Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Women's 400 metres hurdles world record progression/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC).

Women's 400 metres hurdles world record progression

 * Nominator(s): Editør (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after rewriting the lead and cleaning up the table, I believe it passes the FL criteria. – Editør (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * See also the new 100 metres candidate. – Editør (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

 * The lead seems rather thin at just 104 words. Given that the article is about the progression of the record, could you add some content about some of the changes between the first and last?
 * Adding some images would improve the article
 * It looks weird to have a key containing three items which aren't used anywhere in the list, and a "status" column which is completely blank. I would suggest removing both the key and that first column.  If you feel the article needs to state that all records have been ratified, write that as a sentence above the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I've added some statistics and a photo and I've removed the Status column and legend. – Editør (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ChrisTheDude, with the new world record of 30 June 2024, I have added the letter P as standard athletics abbreviation for 'pending ratification' after the time instead of the previously removed explanation. – Editør (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The status and legend are standard elements on all of these world record progression tables. They may not be relevant to a specific article at any particular point in time, but are a general standardized feature so any initial reader of any of these will find the same information, rather than having it missing on some.  It's removal here because of the above comment upsets that system. Trackinfo (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I had initially left the status and legend in for consistency, but I agree with ChrisTheDude that an unused legend should be removed when this article is to become a featured list, especially when there are simpler solutions like adding a letter P for a pending ratification. – Editør (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it benefits the reader in any way whatsoever to make them scroll past a key listing various items which literally aren't used anywhere in the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by MPGuy2824

 * Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g.  becomes   (on its own line). The primary column needs to be unique across rows, so either the time or the date works for this table.
 * Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the nature of this table where each element in a row is variable, I don't think it should have row headers with scopes, and therefore I don't think they should be added. – Editør (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Some cell does need to be the header cell of every row per MOS:DTAB. If you don't think that the time or date woks for this then you can add a new column with just a number with the highest number being the current record. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for suggesting an alternative. However, I cannot find in MOS:DTAB that every table is required to have row headers and I don't think this table would improve by adding them. – Editør (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Featured list criteria number 5c requires that lists meet WP:ACCESS standards. While that page does not take an emphatic tone, FLC's interpretation is that one of those standards is that, just as there should be column headers, there should be row headers. Row scopes on the "primary" column for each row in combination with column scopes let screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Purposely not including them is the same as saying "I don't think readers with limited vision need as good an experience when reading this article as fully-sighted readers", which isn't okay. The row headers don't have to make the table look any different (though by default it does highlight the cell), and I can help with that if you need it, but they are required to be there in the page code for promotion at FLC. -- Pres N  18:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment and offering your help. It seems that you are mostly repeating what was said before: I should add row headers because of the guidelines that don't actually say row headers should be added. Row headers are semantic elements that label the row, and as I have indicated the rows in this table where all values are variable don't seem to merit these semantics, not for visually impaired readers nor for fully-sighted readers, so the statement between quotation marks doesn't seem to apply here. This table differs from the ones in for instance List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon where the dates are fixed elements that I believe are appropriately marked as headers. What you are proposing seems to have the purpose of marking one cell in each row as the most important within that row, but I don't believe that is what a header is or should be used for. – Editør (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another indication that none of the cells should be marked as row header is that none of them will always uniquely identify a row: a time could be equalled and count as a world record or two records can be set on the same day. – Editør (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, the purpose of the headers isn't to declare one cell the most important, it's to provide context if you can't see the whole row/table at once. You pick a cell that provides the most context on its own, with whatever tradeoffs make the most sense. If you're on cell [1,2] "56.51", and you hit the down arrow, contextually you know that this is the next record set. "55.74". Down. "55.63". You cannot see the cells next to it. You don't know if it's the same person or not. Yes, you can find out by moving back and forth each time, doing more work just to read one column of the table, but fundamentally the act of reading a table via a screen reader is different than reading it visually because a) you can't take in the contextual information in parallel with the cell, you have to take it in serially and/or remember your place in the table, and b) because screen readers read out loud slower than the human eye.
 * If you set the first column as the row headers, then that same act of reading the series of records column becomes "Krystyna Kacperczyk (POL),	56.51" -> "Tatyana Storozheva (URS), 55.74" -> "Karin Rossley (GDR), 55.63". The listener can still check the other cells at any time if they want to know when and where (and the ref), but you're no longer forcing those listeners to do extra work to follow along any path beyond each cell in the table one-by-one in order than sighted readers have to. This does not mean that the name is more important than the date, just that it provides more context on its own. Which you presumably agree with, since you made that the first column, and not the date.
 * Look, I won't badger you further on this. If you really feel that 1 minute of work that has no impact on the visual output of the list is unreasonable, then don't do it. I don't own the article, and the access guidelines purposefully don't mandate that you follow them to the letter because then some people wouldn't do any of it. What I am saying is that the consensus at FLC is and has been that tables need row scopes to be accessible, and being accessible is a requirement for a list to be promoted at FLC. -- Pres N  17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not responding to most of my argumentation. To expand on the last point I made, WP:ACCESS explicitly states "it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively", which means there are no columns in this table that qualify for row headers looking at the possible values of the cells. In Women's 80 metres hurdles world record progression you can see why this is a problem for the 1932 world records by the Americans. – Editør (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review and comments from 48JCL

 * [1] Page needed
 * [2] I'm sure this supports the content, but surely there is a newer source that supports this claim? By the way, I am talking about the first use. For all the other uses, the location is not supported by the page number.
 * [3] Good
 * [4] Good
 * [5] Good
 * [6] Good
 * [7] Good
 * [8] Doesn't directly state "pending ratification" but it says ratification which is good enough.

Don't sources need archives? This can do it for you.

That's all I've got. 48JCL 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This list would benefit from an explanation on why Sydney McLaughlin's name changes to Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone.
 * Should the "time" section be sortable?
 * The caption "World records of the women's 400 metres hurdles" could be made screen reader only. This is my personal preference though.
 * McLaughlin-Levrone set five world records in this event, more than any other athlete. => McLaughlin-Levrone also set five world records in this event, more than any other athlete.
 * Add  before each date.


 * Thank you for your comments.
 * I've split the reference for source [1] and added pages for both uses.
 * I couldn't find a newer replacement for source [2], but if you can I don't mind changing it if you think that makes the information more reliable. There already was a page number that I think covers all uses of this source.
 * I don't think archiving is required or necessary: "Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to the Wayback Machine within about 24 hours." according to WP:PLRT. Reference lists with many archive links usually look cluttered making them harder to read.
 * I've added notes for two maiden names.
 * The Time column is already sorted, so either all but 'Ref.' should be made sortable or none. I don't think the table needs sortable columns though.
 * I'll leave the table caption as it is.
 * I think adding "also" doesn't add much and would perhaps make the sentence more ambiguous: is it the record from the previous sentence plus these five or including these five world records? Instead I've changed the phrase into "McLaughlin-Levrone has set a total of five world records in this event, more than any other athlete."
 * See the discussion above at.
 * – Editør (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Editør thank you for your response. Support 48JCL 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @48JCL, I've replaced source [2] from 2009 with a newer one from 2015. – Editør (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Trackinfo

 * This subject matter is kind of my specialty. While this was exciting and newsworthy almost a week ago, this discussion and (noted above) damage to the article has lost that timeliness.  I would like this article to get some play, this might not be the right time.  With the challenge from Femke Bol, this is going to be a featured and much discussed event at the upcoming Olympics in a few weeks.  I think this would be much better timed to correspond with either the discussion in anticipation of the match up, or after the final race.  I think there is a good likelihood the record will be improved once again at the Olympics, but it could also result in one of them blowing up trying to make that attempt - - that's why you run the race.  We know the date of the race is August 4.  I think it would be much better on that date or immediately on either side of that date.  With that as a superior proposal, I will be neutral on supporting it at some random date between now and then. Trackinfo (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment that appears to be about featuring this list on Wikipedia's main page. You seem to be thinking ahead, because before that can happen, the article first needs to pass this featured list nomination. – Editør (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

 * Oppose per Criteria 5(c) which requires accessibility. Per long established consensus at WP:FLC, which was clearly conveyed to you by, who is a FLC coordinator, accessibility includes row and column scopes in tables. Also I want to note that the nominator has two active FLC nominations and with my oppose here, there is not substantial support on this nomination to justify the second nomination. Respectfully, Featured list candidates/Women's 100 metres hurdles world record progression/archive1 should be closed immediately.  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the supposedly "clearly conveyed" points, my reasoning about semantics and the actual text of the manual of style was mostly ignored, including a quote from WP:ACCESS that I believe clearly indicates that row headers should not be added to this table. The fact that someone is a coordinator doesn't justify ignoring my reasoning. And neither of you is offering a solution supported by WP:ACCESS. – Editør (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Editør: PresN has been patient and explained things thoroughly. You're not required to agree with the requirements at FLC, but if you don't intend to meet those requirements, then I do intend to fail this nomination. We don't need to waste anybody's time trying to convince you to meet the requirements that are set out. You're welcome to discuss those at WT:FLC, but I don't see a scenario in which we drop the easy to meet requirement of adding scopes to rows and columns. I mean this as respectfully as possible, because I do appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, but let us know whether you're going to add scopes or not so I know whether to fail this and your other nomination. There's a backlog of items to review and I'd much rather reviewers focus on nominations with a chance at passing. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are again ignoring my reasoning and not proposing any solutions.
 * We need a table layout that is following both WP:FLCR and WP:ACCESS.
 * I fully support FLCR 5c about accessibility, which states "It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers." Here the words "uses proper formating" link to WP:ACCESS and the words "accessible to all readers" link to the general article Web accessibility. So from the FLCR it is clear that the text of the linked manual of style document needs to followed.
 * The section MOS:DTAB of WP:ACCESS about Row and column headers states "Like the caption, these help present the information in a logical structure to visitors." So the manual of style explicitly refers to logic, marking cells as headers should make sense logically.
 * The section goes on "The headers help screen readers render header information about data cells. For example, header information is spoken prior to the cell data, or header information is provided on request." Here it is explained how screen readers use headers. However, it doesn't say every table should have row headers to make them accessible for screen readers, this doesn't follow from the text. Row headers are not mandated by this text if they don't make sense logically.
 * How row headers could make sense logically is that they should always uniquely identify the row, which can be found in the next line: "Because the row header and column header may be spoken before the data in each cell when navigating in table mode, it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively." None of the current values in the columns 'Athlete (Nation)', 'Location', and 'Ref.' can uniquely identify a row, so these cannot be used for row headers. The current values in the columns 'Time in s' and 'Date' may uniquely identify a row, but this isn't always the case. The time of a world record can be equalled and count as a world record and two world records can be set on the same day. An example of this can be found in Women's 80 metres hurdles world record progression for the four world records from 1932 where none of the columns contains unique identifiers for the rows. So in this sort of table, the columns 'Time in s' and 'Date' shouldn't logically be used for row headers either, because they don't necessarily uniquely identify the rows.
 * The least bad candidate for row header in the current table is the column 'Time in s', because it would make the most sense for screen readers to read this cell aloud before any other cell, but because this column doesn't always need to have a unique value, it would be a temporary patch only until a record is equalled and it would not be an example of Wikipedia's very best work in my opinion.
 * This leaves the alternative to add a column with unique values as proposed by MPGuy2824 above. You could add a column with an integer (e.g. 1, 2, 3, etc.) to uniquely identify a row, but this wouldn't make much sense for screen readers, because these values don't have an intrinsic meaning, they would be only added for the sake of adding unique identifiers.
 * I believe it all comes down to your willingness to understand the nature of this table about women's sport and your willingness to find the most suitable solution that exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. Saying that all tables should have row headers, so this table should have row headers, because that how it is always done isn't supported by the texts of WP:FLCR and WP:ACCESS. However I am open for new creative solutions that are actually supported by these texts.
 * It has my preference to not add row headers based on the FL criteria, the manual of style and logic. If other editors continue to refuse logical reasoning over claimed precedent because that how it is supposedly always done, then the beforementioned temporary patch of marking the column 'Time in s' as row headers seems like the best way to move forward. – Editør (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See also my general note below. – Editør (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It has my preference to not add row headers based on the FL criteria, the manual of style and logic. If other editors continue to refuse logical reasoning over claimed precedent because that how it is supposedly always done, then the beforementioned temporary patch of marking the column 'Time in s' as row headers seems like the best way to move forward. This comment is counterintuitive and unclear. Please also refrain from focusing on other editors, such as claiming we are being illogical, as this is unhelpful and an assumption of bad faith. Please be definitive and make the change if you are going to. My opposition is not changing unless you implement what has been recommended. Note, that there is nothing "temporary" about the change. Making a change to pass the FLC process to then only go and revert that change after-the-fact would be acting in bad faith and counter to the FLC criteria and would be dealt with accordingly, likely with a warning and a summary delisting. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 17:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gonzo fan2007 I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, I don't find your comments constructive, and therefore I no longer see the point of continuing to discuss matters with you. – Editør (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional comments
 * The entire second paragraph of the lead lacks inline citations. These should be added, even if the table supports the claims.
 * The "Nation" data should be in its own column. This would make it easier to see how many different countries have owned the record.
 * The table should be sortable. This would allow the reader to easily see how many times someone has held the record, which can be difficult if people have regained the record after losing it (i.e. like Krystyna Kacperczyk, who held it first and then fourth).
 * Both notes regarding maiden names should have an inline citation.
 * Locations for US places should include the state (WP:USPLACE). Not sure about other countries, but that should be investigated for consistency.
 * "Time in s" should use Abbrlink to clarify what "s" stands for.
 * You have the space, a number of the athletes have free photos. Recommend adding in at least one more next to the table with a beneficial caption. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 17:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Copy of my statement elsewhere @User:Gonzo fan2007: I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, I don't find your comments constructive, and therefore I no longer see the point of continuing to discuss matters with you. – Editør (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To briefly account for recent changes, I've taken over all suggestions except for the Nation column (because Nation is about the athlete, not about the world record) and the photos (because more photos would end up next to the table unnecessarily squeezing it, especially in narrower windows). – Editør (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

General note by Editør
I want to add a general note. The above discussions seem to include a personal attack and to appeal to authority and tradition instead of critically interpreting the criteria and guidelines what I understand the review process is supposed to be about. I hope that we are all here to try and make Wikipedia better and that we can work together and find suitable solutions to improve this list where necessary and if possible. – Editør (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, please provide a quote or diff showing said personal attack. After rereading everyone's comments above, I see no example of any personal attack. Otherwise, I kindly request that you strike your comment. No one is appealing to authority or tradition, we are merely stating the established consensus that has developed over the years. Consensus can change! So if you would like to make a proposal to change that consensus, update the featured list criteria or clarify any expectations, please do so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 16:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Quote: Purposely not including them is the same as saying "I don't think readers with limited vision need as good an experience when reading this article as fully-sighted readers", which isn't okay. – Editør (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I don't want to change the rules. I want them to see applied appropriately. And I want them not blocked because of someone's status as coordinator (i.e. appeal to authority) or because their interpretation gave different results for other articles in the past (appeal to tradition). – Editør (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not a personal attack, which is clear in both the direct quote and when accounting for the full context of comment. Our coordinators interpret consensus and ensure a fair process. That is what they do. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 17:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To me it looks like a bad-faith personal accusation meant to discredit, i.e. a personal attack.
 * Still I would like to invite you to contribute constructively and work towards a solution for this list, if you are indeed here to make Wikipedia better. – Editør (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Copy of my statement elsewhere @User:Gonzo fan2007: I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, I don't find your comments constructive, and therefore I no longer see the point of continuing to discuss matters with you. – Editør (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation of this lengthy discussion: Editør disagrees with the consensus at FLC for how to apply the accessibility criteria to tables, specifically about whether row scopes are required. They have laid out their logic for why, specifically that their interpretation is that it is better to have no row scopes than for those row scopes to not be unique across all rows, which for this table is not always possible. One reviewer and two coordinators have disagreed with this interpretation as not matching the FLC consensus. Editør disagrees, and says that they will not follow any other interpretation unless someone gives them a logical argument that they agree with, and they do not agree with the ones given. Unfortunately, while they are free to disagree with the FLC consensus on this matter, that does not make it go away or not apply to whether or not to promote the list.

At this time, I do not see a path forward towards this nomination (or the 100m one) being promoted. Closing the nomination. -- Pres N  12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.