Talk:2012 Olympic Marathon Course

These are not allowed in Wikipedia, why is Martinvl insisting on adding them in defiance of well defined policies? The Bogs Dollocks (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles it states quite clearly "It is not Original Research to extract information from a map or line chart using standard techniques, particularly if those techniques are common to two or more disciplines." If you disagree with that statement, please seek consensus. Martinvl (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The point of sourcing is that the data is verifiable by readers who care. What is the "standard tchnique" for establishing the location of the start point of the marathon on Google Earth from a not-to-scale diagramatic PDF representation of the course, and how can we verify from reliable sources that it is 630 metres (and not 600, 610, 620, 640 or 650) from Trafalgar Square? The Bogs Dollocks (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Point taken - I checked the scale of the map and since 1 mm on the PDF represents aout 20 m on the ground, I will rework the table, (and double-check everything) rounding to the nearest 20 m/yd which I believe to be justifiable (distance markers are shown using arrows in the diagram). BTW, a quick check comparing print-outs from Google Maps and from the Olympic Committee suggests to me that the PDF is to scale, but I will check that out in more detail as well. Martinvl (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds extremely arbitrary and unverifiable. Why not stick to describing the locations of the round-number mile and kilometer points as marked on the official map rather than attempting to guess/estimate distances to landmarks of your own choice? The Bogs Dollocks (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Who knows where the corner of Great Tower Street and Marks Lane is? (10 km). The landmarks that I have chosen are not arbitrary - they are identified on the map from which I took the measurements. When I do my checking later on, I will double-check this. Martinvl (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are the unverifiable tables from the article:

(==Distance tables==)

These tables give the distance that the runners will have covered as they pass various landmarks (rounded to the nearest 10 metres or 10 yards except for the end points).^[1]

(===Kilometres===)

(===Miles:yards===)

The second sentence of the article says:

The route will consist of a short lap of 3.571 kilometres (about 2.2 miles) followed by three equal length laps of 12.875 kilometres (8 miles).

I suggest that it be expressed as follows:

The route will consist of one short lap of 3571 metres (about 2.2 miles) followed by three laps of 12,875 metres (8 miles).

This is shorter and, I think, clearer. Brevity and clarity are important, especially near the beginning of the article. What do other editors think? Michael Glass (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, keep it short and sweet. Shufflee (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked it out but decided not to change this one sentence. It would break the style of the article as a whole. Michael Glass (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that particular sentence right now. I would keep the units in "kilometres" rather than "metres". Location (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said that all the details had to be verified via the PDF map. They merely need to be verifiable via published sources and the obvious (eg "Paris is the capital of France") need not be explicitly cited. OS maps are published sources. You can place a "citation needed" flag if you wish, but except in the case of WP:BLP you do not remove stuff merely because you are not happy with the citations improperly. Martinvl (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You must have known those details were not verifiable from the map when you added them, and you are aware of the sensitity of this issue as evidenced by the discussions you have been involved in here. Why then did you add them, and worse, why did you restore them without adding references? I'm not going to waste any more time by adding flags to each unverifiable sentence when they add no real value that I can see anyway. Shufflee (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you still looking for sources to justify keeping that content you restored despite its lack of them? Shufflee (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely if the information is verifiable by Ordnance Survey maps or Google maps or whatever, then the information would be verifiable. Please correct me if I have it wrong, but the question at issue can be described in one of three ways:

1. Unverifiable information: unacceptable.
2. Verifiable information: needs to be verified unless it is common knowledge.
3. Verified information: no problem.

As far as I can understand, the information is verifiable, so option 2 applies. Michael Glass (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's all true then it should be verifiable. Without sources for it cited though, it is difficult for readers to know. If the author referred to something when writing it then it should be easy for him to cite it. I'm not sure why he hasn't and seems relucant to. Shufflee (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful when adding new content that you do not remove valid modifications that have taken place since you took your "working copy". A recent edit by Martinvl removed the fruit of several of my previous edits without explanation. For that reason I reverted. I then added back the obvious clearly new additions from Martin's edid. Shufflee (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I made the following changes:

• Reintroduced the sentence about the route change controversy into the lede - it is properly cited later in the article. (See WP:LEDE.
• Reintroduced to subsections regarding the route and reworded them slightly - the choice of route had two aims - the new wording brings these aims out - one in each subsection.
• Moved the bit about the 1908 Olympics into its own section and added a section about the 1948 route. These are of historic interest and can be expanded a bit if needed without having undue prominence in the earlier part of the artcile.

I trust that this explains what I did. Martinvl (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Shufflee - You have added on new content - you repeated what was in the subsection about the 1908 games. You undid a the subsection that existed and you removed a valid sentence from the lede. If you do this again, I will report you under WP:3RR.Martinvl (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Martin, calm down, and please review your unhelpful actions. You:

• Put a sentence back into the introductory paragraph which was previously removed because it was not supported in the main article and because the "opponents" were not qualified anywhere.
• You re-split a section about the route which had previously been amalgamated to avoid duplication, into 2 different sections, both about the route and with duplication again.
• Your put the two tables about the route, which had previously been put together into the same section (one of which still needs to have its format restored to the format decided in discussion here) into separate sections again without explanation.
• You restored the unsupported sentence "In September 2010 various newspapers...", without justification or necessary new reference(s).

Are you going to correct your mistakes, or would you prefer it if we escalated this and reported you for being so disruptive? Shufflee (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Answers to Shufflee

• Opponents to the change - the newspaper citation is sufficient.
• Splitting the section - The route was chosen to satisfy two different aims. Each aim is handled in a separate subsection.
• Two tables belonging in different subsections - see above
• I will find a second reference if that will keep you happy - it is quicker than trying to reason with you that it is really unneccessay.

Martinvl (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reasoning there that justifies your complete lack of respect for the changes I made. I, with fully commented edits, improved the logical flow and policy compliance of the piece. You then came along and completely overwrote my changes with an old copy of the article to which you had added some minor changes. That is completely unacceptable behaviour in a collaborative project such as this. Shufflee (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are objecting to - please be specific. Martinvl (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

On 28 May, between 7:39 and 8:06 I made a sequence of 5 simple edits. Each was fully described in the associated edit summary. At 22:03 that day, you made an edit which completely reverted all my 5 edits and which added a new section about previous marathons and reworded the IAAF section. As your edit summary ("Splitting the text up into section and including a note about previous London olympic marathons") was misleading and did not describe your edit correctly or that you had reverted my edits entirely, at 6:27 on the 29th I reverted it with a full explanation. At 6:29 you reverted me with the summary: "The text has been expanded!!!!!" with still no reason for obliterating my work. At 6:31 I then restored my work and went to the trouble of also adding your new section on to the end, and fully described my action. At 7:00 you reverted me entirely again and gave me a 3RR warning too! Now that is what I call disrespectful. Shufflee (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The description of the "IAAF" course was removed with a note about the Boston and New York marathons. I looked at a map of the New York Marathon course andit appeared to me that the course was probably just inside the 50% limit. Regarding Boston, please visit The Huffingtomn Post - the time set for this marathon was disallowed because of the wind and downhill course (the course drops 130 m in 42 km - a drop of 0.3%!). If have reinstated the text regarding the IAAF rules, but prefixed them with comments about world records. Martinvl (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what your previous edit stated: "If a marathon is to be recognised by the IAAF, it must meet a number of criteria - the official distance is 42.195 km,[3] the start and end points, when measured in a straight line should not exceed 50% of length of the course (21.092 km) and the difference in altitude between the start and end points should be no more that 0.1% of the course length (42.19 m)." As written, that is not factually correct in that there is a difference between what the IAAF recognizes as legitimate performances and what the IAAF recognizes as record-eligible performances. Mutai's mark was recognized by the IAAF as a legitimate performance, but it was not recognized by the IAAF as a record-eligible performance. Incidentally, if you check the edit histories of marathon, marathon world record progression, and Geoffrey Mutai, you'll find I spent the day of Mutai's performance reverting edits from others who insisted it was a world record. Your cite of the 2011 IAAF Rules in the above sentence was also likely copied from one of my previous edits, too.

I think it's fair to assume that the Olympic course is a record-eligible course that meets the above criteria for the full distance, however, a reliable source would be needed to state that the intermediate 5K marks have been, or will be, measured in accordance with Rule 260.28(e). Location (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could assist with trying to find such a reference - the organisers have tried had to keep the "k-word" from the British public lets they invoke the wrath of the editor of the Daily Mail. Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the rules only require the intermediate splits to be measured to the same degree of accuracy if a world record for those marks is later claimed. I haven't seen anything published about this, but I don't think there is anything nefarious going on. Most news sources probably have no idea how a "regulation course" is measured, never mind the intermediate splits, so they are not likely to report anything about it. Location (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

An older version of the lede was reinstated because:

• The statement about the 1908 games is hardly the most important feature of the games. Has it been mentioned in any of the literature about the 2012 games? If so, with what prominence?
• The standard length for the marathon was defined in 1921 (see the article marathon). Did the IAAF use metric, imperial units or both in their 1921 rulebook?
• The word "developed" in that sentence is a complete misnomer - the word "reputed" is probably the most accurate - reading the article marathon it seems from that the 1908 course was not 26 mi 385 yd, but a shorter distance.
• The word "evolved" has connotations of many small chages which is not the case, the London committee has published two routes and they changed from one to the other.

Martinvl (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I think the fact that the Olympic marathon is returning to the city in which the modern marathon distance was founded is a HUGE point of interest. Declaring its importance is no more subjective than declaring the importance of the 5K splits. Blurbs mentioning the 1908 event in combination with the 2012 Olympics are popping up every now and then: .
2. If you're able to track down any of the early rule books, please let me know. The official results aren't clear on when metric became official, but it appears that London switched from miles in 1908 to kilometers in 1948. (The 1924 official results from Paris are in French and specify meters. The 1928 official results from Amsterdam are in English and specify miles, but a non-standard distance of "about 28 miles". The 1932 official results from Los Angeles are in English and specify miles. The 1936 official results from Berlin are in English and specify kilometers. The 1948 official results (London again) are in English and specify meters.) I suspect that the IAAF briefly went with imperial units for the marathon and switched to metric later, since one sources states that they chose the "'London distance' of 26 miles, 385 yards (42.195 kilometers)". According to the ARRS, the IAAF was recognizing various mile marks until the mid-1950s, so it stands to reason that they may have still been using miles and yards in 1921.
3. Per Talk:Marathon#True distance of the 1908 Marathon, the idea that the 1908 course was short boils down to one source. On the other hand, that course is credited by virtually all credible sources as the origin for the modern marathon distance. Relevant policy pointer is WP:UNDUE.
4. "Changed" is OK with me.

- Location (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Prior to 1921 there was no "traditional" or "standard" distance for the marathon. The [published] distance of 26 miles 385 yards had only been used once, so could not be considered "traditional". There was no "standard" because every marathon was different.

I believe that the IAAF was metric from its inception in 1921. If you look at the events in the Olympics you will see that there was only the occasional event in the early days (pre-1921) that was measured in imperial units, and then only in the US or the UK. It should be noted that the IAAF was (an still is!) an international organisation, so the official language of 1921 should be checked. Today the official languages are both English and French. It should be remembered of course that in 1921 the mile had no legal defnition outside the UK (& colonies) and the US, so it is highly probable that metric units were always used (the metric system having been agreed internationally by the Metre Convention

If you look at Internation Convention for safety of Life at Sea, 1948 you will see a typical international convention of the era - both English and French are used with a mixture of imperial taking precedence in the English version and metric in the French version. If you look at the SI brochure, you will see that French is the authoritative language.

Given this background, I suggest that Shufflee's wording amounts to WP:OR, which to remind everybody is "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Given that the circumstantial evidence I have given suggests that it is probable that the distance of 42.385 km (with or without the imperial equivalent) became the standard when it was first published (unles of course Shufflee can convinvce me otherwise using authoritiative sources). For this reason I believe it is best to leave it out of the lede and that the wording in the body of the text covers all eventualities (best done by leaving certain things unsaid).

Martinvl (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What OR? Shufflee is correct in stating that it was the yards/miles distance first run at the 1908 Olympics that was eventually adopted by the IOC and the IAAF who at some point - 1921 could very well be correct - used the metric conversion of the distance. It is factually incorrect to state that the distance of 26 miles 385 yards was used only once prior to 1921. The marathon has its origin in the Olympics, but is not an event unique to the Olympics. If you look at the history of the marathon, the marathon craze started after 1908 and events everywhere began using that distance. Not all of them did, of course, but neither were all marathons after 1921 run at the now-official distance. Location (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The wording in Shufflee's text asserts that the standard length for the marathon before 1921 was expressed in imperial units. There was no standard distance before 1921 - apart from two Olympic games that used a 40 km marathon, every Olympic marathon before 1921 had a different length, including the St Louis Olympics in 1912 (even though the US used miles in preference to kilometres and the "marathon craze" had taken off). I allege that it is OR to state (or to imply) that imperial units were used to define a standard marathon before metric units were used. I have supplied sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that such an assertion is sufficiently unlikely that one needs a proper citation before making such a statement. Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the first sentence with a slight re-wording in recognition of Martin's point about it not having been being standard. The fact is indisputable and the wording is more accurate now. Shufflee (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded Shufflee's last addition, giving it a bit more flesh, while moving it to the end of the lede. Martinvl (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And I tweaked it a bit more. It looks good now, yes? I also put the other paragraph back after a tweak to accommodate Martin's criticism of the use of the word "evolved". Are we all happy with the main intro now? Shufflee (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the last sentence of the lede as we have no verifiation as to when 42.195 km was adopted as the standard. My wording was chosen so that it would be correct regardless of whether the standard, when it was first introduced was in metric units, imperial units or both.

I don't buy User:Location's suggestion that "I suspect that the IAAF briefly went with imperial units for the marathon and switched to metric later ...". Given that the IAAF is an international organisation and that the mile had no legal definition outside the UK or US, whereas the kilometre had a legal definition in all the countries concerned, I suspect that they converted to metric units first and then published the standard. Regardless of which way they did things, I have chosen a wording that covers all possibilities. Martinvl (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored my wording of the conversion it was clearly converted since 1908, and explicit wording is clearer, especially in the intro, than numbers in parentheses. Shufflee (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated my version - the standard Wikipedia convention is to write the converted value in brackets. Martinvl (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, you very well could be correct. What's your point? The current wording looks fine. Location (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we sure that it is a good idea to have self-measured/interpreted elevation changes mentioned in the course description? Surely anything we write needs to be verifiable, more or less as written, from published sources. I tried to verify the description: "A slight turn to the right will take the runners down Northumberland Avenue as they drop some nine metres over a distance of 350 metres (a little under a quarter of a mile).", but looking at Google Earth myself I'd say it was more like: "... climbing 6 metres to the junction with Great Scotland Yard, then dropping by 18 metres by the time they reach Victoria Embankment." It's very arbitrary, subjective and open to dispute if you try to describe it yourself. Better to leave it out if it cannot be verified from sources. Shufflee (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Descriptions of this sort should be verifiable. Location (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that Martin has removed the problem text, under the edit summary: "Altitudes", but without adding further comment or explanation there or here. Shufflee (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is better in the main introductory text; this:

"The distance of the 1908 London Olympic Marathon of 26 miles and 385 yards, later converted to metric units as 42.195 kilometres, formed the basis of the standard distance adopted by IAAF in 1921."

or this:

"The distance of the 1908 London Olympic Marathon of 26 miles and 385 yards (42.195 km) formed the basis of the standard distance adopted by IAAF in 1921."

I prefer the elegance of the prose, with its extra detail, over the geeky parentheses and symbols. Any other comments before Martin (or I) get barred over this for edit-warring? Shufflee (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the prose in that it's more informative. Location (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to rearrange the to avoid white space forming for narrow screens. On the current version, if you adjust the screen width by dragging the right-hand border in and out, you will see large chunks of white space appearing as soon as the screen gets narrower than a certain amount due to interaction between portait pictures, landscape pictures and the table.

If you to this version of the article and adjust the screen the text always wraps properly. I do not want to change the picture order as they follow the sequence of the route. Martinvl (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have sorted out the white space problem. Adjusting the width of the page on the current version - 05:51 on 2 June 2012 does not cause white space, whereas adjusting the width on the older version - 21:56 on 31 May 2012 does have these problems.

What web browser do you use Martin, and at what screen width? I didn't see the problem you describe in either of IE7, IE8, Firefox 12.0 or Opera 11.6 from screen width 1920 down to 320. I don't think we should compromise the article's logical order to attempt to solve a format problem perceived by a single user, which will probably move as the article content changes anyway. I have thus restored the previous logical content order. Shufflee (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Three points:

• Firstly it does not matter what browser I am using - white space happens. Browser discussion is therefiore a red herring.
• Secondly, your argument about article integrity does not convince me. The route planners had two design aims (as I wrote in the section that Shufflee deleted) - each of the subsectiosn concentrates on a different aim and each table is attacehd to the aim which it best summarises - the 5km split table has a concise summary of the lap ans split distances, while the second table is closely oriented towards the landmarks on the route.
• Even if both layouts have equal content integrity, the white space argument is a valid one - see WP:whitespace.

Martinvl (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It might just be your browser or your settings, so it may matter and may be relevant what browser you use. The article as I left it is how 2 out of the 3 who have commented on the talkpage want to see it. If those are the only two design considerations you should be able to find a good reference to support that. If you allowed us to follow the consensus and replace your unwieldy table with the slimmer and clearer one that I provided your alleged "whitespace" problem may well vanish. Don't forget the aim should be agreement and harmony, not us against you. Don't forget what you told me about the 3RR (or 3PP?) rule. Shufflee (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You could provide a screen-grab to help us diagnose the whitespace problem you say you have, we could then decide between us how best to tackle it. Shufflee (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so there's a bit wider sample size. In the current format, I see no white space on my browser.Ravendrop 12:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the article better with the information about compliance near the beginning (Martin's version). I don't think it looks good to have two tables together (Shufflee's version). (I'm not sure what the white space problem is. I have not experienced one on Safari.) Michael Glass (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The information about this course complying to IAAF rules has rightly been inferred, but is not directly reported upon. This is one reason for placing it in a less prominent location in the article, particularly when the IAAF rules regarding the approximate location of drink locations is sort of a petty point. On this point: Given that the athletes are running a particular loop three times (a loop that is actually measured in miles, by the way), it is likely that those stations are going to be placed at static points on the loop rather than at the 5K intervals noted. BTW: I'm not having any whitespace issues either. Location (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking over both versions, I have to say I prefer the one that User:Martinvl is advocating. Firstly, the order makes more sense to me, as it is essentially in chronological order. Course description, compliance etc. is clearly important when deciding a route. Additionally, the single table is aesthetically ghastly. Yes, it compares the distances (at landmarks), but otherwise it is a horrible mess. I'm not really sure that that detail of milage at x landmark is necessary for an encyclopedia page. A viewer guide, yes. Encyclopedia, no. Ravendrop 20:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

General planning of a marathon route typically precedes any fine-tuning of that route, which would fall under compliance with IAAF rules and regulations. IAAF rules and regulations for road racing are relatively extensive, however, this article appears to place weight on those rules pertaining to creating a world-record eligible course. (For example, this article does not mention the part that the IAAF recommends road races be run April or May or September to December.) Regarding your last point regarding the necessity of the table, I agree with you completely. The course description noting various landmarks should suffice. Location (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

How about a single table containing both the mile and kilometre points, something like this:

The best of both worlds? Shufflee (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Something about these tables seems awkward to me, but I prefer this single table, too. It does a better job of illustrating how the points are passed in a loop. Location (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The combined table looks a real mess. You have managed to loose the information about the cumulative distance at the start of each lap and you use "m" for miles and "K" for "kilometres" - both contrary to good practice and to WP:MOSNUM and give the table a real amateurish look. On another point, you removed the "upright" qualifier for the pictuure of "St Mary's le Bow" - it is in portrait format, the others are in landscape. You have managedf to make it much larger than the other pictures. You have also again managed to destroy the structure that was in place. In doing this, you have not managed to add anything worthwhile. That is why I have reverted. Martinvl (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason that it looks a mess is that miles and kilometres have been combined in single columns. It is normal practice in tables such as this to place the units of measure in the table header - that is what we were all taught at school (at any rate that is what I was taught). What Shufflee is actually mixing two "languages", something which will never work!

Maybe editors should look at this version. It was rejected for a variety of reasons, but the miles and kilometres were kept separate. Martinvl (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(previous text amended) Martinvl (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You had no agreement for those reversals. "m" and "K" are directly from the reference, if you know better; present your case here. The image was narrower than the gap (you were complaining about "whitespace"). The combined table is neater than the separate two and gives an easy to follow, consistent picture. The cummulative lap distancs are meaningless. The presentation is logical and structured. By all means offer arguments for or against each change, but don't just keep restoring your own version, regardless of comments and opinions of the others here. This is Wikipedia, not Martinpedia. Shufflee (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Answers to Shuifflee:

• "You had no agreement for those reversals. "m" and "K" are directly from the reference, if you know better; present your case here." If you are repeating incorrect terminology of spelling from a reference, it is normal ro write "[sic]" (See Sic). You did not do this.
• "The image was narrower than the gap (you were complaining about "whitespace")." You succeeded in doubling the area of that one picture in relation to the others - I believe that to be bad practice.
• "The combined table is neater than the separate two and gives an easy to follow, consistent picture. The cummulative lap distancs are meaningless. The presentation is logical and structured." Your failure to separate out miles and kilometres removes logic from the table - the numbers in the columns are not in ascending order making it difficult to follow. At risk of repeating myself, good practise dictates that units of measure go in column headers. BTW I have already mentioned this, but you chose not to answer me.

May I suggest that this be presented at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion. I think that am opinion from an uninvoled editor will resolve most, if not all, of the issues. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin, could you put together a table just like the first one at the top of this page with miles in parenthesis instead of a separate table for miles and post it here for review? I would also suggest rounding to the nearest kilometer or mile, or nearest tenth of a kilometer or mile if that doesn't work. The "miles:yards" notation should go, too. Location (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As requested, here is a revision of Shufflee's table as suggested by User:Location.

If this table were to be adopted, we woudl have trouble usign it on a screen with a width of 1024 pixels as it would foul the pictures down the right-hand side. To be honest, I went through these arguments with myself when I produced the original pair of tables, which is why I spilt the miles off from the kilometres. Martinvl (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I was referring to the following table, but changed to put miles in parenthesis. Location (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted table to decrease page clutter.) Location (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Another variation to consider:

Neater still (the parentheses are for those who cannot distinguish the colors)? The specific colors can obviously be changed as desired! This would also remove the apparently contentious "m"/"K" issue. Shufflee (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't even think about it. WP:MOS says this about the use of colour "Information should be accessible to all. Do not use color alone to mark differences in text: they may be invisible to people with color blindness. Also, black-and-white printouts, older computer displays with fewer colors, and monochrome displays (older PDAs and cell phones) cannot show such distinctions.". Placing kilometres in brackets to bypass this rule is pushing the boat. It still does not answer the question of numbers in each column being monototically increasing. Martinvl (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS, particularly MOS:COLOR explicitly supports my approach. Color combined with another difference (such as my parentheses) are given as examples of good practice. You may have misread it, or not read it all. Can you remind us what the "question of numbers in each column being monototically increasing"? Shufflee (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You could read Monotonic function, but do you have any comments on the proposal below. Martinvl (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I guessed it was a typo, but what was the qustion about it? I have reminded you below why we ruled out a list of self-measured landmarks. Do you have any other comment about the color-coded table now that you realise it complies with WP:MOS? Shufflee (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that combining everything into one table is a non-starter. Maybe we should go back to basics. I suggest that we go back to two tables which are stipped down versions of the original ppair of tables. The first would deal only with lap distances and timing points:

The second would deal only with landmarks with distances relative to the marathon start point. They could be worked out to the nearest 10 m using Google Earth and then rounded to the nearest 100&nbps;m and 0.1 mile, apart from the end points. There are enough interim distances on the map to make this a relatively easy task. The rounding is coarse enough to accomodate any judgements made by the person doing the calculations.

Martinvl (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the above proposal is much clearer. Michael Glass (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now added all the landmarks to the table timestamped 23:47, 2 June 2012. Martinvl (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember, we questioned the wisdom of attempting to measure the distance between landmarks ourselves, particularly agreeing where their datums might be (think Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace), and different editors could dispute the values as they are not verifiable from published sources. That's why we started using trables of known distance positions (the mile and km points). Shufflee (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You omitted the mile points from the lap table. Here is the full picture:

Shufflee (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the lap table, you will see that I had the heading "Timing points". Will times be taken at the mile points? I have never seen a a resutl tabel showing mile splits, but every publication that shows times at intermediate points has 5 km spilts as well as the half-way point (for example, the London Marathon - here)

As regards datum points, you will notice that I have specified "West end" for St Pauls, Big Ben for the Houses of Parliament and the Victoria Memorial for Buckingham Palace. Martinvl (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced Sufflee's "multi-coloured" table with a much simpler one which shows one thing and one thing only - the distance of the various landmarks from the circuit startpoint. I have alos added a route summary table to thse subsection "IAAF compliance" as that table compelements that section. Martinvl (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If we have to have a table, I guess I'm OK with the first one. I don't think the second table is necessary in that it only appears to describe on what lap the various 5K intervals appear. Location (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The second table also catalogues the start and end points of each lap. Even without the timing points, I believe that it would be useful. Martinvl (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

How? Location (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rephrasing what I've stated previously: General planning of a marathon route typically precedes any fine-tuning of that route, which would fall under compliance with IAAF rules and regulations. IAAF rules and regulations for road racing are relatively extensive, however, this article appears to place weight on those rules pertaining to creating a world-record eligible course. (For example, this article does not mention the part that the IAAF recommends road races be run April or May or September to December.) This article is specifically about the Olympic marathon course in London, so it certainly doesn't seem appropriate to jump into the details of IAAF Rule 260 earlier in the article. Location (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The structure of this article had become fragmented - two of the sections had short ledes followed by a single subsection - something which is poor style. The underlying reason was constant reversions. I have now reinstated a logical structure in which everything concerning the 2012 Olympic route is in a single top level section and comparisons with other marathons each have their own top level section. Martinvl (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The most important feature of the marathon course is that it meets the criteria of being 42.195 km in length. If this criteria is niot met, the course design is an absolute failure. The second most important is whether or not world records can be established. If this criteria is not met, the course designers will be in for a hammering.

I have been trying to put this forward, but this has revereted by Shufflee without discussion. Martinvl (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to hold off and discuss proposed changes first. The section in question jumps immediately to the world record considerations. It shouldn't do that. Location (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think it's wise to put the IAAF compliance section that has no direct reference to the 2012 Olympics so near the beginning, but I've rewritten it to at least remove the undue weight towards world record considerations. Cheers. Location (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have undone Shufflee's changes. Firstly, the last column was the timing points - there are no timing points at the mile markers. Also, why was the half-way timing point removed. Secondly, the introduictory paragraph is exactly that - everything that it says is referenced later in the section - OK, there is not explicit statement that the course had to follow the Olympic standards, but that is so blatantly obvious to everybody that no reference is needed. Martinvl (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated an older version of the lede and made a few additions to the summary table.

My rationale for changes to the lede are:

• I have introduced a mention of the extreme points of the course. They give a reader a quick idea of which part fo London is being used for the race.
• I have reintroduced a summary of the changes in the route, keeping as far as possible a neutral tone. Why were they deleted?
• I have reintroduced a more accurate statement regarding the 1908 Marathon which also complies with WP:MOS. At least one reference states that the 1908 marathon was 170 yds short of 26:385, also I am not convinced that in 1921 the IAAF actually measured the 1908 course. Given all this uncertainty, all that we can say is that 26:385 was the "stated" distance. Also, it simplifies the langauge when the text is aligned with WP:MOS.

Martinvl (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few additional tweaks and modifications, all fully explained in their respective edit summaries. Shufflee (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a more recent edition (Published 2011 or 2012) of the IAAF rules? Shufflee (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you try Google? I found it in 5 seconds: http://www.iaaf.org/mm/document/06/28/89/62889_PDF_English.pdf Location (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't get the IAAF website to work so that I could look for the latest available edition. I think the piece in the article relating to this is too complex, with inefficient references. All we need is the gist, with a refence to a secondary source for verification. Martin's interpretation of the rulebook could, I believe, be condemned as original research. Shufflee (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with stripping out the page references. Martin lifted the reference from another article in which I cited Rule 260, then he added Rule 240 to the citation after including other material here. If anyone wants references to be as specific as possible, well, they are there now. I agree that the background on relevant IAAF rules is not needed. We don't put it in article about other marathons, and it doesn't really need to be put in this one. Location (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have stripped down the references to the IAAF rule book and moved them up to the summary of the course. I have also introduced a change of emphasis, moving it from the rules to the London course.Martinvl (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

All you've done is placed the emphasis back onto world records. I'm going to revert this until there is some consensus. Location (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the course "Fit for purpose"? The readers have a right to know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 06:33, 8 June 2012‎ (UTC)

The purpose of the course is for the running of the Olympic marathon. Your editing history suggests that you think only the IAAF rules pertaining to world record eligibility are important to the reader. Location (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Shufflee, I've updated the source per your request. Location (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Shufflee (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Will any records set on the 2012 Olympic Marathon Course be recognised as World records? A dispute has broken out as to whether or not this is an appropriate topic in this aritcle, and if so, how it should be presented. The Boston Marathon course is an example of a course on which world records cannot be set. Martinvl (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The question as currently worded is irrelevant. The dispute is whether or not it is appropriate to strike all the rest of the information regarding IAAF compliance and leave only the information regarding IAAF compliance with world record eligibility. There are currently no direct sources stating that this event and course will be guided by IAAF rules (including those pertaining to world record eligibility), although it is seems obvious that they will be. Location (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Article 46 of the IOC charter states "Each IF [International Federation] is responsible for the technical control and direction of its sport at the Olympic Games; all elements of the competitions, including the schedule, field of play, training sites and all equipment must comply with its rules...", but do we really need to spell this out? Martinvl (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You want to cite 1) the IAAF rule that references the separation between start and end points for world record eligibility (260.28) and 2) the IAAF rule that references world records for intermediate distances (260.23), but you don't want to reference the IAAF rule that references the distance of the race (240.1)? I've mentioned previously that I don't think we need to delve into any of the rules of either the IAAF (or the IOC), but you are the one attempting to add technical details pertaining only to world record eligibility. Location (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it boils down to whether a detailed analysis of the rules is appropriate or significant enough for a large or prominent mention, particularly as there is no controversey or cover elsewhere or in any secondary references about this aspect of the course. All we have here is a personal view based on a personal interpretation of what the rules say. And at least one of the rules that has been given prominence is ambiguous, to say the least, so needs a verifiable interpretation - not a personal point of view. I'm not sure the subject needs to mentioned at all given the lack of interest elsewhere. Shufflee (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Location , you are half right - what I want to point out is:

• This race is [probably] elibigle for world records (unlike Boston) because its start and end points are less than 21.092 km apart and the net downhill slope is less than 42 m - both values are in fact zero!
• That world records for 10 km, 15 km etc can be set on this course
• The 5 km split points are used for the above.

Delving (as you put it) into the rules is a means to justify the above statements. I have no objection to mentioning Rule 240.1 - after all the IAAF is "responsible for the technical ... must comply with its rules...".

If we can encompass this in a lightweight statement linking it to the London course, then the appropriate place to add it is alongsiode the course description (after all it is a "job specification", not an add-on).

Would Shufflee please explain which rule is ambiguous. Martinvl (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A discussion in the article about the IAAF rules pertaining to record eligible courses would be appropriate if there were discussion about them elsewhere in context of the London course. I haven't seen any, nor can I imagine that there are many reliable sources indicating that they think records are going to fall on this course. Location (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant - world records are set at Olympic events. WE coudl of course note a world record could not have been the original 1908 course because the distance between its start and end points were more than 50% of the course length. Martinvl (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The image of the route map shows use of Little Britain and Bartholemew Lane. It appears to be the one linked from the official venue page at http://www.london2012.com/venue/marathon/ , which is designed to give information to spectators.

The map linked at the foot of the article, shows these two roads are not used. This map is also linked from other sites such as http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Leisure_and_culture/Sports_clubs_and_centres/Sports-information_and_booking/London_2012_Games/

Which is correct?

I have been searching the web but have not yet been able to confirm which is the correct one. I tried the official london2012.com website following the navigation links to sports -athletics event-marathon page at http://www.london2012.com/athletics/event/men-marathon/coursemap/ but as you see there is no course map in place at present.

Since the course has only recently been measured, perhaps the final route map has not yet been uploaded.

Can anyone resolve this discrepancy?

Should there be some warning that there is conflicting information about the route? Op. Deo (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I have now answered my question. I found the following pdf http://www.london2012.com/mm/Document/Documents/Venue/01/25/45/46/olymarathon_Neutral.pdf linked from the media centre - maps page of the london2012.com

It states "This map is correct as of May 2012", and I believe it to be the most up-to-date version. It has OS copyright. I dont know whether it can be used on WP so I will only link it. But the map image displayed at the top of the article is now clearly wrong and needs attention. Op. Deo (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure whether or not we can copy the map concerned - the Olympic committee seem to slap one excessive prohibition notices on everything. Anyway I have moved the reference to the newest map from where Op. Deo placed it to the text of the map that has been displayed - in this way people can see immediately that there has been a change (or a correction of an error!). Martinvl (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

After Shufflee removed the map, calling it "dodgy", but failing to jsutify his assertion, I have reinstated the map and have also amended the wording to draw attention that there are differences between this map and others published by the Olympic COmmittee, but not passing judgement on either. Martinvl (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Info to consider incorporating into the article: . Location (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have undone these changes for a number of reasons:

1. The distances 26.2 miles and 42.195 km are inconsistent - also the map given in Ref 3 gives the metric units first. Checks elsewhere show the metric distance is the official distance, the imperial distance is therefore approximate. Moreover the writers in refs 23 & 24 (found by User:Location) only use the metric distances.
2. WP:MOSNUM states "If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the main units".
3. I think that the tag clarifying that imperial/metric conversion is neccessary in order to clear up a big misconception that exisits amongs journalists.
4. I think that the notes "timed" and "untimed" are appropriate for public consumption - the public is generally unaware that 5 km splits are taken.

Please do not re-revert until these points have been cleared up. Martinvl (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: #1 and #2, I agree that metric units should consistently precede the imperial units in that part of the lede. Re: #3 and #4, we don't need a note to let people know what 385 yards rounds to in tenths of a mile. We actually do not have sources explicitly stating that the 5km points will be timed, and if we did it would work much better in the prose rather than in the table. The table is awful to begin with and all of the notes simply make it worse. Location (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone on Yahoo copied our work: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/marathon-rules-london-olympics-162700421--oly.html Location (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Copying of Wikipedia is quite common (no copyright) - I often see my own writing when I am doing research to try and improve any of my articles. Martinvl (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The report of the woman's race is significant in that it proved the reporters wrong. Otherwise, the results are reported elsewhere - I have provided links under "See Also" and removed the heading which moved the result of the woman's race away from the reported's forecasts. Martinvl (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It "proved the reporters wrong"? Shufflee (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Commentators said that due to the course being windy, it was unlikely that any records would be broken. Martinvl (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The article says "runners said" (not reporters or commentators) and that a "a world record would not be set on the course", and the article confirms the women's time "was 7min 42sec slower than Paula Radcliffe's world record..." So it doesn't prove anyone wrong. Shufflee (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shufflee, and that echoes our previous discussions here. Search this page for "world record", then search for "Olympic record". Location (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The real question is whether the results should be reported as a section in their own right or whether they should be reported as an after-the-event comparison of what the commentators said. I have opted for the latter on grounds that the results themselves are fully repoted elsewhere in Wikipedia. I have added links in the "See Also" section to the results.

Yes, a brief recap of the men's and women's results should be mentioned here as it brings some sort of closure to the article. Location (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've created a new section for the speculation about course performances, and for real results. Neither belong in a section called "Compliance with international rules and testing". Shufflee (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it, but it would be great if we could find out various participants comments about the course. Location (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

1) "‘‘The conditions were tough,’’ [Claire] Hallissey said. ‘‘It was a twisty course, and the cobbles didn’t make for very fast running.’’" 2) "The Americans, who have experimented with road racing in recent years, said they were bothered by the sharp twists and turns of the winding three-loop course, which started near St. James’s Park and extended nearly to the Tower of London. Said [Shalane] Flanagan: ‘‘The turns and the ups and downs were really, really hard.’’" Kara Goucher suggests that the difficulty of the course prevented her from achieving a PR: http://www.examiner.com/article/kara-goucher-on-the-brutal-olympic-marathon-course-and-pal-shlanae-flanagan (examiner.com is blacklisted). Location (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are various gags in place on competitors making public comments. Martinvl (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. More comments from Flanagan and Goucher commenting on the course: . Kim Smith mentions slipping on cobblestones: Pre-race commentary about turns and cobblestones: Location (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2012 Olympic Marathon Course. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.uwec.edu/hartnesg/2012LondonOlympicMarathonProfileSH.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517134358/http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/06/28/89/62889_PDF_English.pdf to http://www.iaaf.org/mm/document/06/28/89/62889_PDF_English.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806030953/http://london2012.bbc.co.uk/athletics/event/women-marathon/index.html to http://london2012.bbc.co.uk/athletics/event/women-marathon/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813105901/http://london2012.bbc.co.uk/athletics/event/men-marathon/phase%3Datm099100/index.html to http://london2012.bbc.co.uk/athletics/event/men-marathon/phase%3Datm099100/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529201931/http://beard.standard.co.uk/2010/05/a-glimpse-of-the-london-olympic-marathon-course.html to http://beard.standard.co.uk/2010/05/a-glimpse-of-the-london-olympic-marathon-course.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703140515/http://www.getaheadofthegames.com/documents/city-of-london-profile-revised.pdf to http://www.getaheadofthegames.com/documents/city-of-london-profile-revised.pdf

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) 23:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)