 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Hall of fame
editThe article implies that the USATF Hall of Fame and the National Track and Field Hall of Fame are separate. What exactly is the relationship? How are the members actually selected? Racepacket (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Split
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to not split. There is support for the creation of an article about track and field in the United States, but it should not be created by splitting content out of this article.– BrandonXLF (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
As suggested at Draft:Track and field in the United States some of the content here (history, with further details) would be useful for a new article Track and field in the United States (currently a draft). In my opinion, such article would be a good idea. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. This is an article about the governing body of the sport in the United States; a political entity that produces events. It is not about the sport as a whole in the United States. There are other governing bodies responsible for different areas of the same sport. Trackinfo (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- As far as creating an article about Track and field in the United States, that is certainly an encompassing article that would include the contributions and limitations of USATF along with many other aspects. I'm all for it, just not at the expense of splitting this article. Trackinfo (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that creating that article is a good idea. The history of track and field goes much beyond the remit of the current national governing body so I don't see how a split is a useful approach, and the draft overly focuses on sport governance rather than the sport itself so is not suitable for such an article SFB 17:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.