Talk:400 metres

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WTF is a "metre" ? Look up "meter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syphon8 (talkcontribs) 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC) A meter is a measuring device; a metre is the SI unit of distance. (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Famous 400m Runners[edit]

Obviously this section is extremely subjective. Some runners may be famous in the track and field world (such as Sanya Richards), but to the wider population she is not as well-known since she has not won any major championships. I propose that, as a minimum standard for being eligible for this "famous" list, the athlete must be either a former world record holder or earned a medal at either the Olympic Games or the World Championships in the 400m. Mipchunk 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also think we should reduce the duplication with the top ten list. I agree with the sentiment above but wonder if sentimental favourites might also be considered? I added Lillian Board as a case study of someone who fails the Olympic champion test but does have notability due to an early death. This might be similar to Steve Prefontaine whose legend is massive despite his 'moderate' success at the world level. David D. (Talk) 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sprint or not?[edit]

Second sentence of this article (for 400m) claims: "It is not a sprint distance." The Sprint (race) article lists 400m as a sprint, with no comment about it being considered a middle distance. The Middle distance track event article does not mention 400m at all. So is it generally regarded as a sprint or not? Can somebody more knowledgeable about this please correct this self-contradiction? (I would push an edit myself, but to be honest, my knowledge of track events is limited to "wow, Bolt is so fast!" so I'm far from qualified to say what is true :) ) -- (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, nevermind. Looks like a random person just stuck the "not" on there a while back. Thanks for fixing it. -- (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (same person as above)Reply[reply]

10 ten males all American[edit]

Does the fact the top ten male 400m runners all are American merit mention? I'm an American and therefore possibly biased so I didn't want to make an an edit. Hwttdz (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added Note Regarding Caitlyn Jenner[edit]

Caitlyn Jenner ran a 47.51 at the 1976 Olympics, a best of all time for women in the event. At the time, she went by the name Bruce. I feel it would be extremely transphobic to erase her identity and belittle her accomplishments by failing to mention this time. Although the IAAF has not, and likely will not, ratify Caitlyn's time as a world record, it deserves mention here as an all-time woman's best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that is the case, she should be banned from the sport for using illegal levels of testosterone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bruce Jenner ran the event, not Caitlyn Jenner. Refer to the Bruce Jenner(which now redirects to Caitlyn Jenner) that says and I quote, "Caitlyn Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949)" acknowledges they had a name change. Bruce Jenner was a 1976 Olympian competing in the men's division, as a man. Life choices later made do not retroactively change past events, they are not a time traveler, they made decisions and transitioned after the 1976 olympics. As far as I know I don't think there has even been a legal name change, but as these are past events this is a rather moot point. They are not a time traveler. To be eligible for times you must compete in a women's event. Bruce Jenner competed in the men's event and is therefore in no way, shape, or form qualified to be recognized by that body and therefore not here as well. (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your repeated use of the pronoun "they" seems inappropriate and insulting. Jenner went by Bruce and now goes by Caitlyn, but is the same person. Your use of "they" implies otherwise and should not be used in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP, please don't degenerate this argument to transphobia. We are discussing this at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. I am using this request as an example of the ridiculous requests for recognizing Caitlyn's gender transition. Here's a quick summation of the points made there: IAAF has gender standards. Jenner as an XY will never qualify under those standards, not then, not now. Jenner represented as a male athlete, at the time the 'World's Greatest Athlete" and the 1976 AP "Male Athlete of the Year." If we were to recognize his accomplishments as if they were performed as a woman, we would be offending the WP:BLP of all the other women his recognition would unfairly displace. And all of this would not represent what is reported in WP:SOURCES. We would effectively be rewriting history in wikipedia's voice against sources. It would be nice to recognize the change, but any accomplishments she made before 2015 were as a man. It would be as ridiculous as saying she is the first woman to father 6 children. Stop the presses. She didn't, he did. The problem here is the misuse, or more specifically the POV writing of MOS:IDENTITY. It was written by advocacy groups to be fair to the individual making the gender change, but does not take into account the violation of a known public history that affects many other individuals, which if rewritten would put wikipedia at odds with reality and make us a laughing stock. Trackinfo (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jenner discussions[edit]

We have discussions about the policy going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification and about the other usages of Jenner's identity at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. There is a lot of discussion to read at both locations. Trackinfo (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lactic acid?[edit]

Article states that 400 runners have high ability to tolerate lactic acid. This is unscientific folklore. A silly myth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 400 metres. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

400m indoor[edit]

I think it should have it's page. The same with 200m indoors. Haven't seen much on it which is weird because all other disciplines are well covered. It's standard discipline but with a twist - 2 laps (8 corners) instead of 1 lap (4 corners), I guess you could use those arguments for other disciplines but it's a sprint discipline so it's a different story- it affects times. (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]