Talk:10,000 metres world record progression

Correction
The date that was given for the Jean Bouin record (November 16, 1919) is clearly wrong, since Bouin died in 1914. The reference I found says 1911, and Kolehmainen is not mentioned. GregorB 01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. Sorry that I didn't cite my sources, but I was still rather new when I created this article and I didn't use to do referencing back then. Kolehmainen's case is interesting. It's mentioned here and here as a world record. One of the sites gets the Bouin date correct and the other one not. Prolog 15:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I said "the reference I found", since I'm even not sure that one is correct. As for Kolehmainen, it makes sense: had Bouin run 30:58 only in 1919, then Kolehmainen would have been a world record holder in 1912. But the first reference you gave is puzzling: year on Bouin is apparently correct, but Kolehmainen is credited nevertheless.
 * BTW, I really like the table layout, it looks better than World record progression 100 metres men and much better than World record progression for the mile run. Should be emulated there; time permitting, I'd do it myself... GregorB 17:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The layout is not actually mine as I went through the other world record progression articles and used the one that seemed best in my table. I found a ref that seems to discuss this Bouin-Kolehmainen incident, but unfortunately it's in Hungarian. It could be possible that IAAF didn't ratify Bouin's record until after Kolehmainen ran his time at the 1912 Summer Olympics. Thus, Kolehmainen's 31:20.8 became a world record for some time. This is just my guess. Prolog 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks that way... I've kindly asked User:Fz22 to take a look at this page in Hungarian, so hopefully we'll see his note here soon. GregorB 21:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From Hargita Népe: Bouin ran 30:58.8 in 1911 (WR), Kolehmainen ran 31:20.8 in Stockholm (OR), so Bouin held the WR. Bendeguz 22:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the translation. The current version of the article is pretty correct then, since Kolehmainen's entry on record lists remains a mystery. Prolog 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd put Kohlemainen's mark back, perhaps put the disputed tag on it, say it is mentioned in many record books, and hope that someone who knows the answer will see it. GregorB 08:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I used the note system. I was unsure whether to put Bouin or Kolehmainen first, as both ways are a bit confusing, but I went by the sources and listed Kolehmainen's time first. Hopefully someone can clear that up later. Prolog 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good. I'd say this settles it for the time being... GregorB 15:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I just cleared this up. I removed Bouin's time, put it to a footnote. Here, as with the mile progression, there were records set before the formation of track's governing body, the IAAF. Since this page quite specifically states this is the IAAF's record progression, the records are those which were set from 1912 on, the year the IAAF was founded. So while Bouin indeed ran the time stated, he didn't set any record ratified by the IAAF. If he had waited six months... Canada Jack (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Diagram
Cant we make a diagram as on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.228.244.89 (talk • contribs).


 * Diagram is of course welcome, if someone is willing to make one. Prolog 10:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Manual" and electronic times
This has come up on other pages as someone has seen fit to label record progressions as "manual timing" if to the tenth, electronic to the 100th. However, this is not based on fact as the IAAF had differing rules on record ratification over the years and numerous times found on this page are in fact electronic times rounded to the nearest tenth of a second. I am therefore removing the arbritray (and factually incorrect) headings. Canada Jack (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Prose on pre-IAAF records
regarding this revert of my restoration of prose mentioning that records existed before the IAAF: the lead prose portion of a list should be definition discussing the contents of the subsequent lists. That's why it is one of the requirements on the Featured list criteria. It is simply not true that other progression lists do not appear on other lists the Association of Road Racing Statisticians being a prime example. Our coverage of pre-20th century athletics is very poor – that is the simple reason why other articles neglect to discuss a record history spanning back to the 1850s (and earlier!). SFB 17:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Records" didn't exist per se in the pre-IAAF era because there was no agreed-upon ratifying body and criteria until then, which is why the note is not needed. This is no mere quibble - there are amateur and professional marks, and differing criteria over what could constitute a "record." The mile list is a good example of this as you have professional AND amateur lists pre-1912, and different versions of those lists.


 * And you misread what I said - I didn't say other pre-IAAF lists don't exist on other pages, I said the need for a redundant note saying "record progression lists existed before the IAAF" do NOT appear on the other record progression pages, so why does the 10,000 m list warrant special attention? And only for the men? Canada Jack (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misinterpreted your question. Still, absence of such statements on other articles doesn't really say much if there is no underlying reason for that absence. I would suggest pre-IAAF information is missing simply because the prose on those articles is insufficient in that respect (as is the case for virtually all the prose sections in this series). List prose should always discuss and contextualise the proceeding list at a minimum, which was my intention here. SFB 16:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)