Talk:Mark Webber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mark Webber has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Motorsport (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Mark Webber is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian motorsport (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Formula One (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Motorsport (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Buckinghamshire (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


2011 Season[edit]

The article as it currently appears states in relation to the 2011 Chinese Grand Prix ... 'A KERS failure in the China meant he finished qualifying in eighteenth place'. My understanding is that the lack of Kers had nothing to do with his performance, but a problem with his warming up the tyres on a 1 lap stint (and I would like to alter the article to reflect this). Furthermore, the current thinking is that Kers is worth about 0.3 to 0.5 second per lap, yet MW was a couple of seconds down on Vettel in Q1, and there is some speculation that Vettel's KERS was not working properly as well, in addition to which, the Red Bull KERS system is considered one of the weaker systems on the grid. Thoughts? Leor klier (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are correct (i.e. that KERS failure was not responsible for him qualifying 18th); I have reworded it to just say that he qualified 18th, without specifying why. DH85868993 (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that a brief explanation of the reason why would be appropriate given that readers may wonder why he was (approx) 2 seconds slower than his team-mate - after all, it is noteworthy when events occur which are out of the ordinary.Leor klier (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree - I just wanted to remove the misinformation from the article; feel free to add in an appropriate explanation. DH85868993 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mark Webber and Manchester United...[edit]

Hmm... there seems to be a flood of IP editors all altering the Mark Webber page to change his footballing allegiance to MUFC. I'm assuming that the Sky interview that some editors have mentioned (although not provided as a source) must have said something about this, but the version I've managed to find online doesn't. Anyone throw any light on this? The sourced information gives Sunderland, and as this seems to have been a long-standing thing (on his own website for many years) I'm reluctant to take anonymous editors' unsourced claims seriously. Trivial, I know, but irritating. Pyrope 21:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How about we just delete it. Is it really important/notable which football team a Grand Prix driver likes? --Falcadore (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
A very good question. Pyrope 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, just get rid. We can always re-add it if it becomes noteworthy and has a decent source attached to it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)



Mark Webber (actor) averages more than 10,000 hits per month [1]. While Mark Webber receives more than that [2], the difference is insufficient to qualify the racing driver's article as the primary topic. Moreover, the actor's article's hit stats suggest that a substantial portion of the pageviews Mark Webber gets are from people looking for the actor's article. This article should be moved to Mark Webber (racing driver) (along the lines of e.g. Tommy Byrne (racing driver), Bob Drake (racing driver), or Joe Kelly (racing driver)). Mark Webber (disambiguation) should be moved to Mark Webber. 78.35.235.104 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I went back a few months looking through the hits and noticed at one point the racing driver got more hits in one day that the actor got in a whole month. There does appear to be a spike in the actors hits over the last two months as the hits drop away markedly prior to September. Some I'm not personally convinced by the arguement. --Falcadore (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you opining as an editor or as a Formula One fan? Anyway, if you look at the average hits per day on the non-spike-days of both articles, you'll see that the actor article has about 400 per day, and the race driver has about 800. Very clearly not a primary topic, even a Formula One fan should recognize that. --78.35.235.104 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I say to that as mud sticks once an aspersion is cast other than one should assume good faith. --Falcadore (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, my modest experience in editing Formula-One-related articles has taught me to be wary of pile-on voting by the usual suspects. You are a Formula One editor, and although that in and of itself does not further weaken your argument, I'd appreciate the intellectual honesty of disclaiming any potential conflicts of interest. Needless to say, pile-on votes will be mercilessly disregarded. Anyway, do you stick by your opinion that the race driver is the clear primary topic? I believe there is plenty precedent of hit ratios even more lopsided than the estimated 2:1 we have here being recognized as insufficient to establish a primary topic. --78.35.235.104 (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, firstly, am I one of your "usual suspects"? My interest in Formula One article editing is more historical than modern, if that difference means anything to you. I also had a look at google search and only one of the top fifty searches was not about the Formula One driver, and that other Mark Webber was not the actor. To repeat my above opinion, I don't find your argument convincing. --Falcadore (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're completely honest, aren't you looking at this at least partially from the perspective of a F1 fan though? To the extent that that is the case, my argument is not designed to convince you, it's designed to convince neutral on-lookers. The approximate hit ratio of 2:1 is clearly insufficient to label the driver the primary topic. Even much more lopsided ratios regularly result in the consensus that there isn't a primary topic. It's pretty much a clearcut case AFAICT. --78.35.235.104 (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish. 2:1 makes very clear that one is primary and the other secondary. This can be better handled by a single hatnote rather than a dab page. As for being open and above board with our editing interests, this is coming from a newly-minted IP editor? If you want to continue with this discussion could we have a full history of your editing please, along with all other IP and registered user accounts that you have edited from. Falcadore has a traceable and open editing history, you do not. Put up or shut up. Pyrope 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You utterly fail to understand the meaning of "primary topic". Yes, one has more hits. But "primary topic" means that it can be expected that most people are looking for that topic. Two thirds is the majority, but not "most" in the sense of a primary topic. Not by a long shot.
this is coming from a newly-minted IP editor? -- Newly minted? Hardly. I take it you have never heard of dynamic IP addresses?
Put up or shut up. -- I don't have any conflict of interest to declare with regard to this particular subject matter. Interestingly, the same is absolutely not true for you, see below. --87.78.22.136 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I was honest as I could be. I don't think asking me the same question twice is going to produce a different answer because you've added an adverb to the question. --Falcadore (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed and your statistical analysis awry. November 2012 figures for the two pages are 42,315 (driver) and 17,919 (actor). This seems to be pretty stable over a few months. That's a pretty big margin. As for stating that the comparison of the two suggests "a substantial portion" of the driver's hits are generated by people looking for the actor, where are you getting this idea? If that were true then you would see coincident peaks in traffic on dates where the actor hit the news for some reason. This doesn't happen. The (single) big peak in the actor's traffic occurred on the 6th November. This date is actually fairly low traffic for the driver, and pretty much follows the decay curve that you would expect following a Grand Prix race. Finally, comparing a current, race winning world championship competitor to how we handle pages for three very minor historical competitors is hardly helpful. As I say above, if you really think that this is a serious issue then a hatnote would be the more efficient disambiguator as there are only two pages with significant traffic to deal with. Pyrope 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the next motorsport aficionado who comments here in his primary function as a motorsport aficionado. Ok, my argument is rock solid. 2:1 means that a clearcut primary topic as in "it can be expected that people looking for Mark Webber are looking for the driver and not for anyone else by the same name" cannot be established.
This seems to be pretty stable over a few months. -- Nonsense. E.g. in August 2012, it's a mere 14,534 vs. 12,645. Even the margin of 42,315 vs. 17,919 precludes us from naming the driver the primary topic. Plus, again, you also have to subtract a certain portion of the hits to Mark Webber from readers who were really looking for the actor's article.
Finally, comparing a current, race winning world championship competitor to how we handle pages for three very minor historical competitors is hardly helpful. -- This really doesn't even warrant a response, but here goes anyway: I was very obviously just mentioning those other articles to argue that the disambiguator should be "(racing driver)".
In closing, let me tell you that you have no case, and no point. You're just the run-of-the-mill motorsport editor, and you're not here as a neutral observer. --87.78.22.136 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to be neutral, just open and honest. If you want to know about me you can click on my username. How do I find out about you? So you pick one month from the last few, well done. Two can play that game. Take May 2012, for example, in that month the figures were 45,289 and 8908. As you are fond of ratios that's over 5:1. The rest mostly have your 2:1 ratio there or there abouts. As for that ratio, you need to find a dictionary and look up the common usage of the term "primary". A ratio of 2:1 most certainly indicates that the subject is first in terms of significance. You also provide no substantiation, whatsoever, of your claim that a significant proportion of people find the driver page when looking for the actor. What is this based on? Pyrope 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Open and honest, huh. Like motorsport fans pretending to not be here solely in great and just defense of the motorsport-related article?
You also provide no substantiation, whatsoever, of your claim that a significant proportion of people find the driver page when looking for the actor. -- The burden of proof is on you: It is clearly the plausible assumption that a portion of the hits to Mark Webber are from people looking for the actor. Are you seriously disputing that? If so, please explain your assumption that none or close to none of the hits to Mark Webber are from people looking for the actor. Because that, your, assumption is the implausible one here. Also, it's merely an additional observation, on top of the fact that even the raw 2:1 ratio is not nearly enough to treat the driver as though he was in a completely different league of notability from the actor. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This whole RfM is extremely dubious, and the conversation above is even more so. I suggest asking an admin to look at this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose It is clear that there are three Mark Webbers - The pages sizes are 125,328; 1,881; 4,350 bytes. Viewing figures for last 90 days are 114522; 2769; 47860. This this article is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should not be moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the OP is quoting views per time, it's probably better to quote a proper average views per month over a useful time - thus over the last complete 12 months we get 1017.389; 30.652; 396.005 views per day. Should the actor's average pages view start getting close to the larger number, then maybe we might need to consider a change, but that day has certainly not arrived yet.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
How many of the hits to Mark Webber can reasonably be attributed to people looking for the actor? None, as you are implying in your presentation of raw numbers? --87.79.231.17 (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
See User:The-Pope's answer below about the DAB page stats - those finding the driver and wanting the actor will have to go via the DAB page - the numbers just do not show that  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about the motives of the proposer, as it seems they have some sort of axe to grind with regular Formula One members, and at the very least seems overly motivated to promote Mark Webber the actor. In any case, it is clear that Mark Webber the driver is the primary topic. QueenCake (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about the motives of the proposer -- Luckily for both of us, you don't have to be.
it seems they have some sort of axe to grind with regular Formula One members -- Nah, it's just one of those topic areas where the regular contributors a slightly more dense, on average. I haven't edited a lot of motorsport-related articles, but when I do, it's for reasons that allow for serious doubt over whether most regular motorsport editors even know about policy and guidelines.
at the very least seems overly motivated to promote Mark Webber the actor -- Sorry, but that's just outright ridiculous. The way I stumbled upon this page was by simply typing in "mark webber" and I was quite surprised not to find the actor's article, but instead the article about some racing driver I had never heard of before, because I'm not a motorsport fan.
it is clear that Mark Webber the driver is the primary topic -- Says the motorsport fan in the face of clearcut evidence to the contrary. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Once again with the motivation slurs, you are a card aren't you. Try supporting your arguments with facts and analysis, rather than just your own POV, and perhaps the "dense" people around here might take you seriously, whoever you are (still no movement on clarifying that I see, bully for you and your random accusations of densosity). "Clearcut" your evidence most certainly is not. By the way, how does your cited edit (a minor grammatical tweak) relate to "serious doubt over whether most regular motorsport editors even know about policy and guidelines"? Yet another unsubstantiated gross slur on a very large and productive group of editors, these seem to be a habit of yours. Pyrope 07:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been arguing consistently from the get-go. Here's a quick re-hash for you: The hit stats ratio does not qualify the driver as the primary topic, because the difference is far too small. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that quite a few other people, just like me, arrived at the driver article only while looking for the actor. Of course we can't say for sure what percentage of the hit stats for Mark Webber are due to people looking for the actor, but it further aggravates the "problem" (from your point of view) that the actor and the driver are clearly in the same dimension of notability, as reflected by the fact that even the raw hit stats are very much within the same order of magnitude.
With regard to you motorsport fans: Was I justified in being wary of a zerg rush of motorsport fans just not liking the proposal? Sure looks that way. I'm just not in the habit of not acknowledging the existence of spades. And judging from the copious assumptions of good faith I'm getting, neither are the regular motorsport editors who have commented here so far. But don't let that distract you from the reasoning in the first paragraph. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – the pageview stats do not support a primary topic claim here. The undisambiguated title gets more hits, naturally, but with the relatively small factor that says little about what people are looking for. It's clearly ambiguous enough to need a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
What does a diambiguation page do that a hatnote doesn't? Both methods mean that someone looking for the actor has to click twice, and the majority (two thirds is a clear and unambiguous majority, not "relatively small") who are looking for the driver would have to add an extra click. This is adding complexity and faff that simply isn't justified. Also, yet again we have an unsubstantiated insinuation that a significant proportion of the undisambiguated page's hits are related to people looking for the actor. This assertion simply isn't borne out by the patterns seen in the statistical data. Pyrope 07:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Between the ~2:1 hit stats ratio and the fact that it can be reasonably assumed that quite a few people arrive at the driver article while actually looking for the actor, it could very well be that once the pages are moved and properly disambiguated, the actor will receive almost as many, if not more hits than the driver. What makes you so sure that possibly as many as half of the hits to Mark Webber aren't from people looking for the actor? (Not that even the raw ~2:1 ratio would be enough to determine a primary topic, mind you.) --87.79.231.17 (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
What makes you so sure that possibly as many as half of the hits to Mark Webber aren't from people looking for the actor? - if you were looking for the actor, and went to the driver by default, then the hatnote is to the dab page... which is also tracked and averages about 16 hits per day (Jan to Nov 2012), so compared to the 400 for the actor and 1050 for the driver, it's fairly clear that most people aren't getting to the actor via the driver and the dab page. And, seeming you want to have full disclosure from everyone (except you, of course, you could be related to the actor, we wouldn't know, as you are just an ip with no traceable contribution history), I am NOT a racing fan (watching cars go round a racetrack is very boring to me), but I am Australian, so obviously I know of the driver. Never heard of the actor.
But lets look at the page view stats a bit closer, as raw averages are distorted by the spikes. If you assume that everything single dab page view got to the driver's page first and you remove them from the count, of the 331 days between January and the end of November, the page views have been in the actors favour 26 times, but only 6 of them were more than a 4:3 ratio, and never more than 2:1. For the driver, 47 days it was slightly (up to 4:3 ratio) in his favour, 19 days up to 3:2 views of the drivers page:actor, 96 days up to 2:1, 72 days up to 3:1, 43 days up to 5:1 and 28 days more than 5:1. So you have as many days with a >5:1 ratio in the drivers favour as you do with slightly more views of the actors page. Overall the daily ratio is about 2.7:1 in favour of the driver. To me that makes the drivers page still the primary topic, so Oppose the move. The-Pope (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear "IP Editor Who Wishes To Remain Anonymous" (although I see User:Belligerent Berliner is free, perhaps you ought to try that). Rather than go around in circles with you all over the page, I'll coalesce things here. Contrary to your statement, as you started the RfM the burden of proof is on you. As the Romans used to put it Ei innumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of proof lies on he who acts, not he who denies. Apt in this circumstance, isn't it? Your "reasonable" assumption is, unfortunately, just a guess on your part. The evidence shows otherwise. As I already pointed out above, your guess leads to the requirement that on those days where the actor is in the news you should see spikes in both actor and driver pageviews. This doesn't happen. Ergo, your guess is faulty. You go by instinct and guesswork, I use statistics. As for the primacy issue, in every day life having twice as many of something than another has would normally be considered a pretty wide margin. As an example, in political elections it would be termed a landslide. You have offered no evidence for any of your assertions and yet you come here casting aspersions on others' motivation when they have offered reasoned and evidence-based rebuttals of your position. At no point has any editor, other than you, simply stated that they "don't like it". The first failure of AGF was in fact yours, in you response to Falcadore's first point. They made a good, evidence-based comment, and you laid in with "Are you opining as an editor or as a Formula One fan?" Hoist by your own petard, I'm afraid. If you want people to behave well toward you then you must extend the same courtesy in return. Please do try to come up with something substantive in your, inevitable, response to this post. Pyrope 14:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You're still commenting as a motorsport fan. You will not be swayed by valid arguments. I get it. --87.79.133.209 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
QED. Thanks for demonstrating my point so succinctly. Pyrope 20:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a crock. Racing driver is patently the primary topic. Note that an admin has already stated that the page should not be moved. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (i) The driver is very obviously not the primary topic. Your continued ignorance of the compelling arguments only means that your !vote should be disregarded. (ii) How does an admin's opinion carry more weight than anyone else's? --87.79.133.209 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"Wah, wah, my compelling argument is fact!!" etc etc – heard it all before. I've read your argument and I don't agree with you. Suck it up. It's not up to you which opinions get disregarded, and I didn't say an admin's opinion carries more weight than anyone else's. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Your continued repetition of the same incorrect facts is more likely to get your !vote disregarded. See my analysis above - 2.7:1 to me IS enough to prove that a primary topic exists. But I wouldn't use words like "obviously" to bludgeon other's views into submission. The-Pope (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm just going to suggest typing the words 'Mark Webber' into your favourite internet image search engine (try [3] if you don't have a favourite) and see if one chap appears slightly more than any other. AlexJ (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice the IP comes from Germany (netcologne.de) - maybe the Racing Driver is not so well known in that country...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "F1 fans cannot argue rationally" is not a compelling reason to support this change, nor is it an effective counter argument to the well-articulated case presented above for leaving it as it is. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mark Webber's helmets[edit]

I know this is a lesser issue and I'm certain his helmets didn't change almost at all, but he did change it on one race last year (2012) in Singapore. Apparently it was the only time he ever changed his helmet. The helmet was designed by a young fan fron Croatia, called Zlatka Subotičanec. Out of 1,118 entries, Zlatka's design was chosen by Mark Webber himself. Here is a complete page with all the valuable data regarding Webber's special Singapore helmet. Mark Webber (Aussie Grit helmet promo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.38.188 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)