Talk:Parkrun

Milestones section

How come this section was removed? The milestones and the milestone T-shirts are a big part of the culture of the organisation. --RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Individual running records

One question on the "Individual running records" section - are these definitely global, or just UK? While there are still far more parkruns in the UK than anywhere else, and thus there would be more records set by British runners at UK events, it's a little odd that all of the records appear to have been set in the UK. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a good point, I will go through them and check/update. Szzuk (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I updated the section. The records noted were all set in the UK and are global records. The wheelchair records can't be referenced anywhere I can see so they could easily be wrong and an overseas record. I've tagged these and I wouldn't restore them if they were deleted. Szzuk (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Former record holders

I'm wondering whether to add former record holders but I'm not sure how much value there is in that? For example Craig Mottram was the record holder for a good while and probably deserves a mention. Szzuk (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Article reads like marketing copy and editors remove criticism

This article repeatedly says that Parkrun is "inclusive", which reads like marketing copy and is clearly not encyclopaedic.

I edited one of these occasions slightly to note that non-binary people are not included. People must register as male or female.

This edit was reverted as "not adhering to a neutral point of view".

I contest this. The article should not say that Parkrun is "inclusive" while it is intentionally excluding a demographic of people. While I don't doubt that Parkrun appeals to a wide range of people, it cannot be described as "inclusive" as long as it does this. The article as it stands is clearly not taking a neutral point of view.

The only reference using the word "inclusive" is a direct quote from the founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.102.78 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I see a broader problem here. Saying something is "inclusive" or not is stating an opinion, not a fact. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This ref [1] in The Guardian uses the word "inclusive". It is edging towards POV anyway, so I will delete it. This ref [2] says Parkrun is going to update its website to include a non binary choice. Szzuk (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

So what you're saying is Parkrun is like every single running/walking event in the British Isles that requires registration, and looks for a gender when one registers? That doesn't make it non-inclusive. In fact, as pointed out by Szzuk, it will be adding a non-binary choice, which I believe will make it first such athletics event to do so in the British Isles and probably wider. Which will make it noteworthy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The registration page now has four options when registering - "Female", "Male", "Another gender identity", and "Prefer not to say".165.255.108.7 (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Spam

Details of Parkruns seem to have been spammed across 100s of articles about towns and parks when events are held, including unencyclopedic/promotional content such and meeting points and starting times. 51.9.187.2 (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I argue that in cases such as Stonehaven, it is notable to mention parkrun especially considering there is already a Sport section on the page.NemesisAT (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Without any media coverage, in most cases it is no more notable or mentionable than a group of kids having a regular kickabout. And including meeting times and places has no place in any article - these details are promotional spam. 51.9.187.2 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Could it not be argued that the parkrun is almost a facility on offer in the park. I mean the Serpentine Park entry mentions the swimming, it is a feature & fixture of the park. I agree that entries should meet the standards and guidelines. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Source for "membership" / "total individual runners" stat?

Can anyone suggest a good source for this stat in the infobox at the top of the page, please? I've just reverted a good-faith edit that seemed unlikely, but the previous revision isn't convincing without a source either. The official Parkrun site simply says "over 3 million", and most other stats there are for total weekly attendance. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Improving the article

This article was recently deleted (March 2023) under the criteria of WP:G11, i.e., "unambiguous advertising or promotion". While the article has been restored, and I personally don't agree that it came under G11, there is definitely room for improvement, and some material is probably due for removal. Please join me over the next couple of weeks in working to improve it. We definitely need additional sources that aren't from the main parkrun websites. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've started adding a few external references, there has been quite a lot of coverage by the ABC in Australia. Andytuna (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Reviewing this further after commenting on the AfD, I don't see the present article as having advertising concerns; the areas which I think could be improved through normal editing are that in places it reads like a participant instruction guide (which some might read as promotional). I would suggest that the level of detail in the Taking part in Parkrun and Volunteers sections in particular should be pruned; the Festive and special events table might also be removed: the interested can look to websites. The several paragraphs summarising 3rd party studies and comments might also be collated into a Reception section standing outside the Event outline section? AllyD (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

These are all really good suggestions. I'll work away on these, starting later today, if not beaten to it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

'Directory' tag

Hi, Ajf773 - you recently added the WP:NOTDIRECTORY tag to the article. I'm really not seeing how that's applicable. Were you re-adding something that had already been there prior to deletion? If not, what are the issues you see with the article as-is? Sections have "simple listings" but are presented with contextual information - or am I missing something? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thought I'd put the template in now and start a discussion about whether or not their is any merit in keeping the list of countries and their first event. Given that practically every source uses the ParkRun website as a primary source, I'm inclined to remove it as indiscriminate information. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Any objection if it was split to a separate "List of..." article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

My opinon: It shouldn't exist anywhere. Ajf773 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m opposed to removal of the table - I’ve used this in the past as a reader so personally can justify that it benefits our readers.

I would also advise against splitting as that will make it easier to be deleted. Garuda3 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the tag to the section it relates to. The info in that list could be put into prose in the country sections, or left, I think either is fine. Desertarun (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need the "List of Parkrun event countries" section, as that does seem like a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. The text "as of X, parkruns are done in 26 countries. They are suspended in France because of .... and Russia because of...." would be sufficient, along with maybe a mention of the numbers of parkruns in the top 3-5 countries. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Precisely. Any thing of relevance in a particular country can be included in the Events around the world section. The directory of each countries is all just uplifted from the official website and doesn't need to be there, nor does the special events list. Ajf773 (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia needs to be here. We don’t need to bother building this wiki after all. This is an incredibly weak argument. Garuda3 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as you're objecting purely to the word "need", let me rephrase: the table is source entirely to primary sources, and does not demonstrate why it's needed in an encyclopedia when it's clearly in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NO-TABLES Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not.. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Prose is preferred, but in this case the information is more clearly displayed in a table. That style guideline you linked to does not prohibit the use of tables, it is just telling us to be sensible with them. I'm not seeing where in WP:NOTDIRECTORY it says that tables can't be used in this way. Garuda3 (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Reducing spammyness

Once again the Wikipedia community has overwhelmingly voted to turn a supposed Encyclopedia into an advertising platform. Oh well. I will try reduce the promotional content and the how to instructions. I'm sure I receive some kickback from the sycophants who will say it's notable, they can promote what they want , but here we go. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You might want to have a read of WP:AGF and WP:NPA there, lad. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Who did I attack here laddy duffbeerforme (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re being very heavy handed with the content removal there and most of it doesn’t appear overly promotional. BTW, notability applies to whether an article should exist or not, not what content should be included within existing articles. Garuda3 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(after ec) - absolutely agreed. I've reverted, and will continue to do so, as there is no consensus for such excision. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Your attitude towards the article is clear. Given your PoV, you might want to get consensus for your proposed changes before taking a scalpel to the article? Your opinion is clearly not the majority opinion and you will (and have) cut too deep. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

My attitude towards the overly promotional nature of this article and the straight out how to guides based entirely on primary promotional content has been open from the very start. Your opinion on my opinion is not borne out by the result of the recent afd, the majority of the commentators ignored that side of the discussion. My position has seen support in other venues. For you to just mindlessly revert every single edit of mine was more telling of your own personal POV. Lets start by you talking us through your reverting of this edit. Entirely primary sourced promotion of this business's app. How does that belong in an Encylopedia? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please share what other venues have you been discussing this in?

Regarding the app, you don't seem to understand what parkrun actually is. It is a charity not a business (though is supported by sponsers) and volunteers who used to rely on physical timers are now asked to use an app. This isn't promotional. Garuda3 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

For the first, Let's go with a clear and unambiguous venue, User talk:Jimfbleak where User:Jimfbleak specifically stated "the Parkrun article was even more promotional than the one mentioned above" [3].

For the second, wow, advertisers must love you. Whether this organisation is charitable or not is irrelevant as to whether content is promotional or not. Your defense of the content reinforces what it is, primary sourced how to instructions. You are saying Parkrun want people to use this so we need to tell people to use this. We are not here to follow Parkrun's wishes. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You maintain it's a promotional article. People at AfD disagreed with you and said 'fix the article' (you were asked for your replacement draft version, but never replied). Instead of fixing the article, you started gutting it, without consensus (and at least two editors quickly disagreeing with your edits). So you were reverted. Don't know what "business" it is that you're talking about - what you deleted was relevant information on an entirely free app, that doesn't even benefit from advertising support, published by a charity. That's hardly "promotion."

Who did I attack here laddy - above, it looks like it was the whole Wikipedia community, who failed to agree with you at AfD; and the people editing the article constructively, who've you labelled as "sycophants". CSD G11 (twice), a 14-1 AfD loss, and over 40 substantial edits to the article (mostly removals, at that!) since you started carping. Are we at Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass stage, or WP:REICHSTAG yet? Maybe not, but we're getting close. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

People at AfD disagreed with you The clear majority of commentators did not disagree about the promotional matter, just with my proposed solution.

Instead of fixing the article, you started gutting it, Fixing it by removing some of the promotional and how to content which you bulk restored. Add to that question, why did you restore the source removed here? It is essentially a [[wp:|fictitious]] ref as it doesn't directly support the content. It's also not independent so just adds to the massive bombarment of non independent sourcing that is already a problem here.

Don't know what "business" it is that you're talking about If you don't know what business I'm talking about then perhaps I could direct you to their website, but then you were probably just trying to be a smartarse. To quote the BBC, "Charities are businesses whose aim is to raise money for good causes, or to help people, animals and the environment."

what you deleted was relevant information on an entirely free app. How is it relevent to an Encylopedia. Who independent has written about it taht makes it anything more that just a free mirror for Parkrun's own page? Wikipedia is not a how-to. It is not here to tell people how to run Parkruns, that's Parkrun Globals job. One of the most basic forms of promotion is telling people of the existence of products. That is all that's happening here.

Next question for you, why did you restore the source removed here? It is essentially a fictitious ref as it doesn't directly support the content. It's also not independent so just adds to the massive bombardment of non independent sourcing that is already a problem here.

Who did I attack here laddy -1 Did you really take a throwaway comment as an attack on the whole community? wow, mega thin skin. 2.Did I call everyone a sycophant as you are saying? No, look at what I wrote, "who will say it's notable, they can promote what they want". If anyone wants to take on that label that's their choice. So name one individual I called a sycophant.

over 40 substantial edits to the article (mostly removals, at that!). Did I really, where are the majority of those. Have they secretly been remove from the article history.

Drop the gatekeeper act and stop making pointy reversions just because you don't like the the editor who edited (look I can link essays too). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, Spider-Man! Have you got a proposed alternative draft yet? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So no justification for it's restoration then. I'll remove it again. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Restored it again. You can't just remove a reference with a claim that it's "fictitious". It's not fictitious. It's a link to a valid, published article. Go find another hobbyhorse, please. This one's dead. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Helps to actually read explanations. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Helps to not delete them, then, doesn't it? Your explanation still doesn't make sense. Restored and expanded. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to delete things, especially on pages bombarded with primary sources. If you want to understrand my explanation try reading. BTW, congrats on not mindlessly reverting me, a good step forward. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps your writing is not as clear as you think it is? Maybe drop the snide remarks, too, while you're at it. I make it 32 primary references to 53 non-primary (and not counting the references for the tabulated list of first parkruns). Is that excessive? Does it really matter that much, when the sources are being used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. They're pretty much a textbook case of WP:PRIMARY. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

How-to

The vast majority of the entire Event outline section is one big how-to guide that reads like marketing copy. eg, "Anyone can take part, including walkers as well as runners. Participants include parents with their children, pensioners, people with their dogs, wheelchair users, people pushing prams, and club and casual runners, although not all courses are suitable for all participants." And the source that support that flowery inclusiveness, [4], a feel good piece from a participant quoting an organisor. Can't see any mentions of wheelchairs there, or about the suitability of other courses. It all looks like the preferred promotional copy has been written and then someone has tried to find sources that maybe sort of supports it. That's the wrong way around. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I agree, there is a considerable amount of content on here. A lot of it is sourced directly from the Parkrun website. Is it really necessary to know how many events to complete to be eligible to purchase a coloured t-shirt? Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Agree that needs a significant trim. Anyone can enter would be sufficient for this. The "Parkrun locations" closures should probably be in the history section rather than this section. The second paragraph of the "Volunteers" section looks like a how-to, and the section about "people's innovation"/comparison to Wikipedia is better suited to the "Reception" section. "Junior Parkrun" section can be cut down, as wristband colours are not encyclopedic, and same for the whole "Milestone clubs" section. "Parkrun tourism and challenges" has too much info on home location, replace it with some light general text about how some runners go different places specifically to be tourist Parkrunners.

Capitalisation

The article starts by noting that it stylised as parkrun (i.e. not capitalised). So, does every reference to Parkrun need changing to parkrun (i.e. make them all lowercase)? Random56653 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

See the note at the top of the article when editing in Source mode:

In Wikipedia, trademarks are capitalised, regardless of the trademark owners' wishes, as stated in the policy page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks . Therefore, please do not change the name Parkrun to "parkrun", as it will get reverted in accordance with policy. GraziePrego (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Petition

I see there has been a bit of back and forth regarding the recent removal of statistics from parkrun event pages. However, the change was reported widely from reliable sources and the petition has also been sited in national newspapers after getting nearly 10000 signatures in a couple of days. I would argue this is significant regardless of individual opinions on the subject. I hope the petition information can stay on the page as it is well sources. Thanks and happy editing everyone. NorthCheam (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The number signing the petition isn't notable in and of itself, but the coverage that the furore has received - the removal, the petition, etc. - has received substantial coverage and should indeed be covered. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, now that a proper source has been provided. It needs to be better contextualised if it is to be included, however. Is there a better source that can be used for the petition statement? The Telegraph one is paywalled. GraziePrego (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As a note, it seems that @NorthCheam is sufficiently biased on this matter that they can't make a judgment based on objective significance. They vandalised the Parkrun founder's page, changing his name to "Andrew Tate", and then left an edit summary on a subsequent edit saying "Bring back the Parkrun statistics". Clearly they're worked up about this enough to vandalise Wikipedia, so editors should take this into account when reading their commentary. GraziePrego (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

So noted, but my comment above stands. I'll have a look for additional sources this evening. Thanks, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This is notable. Apologies about the Tate edit but the rest have been constructive. My aim is not to vanadlize but to put in the (well referenced) major story. And by the way my opinion does not matter. The sources say what I have put. I am sure no one else has an opinion on the subject either 🤣 NorthCheam (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@NorthCheam, you’ve now added the number of signatures back, and left an inappropriate edit summary.

“ The petition now up to 15000. Bring back the stats parkrun. God bless parkrun volunteers and participants. Peace and love ”. You’re behaving in a highly disruptive manner. GraziePrego (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn’t notice you’re also broadcasting your opinion in edit summaries in this very discussion. GraziePrego (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)