European championships made by Omega Timing on behalf of LEN report the world records for these events. I mean, I don't see that much of a big deal in considering them with a note like "not officially reported by FINA records list" and an appropriate reference. By this method, we can also integrate the FINA official list with lacking but well referenced information, and in my point of view this could be a good thing. Dropday (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FINA is the governing body of world swimming, and they decide what is and isn't a world record (FINA rules: [2]), not LEN, not Omega Timing, and certainly not you. Yboy83 (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My previous message was just a proposal reflecting my opinion. Wikipedia is not supposed to substitute FINA official records lists, its aim is to share information among users. As long as there's a reference to an information, I really don't see how this information should be omitted. That's my point of view. Everybody's free to disagree, as I disagree with your strict interpretation, but I respect it. I'm afraid I can't say the same thing about you after your last message. Hope it's just a misunderstanding. Dropday (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party here, but I don't check much anymore. Dropday, I've got to disagree with you here. FINA doesn't recognize the 4x50 short course meter (hereinafter SCM for me) distance as an event that it keeps records in. FINA is the world federation recognized by the IOC in the sport; they keep the records. When you pull out a Guiness Book of World Records or something similar, they list and only list FINA's records.

If you recall the Australian-US Duel in the Pool meet from 2005, right after Worlds in Australia, they swam a mixed 400 LCM free relay. Libby Trickett (then Lenton) swam the initial leg against Michael Phelps, and she came in 52.99, faster then Britta Steffen's record of 53.30. FINA though refused to ratify the record. They noted that under FINA GR 9.6.1.2 (someone else can probably get you exact rule; I've forgotten) that the mixed free relay is not a recognized event under FINA rules, and therefore the initial distance record set by Lenton was not in an official swim. (There was also a practical concern--Lenton was behind Phelps and could have drafting off him).

I disagreed with FINA's reasoning; I thought it was wrong, and their rule reference didn't apply (that rule indicates what events are in World Championships and Olympics, not in regular meets, and doesn't say what events it keeps records in). But to subject my judgment for FINA's doesn't make her swim the world record. I pulled the time from the World records in swimming page, and replaced Steffen's 53.30.

Now LEN or anyone else can keep a list of the fastest times in the worlds. But whenever things are unclear, we basically have to subject our judgment to determine what the record is--which isn't the business of an encyclopedia. That puts us in a world of hurt trying to figure this out (like, what happens when a doping violation occurs after a LEN record. Does the record get invalidated? It's not governed by FINA rules, so we don't know.). Plus LEN's list is probably not as comprehensive as FINA's; they probably aren't receiving record applications for these events from the whole world.

Now as an almanac, it would probably be good to include this, but you have to clearly distinguish between these different quality records and explain what's different (not official distance, not kept by FINA, not necessarily subject to FINA rules, no required doping control post-record, no required pool measurement after record, no requirement to meet timing system rules, and so forth). After wading through all that, it may be more expedient to say that it isn't a world record and so we aren't handling it on that page. –Pakman044 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pakman, the list referenced by FINA regarding Lenton's time is the list of recognized events. A list of championships events is a different list, and may in some cases match the recognized events. In any case, FINA still does not recognize mixed relays as events from non-Masters swimming; they are recognized for Masters swimming. Hooperswim (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend not listing them. Even the LEN-tracked named "World Records" are not truly the fastest times ever swum for a given distance. Particularly with the 200/4x50 relay records, the LEN tracking of the records tend to overlook times swum at the 2000 and 2004 NCAA Division I Championships (USA), which were held short-course meters. FINA did not recognize relay times swum there as World Records (in the 400 and 800 relays) on relays where the swimmers came from different member federations. So if you want to add the records, be aware that there will be controversy about what the time should be. And if you're going to ignore FINA being the authority on World Records, then you'll also have to take into account things like the French men earlier this year swimming a time for the first 4 legs of a 10x100 free relay that was faster than the then FINA World Record. FINA did not recognize the time because the 10x100 Free Relay is not a FINA recognized event.... Hooperswim (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have chosen go beyond simply adding a link to the official list under the external links section. Rather I have undertaken the task to add to reference to each individual record. As you can see for the world records article (at least up to this edit) every record has a corresponding online reference. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a mish-mash of references, typically using the favorite news source of whoever added the ref. I think the offcial results page from Beijing ought to be used consistently for records there, and published official reports for records set (and still standing) from 2000 and 2004. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely we only need references for those records broken since the last official records list has been published. For all other records, this official records list will suffice. A reference/link to the online meet results page could be useful though. Further discussion on this required me thinks. Yboy83 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with referencing each record is that this works well only with international records such as world, european and so on. I don't think I'll ever find an English reference page to each Italian record, for example. I agree with Yboy83, ratified record can be referred to with the official records list of the involved governing body or national federation. As for not yet ratified record, I'd suggest to choose the online meet results page when available, and a short list of highly qualified and constantly updated websites to be used as main references whenever needed. Some examples could be SwimRankings.net or SwimNews Online. Dropday (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actual results, as opposed to news stories reporting results, tend to need/warrant less translation. And tracking down the results online I feel is better than using the news sites you mention, which will bury the desired information within a bunch of text. Hooperswim (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yboy I agree with you that once it becomes a part of the official list, that should suffice. Although, it can be good to have a link to the results for things like splits, or meet name/location, when that has not been included. Hooperswim (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I applaud the initiative for consistency, as that is one of the ideals I hold strongest for Wikipedia. One specific comment is that the style I used for List of Olympic records in swimming (including the article name) is consistent with all the other articles I created for Olympic sports (in Category:Olympic records). Therefore, I would not want to see a large diversion from this style, making swimming inconsistent with the other sports. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• These articles ought to be named "List of ..." per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Naming conventions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• I would to thank you Yboy83 for starting this. I was thinking of doing the same after the Olympics but you beat me to it. I agree with Andrwsc in that all the articles need to be renamed. I would also like to see record progressions articles created for all records but I know that this data but by difficult to find. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  Check out the IOC website. Their database now has it all! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Should there be a date of last update listed on the page? Hooperswim (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Should we consider format by continent? Hooperswim (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Should record pages be based in their native-language Wikipedia? (e.g. Brazil's records in Wikipedia Português; Italy's records in Wikipedia Italiano, etc)? Hooperswim (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)