Talk:Long jump world record progression

Imperial conversion
Meaning feet and inches for the folks that don't understand. The IP edit today was better than the previous, but the conversions are still using 1/8th or even 1/16th of an inch, which is not valid in IAAF measurements. I don't know how to clean that up, other than manually, but it should be done. Trackinfo (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What does A mean?
What does the A next to the two previous men's records mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.69.26 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Records were set at high altitude.Montell 74 (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So I changed "A" to "at Altitude" because that's what it means, and "A" by itself wasn't clear enough. -JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.216.97 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am working on a legend to explain the common Track and Field abbreviations, to place on affected pages, like this one. The "A" is common in T&F literature already, this is not a wikipedia affectation.  It is simply not that well understood outside of people who regularly read such publications.  In fact the Upper Case "A" is specifically for Altitude, while a lower case "a" is for assisted running courses (like the one directional Boston Marathon. Trackinfo (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Though it should be pointed out that the IAAF, the governing body of the sport, fails to make a distinction here in terms of records. They, in other words, don't affix the "A" for altitude. The only notes in terms of assistance they routinely affix to records are the wind gauge readings in the affected events. Canada Jack (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Units and axes labels
The top graphic, showing the progression of the world records, needs axes labels, and more importantly, units for the vertical axis. -2601:18A:C380:E606:3986:8D72:1A36:E7E2 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge men's record and women's record pages into the current disambiguation page, thereby doing away with the disambiguation page. They are too closely related and the sex-based separation of related pages is unnecessary. -V madhu (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The single sex and both sex approaches are found across the article set at Athletics record progressions. I've noticed this before but never saw either approach as better than the other, so left it as is. Changed it would cerate additional work for negligible benefit in my opinion. SFB 17:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would favour separating all by sex rather than merging all. The disambiguation page is a feature, not a bug. The men's and women's world records have no more in common than, say, the American men's and German men's records. Also, comparing Category:World athletics record progressions with its two sex-based subcats, the majority of articles seem to be of the latter type; so, if the aim is consistency, then there would be less work to separate the few than to merge the many. jnestorius(talk) 17:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no need to merge the articles into a disambiguation page. Those two articles have every right on a stand alone article. The disambiguation page is a assistance page to get to the right article, not a nuisance. The Banner  talk 09:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral Since I was added here, I will leave this comment - it makes no diference to me. I will accept whatever consensus is arrived at. ;) Canada Jack (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Can this discussion be closed? We are now six weeks further! The Banner talk 11:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)