Talk:Men's pole vault world record progression

message: Why are some lines in the table bold, and some not? The table deserves a caption which explains the meaning of the escapement. Mikeblas 04:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold? 

message: The IAAF may be biased in favor of the metric system (though I doubt it was for the entire period covered by the chart),but those of us who prefer to think in feet and inches and don't live where there are laws against this would find the article more informative if there were a column giving the records as converted to those units.The World Almanac gives equivalents!--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unit conversion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Men's pole vault world record progression. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629134819/http://www.iaaf.org/mm/document/competitions/competition/05/15/63/20090706014834_httppostedfile_p345-688_11303.pdf to http://www.iaaf.org/mm/document/competitions/competition/05/15/63/20090706014834_httppostedfile_p345-688_11303.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The table shows Vigneron first breaking world record with 5.75 m in Paris on June 1, 1980. Then there's a second measure from June 29 in Lille. But it's still marked as 5.75 m. How is that a progression? Equaling a record shouldn't count as beating it, am I right? At least, I don't see this being the case elsewhere in the table, this is the only repeated measure. I checked the source, and at page 211 of the PDF there's the reported data, but it could easily be a typo. I suspect the second measure should have been 5.76 m. Which would make sense, since then the following progression is 5.77 m. We should find a way to double check. (By the way, the first venue that's reported as Paris in the Wiki page, it's actually Colombes in the source, and Colombes is outside Paris proper.) Kumagoro-42 22:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kumagoro - sorry I didn't see this till now. First, Colombes is the Olympic stadium from the 1924 Paris Olympics. Probably should be updated as, you are correct, it's just outside of Paris... As for Vigneron's second 5.75, I double-checked the far more detailed version of the record progression from the 2015 IAAF handbook - which describes jump sequences, places and often the particular circumstances of the record in question. Vigneron indeed jumped 5.75 m on that second record. And yes, tying a world record is still a world record. Check out the 100m progression lists  where numerous athletes held the record when it was ratified to the tenth of a second. As for whether this is a "progression" or not given the record doesn't improve in this case, you may have a point in terms of semantics, but that's how the IAAF describes its lists and it would be OR to apply a "correction" to those marks which don't "progress" the record in question. Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about Vigneron progression (possible mistake?) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Men's pole vault world record progression. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130112231127/http://athletix.org/?p=693 to http://athletix.org/?p=693
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114184220/http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_92.pdf to http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_92.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The table format for 1992 looks messed up - I'm not sure how to fix tables.  SquashEngineer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: doneMontell 74 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Format