Talk:1500 metres

Running Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Running, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of running on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RunningWikipedia:WikiProject RunningTemplate:WikiProject RunningRunning

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:
edit history watch purge tag all running related articles with {{WikiProject Running}} adding assessment and importance parameters when missing find references for articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Running/Unreferenced BLPs adopt an article and promote it to GA

shanghai 1997

results from china in 1990's, especially shanghai, October 1997, should be ignored. unless the atheletes abilities are verified by very similar results outside of China.

You can see a table of results from china national games here, from their own national press,

1997 is an aberration..the results cannot be trustred. claims of world records and rank from china should be excluded.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200509/28/eng20050928_211249.html

1600 meters

I'd like to see some discussion of the question of whether there's ever been any serious consideration of replacing 1500-meter races with 1600-meter races at the international level. In a sense, the 1500-meter distance is an anomaly. Most tracks are designed for 400-meter laps, so 400-, 800-, 1600-, and 3200-meter distances represent even multiples of the laps, making the 1600-meter distance a more logical part of the progression, as well as easier to define and follow on the track. Moreover, 1600 meters is so close to a statute mile (1760 yards or 1609 meters) that every 1600-meter race could also be run as a traditional mile race, for purposes of producing mile times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.231.152 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any discussion on 1600 m replacing the 1500 m. It may be an "anomaly", but it's grandfathered by now. And men are running 110 m hurdles, aren't they? GregorB 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external links

The "external links" section I removed consisted entirely of links to sites not specifically about the 1500, and all added by an anon user in a single edit.[1] That same user added identical "external links" sections to a large number of other athletics articles in the space of a few days. Removing only the spam links is a great idea, but in this case that means all of them. 129.97.79.144 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to remove the IAAF link? What is your rationale? The other general athletics links are also valuable, with uptodate stats. Which are the spam sites and give reasons for their removal, they all loook fine to me. David D. (Talk) 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item 14 and my comments on Talk:Hammer_throw 129.97.79.144 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the governing body of the sport only indirectly related? David D. (Talk) 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]