User talk:Falcadore

Archives

1 2 3 4

Formula 1 2010 Season colors in points system table

Just stop it OK? The colours do not add anyting to this table, they do not provide any additional explantion,, the key to the colours is much further down in the article, they only thing they are is pretty, and potentially more confusing as the unfamiliar reader has to ask why its there.
Hey, I'm not being rude when posting those changes. I'm as much intereseted as you to make this article look and be right.
You also agree with me they do add to the aesthetics, and also it really is coherent with the colouring of the standings table. Maybe what is confusing (I assume) is that the table represents points and not positions. Then it colud be right not to mix them up. Although, the table looks really withered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.117.15 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Update note: Every page of every F1 driver has those colours in their GP results, without any references to them. It's not the same table as the points system table, because the latter shows positions and not points; and to mix their references could be confusing.
Even though, the driver's results problem still exist. Maybe F1 seasons articles should be presented better, and driver's pages could be kept this way (both as they are).LehonardEuler (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2009 Chinese Grand Prix

Thanks. I've requested semi-protection. DH85868993 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

2001 Australian Grand Prix Points Tables

Hi, you reverted my edit on this article, adding BAR to this table. Why? As the table states - it shows the top 5 positions in the championship, and BAR were technically fifth in the WC, as were Minardi the year before. Thanks. WilliamF1two (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically it's true, however as they were on zero points it is somewhat of a silly addition as it would need explanation to someone not familiar with the concept that teams that have not scored points can still be ranked. --Falcadore (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

To me, it seems more difficult to understand how something can claim to be the top 5 and only show the top 4.

I'm going to put this up on WP:F1's talk page and see what people think. WilliamF1two (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Motorsport Notability

I can see where your worries stem from. However, I think you might be going about this the wrong way round. What you propose at present is just another type of subjectivity, albeit subjectivity that has been written down. What we need aren't lists of series that conform to some arbitrary assessment of notability. What we need are objective criteria against which a series or independent race can be judged, and which are transferrable between geographic areas and eras. I think prize money is actually a good one to include in this list. Ok, so it isn't so great for the gentlemen racers of the Brooklands era, but for most race series, in Europe as well as North America, the majority of top-level racers since WWII were and are supported in a large part by start money, finishing money, prize money and support in kind from the race promoters. This is not a North American invention. Modern deals (e.g. between FOM and the F1 teams) are extremely opaque so assessing their relative worth compared to the cost of a series is difficult but not impossible. Other criteria like this are what are needed. Criteria including significant coverage for the race or series in independent sources. Defining what constitutes "significant" and "independent" would be a huge help here too. For example, results and occasional five sentence series headline articless in Autosport do not constitute "significant" in motorsport terms. However, a similar length article in a national newspaper might well. Rather than diving in and assigning notability to series based on your gut instinct isn't what we need right now, we need to go back to fundamentals and make these notability criteria robust. Pyrope 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

2009 season graphs

Falcadore, please see my comments regarding the issue of graphs on the F1 articles. I look forward to your considered response. Many thanks. Curtholr (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Surfers Paradise lap record

"qualifying laps do not count towards lap records. Only race laps"? A lap record, is by definition, the fastest lap, which is generally a qualifying lap. This is consistent throughout all forms of motorsport I'm familiar with, and is the convention that is followed on all the racetrack articles here on wikipedia. See Grand Prix of Long Beach for comparison. 169.233.38.156 (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am also 128.114.59.182. No intent to sock puppet or anything - just editing from different computers. 169.233.38.156 (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're insane. You treat any Australian motorsport article as your own walled garden. Do you really think you're contributing? I've never seen you be anything but be completely destructive. You should seriously seek professional help. No joke. 169.233.38.156 (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi Falcadore. Thanks for letting me know about that. I'll have to give it some thought, this seems to be a borderline case - the article I deleted contained only the letter "A", as such the two aren't really comparable. I'll definitely weigh in with an opinion though. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Larkham

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Mark Larkham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Gerry (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony Longhurst Racing did win the Australian 2.0 Litre Touring Car Championship in 1994 but I forgot to add that.HoldenV8 (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Flag for Europe

You reversed my change to the EU flag for the European Grand Prix, refering to a previous consensus. Where can I find that consensus? There is a EU flag at European Grand Prix, shouldn't that be changed too? Isn't it enough that there is a Spanish flag at the list of circuits above the results lists? John Anderson (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Might take a while to find but this argument has been thrashed out, more than once. The problem isn't so much the European Grand Prix, but other supranational Grands Prix, for example the Pacific Grand Prix. There is no analogue to the European Union, and the closest example does not include Japan as a member nation. Then there are sub-national Grands Prix like Ceasar's Palace Grand Prix. Eventually it was thrashed out an accepted that the host nation was a preferred indicator. I'll try to dig out the last time it was thrashed out of the archives but do not expect a quick response. --Falcadore (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, for subnational grands prix I know we are using the national flag, so that's not an issue as I see it. Of course there are problems with what flag to give to the Pacific Grand Prix, or for that matter to the European Grand Prix in the pre-war years, when the present European flag didn't yet exist. While the Pacific GP has always been held in Japan, the European GP has changed host countries more than once, so I think it could be a point in being consistent and having the same flag every year. I'm looking forward to see what you dig up; take your time, there's no rush. John Anderson (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The point was, same for all with supernational, subnational, or national. A single criteria, rather than a custom criteria because we feel like using the European Union flag.

Anyway here is one: [1] --Falcadore (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion to read, even if it is loooong... However, at the end, it seems no consensus was reached.

I can see the point in not using the European flag for the European Grand Prix. I have always been of the opinion myself, that it could be better to use a flaglike icon with a map of Europe to represent European things which have no direct connection to the EU or the Euroepan Council. However, I think the flag with the stars is better to represent the European GP than the flag of Spain, even if the race will take place in Spain this year. John Anderson (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer something like this: . What do you think? John Anderson (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It was one of many such discussions, held over a few years now, and in the absense of a consensus being reached the previous consensus remained. Just because a new discussion does not achieve a consensus does not invalidate previous consensus discussions. Digging through the archives to find many such long winded discussions is not something I'me very interested in. We achieved this level of stability and having it upset, AGAIN, is something I'm actively disinterested in.

Personally I do not like the little map. I much prefer host nation for a variety of reasons, including the local authorities that run the races are the the local national authorities, not any such fictional pan-european authority. Much in the same way I would prefer the San Marino Grand Prix to display under the Italian flag as it is nonsense to suggest that San Marino does any organising towards what was always a second Italian GP, but I know I'm not going to win that debate.

The other drama involved is all of the other series that raced on the support card for these oddly named GPs were acquiring European flags for their races even though the European GP nomenclature belonged specifically to Formula One.

Even supposing a consensus did not exist, I would not support this amendment. --Falcadore (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, but if you claim there is a consensus to change from having the EU flag to have the flag of the host nation instead, I think you should be able to point to it. Because what I did, was to reinstate the EU flag which has been there before. I can't remember the host nation flag was the original or the former consensus flag icon for this GP. John Anderson (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_22#Use_of_Flags. Basically other than one edittor stirring the pot that issue has been stable for a year with everyone involved working along these lines. --Falcadore (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Formula One season

Care to explain? --78.34.238.130 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To match previous seasons. While I understand part of your point, there are plenty of links to report articles, five (each) in all, a sixth set of report links are unneccessary. Deleting one column would be preferable. --Falcadore (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"To match other articles" is not a valid argument. Regarding the point about the other links, it's also not a valid argument since the links are all inside the section Results and standings in the bottom half of the article. Two links each are at the top and bottom of the Drivers and Constructors tables. Feel free to remove those if you think the total number of links to each article is a problem in and of itself.

Regardless, links to the 2010 reports would make a lot sense in the 2010 calendar section; and definitely more sense than two links to the main GP article directly next to each other in the same table.

However, you get my point, and I get yours: You just don't want it changed, commonsense and the better of the project be damned. With editors like you, who needs vandals. Now have fun with your article ownership. --78.34.204.254 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, shower me with abuse. There is still the other point. There are already five sets of links to report articles. How does adding a sixth set improve anything? Does pointing out that you missed five sets of report links offend you to the point that you feel personal abuse is justified?

I also offerred you a solution that did not reflect the status quo, satisfying your desire for change, and yet you feel abusing me was a better methord of spending your time. --Falcadore (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "To match other articles" is a valid argument in this case. We have loads of formula one and other motorsport season articles. If we should change the format, we should change all of these articles and if the change is not an improvement it is much work for no good. John Anderson (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I honestly didn't know that.!HoldenV8 (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Albert Park circuit map

If the only change was the direction, it would be a snap to make a special map. However, if the layout changed, I need to be able to see it in Google Earth before I can successfully reproduce it. So if they tore out those roads, I would be out of luck. That's the problem at Riverside, California. The track is completely gone. :( Will (Talk - contribs) 04:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the important thing is that the pavement is still there. If the road was moved, I might not be able to do it. Will (Talk - contribs) 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

BP Sponsorships

A corporate cat can be useful for readers interested in understanding what sporting and social activities a company supports. That being said, it looks like I got carried away with Paul Morris Motorsport because Castrol/BP only supports the one car not the overall topic and a number of other company sponsors are mentioned.

I removed the cat from that article.

Thanks for your feedback; I'm always happy to review any of my edits.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Camry Hybrid

Hi, I though you might be interested in voting in this discussion Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid#Restoring this article. You particiapated in a discussion here earlier this year. Regards. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are countries not important?

Flags are one thing, but what do you have against listing the countries? Please add your thoughts at Talk:List of Formula One circuits#Column for countries. John Anderson (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Or since you've asked here, I can reply here. My objection was specifically to the flags, and the overuse thereof, which is a favourite external criticism of WP:Motor articles from other WP edittors and is a specific point which on a number of occasions, has prevented motorsport articles progression to higher status, B Class, FA class etc. At some level we should respond to this by not using flags frivolously and this is an instance where the flag do nothing other than act as decoration, the country and wikilink sit right next to them.

The other part of your criticism, yeah, my bad removing both flag and country link, although with very few exceptions, the name of the grand prix gives an indication to country location.

But reall my specific objection was to the flags. They are overused and in this instance add nothing other than a splash of colour which is something specifically against WP:MOSFLAGS. --Falcadore (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your user page

Falcadore, it's your user page and you're not doing anything against policy that I can see. My suggestion is merely aimed at improving it and you are free to ignore if you wish. Re your "articles created" list, how about making a subpage and listing them there. You can add a link to the subpage on your user page, and if you want to keep an eye on them, link to related changes also on your user page. To see what I mean, on my user page theres a table in the "about me" section. Click on the words "Article's I've created" to see my list of articles created or worked on. Return to my user page and click on the words "or worked upon" to see how I keep a weather eye on them. Of course, this method doesn't watch talk pages, and I do have a small number of articles on my watchlist where I can do that, but I think having something like 3k articles on my watchlist would be a bit excessive. Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandown map

Sorry. The infield section was torn out. I could clearly see where it met the surviving track. I tried to use the historical imagery option in Google Earth, but the oldest image they had of the track showed a horse racing track there instead. The infield part was already gone. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GIF links were blank images. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

1971 ADC

Hi. Regarding the question of where John McCornack finished in the 1971 ADC, my source is the Australian Motor Racing Annual 1972 - page 40 (published by Sport Magazine Pty Ltd). It disagrees with your table of results for Round 4 (Sandown) having Bartlett getting 9 points for a win and Max Stewart 0 points. This result is confirmed in Racing Car News October 1971 (page 69). So the final points are: Max Stewart 23, Bartlett 22, Hamilton 22, McCormack fourth with 21 and Tony Stewart 16. See table below:

M.Stewart	6	9	3		1	4	23
Bartlett	9		4	9			22
Hamilton	4	6	6			6	22
McCormack				6	6	9	21
T.Stewart	3	3			9	1	16

Hope this helps. --Marcusaurelius161 (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Logo of Matra

Please could you help me, I want to insert a logo of Matra company into article about Matra but I do not know how to inset pictures into wiki articles. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.90.31 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: TKR

Thanks for your comments about Team Kiwi Racing, you are correct that MW Motorsport are contracted to run the TKR car for 2010, however to state the car has TKR stickers on it and MW Motorsport run it would be a bit unfair as it is TKR who pay the bills, if MW Motorsport were paying the bills then they could rightfully claim to running Matthew Hamilton in a TKR Stickered car, but as MW Motorsport are in the business of running cars for paying customers then to claim that the TKR are a sponsor is a bit disingenuious and would seem to be a continuation of the TKR bashing that occurs in the feral motorsport forums of the internet.--User:porsche911guy

Thanks again for the comments, I am sure Vodafone don't run around paying for the drivers flights, accomodation, rental car, race suit, entry fees for race meetings, crash damage, plus from time to time additional staff including providing their own signwriter directly from their own pockets, There is no sponsorship agreement between MW motorsport and Team Kiwi Racing, so not even the same as Vodafone. falcadore I have seen that you post in internet forums under the same username so I am not surprised at you going out of your way to create misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porsche911guy (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Morgan Park

You should read my notes in the KMZ. I knew that there was a new extension, but didn't know when it would open. "Circuit F" is the best I have for now. In a year or two when GE shows updated imagery, I might do more. As is, I can't show the new extension. If you have physical access to the track, you could drive a GPS-equipped car around the extension and send me the GPS tracks. I could import those into GE and work from that. However, if you do that, please do NOT use the racing line. You would just throw me off. Instead, drive along the center line of the track. Please include the pit lane extension.

As for the turn names, I may work on them tomorrow. Do you know of any others or official turn numbers? Also, some documentation on official turn names and numbers wouldn't hurt. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1988 Goodyear NASCAR 500

Hi Falcadore, As a tire company, Goodyear is very prominent in motorsports both as a sponsor and a supplier, something I expanded in the actual Goodyear article. Last time, when I incorrectly added a Cat to an article because it had a large number of sponsors and the company at issue was not primary, I promptly corrected my change.

But this case is different. Based, yes, on the title and the first of two sentences in the article, I'm assuming that Goodyear was the title sponsor. The article is only two sentences long so there's not much to go on:

The Goodyear NASCAR 500 race was run at the Calder Park Thunderdome, Australia in 1988. Neil Bonnett won the race.

Based on your edit comment, "one insignificant race held on another continent is not sufficiently notab", it sounds like you question whether the article itself shouldn't be deleted as trivia. That's a valid point if it can't be expanded beyond a stub. (Your edit comment also suggests that non-Australian companies should not be referenced in articles about Australia which may be less practical with so many global companies nowadays.)

For comparison, the Sprint Cup Series is in the Sprint Nextel category. Why would this article be treated differently? Thanks,RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Sprint's sponsorship is a major commitment, probably Sprint's largest single advertising expense across all aspects of the company. My concern is that you are taking a very minor event in Goodyear's history of sponsoring motorsport, an event all but forgotten by motorsport and blowing it way out of all proportion to its importance. Goodyear's multi-decade commitment to Formula One would utterly dwarf their efforts with a single race in a branch of NASCAR which NASCAR itself all but refuses to acknowledge ever existed.

it sounds like you question whether the article itself shouldn't be deleted as trivia not what I meant, but not a long way from it either. Compared to what Goodyear did, and does the 1988 Goodyear 500 very definately is trivia. While the race itself may be notable (the stub doesn't really establish that) it isn't notable in the scheme of Goodyear the tyre company. You're not for example including say Mikko Hirvonen in a BP template on the basis that his World Rally Championship team is sponsored by BP are you? It's this level of significance. --Falcadore (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a basic misunderstanding about applying categories to stubs. If an article contains little information establlishing its notability, it should be expanded or deleted. That doesn't mean that applying appropriate Categories to the stub either is overcategorization or trivializing the subject of the category. Indeed, better linking the article to a related topic may bring in editors to help improve the article.

Similarly, Wikiprojects in the discussion page rate the importance of articles. This one received a low priority from both the Australian and Nascar projects. (There's no Goodyear or Tire project but let's say it would receive the same.) The presence of this article doesn't make Australia and Nascar any less significant as topics in Wikipedia and those groups didn't respond by removing the project link from the Discussion tab as an insult to them.

Putting a corporate category on a driver or race car is problematic because they are usually literally covered in sponsorships so including them all would admittedly be overkill. This race and the Winston Cup have a single title sponsor though, eliminating that issue.

This stubby stub of an article tells us the location of the race, the date and the sponsor. And it is allowed to have location cat and a date cat but not a sponsor cat? Why would this article trivialize Goodyear and not Nascar or 1988?RevelationDirect (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My primary concern was it's appearance in the Goodyear template, thus giving the event a wildy inflated significance compared to what else is in the template. Whilst the Goodyear sponsorship was significant to the race, the race was not overly significant to Goodyear. Goodyear have had significantly higher sponsorships elsewhere (sometimes by a factor of as much as 1000 times greater) which get no mention whatsoever.

My additional concern is your suggestion is that virtually judgements on an events significance has no place in the establishments of categories or templates. Does wikipedia really believe in this level of objectivity, to the point that very minor events carry equal weight to very important ones? Again I make the comparison to charity golf tournaments.

Additionally I make comparison to Formula One. Goodyear spent decades supporting Formula One with product. I would not have a problem in beliveing they had spent tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars might even have been possible. Additionally Goodyear also would have retrieved much data towards research and development.

Do you really thinking placement of this event, which I would be surprised if it cost them more than $200,000, in a Goodyear template does not trivialise their sponsorships elsewhere? If a school fete for some reason gained notability, for presumably some reason not relating to its support of the event, but had Goodyear naming rights, would then consider it appropriate for inclusion in such a template?

Would you consider it appropriate, or even imperative to include for example Renault Formula One crash controversy in Template:Renault? --Falcadore (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Initially, we were discussing the category and the template together but in the course of this conversation, it sounds like we're starting to distinguish between the two. The Renault Formula One crash controversy actually is already in the Category:Renault, although I think it would better fit within Category:Formula Renault. Are we now in agreement that the Goodyear Category is OK for the article?

To answer your question, I would not put the crash controversy article on the Template:Renault because it's not important enough to the overall template but I would place it on Template:Renault F1. Take a look at the Goodyear Template. Dunlop Tyres is more important than their small Slovenian division and the current Goodyear Blimp is more important than what is arguably the weirdest weapons system of the entire Cold War. And Charles Goodyear is far more important than anyone else in the template. Templates can become unwieldy in size so there have to be cutoffs for inclusion but, at the same time, it is understood that some items in a template will be more importan than others.

I would love to include the article on Goodyear's involvement in Formula 1 (or Indy Racing) because it would be much more important than this stub as we both agree. But the Formula 1 article doesn't exist yet and this one does. So, we either include the Goodyear/Motorsports article we have or we exclude Goodyear's important motorsport involvement entirely.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Templates can become unwieldy in size so there have to be cutoffs for inclusion but, at the same time, it is understood that some items in a template will be more important than others. - That doesn't mean we should encourage, and/or participate in such additions. Conciseness has value too rather than being indiscriminate.

Goodyear's chain of specialist stores in Australia did not begin until 1989, so it may not have been Goodyear themselves who placed the sponsroship. Although that I have no idea how to prove. --Falcadore (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Webber

I've given Feedizzle a uw-3rr re his editing to the Mark Webber article. The issue should now be discussed at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Working on that. --Falcadore (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Lola template

It's a tricky one. As I'm sure you're well aware, the THL1 and THL2 were called Lolas (in reference to Eric Broadley's company) but weren't actually designed or built by Lola. On the other hand, the template also includes the Honda RA300 which wasn't called a Lola, but was designed by Broadley. Perhaps we should seek wider opinion at WP:F1? DH85868993 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. --Falcadore (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Template:Lola. DH85868993 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Motorsport in 2010

I strongly contest your view that Superleague Formula does not belong on Template:Motorsport in 2010. Explain how you believe it to be less international or significant than World Series by Renault or GP2: World Series by Renault is entirely based in Europe, GP2 has one non-European round whereas Superleague has two. I believe you are way off the mark and cannot see why you are so adamant and unmoving on the issue whether or not to include SF on the template, where it clearly belongs. You implied reference to Bourdais, but he is not the only top level driver in the series. Six drivers have competed in F1 and/or IndyCars, and nine of the rest have competed in one of the other series you consider significant enough to include in this template: think about that, and SF's Asian rounds, and their TV/media/sponsorship coverage. Whether you consider my arguments valid or not is up to your ability to comprehend you might be are wrong and to revert your stubbornness. Ultimately this is a minor issue but one to which you seem to have taken to with great clout and for some reason you seem to dislike Superleague as a concept or whatever but that is qutie irrelevant and should have no baring on whether it should go in the template. I ask you to take a neutral stand-point and if you admit it probably has a place in the template, I will show complete humility and respect for you in carrying on from here as normal. It's up to you how you react to my imput, but I hope we can try to co-exist in a manner which means this current situation stops with respect to whatever reason you seem to like reverting certain of my edits. This comment has turned a bit from a simple message of my opinion to a rant and even plee but nevertheless it is as usual up to you how you handle it et cetera, and whether you consider it important enough to let it drag either one of us down a hole of disagreement and frustration. No doubt we'll bump into each other further down the line, so TTFN. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Any other personality flaws of mine you'd like to assume for me?

Would you like a second attempt to write the above with some additional coherency? Or do you feel this sums it up nicely?

And while you're at it, the comparison point with World Renault and GP2, have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Falcadore (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just answer this one question: what reasons do you have for believing Superleague Formula doesn't belong on Template:Motorsport in 2010? Answer properly. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Becuase it wasn't in the original consensus. And several other edittors have in the past removed it, and it was discussed and removed again. It's all there in the talk page. This is not a new opinion I've just settled on. --Falcadore (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the quarrel before was that is wasn't international enough. Since then, SF announced its China races. Surely now it must qualify for that template, otherwise it makes no sense to have any single-seater series other than F1 and IndyCar on there, then what is the point of the template: you are being unreasonable. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe WSR and GP2 should be removed, but, and again I cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, this is about SF's merits, not the merits of other series. Since this seems to be a debate about the template subject specifically, I suggest to raise your issues there, rather than with me personally. --Falcadore (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are always quick to sideline the issue to someone else but you still make edits without proper reasons for doing so. I couldn't really care less about the concept of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but if applying that leaves us with only two single-seater categories in the world which qualify for the template then obviously the parameters for inclusion are wrong, surely? Officially Mr X (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave you those reasons already. The addition of a couple of races in China has not substantially altered the series standing. Several series have raced in China and their place in motorsport has not altered because of it. China has to import series because they have little or no domestic motorsport. It wasn't suitable for inclusion before I still believe it is not now. The debate on this subject is not purely you vs me, so again I ask this debate be conducted on the talk page it is supposed to be discussed at. --Falcadore (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Curious

I note the copyvio tag you placed on 1976 New Zealand Grand Prix. How do readers compare the content at the source you specified with the content of the article text you removed? Moriori (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The original content is still there behind the copyvio tag. Additionally by comparing the article history you can easily find the old text. The problem is there are large slabs of text copied directly from the referenced source. That's just not on.

There have been changes in how the copyvio template works. Previously it just placed a large black notice at the top of the article. I note now it blanks it out.

You can look here for example. --Falcadore (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked how "readers" could compare contents. It is not really rational to expect readers to know that something is hidden behind the grotesque notice on the page, or for them to know to check article history to see what went before. I accept this is not your doing, but it is just another mystifying change to wikipedia. What with all the do's and don't's that have inexorably infiltrated into Wikipedia over the past few years if I ever accidentally let go a tiny squeaky fart I immediately look over my shoulder to see if a wikipoliceman noticed, and I rarely check my e-mail in case one of the wikicops has fired off a summons to me. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think directly copying another website is a "new" don't, nor has it ever been acceptable. --Falcadore (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't suggesting any such thing. I simply wonder how the general readership can check to see that a page tagged copyvio is truly copyvio, if the content is no longer on the page so can't be compared with the source it is supposed to be pinched from? Openeness, being transparent, etc. Moriori (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies then. As for the reasons for blanking, you'd have to take it up with those managing the Copyvio procedures. Perhaps the talk page WP:COPYVIO would be the best place to start. --Falcadore (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Australian Touring Car Championship

Template:Australian Touring Car Championship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Australian Touring Car season

Template:Australian Touring Car season has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

V8 Supercars 2010

Thanks for picking up on that one. I have no idea what happened. I think it has something to do with Firefox crashing mid-edit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Motor racing event notability threshold

Has an opinion been formed on this? I note in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Indonesian_Grand_Prix. Where is the line normally drawn? Allen Brown (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Notability has its own guidelines, but personally I believe any national grand prix is inherently notable. Any race that defines or attempts to define itself as the eminent race in the country for a year has at least the aim of being a serious and notable event. --Falcadore (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian Track Edits

Hey Falcadore, just a quick one, i just wanted a bit more info as to why all the links have been removed from the Australian race tracks pages? Which part of the extrenal link guidelines did they not comply with? Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.9.22 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A good external link should provide additional information, preferably more extensive detail on the subject. The website that was removed generally provided less detail than the wikipedia article already provided. It was a pointless addition. Wikipedia is not to be used as advertising opportunity for other websites. --Falcadore (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, The reason i added them was because there was more information on the actual location of the track, ie address and transport information. I'm not trying to advertise that site, i just thought it was useful for a bit more info. Thanks for the reply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TP199 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In that event, the prefered action is to add those address details to the wikipedi article and reference it. Transport information is beyind Wikipedia's scope. --Falcadore (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay then no problem, i'll go through some of the other tracks and delete some of the external links then, several reference to a couple of sites which just have the address of the track on and nothing more than adverts, thought that because other sites were doing this with various links i was allowed. Apologies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TP199 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Rugby League Attendance

Originally I didn't mention any other codes or other sports and that was HiLo's first complaint so I modified it accordingly. I can easily change it back to its original format - however the AFL section specifically states its record crowd, so I fee HiLo48's criticism was rather biased to begin with considering he is an AFL fan. I will delete the reference to other sports and set it back to what I originally had - but if HiLo48 undoes it yet again, then I will just have to report him. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdocbrown (talk • contribs) 05:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok cool, thanks HoldenV8 (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sidecarcross World Championship

Hello Falcadore, would you like to come of your high horse and first talk to us mortals rather then deleting massive amounts of stuff out of articles you never contributed a single bit to? You seem to think you kind of rule the motorsport project and therefore everything you do is right, its not! Calistemon (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, but editing should be constructive, not massive deletions, especially when an editor never contributed to an article before. Like I said, aI rewrite is most welcome, but deleting 17k in one go as your only edit as you did is just vandalism, nothing else. If I was unresonably pasionate about the article, I would have reverted your edit. I didn't. Calistemon (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You could have moved it to List of Sidecarcross World Championship records and statistics instead of being confrontational about it and just delete it altogether. Calistemon (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey. I noticed that you are reverting vandalism with the undo feature. Would you be interested in the rollback? It would make it a lot easier. Prolog (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Any method of making things easier would be interesting. --~~

You should now have "[rollback]" links everywhere. Prolog (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for picking up on the fact that I'd left categories in an article that was in my sandbox, I totally forgot to remove them and hadn't worked on that little project in a while. Good spotting! scanbus (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

revertion of Korean Grand Prix

You did revert the Koran Grand Prix by the reason that the qualifying result existed already in 2010 Grand Prix. Then why on earth you did not make any notice, the explanation of revertion, on the edit line???

Because I used Rollback which does not allow a reason line addition, and upon realising that, added the reason to your talk page specifically. --Falcadore (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stock car racing Production car racing merger

Hi, after your comments for the above topic, I am now totally confused on types of auto Racing. Can you tell me difference between : a) 'Street Stock' /'Showroom Stock' Stock car racing and Production car racing ? b) 'NASCAR' Stock car racing and Touring car racing given that there are 2 road courses on the schedule of Sprint Cup? c) Seems to me that Brand names of tournaments have hijacked the terms so that now, that currently article are heavily biased towards particular events . Add to this the devotion of fans in different countries and the articles lose their value for an encyclopedia Vinay84 (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Stock car racing is a term that has always been applied to NASCAR racing. It is reflective that a long time ago, in a galaxy far away, NASCAR's racing cars had its roots in cars that were based on "Showroom stock". But that was decades ago. Many decades ago. I suspect Stock Cars continued to be used in NASCAR as even as the modification moved further and further from road going cars, they were still much closer to road cars than Indycars. For the average American fan these were the only two categories that existed in bitumen surface racing, Indycars and Stock cars. Essentially Stock Car as a term is archaic and misrepresentative of modern NASCAR racing. But try getting Americans to call Soccer Football and you will fail too. It's just familiarity.

Showroom stock is presumably a recent term, I've not come across it before, but used obvious to represent the gulf between Stock Car as the US knowns it and showroom specification racing cars which is known in much of the world as Production cars.

It is perhaps worth nothing some history. Once upon a time in the 1890s and 1900s they were racing cars. All racing cars were production cars back then. Over time as Grand Prix racing evolved, specialist racing cars began to evolve that had less and less in common with showrrom cars available to the public. In a back to basics move, Sports Car racing was created to allow showroom cars to compete separately to racing cars, this was about the 1910/1920s.

Over time Sports Cars continued evolve on their own moving further and further away from showroom cars available to the public. So Touring Car racing was created for showroom specification cars to race separately from Sports Cars. Sports cars became the Le Mans warriors and ALMS and Grand-Am type cars we know today. Touring cars flourished. This was about the 1950s/60s.

Over time Touring Cars continued evolve on their own moving further and further away from showroom cars available to the public. So Production Car racing was created for showroom specification cars to race separately from Touring Cars. Touring cars became DTM, World Rally Cars, Super 2000 and V8 Supercar type cars we know today. Production cars flourished. This was about the 1990s/2000s. Silhouette cars is a further divergence from Touring Cars, much like Sports Protoype Sports cars branched away from Grand Touring cars.

So in about another 20 years Production cars will need to split away again, probably, and there will be another back to showroom basics revolution. But that is the future.

Production cars is best represented by categories like Group N and Group E and to a lesser extent Super 2000 which is sort of somewhere between Touring cars and Production cars.

So does that help, or have I just caused you a headache? --Falcadore (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Falcadore, Vinay84 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the full History lesson.Given that Asia and Oceania will also enter the Auto sports and add to the confusion which was well managed by Europe and Americas.

I believe that if the above history can be added to the Auto racing article. A lot of people will benefit from this knowledge of yours. So I request you to improve the History section of the article.Vinay84 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, but I'd be resistant as that's an opinionated over-simplification, and it's unreferenced, amybe un-referencable. --Falcadore (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OkHoldenV8 (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Licence to flip?

The question was perfectly clear. You chose to be flip off your own bat. That you took the header as a question, I can't help. That it might have been ill-chosen, I will concede. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Silverstone

I have stated it is for a production car. Also as far as I am aware it does count as a track record for that car class and not just a record for Fifth Gear. Ar558 (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stating it was for a production car does not highlight the relative lack of importance of a lap staged for a television show. --Falcadore (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with that but I never actually made that change to John Bowe page.....HoldenV8 (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

SS Group A SV

HSV might but Holden themselves don't see it that way. They see the VN SS Group A as a Holden, not a HSV or an SV. The VL yes (to a point), but not the VNHoldenV8 (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And the way it is written says it's a Holden. Holden Commodore SS Group A SV. You don't put the constructor last. SV is part of the model name. It doesn't say it isn't a Holden. --Falcadore (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Your hard work towards Auto Racing in general has often gone unnoticed, and you deserve every part of this award. Great job! RomeEonBmbo (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2003 Australian Grand Prix

Hi Falcadore. You rolled back a substantial amount of new content recently added by 2.97.234.217 to 2003 Australian Grand Prix. You did not make an edit summary that explained why you deleted this substantial amount of text, nor have you left an explanation on the IP's Talk page.

I have looked at the text you deleted. It appears to me to be legitimate material, all added in good faith, so I am puzzled why you rolled it back. Is this vandalism, or do you have a reason. I am curious. Dolphin (t) 04:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I provided no explanation because Rollback does not provide an option to do that. I used rollback because of repition. It is information that has been deleted three times previously, with explanation given, and also added to the Talk page. The IP editor is either ignoring the explanation or believes their opinion to be superior. This data was deleted because it is already in the article. What the IP user is doing is separating the lap times listed in Q1 Time and Q2 time in the original tabler into two separate tables. Making the article longer for zero additional benefit.

All Formula One Grands Prix have qualifying results in a single table regardless of which qualifying format in use at the time, for the simple reason that all qualifying times are merged together to form a single grid in any case. It's nuisance, unneccessary editting. --Falcadore (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And with your additional reversion - that triggers a 3R violation against this IP user. --Falcadore (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a message on the IP's Talk page.

Newbies have never heard of the 3R Rule. (This IP has only made four edits - two on Australian GP and two on Malaysian GP.) Dolphin (t) 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point - but the IP is not that new. Exactly the same edit has been made previously by User:89.243.43.95 and User:92.24.45.68. Would be a remarkable co-incidence if this was not the same editor. --Falcadore (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like one User with three IPs. Dolphin (t) 04:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 V8 Supercar Championship

Then somebody needs to fix the infobox containing links to the 2010 series, because all of the links are dead and I have no idea how to do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A very simple redirect will fix it easily. That how the change from Shell Championship Series to V8 Supercar Championship Series was done, and before it the change from Australian Touring Car Championship to Shell Championship Series. No need to overthink it. --Falcadore (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Which infobox are you referring to? Can't find a problem that you mention. --Falcadore (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I inadvertently fixed the infobox myself. I was referring to the one in the top-right corner that contains links to the previous and next seasons. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level

Hi, I am just dropping a note to inform you of a discussion currently taking place here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger). In summary, WikiProject Automobiles is soliciting opinions based on the separation of automobile articles by generation, as opposed to other means such as powertrain or trim level. For example, rather than having an article on the Audi S3, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to the appropriate location. This would place automobiles with common engineering in the same place, as opposed to grouping by a mere marketing term. Since separate articles are always provided to detail the powertrain (engine and transmission, et cetera), the partitioning of articles based on this principle is superfluous (the powertrain is only briefly discussed in the article about the car). The reason for giving the actual powertrain a separate article is to cut down on overlap: engines and transmissions are almost universally used in more than one model.

This message will be/has been posted on the talk page of all editors who contributed to the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Limited Technical ability

Falcadore your experience with wikipedia is impressive and i note your recent discussion of Denis Horley's page. This is a self promotional page aiming to convince readers of his abilities as a "qualified engineer" and "qualified project manager" of which he is neither. I have tried to alter the wikipedia page but have to only have it revert quickly back to its original article. Through adding the 2 references below and by highlighting his criminal past so easily being deleted and reverted back to a puff piece about this person and promoting his "abilities" and "qualifications" i am unsure of how to alter the page, have it deleted or at least have it modified to reflect some truth about this convicted fraudster. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vendetta-claims-by-conman-20101213-18vjg.html

http://newsstore.theage.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=age&kw=horley&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=10years&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=200&rm=200&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=AGE0602025C49979UFO9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1a1m1e1s (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - start here - it's a bit complicated but on the basis of notability it should be deleteable. --Falcadore (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger discussion

As a follow up to the above message this is a note to let you know that there is merger discussion taking place here regrading the Civic and Accord Hybrids, the Ford Escape Hybrid and the Renault 5 Turbo, just in case you want to participate. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

SS Group A

That might not be a bad idea actuallyHoldenV8 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Various

Falcadore, Here are a few things.

• 1979 Dino Ferrari Grand Prix I'm wrong.
• Tyrrell It was ment to be the results before they were disqualified but as you say I'm wrong.
• Tony Brooks I'm right if a person finishes in six't or higher then it is green seven't or lower blue because he finished in seven't place it is blue it is a point finish but he din't finished higer than six't.

Greetings Kevin.

I didn't raise these points, just agreed with them. Yes the Tyrrells did finish in those race positions, but the whole point of disqualification is that you are removed completely from the results. In effect because your car was illegal it is as though you did not take part in the race. That is the effect of disqualification or exclusion as a penalty. So to include the former race position in the results matrix is fundamentally wrong.

It is a good idea to record the Tyrrell's original race position, but only as a note in the individual race articles. --Falcadore (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Audi A4

Please stop editing the article, if editing, i will block you. Luph25 (talk • contributions) 23:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Falcadore. You have new messages at The359's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve Owen's number

Would you mind pointing out that particular reference that shows his number being changed? Because last time I checked, putting a reference in the edit summary doesn't qualify it as a valid reference. Certainly not in comparison to putting it in the actual article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I felt it unneccessary to provide a reference for such a minor detail as race number in the race number column. We've never referenced a race number in these articles before. I included the reference in the edit summary to prove I got the new numbers from somewhere. The same reference was used for the change to Fabian Coulthard's number, why aren't you disputing that? --Falcadore (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Season

Thank you for pointing that out for me, a link is now on the talk page. Unfortunately, in my absence from Wikipedia, I seem to have forgotten how to put links in edit summaries correctly! Cheers QueenCake (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

Hello, Falcadore. You have new messages at Talk:2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Nascar1996 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Endurance racing

Please see the article for how team and circuit funding from videogames companies has changed the Le Mans race. Also, I'm on the search for a source that states the race audience numbers in real life are up as a result of enthusiasm due to games (this contrasts well with the reports elsewhere in the article of failed endurance championships in both Europe and Japan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.25 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Renault Drivers

What I added was not rumour nor speculation, it was announced by a representative of Lotus Renault GP. I have read in the past many articles on Wikipedia that includes list of possibilities between which the final decision has not been made. Why it this one any different? Nichosnz (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is rumour and speculation to suggest that they will replace Kubica. One of them *might* replace Kubica if they impress at the test session, equally Renault could choose some one else. But that word *might* places it into speculation which we don't do at all. It has long been the practice of Wikipedia Formula One edittors to only add confirmed details. Even if it is Renault themselves doing the speculating over who it might be in the seat, that merely makes it official speculation.

While you may have read lists of possibilities of Wikipedia before, they probably should not have been there. Wikinews exists specifically for this kind of content. It is not Wikipedia's role to perform what Wikinews was created for. --Falcadore (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok Falcadore thanks for making that a little clearer, I see what you are saying, I will endeavour to do better in the future. In fact I think I will stick to editing historic articles, where the diferences between fact and speculation is a lot clearer. With that in mind, Wikipedia contains a lot of *information* that should be in Wikinews. Nichosnz (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies is I got a bit shouty with the edit summary - you weren't the first to list all the drivers Renault were auditioning. --Falcadore (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Bull: Renault or Infiniti

I saw that you had undone an edit which had changed the name of red bulls engine manufacturer from Renault to Infiniti. There has been an announcement made which says that their engines will be named Infiniti - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9409120.stm Is this not what should be put in the article then?? Colinmotox11 (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not reference it then? --Falcadore (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The link includes the sentence "The engines will still be called Renault, contrary to an earlier story on this site." Rather answers Colin's question. Britmax (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for this. I had intended to do it myself but forgot. DH85868993 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oz GP

OK, point taken re blank sections. I am adding info to the article atm. Background done, P1 and P2 to come. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: 2011 Chinese Grand Prix

Sorry, i don't want to caught edit conflict which is frustrated to everyone i believe. Adding piecemeal will solve this. I don't see anything wrong here while i know in soccer, in-progress score added too. --Aleenf1 07:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely. It affects the readability of the article to add qualify bit-by-bit. And edit conflicts only occur if you do your editting on-line. There are very easy solutions around edit conflicts with only minimal effort expended. Additrional what occurs in football articles has no bearing what-so-ever. --Falcadore (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't change my style of editing for this. I think getting all done is already a big deal, because adding all this could cost much time and a lot of database. Important point is, get the things done first rather than think the others. --Aleenf1 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can change, you just don't want to. You need to understand that it is not Wikipedia role to perform as a news service, it is fundamentally against what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a News website (WP:NOTNEWS), it is an encyclopedia. Getting the information right is far more important than getting the information up first. --Falcadore (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

24 Hours of Le Mans

A while back you took the trouble to type out a proposed expanded lede on Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans. Did you want to go ahead and insert that? ENeville (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert

Please would you be so kind to inform me of your reverts : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Team_IntaRacing&diff=next&oldid=424512093 ? Somebody was so kind to rerevert you, but i thought it was wise to inform you of this. I allways take a look of a record of an editor before reverting. Please feel free to do this.

no hardship,

plz think before acting. Aleichem (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

does that solve the grid question problem?

I think not. I just looked at my recording, as Brundle wanders down the grid. There is no blank space, Lewis is on the right side (odd numbers) directly behind Rosburg in Grid 7. Official results say the same http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2011/855/.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me

The race was advertised and billed as the 100th Indy 500. Are you saying the promoters and Indycar are liars? B-Machine (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The race was advertised as the 100th anniversary of the Indy 500. Not the same thing. Why don't you go and count them all? They are listed in Wikipedia, try List of Indianapolis 500 winners. --Falcadore (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You might be interested to know that two of the people we're arguing with at the 2011 Monaco GP talk page, namely User:66.190.31.229 and User:Whatzinaname are exceedingly likely to be the same person, having revert-warred to help each other at Tony Ferguson (fighter) [2], [3] He may try this on motorsport articles as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Flagicons: Part 2

I do not understand! I don't see what the problem was to stand flagicons, as for most athletes and personalities. They just complete article and provide additional information. --Aca Srbin (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC+01)

Flagicons are very much overused and abused, and are generally not used for such items as succession boxes. While if used as you have used them in those succession bars it does add some information, it is not information relevant to the content of the succession bar. You could add the name of the athlete's mother, age, driving glove size and age and it would be additional information, but still not important information when it is indicating who has won a championship. If you look at the Manual of Style for flags - WP:MOSFLAGS, a gives you a guideline of where they should be used. --Falcadore (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is in interantional sport very important to emphasize for which state athletes compete. During a sports competition, on the graphics on TV flag stands next to the competitors. Here, in most articles about the sport are also stand flagicons. And in succession bars are mostly used flagicons. It doesn't take a lot of places, gives more information, succession bars looks nicer and more controlled. I do not understand why this is suddenly a problem when we are already frequent practice with that. P. S. Sorry for maybe bad english! :) --Aca Srbin (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC+01)

It is not the function of flagicons to make things look nicer. The manual of styler says at several points, flags should not be used in infoboxes. Succession box is a form of infobox. Additionally, the nationality of the athlete concerned did not have a bearing on the result thus it is not really relevant to the achievement, and brushes against Wikipedias rules against article bias. --Falcadore (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

World Series by Renault

Thanks for reverting the edit. I guess the list of alumni on the WSbR page looks better with phrases like "Wilson is an IndyCar Series rookie in 2008" in the year 2011. Sorry I visited YOUR website. 65.100.1.135 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback removed

Hi Falcadore, I've removed your access to rollback because you have been misusing it. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and in some other very specific conditions. However, you appear to be using it to revert a lot of good faith edits, such as users adding flagicons in good faith. I also see that you use rollback as an excuse for not providing a reason in your edit summary, which very clearly indicates to me that you do not understand it's proper use. In future, please provide informative and friendly edit summaries, especially when you are reverting another users work. Even better, don't just revert it outright, and discuss with them first. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess I didn't understand that. When it was conferred upon me that was not explained to me, it was presented to me as a faster version of reversion. If I got that wrong then this was the right thing to do. --Falcadore (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is only really intended for vandalism. Since with vandalism you don't need to worry so much about upsetting the user, or making it clear why the edit was reverted. Whereas both of these can be problems where time and effort when in, and the user was genuinely trying to help. In any case, if you want it back, feel free to ask at WP:RFPERM, but obviously it'll only be any use to you if you actually work at anti-vandalism :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Vehicle redirects

In the case you mention, there are several appearances of Holden Commodore SS and Holden Commodore S in the table, and I didn't notice that they each have a piped link to different Holden models (VN, VP, VY). Certainly I should have noticed that, and I apologise for missing it, but the real problem is that this doesn't make sense. A reader is bound to be confused by the same visible text unexpectedly linking to different articles. Is there not some way of using different descriptive texts to indicate that these are in fact different models? (or, in the case of the first occurrence of Holden Commodore SS and Holden Commodore S, apparently the same model (VN) despite the different description). Colonies Chris (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The confusion seems to stem from your lack of understanding of the subject. The SS model of the Commodore for example indicates a sporty trim level of the Commodore and could possibly link correctly to the following generational versions of the Holden Commodore.Holden VH Commodore, Holden VK Commodore, Holden VL Commodore, Holden VN Commodore, Holden VP Commodore, Holden VR Commodore, Holden VS Commodore, Holden VT Commodore, Holden VX Commodore, Holden VY Commodore, Holden VZ Commodore and Holden VE Commodore. By restoring those links you are perpetuating your own confusion over a wider audience. Since you do not seem to be able to tell the difference between a vehicle generation and a vehicle trim level I ask again that you cease all alterring of piped links to redirects until you gain a greater understanding of the subject. You are just creating more work needing to be undone.

People create piped links for a variety of reasons. By hardwiring that link reducing the possibility to a single link and denying that possibility to other users who may not be as diligent in creating links. You would not do this with a persons name. For example what you have done is not dissimilar to say if some has taken a sentence which includes a list of brothers - say.. [Mark Ella|Mark], [Paul Ella|Paul] and [Steve Ella]. You would not hardwire Paul as a redirect to Paul Ella would you? Changing the link from Holden Commodore SS from Holden VE Commodore to Holden VN Commodore is not helpful. It is just as wrong as the first error. Can you please stop converting piped links into redirects? You don't seem to understand very well how it is supposed to work. --Falcadore (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully accept that there is no one target to which Holden Commodore SS can be redirected. You don't have to convince me of that - I've acknowledged that error on my part. Your example doesn't match the situation here because what's actually in the table is something like [Mark Ella|Ella], [Paul Ella|Ella] and [Steve Ella|Ella] - the same text is displayed on several different lines in the table, but it is invisibly - and confusingly - piped to several different destinations. Why not simply use the actual model name (Holden VN Commodore, Holden VP Commodore etc) as the displayed text? The current approach seems to be giving the fact that they are all the 'SS' variant more prominence than the more significant fact that they are actually different models. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The example was not a precise match, it was merely intended to demonstrate that piping links serves a distinctly different purpose from redirects and are not always interchangeable.

Speaking specifically as to the Commodore example, it is because Holden VN Commodore is not a model name, it is indicative of a specific generation of Holden Commodore - a particular time period. Holden Commodore SS is the model and what the car is known to the general public. In the example of the motor race you selected, several distinctly different versions of the Holden Commodore raced in that particular motor race, but they all belonged to the specific VN generation of Commodore. The various V- tags are roughly - but not completely - comparable to the year the car was built. The S or SS or SS Group A refers to trim levels. Wikipedia car articles are generally organised along generational lines - the S version of the VN Commodore has much more in common with the SS version of the VN Commodore than the S version of the preceeding VL series of Commodore.

If you like VN as comparable to the 2010 in Microsoft Excel 2010 or Microsoft Word 2010, where as S or SS corresponds to Excel or Word or Powerpoint. --Falcadore (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be clearer to the reader to make the visible text read something like "Holden Commodore SS (VN)" or "Holden Commodore SS (VP)"? Then it would be immediately obvious that they are all SS's but are not identical, which is how it looks right now. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation

Brisbane Meetup Next: 11 February 2013 5-8PM - Drinks and light dinner at SLQ with Sue Gardner Last: 3 August 2012

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a barbeque and meetup at Southbank this Sunday (26 June). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane)

Women's motorsport in Australia

Hi. Awesome addition. :) I have at least one book source in my personal library. (Stell's book that I've cited in a bunch of other Australian women's sport articles is a fantastic resource. If you can get your hands on it, very useful and interesting.) I'm not at home for a bit so I can't easily access it but I can check some sport databases to see if there is anything I can find and try to add a bit to the article later today. :) --LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There was briefly a women's only one-make series of Mazda 121s, also the women's Castrol Cougars program. Leanne Tander is the mos t successful driver in a couple of decades but there were a few notable drivers in the 60s and 70s. Christine Gibson (nee Cole) and Sue Ransom as examples. Also several women have won Australian championships in rallying as co-drivers, Kate Officer, Sue Evans and multiple-champ Coral Taylor, whose daughter Molly is now racing internationally as a rally driver. There are also a two or three women in the forthcoming Shannons Supercar Showdown, a Masterchef style TV show for racing drivers. Samantha Reid is one. --Falcadore (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

PL

Hi Falcadore. I think "PL" is supposed to indicate that the driver started from the Pit Lane. I've reverted a few instances of it myself. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I know it does. I wanted the edittor concerned to know it was not easily understood. --Falcadore (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not the best way to display that information, although I think that information should be somewhere. Currently we have drivers showing grid positions when they were not present on the grid, which is misleading. Maybe we should have a discussion on it at WP:F1? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Use sentences. --Falcadore (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, but in the tables themselves, we should not be saying that Driver X was 24th on the grid if he never appeared on the grid or started from it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The grid position is allocated even if they do not use it. --Falcadore (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And it's clearly misleading to suggest that they did use it, particularly if it's a high grid slot. Showing a driver as 5th on the grid when they in fact started stone last is obviously not very sensible. There needs to be something in the table that makes it clear, there's no sense in showing a nominal grid position that means nothing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not if you use sentences in the report to explain it. Don't get Mr.X-ish and get too hooked up on the tables. --Falcadore (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You know I'm not generally bothered about tables, but I am bothered about them displaying something that's not true. Showing a driver with a grid position when he started from the pitlane is simply incorrect, regardless of how clear it is in the text, not that anyone ever puts it in the text. If it is in the text that a driver started from the pitlane and the table shows him on the grid, then there's a contradiction. Simple common sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm bothered by unexplained jargon that is not simply and easy to understand. An unexplained 'PL' does not achieve that because it assumed that the reader knows what PL is. I'm not going to revert something that actually achieves a correct understanding. It's the same with my current thing on article leads. There are several article leads in 2011 season motor racing article which do not even make it clear that these articles are about motor racing, an utterly absurd situation. If the meaning is clear why would I revert to grid numbers? --Falcadore (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So am I, and I'm not advocating the use of the "PL" indicator. However, it is marginally preferable to what we currently have at 2010 Bahrain Grand Prix, which is precisely no mention of the pitlane starts whatsoever. Is that a good thing? I've started a discussion at the WPF1 talk page, rather than us talking about it here where nobody else can see it. I agree with you about article leads. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Templating

I've noticed you replaced the template on the 2011 Sidecarcross World Championship article and at least now provided an edit summary with suggestions as to what you think needs improving. Personally, I suggest, rather then just blanket-templating articles, which is easy but unproductive, to provide a bit of an idea as what needs to be improved and whats missing. A constructive attitude is always better then just critisising without any ideas as to how something can be fixed. I noticed you placed the templates on many articles, and I see their justification, but if you are really interessted in improvement and not just want to be a know-it-all you need to do a bit more then that. Calistemon (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

An explanation was provided when the templates were originally added. Additionally the templates themselves link to guidelines about good writing of article leads. It all should have been entirely self-explanatory. --Falcadore (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What may be self-explanatory to you may not be self-explanatory to me, just like the context or introduction of an article may be clear to me but not to you or vis-versa. If you want to make yourself clear, provide some explanations on the talk page and you are less likely to be misunderstood. As to the guidlines, the tend to be long-winded, general and unlikely to provide specific enough guidance to be of much help for a specific case. Calistemon (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the links provided? Was there a problem with understanding sentences like This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents? Surely that should indicate that an article about say a 2011 motorsport season should carry some information about how the 2011 season is progressing? Is that not sufficient for clear understanding and needs to have the wording of the template adjusted? --Falcadore (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

All I requested was a clear statement as to what you think is required to improve the intro/article. Once more your know-it-all, I-own-this-project attitude rubbs people up the wrong way. Get of you high horse, Falcadore, let me know what else you think needs adding to the intro of this specific article and I will happyly add it, if possible, and we both be done with it and we don't have to engage in further conversation. What about that approach? Calistemon (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Clear statements were provided. I am sorry you seem to find this conversation offensive. Do you have a problem with the concept of how wikipedia works? I'm happy to provide you with assistance towards understanding some of the procedures and concepts, or are you suggesting you should be allowed to write what you want, however you want and no-one else should provide you with any input at all? Because that is as much WP:OWNERSHIP as what you have suggested is my problem. If there is a problem with my editting behavior I am happy to allow the third opinion process to provide a clarification. --Falcadore (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If I had a problem with ownership, as you suggested, I would have removed your templates and made no efforts to improve the article. I have not, instead I have asked you for guidance as how to improve the article, and still do. I don't enjoy conversations with you, that's unfortunatley so because of previous once I had with you and that won't really change. I see no need to involve third parties with that. All I'm requesting is a bit more guidance as how to improve the one specific 2011 Sidecarcross World Championship article. If you are willing to provide that, thank you. If not, I be on my way to do something else and we can consider this conversation closed. Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the obvious offense I have given, and for problems with my tone of language. It was not my intent to sound superior in any way. It is my natural language to talk in that manner. I should also add that I am happy with the article as it stands now, with the improvements you have made.

There has been a wide ranging problem across motorsport articles for current seasons where many articles had short or very short introductions, many of which barely explained that these articles were even related to a form of motor racing. Rather than only including a link to the series about which the article is written, it is better to have a brief explanation of the series so that someone can gain an understanding of the series without having to click away from the article at all. This is the context half.

Inadequate lead means that the introduction, or lead, of an article should summarise the contents. IE, for a 2011 motorsport season that most important fact is not simply that it occurred, or that it took place in a particular region. It is about a sporting contest, so the winners are the most important aspects of these articles and should be front and centre. Even a series in progress should carry this information up front, bearing in mind of course that the season is yet to be concluded. A good idea for an introduction in a current season is to say that rider X is currently leading the points standings, rider Y is second in the standings and what the points gap is between them.

I have not singled you out as a target, rather I have been performing these same sorts of edits on pages contributed to or originated by many authors. I hope this eases your mind if you feel I have been unfairly targeting you, and hopefully this is the sort of clarity you are asking for. --Falcadore (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and my appologies if I have upset you, which, I think, I may have. The wide-ranging problem of a lack of information and explanation on motorsport season articles is certainly obvious, and became obvious to me once you placed the templates, too. I certainly have never questioned that placing those templates was justified, it just takes somebody else to point out flaws with an article at times that the person who wrote it or most of it can't see. The specific problem with Sidecarcross is the lack of online sources beyond results and the complete absence of coverage in the print media in Australia, which is unsurprising given the lack of Australian riders and events. Have you contemplate a motorsport manual of style after the above mentioned guide lines to tackle the problem of season articles with limited, insufficent or no prose/introductions? Calistemon (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 International V8 Supercars Championship

For the new drivers for Gold Coast 600 I learned from the Touring car Times article. Ivaneurope (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC). http://www.touringcartimes.com/article.php?id=6499 talk 29 July 2011 1:20 (UTC+2:00) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

1975 F1 race reports

Nice work. DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If I am to criticise others for very poor article leads, the least I can do is make some effort to demonstrate an example. Thanks for the kind words :) --Falcadore (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Red Bull Ring

[Question]

Hi, I added a link to an external site on the Red Bull Ring page to a site which i'd found useful on the subject and you removed it. Why? Thanks - Adrian.

Because, referring to the note you added with the link Wikipedia is not a travel guide. When adding links to other websites it is best to use it to link to something specific to the Wikipedia article. For example: in Red Bull Ring#Redevelopment, a reference links could be added about the circuit re-opening, one of the list portions of the article, using the Cite Web template. If you feel uncofortable using Cite Web there are easier methods of adding references.

Apart from the above, Wikipedia articles should not be used to create a list of websites without specific context. Being a Formula One motor racing circuit there is over 100 websites with pieces about it. You could go on adding external links until it was longer than the Wikipedia article, and it would not improve the Wikipedia article itself. The best kind of external link is one the confirms a specific point raised in the Wikipedia article. --Falcadore (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Really appreciate your detailed answer! That's cool, i'd seen a link to this site http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/A1-Ring which is a travel guide and thought it was okay to share . I appreciate your help on the matter and i will review the links to that site on race track pages where i do not feel they are at all relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.164.102 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

unanswered questions

Anyone doing research is going to find those posts. What do you think we should do, remove them unanswered?

-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

It would a lot more helpful if you'd actually help out when this editor persistently comes back again and again and again and again and again with new accounts every time he is blocked. Regardless of the nature of his edit, the guy should not be allowed to edit - next time consider making an edit summary that doesn't imply that he's a legitimate editor making legitimate edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you need analyse what you've just written. --Falcadore (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain that more clearly. What's not to understand? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That you've placed administrative functions above maintaining edittorial quality. And perhaps getting a little too personally involved - which does happen to all of us, but I'd expect to be called on it, and have been, when I've done so. --Falcadore (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

After I made that edit, an admin reverted all of that IP's recent edits for the same reasons that I did. It has nothing to do with editorial quality - that IP's edits do not stand. If any of his edits are worth restoring, they should be checked first and restored with a proper edit summary, not just "undone". I allowed the IP to keep editing, despite his opening another account, until I viewed his edits as problematic. That's a lot more leeway than we are supposed to give, and we've been more than fair with him. I just won't tolerate persistent rule-breakers. He's been blocked for the third time, this time for three months, according to the blocking admin, whom incidentally, I did not contact personally. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I DID give a proper edit summary. And I quote nevertheless it is long established practice to NOT show TD. Wikipedia truncated the full response which additionally stated in season result matrices.

If you did not notice this, should I ask why? --Falcadore (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In my last comment I wasn't specifically referring to the edit you restored, but since you have referred to it and since you appear to be implying some degree of bad faith, I was not aware of any long established practice to not show TD in results tables where that driver had subsequently taken part in races. I knew that test drivers who have not raced are not shown in the tables, but not the other. I'll assume, probably incorrectly, that this practice has been followed in the past as a result of a consensus and discussion. Had you just left an edit summary without publicising the undoing of my own edit, it wouldn't have seemed quite as much like you were on his side. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not on a 'side'. There is almost ten years worth of Formula One season articles to use as comparison. The TDs are only used on drivers pages, not on season pages as Friday TD role does not contribute to the season results, which is what the matrix tabulates. Consensus on this issue was achieved, although I'll admit not without fierce debate. This is not the only edit that has been incorrectly reverted. Looks like someone will have to go through FelipeMassa's recent round of edits to find the one with merit and restore them. At least one of these edits were genuine factual corrections. --Falcadore (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It seems that far too many people think this guy's editing behaviour is just fine and he doesn't need to follow the same rules that the rest of us follow. This is supposed to be a community that works together. I appreciate the reasoning behind your revert, as I say, I was not aware of it. I assumed, not incomprehensibly, that the season article results tables might follow the driver article results tables. Yes, some of his edits might well be restored, but they have to be checked first. The guy has never left a reference in his life, rarely left an edit summary, and was rather prone to making things up, so checking is important. Such is the work that results when a known problem editor is allowed to just edit with impunity. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I was saying. I was not suggesting to revert without confirming. --Falcadore (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sponsors

Well, my reasoning for it is consistency across articles. I checked the season pages for the last five seasons (and 2012), and they all link to sponsors separately. 2011 was the only season page that didn't do it, and I don't recall there ever being a consensus on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest bringing it up at WP:F1 and waiting for a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's your ball game - but whatever the outcome, I'd make sure all the articles are consistent. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There were some already in place so I thought why not the others? It hasn't changed anything and all the links are in place still.HoldenV8 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you wish to remove them, go ahead.HoldenV8 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What

You just posted something about editing the article of Jim Clark on my User talk page. I have never even seen his article (well, until now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.204.247.76 (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check the date stamp, I made the comment in March. So no I didn't just make the comment. --Falcadore (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That's generally why I left them alone along with the Venezuela 1930 icons. If I missed some and used GER instead of FRG for West Germany then apologies, no malice was intendedHoldenV8 (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No probs at all and I didn't take it the wrong way. Was more just saying that I'm not one of those people who put false info into Wikipedia just to be a pain. I just know in future to either leave as West Germany of if using the abbreviations then FRGHoldenV8 (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sports portal

100,000 people gather for a college football game at Ohio Stadium.

Please refrain from trying to change long-standing practice on the sports news portal without a consensus on its talk page. I know college sports is not a big deal in your country but anyone familiar with American sports can tell you college football is orders of magnitude bigger in attendance, TV audience, media attention and amount of money involved than many of the other events on the page. If we are to remove the biggest college football games from the page, we should remove everything else which is not as big of a deal, which would be just about everything from this weekend except the NFL and the Rugby World Cup. Thanks -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The long standing consensus was to only include senior domestic leagues in the play-off stages and to not include second or third tier series at all. A college league by definition is not a senior league because of the presense of the NFL, so I'm not sure to what you are referring too. If you can find where it says second or thir tier sports series can be included then I'd like to nominate for inclusion the first tier domestic football leagues of 160 odd countries around the world. Bearing in mind that some countries have as many as four different forms of football, you can see how very quickly the Sports Portal would quickly be reduced to meaninglessness. --Falcadore (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We have had NCAA football on the sports news portal for probably five years. So I don't know what you're talking about by "long-standing consensus." Please wait until there is a consensus on the talk page to change this before unilaterally making changes. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean the issue of second-tier competitions has been discussed several times - it was why NASCAR Nationwide was removed. This is merely an extension of that. --Falcadore (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In truth the Sports events portal has drifted a long way from where it is supposed to be, now it is just a collective scoreboard which has this strange habit of putting in events a day or so ahead of time at the top despite WP:Speculation and WP:NOTGUIDE. It should be following what the main Current events portal does, but just focussed on Sport, so it is a little strange to defend its current format. This is just one of many pages which has been left to its own devices too long. --Falcadore (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not confused with another page? Nationwide Series races have been posted all year. So are the ICC Intercontinental Cup (how many Canadians even know they have a national cricket team?), a junior figure skating event, the Europa League in soccer, etc. Certainly any basketball event other than the NBA can be considered "second-tier," and yet here we have the seventh-place EuroBasket game and a game between Malaysia and Iran. As I said before, if a college football game between two top five teams isn't big enough for the page, neither are 90% of the other events on it, as judged by public interest and economic impact. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree that the sports current events portal page probably needs a reassessment. It's not really in line with what the rest of Wikipedia is. Perhaps we should end the project and simply include any sports event big enough on the regular current events page. Until then, however, we should not mess with long-standing practice without a consensus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not confused with another page? Nationwide Series races have been posted all year. So are the ICC Intercontinental Cup (how many Canadians even know they have a national cricket team?), a junior figure skating event, the Europa League in soccer, etc. - No I'm not, it merely strengthens my opinion this page is out of any real form of control and that personal agendas rule without oversight. When I used to contribute to this page more regularly a couple of years ago it certainly was not this bad. As mentioned, the model of what it should be is linked right there at the top of the page. --Falcadore (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Formula One Notes

From inspection of the individual F1 Grand Prix report pages a note section stating driving debuts, last drives and driving milestones seems to be standard practice, albeit with huge holes in the data. Having written many pages for individual sporting events within a series, such as The Grand National and the F A cup final such segments are the norm and not the exception and are generally regarded as acceptable in the context of the article as writing in sentence form often takes up only a small element of such articles. F1 however is not my bag and I was just generally interested in the fact that driving debuts etc were covered extensively [in notes sections] in almost all the GrandPrix post 1965 and not done in the Pre 1965 races, I felt this should be corrected and added the final drives for those who took part in the 1950 British Grand Prix. I wish you a great deal of luck in removing the many hundreds of notes sections that have been added to each Grand Prix post 1965 by other users and suspect that you will encounter a backlash from racing enthusiasts when you do. As a sports historian myself I would suggest that you view such sections in a different way. You descibe them as trivia but I personally would disagree with this description. A series of statements saying things like "Driver A wore a new green helmet" in this race is trivia, pointless and worthy of deletion but "This was the Debut race for driver A" is a milestone, a fact of that race. From the vast number of users who have added debuts and last drives prior to myself, I belive many racing enthusiasts share this belief. Captainbeecher (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many hundreds it is true, which is why it has been a slow and very incomplete process. A continuing project of the Formula One wikiproject is the deletion of all 'Notes' sections with their contents moved into race reports where appropriate. It isn't necessarily about deleting information but relocating and writing it in the manner wikipedia prefers. --Falcadore (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

1967 German Grand Prix

Sorry about that - quite embarassing, I do apologise. I think it's about time I went to bed to be honest, thanks for pointing it out. Bigdon128 (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Circuit Park Zandvoort

You seem to have a lot more grasp than me on what counts as a major event for Zandvoort, I didn't know the infobox required the major events listed to be relative to the circuit's history. Thanks for leaving that info in the Revision History. Yosef1987 (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Falcadore. You have new messages at Talk:Adam Carroll.
Message added 14:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mo ainm~Talk 14:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Falcadore! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Silverstone

Hi,

The point of that fact was that this was the first time it appeared in a game. Check out Mt Fuji - it's notable because it's such an early crossover - you noted yourself that it's about 20 years. Look up Cavern club or Wembley stadium. Racing circuits are no different to soccer or music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.82 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What goes on in other articles is not completely relevant, it could be that arguement instead means that information should be removed from Mount Fuji. If you look across other circuit articles issues of gaming is not considered that important. The article is about Silverstone, does Silverstone itself acknowledge this game as being important in the circuits history? Do we also detail the first time the circuit was photographed in a magazine, or was depicted in a fictional novel or appeared in a motion picture? Or perhaps most importantly, the first time it appeared in a telecast of a race?

The first time Silverstone appeared in a game might be improtant fact to the game, is it really important to the circuit, or is it just trivia? --Falcadore (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR restrictions

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. When in doubt, don't revert!

You have now made three reverts here, here and here. I would suggest that you self revert. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Two questions - is this sanction also being threatened with all editors concerned, and secondly, where can I find more information on this policy. There is no information anywhere on the Adam Carroll article or on the talk page that this article is covered by The Troubles. If there is a specific policy on certain articles that should be highlighted at the very least on the talk page concerned. I will withhold on self-reversion for the moment while I explore this. As someone familiar with the subject of Troubles issues might you be able to provide a link to an appropriate place with which I might ask further questions? In the interests of good faith some links towards policy would be of great assistance, particularly since there is no indication anywhere on this article about this. Your above warning provides no such links. The opposing editor I would additionally note that my most recent reversion is at least partially correct, so under those circumstances perhaps there might be some leeway? --Falcadore (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Falcadore, here is a link to the Remedies section on the Troubles Arbcom. I highlighted the notice for you to let you know how it is relevant to this issue on "Nationality." I have no intention of reporting it, as you were unaware of it so I hope the link is useful and that you consider self reverting. You might read this talk page discussion here which might also help. Sorry if the template came of as sounding harsh, I just did a copy and paste. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't so much the harsh, but the lack of links which the language seemed to refer to which made things more confusing than it could have been. I'll assess when I have time later today. --Falcadore (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I also sought some editorial assistance from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and their advice was actually that the Troubles 1RR does not include sports articles and that I should not be concerned about the warning you've given. So perhaps there is an over-reaction occurring here and you should enquire further? --Falcadore (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Falcadore, you are obviously entitled to take advice from whom ever you wish no problem here with that. I would suggest however that advice should be based on experience and in this case on the issues involved in "Troubles" related topics. "Nationality" is one such topic, and "Flags" are another. Both of which are covered by the criteria outlined above. The advice you have been given by one uninvolved editor will not deflect from the 1RR restriction. I hope the links I've provided were useful? Having been at the bad end of these restrictions I would like to consider myself informed enough to offer an opinion, and I hope you accept it in the spirit in which it was intended. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Young driver tests

Hey, I noticed you undid some revisions to the 2012 Formula One season page about the young driver tests. I've sicne added that information back in (though I wasn't aware you had removed it until after I had put it in). I'm modelling it on the 2011 page, where we had a limited recap of the fastest driver in the YDT - mentioning the fastest driver in the tests, and any significant details, but nothing more. In this case, the fastesst driver is Verge, and the significant details are Pirelli giving their tyre compounds an overhaul and teams testing 2012 parts. That's about as much as the section should have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah.... 2011 season hasn't finished yet. Just thought I'd point that out. --Falcadore (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

sports talk page

Hi -- In preparation for an RfC on the matter, can you please look at Portal_talk:Current_events/Sports to see if you can provide your side of the story or help craft a neutral introduction to the matter? Thanks -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedway drivers categories

Not sure of your thinking on the speedway drivers categories. Drivers usually compete in multiple categories. To pigeon hole someone like Max Dumsney only in Sprintcars would not be correct. And to have a category of every class in Australia would be an over-kill. And is it just for dirt or do we add Auscar & Australian Nascar in that? Your thoughts?--Greg Nail (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One categroy completely duplicates the other. Alan Jones for example is not listed as both a Formula One driver and an Australian Formula One driver. If a category is a complete subset of the other you don't stack them side-by-side.

Also - AUSCAR and Australian NASCAR were generally locally refered to as Superspeedways. --Falcadore (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Greg Nail (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Triple F / DJR

Does the article that desribes DJR and Triple F as an "alliance" speciically call Triple F a satellite team of DJR? Because nothing that I have read describes them as such, and all of those articles point to Triple F being shut down entirely. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Then chose another term! It's the same level of relationship as James Rosenberg has with Stone Brothers, as Jason Bright has with Brad Jones Racing over the #21 Britek franchise, the same as Rod Nash has with Ford Performance Racing. It should be shown in exactly the same manner. It's why these cars have been grouped together in the table even though when they get to the track they operate differently. The Rod Nash car actually shares it's pit boom with the James Rosenberg team did you know? Two cars only per pitboom, so the third cars, satellite teams, additional franchises, whichever terminology you chose to prefer shares booms. They also score points in the team's championship separetly. Kelly Racing is another multiple franchise entry. Cars #7 and #15 should probably be separated from cars #11 and #16 (the Perkins Engineering franchises). --Falcadore (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For being the voice of reason in a sea of general calamity. This one is long overdue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam Brand

I noticed that you recently added the Category:Australian racing drivers to Adam Brand, the country music singer. The article itself doesn't contain any references to Brand being a racing car driver. Is it possible for you to add something to clarify why that Category applies. Dan arndt (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam has raced cars for years. Used to race HQ Holdens before spending several years racing Brute Utes. It was very well publicised at the time. He stepped back into a race car weekend just gone at the Eastern Creek Six hour, it's on his twitter feed that he did so. I can look up some stuff in a bit once I'm on XMAS hols. --Falcadore (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If you could include some of the info on the article (including suitable references) then that would certainly help & avoid having people like me deleting the Category from the article because they don't know enough about the subject. Thanks Dan arndt (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work - now it makes sense. Dan arndt (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

References in P:CE/S

The practice on this page is to cite sources only for news items. If we had to add refererences for all scores there would be hundreds of them, and the articles are extremely long allready. We link all items to relevant wiki pages where (if done properly) there are sources, in case anyone need them.--Nitsansh (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Except: P:CE/S isn't being used as a portal is it? It is being used as a repository of sports scores - which is very definately news! Using the name of the space to get around article structure isn't really good faith editting. If it is being used for news purposes, it should be subject to sourcing guidelines. If the Portal was actuallyt being used for what it is supposed to be then maybe there wouldn't be thousands of entries.

Portal:Current Events, the parent of Current events sports doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Maybe it just needs to be applied to any sport result that has accmopanying description.

Nevertheless the page editting instructions do say Cite Sources. Does that need to be fixed? --Falcadore (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the rulebook is on your side, but I have been editing this portal for several years and that was the practice since then and probably from the beginning. As far as I recall, you are the second person who raised the issue of sources. As far as I'm concerned, there was never a case of bad faith in order to get around the rules. It was the format when I started editing and I didn't have a problem with it, and didn't think it should be changed. I don't think the general rule that reqires sources should be changed, but maybe it shouldn't be strictly applied. As I see it, this page functions as a portal, because from its links you can get to the detailed articles on each item, but it also functions as news article because of its day-by-day structure. It doesn't really fall into one category but a mixture of both.--Nitsansh (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Stricly applied? It's not applied at all. There is a references section on the page that is completely empty. So bad faith was a stretch and potentially inflamatory, but it is a possible interpretation.

If the page is supposed to act as a portal, it isn't working. It is just a collection of results with no criteria as to what should or should not be included. As a page it is absent of any control or justification. If it has any news function, incidental or intended, it needs referencing.

Look to be fair, it probably wasn't always like this, nor did it happen suddenly. It just happenned gradually happened overtime that standards slipped. That doesn't mean that should not be corrected. --Falcadore (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What you see on the current page is just about a week with fewer items than usual, because there are few sport events on the Holidays period. You should look at previous months to see that there are usually some sources. I agree with you, though, that references are few and far between and not regularly added. I wasn't here from the beginning, and I checked the early pages and found that it began as a news article with sources on almost every line, but within a year or two evolved into the current format and shape that is being maintained for at leas five years. I have no idea who, how and why made the decisions in those days. Maybe we should ask other editors who were active at that time. It seems that the current regular editors, including myself, feel fine with this format, and I don't think it's just because of lazyness or any form of bad faith.--Nitsansh (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion copied to the article's talk page. I suggest we continue there.--Nitsansh (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Falcadore. You have new messages at Leandrokillers's talk page.
Message added 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Race titles

Hey, I see you reverted my edits to the 2012 race calendar, with the note that the number of laps in the race is not notable enough for being included in the calendar. If this is the case, then I feel that the title sponsor of the race is not notable enough for inclusion, either. If, for example, the British Grand Prix moved from Silverstone to Brands Hatch, then that would directly impact the calendar. But if the race stayed at Silverstone and the title sponsor changed from Santander to Sainsbury's, then how does that affect anything? It changes where the money funding the race comes from, but the races will always need money to be run. Therefore, I submit that title sponsors for races are not notable enough fo inclusion in the calendar (they are, however, notable enough for the driver table since sponsors influence liveries and liveries differentiate cars; I've often heard McLaren referred to as "the Vodafone team" by casual spectators).

If the title sponsor of a race is not notable enough for inclusion, then there is no need for the "race title" and "Grand Prix" columns in the calendar table. Only one would be enough, linking directly to the race. Without the title sponsors, the only thing the race title column is good for is the inclusion of the local name for the race, like in Hungary or Brazil. But there are only six races with a local name, so keeping a second column around is hardly necessary. Especially since most races are known by their English names, anyway (as mspete has pointed out to me, we list all race reports under their English name regardless of the local name).

We're always talking about how there are too many tables (or too much information arranged in a table) for the season article. I think that we can simplyify the calendar table by removing the race title table because the title sponsor is not notable enough for Wikipedia since a change in sponsor does not affect the actual race. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Holden Commodore SS Group A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAMS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR on Jack Brabham

Hi. You're a pretty experienced editor, so I assume you know about WP:3RR, but I just want to remind you to be sure. On Jack Brabham, you're already at 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, and you should be sure not to cross that bright line, or you'll end up blocked. There is a possibility that the WP:BLP exemption to WP:3RR would apply (I for example, would probably decline to block you given the nature of these edits), but that's always chancy to rely on. I've got the article on my watchlist now, and have already told Malbeare that I will block him if he makes any more edits to this article. Plus, it looks like you've got several other editors watching, so it may be safer to wait for someone else to act. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder but I was not going to do anything further in the event of further activity apart from recommend administrative action against the user for 3R and persuing personal agenda against COI. I had already put the relevant Wikiproject on notice of the activity, but it looks like that has been taken care of, so my thanks. --Falcadore (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Last edit on List of Motor Racing Tracks

I beleive I have been fasley accused of "making up stuff and presenting rumours as fact", Avalon Motor Park http://www.apexcircuitdesign.co.uk/products/24/66/avalon_motor_park/ and IMETT http://www.imett.com.au/about-imett.html#motorracing are real planned or proposed circuits.Lukeblake (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC) yes, I was just trying to explain I didn't make it up. I want try to put it back up anymore.Lukeblake (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I would not put it up anymore.Lukeblake (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 2012 24 Hours of Daytona

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Geoff Brabham

Why did you delete stats from the Complete V8 Supercar results box?--Greg Nail (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Because you presented the pre 1999 Sandown 500 and Bathurst 1000 results as part of the Australian Touring Car Championship, which is fundamentally a falsehood, and why Brabham appeared as NC in the season tally. You even inserted links to the 1993 Australian Touring Car Championship (and 94 & 98) which would have been highly confusing for anyone clicking the link because there is no mention of Brabham whatsoever in the linked article, nor the races depicted in which he actual did race. You can present the pre-99 seasons as a season as a whole, because that is not how those seasons were structured. --Falcadore (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree.--Greg Nail (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of those races, notably the Sandown 500, weren't even conducted to the same rules with grids loaded up with Group E production cars. Why not include Brabham's BMW drives if you are going to be be that level of inclusive. In Formula One, races like the Race of Champions are not included in these tables as being part of the corresponding F1 World championships, so why is it different? If you want to add details about Brabham's non-championship appearances, don't tabulate them, write them up with sentences add it to the article, that has always been Wikipedia's preferred method of documenting athletic performance. --Falcadore (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Because the results box clearly said Complete V8 Supercar results. The informational was factual, correct and not misleading. There are many tables on Wikipedia which include non championship races in the results box.--Greg Nail (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also shown you an example where it is not. But then why the links to Australian Touring Car Championships and listing an ATCC pointscore? That's definately misleading. --Falcadore (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In your personal opinion.--Greg Nail (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't see how it is not factually misleading. Perhaps you can provide an alternate explanation as to how someone can not be involved in a championship and have a link to it not be misleading? --Falcadore (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don’t need to justify my editing to you. You’re not the principal even though you act like it. Pull your head in Mark and communicate with your fellow editors before you delete their work!--Greg Nail (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mount Panorama Circuit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GT3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

100 Miles Road Race

I would argue that 1985 is the more-relevant starting date for the Australian Grand Prix than the 1928 100 Miles Road Race. 1985 was the year the race joined the championship as a points-scoring round; I think the history of the 100 Miles race is better suited to the Australian Grand Prix page, and not to the 2012 race page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why can't it be both? The Australian Grand Prix, more than most Grand Prix, is so much more than Formula One. --Falcadore (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But this article is specifically related to the Formula One race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's specific to a motor race that just happen to be for Formula One cars. Formula One raced in the Australian Grand Prix well before the World Championship embraced the AGP in 1985. The races history is full of Grand Prix Ferraris, Maseratis, Lagos, Coopers etc. Its list of pre-WC winners includes drivers like Brabham, Prost, Jones, Clark, even as far back as the 1930s European drivers would visist for the AGP.

Also, to suggest the AGP is only the World Championship runs afoul of WP:RECENTISM. It is one of Wikipedia primary roles to be educational in nature. This is why for example Corvette is about a ship not a car, and Apple is a fruit not a computer.

The World Championship could have titled its races with any name they like and could have changed the names at any point in the World Championships history, but they deliberately chose to embrace established races like the British, Swiss, French, Italian, German, Belgian, Spanish (etc) Grands Prix. The title Grand Prix has never been exclsuive to the World Championship, races like Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Rhodesia, Phillippines, even to this day New Zealand and Macau, plus non-national races like Selangor, Albi, Pau, Pedrables, Penang and so on and so on. We should never hide any of this under the pretence that the 2012 AGP is just the World Championship. --Falcadore (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. When you recently edited List of 2003 motorsport champions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Caruso (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Results tables

We always mark the pole-sitter in every table - even before the race begins - remember?

Also, the combined weight of those tables in their blank form is about 30,000kB, which is about a third of the current 2012 article size. The last thing we want is for someone to create another set of tables on top of that because they are unaware of the hidden tables, and pad the article out by another 25%. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Pole hasn't been decided yet. Not even started yet. Havin the huge table with one little "P" in it and no points allocated is a bit unneccessary, particularly since we have a complete duplication table with pole already mentioned. Is unneccessary duplication of data you're big thing?

The table was also fundamentally flawed displaying championship positions according to number on the car, if you can't understand that at the very least...

I maintain there is no good reason to have the big matrix until tomorrow. --Falcadore (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited 1980 Brazilian Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Watson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

2014 season calendar

I understand what you're saying about the 2014 Formula One season calendar, but can we really have degrees of speculations? It's either speculative, or it's not speculative. It can't be a little bit speculative and still be okay. Perhaps we should reduce that table down to prose, then, the way I did with the driver table (since none of the teams are even confirmed to be taking part in 2013 pending the Concorde Agreement). But then it's going to be even ahrder to justify keeping the page at all, since there will be almost no content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does the page need to be kept? I don't see the value in it, nor in sugar-coating speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need for it to be kept, either. It was recently nominated for deletion, but consensus said it should be kept because the 2014 engine regulations are significant, and Russia is joining the calendar. Never mind that there is no detail about those regulations, or that the IOC can push the Russian Grand Prix back to 2015, or even that 95% of the content on the page was simply copy-pasted from the 2013 season page; some users think that it is important enough to justify keeping. Perhaps if we re-wrote the section on the calendar and removed the table - and justified doing it, of course - then the page could be re-nominated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Falcadore. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

V8 Supercars

Perhaps a better solution would be to model the driver table on the system on the DTM season pages, grouping the entries by manufacturer first rather than by number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cant say I'm a fan of that primarily because unlike DTM where Mercedes and Audi support all of their teams, this is not the case in V8 Supercar. Grouping them all together implies to some extent that Holden and Ford support all teams. V8 Suprcar has more in common with NASCAR organisationally than V8 Supercar and you'd never group NASCAR teams in the DTM style. --Falcadore (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

DTM

I have searched and cannot find any source that either proves or disproves your claim that Alfas were not sold in Japan in the 90s... I know that they were not sold in the States for a while, but I you really should find a reliable source backing up your claim.

Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't my claim. Are you saying you actively do not believe or are you just not sure? Because if you are guessing, then by all means question it, but don't remove if you just 'think' it's wrong. --Falcadore (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I assumed that it was not you making the initial claim, but you do seem to be supporting it. If something is a fact, then there should be a source to support it. It may be that the claim is 100% correct, in which case a source should be provided. If people are not sure if it is correct or not (which refers to me at the moment) then it should not be included, it is better not to include something, than to include something because it is possible that it is correct. BTW, do you actually have any information regarding the sales of Alfas in Japan in the 90s? Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Brisbane workshop and meetup invitation

Brisbane Meetup Next: 11 February 2013 5-8PM - Drinks and light dinner at SLQ with Sue Gardner Last: 3 August 2012

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a series of Paralympic History workshops and a meetup next Saturday (26 May) and Sunday. In attendance will be University of Queensland faculty and Australian Paralympic Committee staff. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/5. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 06:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane)

Grid column

Hi Falcadore. I noticed you removed the "Grid" column from the winners table at Japanese Grand Prix. FYI, the editor who added that column has added the column to the most of the "xxx Grand Prix" articles. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2011

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2011, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

WP Motorsport in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Motorsport for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Race summaries

Hey Falcadore,

I noticed you made this edit changing the "Season report" section of the 2012 Formula One season to "Race summaries". While I don't disagree with the name change, I did notice this comment in your edit summary:

"change name to more appropriate - pending a re-write into an actual season report"

If I may ask what exactly do you mean by a "re-write into an actual season report"? Do you just think that an account of a season in progress cannot reasonably be called a "season report", or is there a critical issue with the way the summaries are written? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The season report is not a season report. It's a collection of eight race summaries, it's just that simple. My experience as a journalist is that a season report should describe the season collectively, not piecemeal bits one chunk at a time. Just one of the differences between professional and amatuer writing.

To put it another way. To we write the articles on the individual races one lap at a time, or do we write about the whole race in one go?

If at the very least I've made you think about it, then its a small win.

This was a subject I had intended to raise at the relevant talk page, but you're pretty fast tonight. --Falcadore (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I write the races one at a time, because they're fresh in my memory that way. I don't want to get to the point where November comes around and I think "Jesus, what happened in Germany?" and then have to condense the report on the race page down into 350 words and find sources. You're right in that it should be race summaries for now, but I guess it's just one of those things that never really occurs to you until someone changes it. If you hadn't made that change, we probably would have gone all the way through to November with it under the heading of "season report".

I was just concerned that you felt there was some critical flaw in the way the summaries are actually written because lately I've been looking back on previous season articles (like 1992), and I've found they only really concentrate on one or two drivers, usually the title contenders. The way I see it, there is a narrative to the season. Sure, there are twenty races, but they are all contested by the same teams and drivers, and there are issues that come up several times, almost like subplots in a story. So what I'm trying to do is write it as one season as a whole, rather than twenty races in isolation, and in order to do that, I'm trying to follow various threads as they occur. For example, HRT failed to qualify in Australia - so I made sure to mention them in Malaysia when they did qualify, even if they're at the back of the grid. Likewise, Pastor Maldonado won in Spain, so I recounted what he did in the next race. Maybe these these are only tiny little pieces of the overall puzzle, but I think they're important because they link each subsection together.

PS - If I'm fast, it's because I'm bored. It's school holidays at the moment, which means there is no work for me right now. I'm hanging around waiting for Silverstone qualifying and tinkering with various articles for now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a critical flaw. As mentioned above. Reporting races one at a time might be convenient, but it lowers the quality to be borderline as far as sticking to the topic. It's also duplication - we have individual articles for each race, we don't need those to be abbrevited, we need an article which summarises the season as a whole.

If some articles concentrate on only two drivers then it could be those two drivers ARE the story of that season. But it also suggests they are articles ripe for expansion.

The flavour of the season changes as it goes on, the season summary should reflect that, instead of presenting eight snapshots. Quality over quantity. --Falcadore (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, as you say, we should write the season report to focus on the entire season. But since the season is not yet over, recapping race by race is the next-best alternative. Once the season draws to a close, then we can go about condensing it into a seamless recount. Because if we did that right now, we'd have half a season report. It was always my intention to cut this down once the season was over - my reasoning being that it would always be better to have too much informtion and then trim it down later instead of not having enough and trying to pad it out at a later date. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe in next-best, when we can just do the best option first time. That the season is not yet complete I do not find to be any form of acceptable excuse. The chances of it being re-written after season completion would be substnatially reduced. Needs a fix now, not later. --Falcadore (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Then what do you suggest as a solution? Like I said, we have half a season report. As you point out, we can't just do it one part at a time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. When you recently edited Australian Superbike Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kawasaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

2014 International V8 Supercars Championship and Newcastle Kart Raceway

Hello. I see you are new to Wikipedia, so I would suggest that you may wish to have a read of, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the section Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

TollHRT52: Falcadore, I understand where you are coming from, as you are clearly an experienced wiki editor, as your user page clearly shows. If you wish, you may re-create 2014 V8 Supercars Championship if it is deleted in the future, or add to it if not. I thank you for your message, as it will show me the way in future edits. I will also ask why you want to delete Newcastle Kart Raceway. Thank you. --TollHRT52 (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2012 (AEST)

Kart racing circuits, venues of junior amateur racing, are generally not considered notable under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. There has additionally been no attempt to establish this subject as being notable with the use of references.

Some tips can be found at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --Falcadore (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be causing some negativity in your camp. You have said that you upset someone so much that they left Wikipedia. Acidentally, eh? Hmm. Pretty much everything I have been working on you've had to have a say about. May I ask why I am causing you so much consternation you've pretty much kept an eye over what i've done, especially since the Circuit Bali page was considered for deletion barely an hour after it was created? TollHRT52 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2012 (AEST)

Firstly - it's not good changing section titles on other peoples talk pages like that.

Secondly - Your articles are consistently poorly referenced - I don't need a second hand to count them, and frequently they are based entirely on rumours, which is specifically against what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Write the article on the Bali circuit when it is confirmed that it is taking place. WHen it is formally announced, yes this is what we are doing and this is when we are going to do it. Add V8 Supercars and MotoGP to the article when they announce 2014 or 2015 (yes wait that long) calendars with Circuit Bali in those calendars and a date for a race in it. It's just that simple.

Thirdly - NO RUMOURS.

Look I know you think it's cool everytime there's a new news story that it's great to start a Wikipedia article about it, but that isn;t what Wikipeida is for. What you are doing, re-mounting soft news items, there is a place for that - it's called Wikinews Soft news should not be presented as fact on Wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Can I just ask...

1) How do you add citatations to articles? It obviously isn't as simple as typing in a websites' address bar.

2) I figured that since this segment of your talk page is no longer just the topic addressed in the title, I could change the title for it. To save you some effort of doing something quite mundane.

and 3) How do you contact the WikiProject on what else to add articles to, as most have already been written. I presume just go to their talk page, yes? TollHRT52 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2012 (AEST)

1) I have directed you previously towards WP:References and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Add to that WP:Citing sources should cover everything. If there is a specific tip/help, just ask.

2) It's just good etiquette to not muck around with other peoples talk pages other than to add your comment if you are not starting a section.

3) I see you've already found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian motorsport. Post any queries there. It's not well attended these days mind you. Sometimes Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport will get you a better response. --Falcadore (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation

Brisbane Meetup Next: 3 August 2012 - Dinner Last: 26 May 2012 - Dinner @ Southbank

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup this Friday evening (3 August). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/6. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Brisbane)

Recent edit

Since when has "constructor" been a term specific to the World Championship? It isn't. So no vehicle used outside the World Championship was built by a constructor? Most, if not all of these cars were used in the World Championship anyway. Give me one good reason why this article should be the only F1 race article to use individual chassis designations, full of redlinks. It's too much information. Wikipedia is not a stats dump, you know. Also, when someone reverts your edit, the thing to do is to discuss, not edit war. You ought to know that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Or you could discuss, then revert. Constructor's terminology always used to refer specifically to the Constructor's championship. That it has proliferated in the media does not mean Wikipedia is beholden to follow. Does the reproting of the time reflect the more recent proliferation of Constructors?

I also reverted because at least part of your reasoning was not true. Several pre-1958 races refer to chassis designations. Also, accusations of stats dump are far from relevant, only one column of data has been changed, there has not been additional columns added. Also several of these race cars DO have article, so the links are hardly inappropriate. Having chassis is also particularly useful in mixed category races like this. --Falcadore (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what evidence you have to verify that constructors' terminology always used to refer to the WCC. Obviously there is no contemporary source online, but the literary sources I have from the 60s and 70s do use the term "constructor" alongside other terms ("chassis", "car" etc). My bet is that prior to 1958, the term was less often used, if at all. It is quite patently nonsensical to use a particular term to describe the manufacturer of a car driven in Race A, but for the same car in Race B, that term is not to be used. Unless you have something to verify it.

With regard to using chassis designations in race results tables, in my opinion it's a mess. I think chassis designations should either be in the text, or in a table of entrants like the 1950 British Grand Prix article you linked to. If they must be tabulated, they should be in the first table, not the last. Regardless of whether or not a few 1950s races use chassis designations, it's not WPF1 policy and there's no apparent consensus to use them. Do you advocate spreading them across all the articles, or having yet another half-assed "here and there" approach? It's that approach (among others) that has made the season articles so poor. I'm not keen on turning the range of non-Championship race articles into an amateur-hour hotchpotch. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The biggest problem here is you are applying Formula One World Championship principles to a motor race that is not a Formula One World Championship event, it is not even a Formula One event, as it is loaded up with F5000s. The standard in wikipedia motor racing (not WPF1) does not reflect your arguement. --Falcadore (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It was an F1 event run in conjunction with a F5000 race. NC F1 events were run in exactly the same way as WC F1 events. You're not responding to any of my points, making progress difficult. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. Many non-F1 events were run very differently. I've responded to several. I'm primarily responding the the primary point of difference, F1/non-F1. If we can find some common ground there, the rest is just presentational issues and easy to fix.

We rather inaccurately use the constructors terminology across a wide range of open wheel articles, like Formula 3 for instance, when has there ever been any kind of recognition by F3 race organisers to "constructors"? We don't do it for GP2 or GP3, I don't see those articles refering to race results as Dallara-Renault. --Falcadore (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, they weren't F1 events, like the Aussie GPs and many of the S African ones. That's the whole point of F1 rules. Either the race followed the F1 rules (an F1 race) or it didn't (something else, like Formula Libre). I have to say I don't really know anything about F3 or the way in which Wikipedia handles it. I don't understand your last point - GP2 and GP3 teams all use the same car, so there's not much point in referring to it in the tables. I don't see anything that tells me that the cars in the '71 Argentine GP were not built by 'constructors', given that the cars used in the 1971 South African Grand Prix a few weeks later were, in many cases, the self-same cars. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Many series all use the same car. And it's not forced in all of them, like Champ car and some F3 series, it's just evolved that way. As F5000 cars have never been F1 legal I'd say that's a pretty substantial departure from F1 rules. Yes you said it was run to F1 rules concurrently with F5000s, but how many rule exceptions can you make and still call it an F1 race? --Falcadore (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The F1 rules applied to the F1 cars in the race - there was no deviation from those rules and the F1 runners were not affected at all by the F5000 cars in the race. The other cars ran to F5000 rules, so there were two formulae running to separate rules in the same race. Two separate races, effectively. The 1967 German Grand Prix was still a F1 race, with F2 cars in it which were running to F2 rules. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

52/53 was all F2, but it was a world championship event, so they exist within the F1 stats. If a combined race has only two F1s in it and run to F1 rules is it still an F1 race? How many cars are needed before it is not an F1 race? Where is the dividing line? How is it established? Where is the notable definition or is it nebulous consensus type thing? --Falcadore (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is two separate races. The F5000 cars were not in the F1 race, and the F1 cars were not in the F5000 race - the two races were simply running at the same time. That's why some F1 results sources for the German Grands Prix of the late 1960s simply omit the F2 race from the Grand Prix stats. For this Argentine GP, we've included both races because it's an article about the Argentine Grand Prix, which consisted of two races run at the same time. Maybe the lead could be reworded to make it clearer, but that's how it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is two separate races. The F5000 cars were not in the F1 race. That is very obviously not how the article is written. The sources do not agree and the race results here and in sourcing material do not present results as you've indicated. Whether what you've said is true or not, and I offer no personal opinion, there is not any attributed support to those statements. So you see the dilemma? --Falcadore (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. What sources don't agree? The literary source I have is the only one which explains it in any detail, and that's where my information comes from. What do you mean the race results here and in sourcing material do not present results as you've indicated? The article clearly states that the F1 race was run in conjunction with an F5000 race. What part of that is not clear? The only thing I see that could be reworded is the first sentence, to say that the Grand Prix itself was a dual race, run under two sets of rules, one set of rules for each type of car. What alternative to this truth are you offering? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The bit that says a Formula 5000 finished fourth obviously. If the results are as seperate as you claim perhaps the best way to present is to physically separate F1 & F5000 into seperate tables. Displaying as one suggests, and suggests quite strongly that they took part in the same race. --Falcadore (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

An F5000 car did finish fourth - in the Grand Prix. It won the F5000 class, in the sense that it was the only F5000 car running at the end. Two classes in the same event. I don't know how else to explain it. Separating the results would suggest two entirely separate races, which they were not. The two classes ran in conjunction with each other, at the same time. Every outside source puts the results together, so it makes no sense to separate them here. I really think it's rather clear. Your problem appears to be your definition of the word 'race' - do you mean the F1 class or the GP as a whole? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That underlines my point, two classes in the same event is vastly different from two different events. Le Mans is four classes but undeniably the same event. So you have to chose because currently you're having your cake and eating it too. It's a Formula One race run to Formula One rules, except for the rules which are not Formula One rules. I understood what you were saying precisely, I was just hoping you would get a sense of the sense of the double standard of saying its an F1 race except for the bits that aren't F1. --Falcadore (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So your problem is entirely one of semantics? It might have been a lot less trouble just to say so in the first place without dragging it out to this extent. You might even have reworded the lead yourself. Personally, I think it's blindingly obvious already from the lead, but for your benefit (since nobody else has ever had a problem with it), I'll reword it. Next time, get to the point a lot faster. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. But part of your defence, like also saying source material described in constructors, has been that it was run to F1 rules, when plainly it was not. My original objection has always been that constructor when expressed in the chassis-engine combination in the style of the Formula One World Championship, is not necessarily appropriate for events outside of the world championship. It was you who brought in the "run to F1 rules" situation, which if true would exclude Formula 500s from competing. So you say they were two seperate races, but then say it is OK for a F5000 can finish fourth because it wasn't a seperate race but two classes in the same race.

A Constructor, by traditional defination is the builder of the chassis yes? So outside of the World championship the engine perhaps should not be expressed in combination as Cosworth plainly did not build the Lotus 72s in this race anymore than Chevrolet had even the remotest contribution to the design of the McLaren M10B. When we tally construcotr wins over time in races the engine has been always left off, because constructors of course shift engine supplies from year-to-year as the case may be. --Falcadore (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That's because my usage of the word "race" and yours were not the same. I was not indulging in any of the kind of subterfuge you seem to be suggesting. I do not need any "defence". The F1 class was run to F1 rules, and the two classes were effectively different races, since the F5000 cars never got anywhere near the F1 cars. But technically, yes, they were not separate races, but separate classes in the same event.

A constructor is the builder of the chassis but the builder of the engine is also termed a constructor. It's just that in Championship events, where the constructor of the chassis differs from the constructor of the engine, it is the chassis constructor that earns the points. So in the example of "March-Cosworth", there are two constructors, March Engineering and Cosworth. "March-Cosworth" is not, contrary to popular belief, the constructor - it's just the label that represents both the chassis and engine constructors, to which we link in the 'constructor' column. This is the case whether the event is part of the Championship or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet multi-year totals always drop the engines. So there is definitaly different considerations given to chassis and engine. If that was not the case then those stats would tabulate Williams-Ford and Williams-Renault seperately. So again, the theory is different to the practice.

Additionally the definition of constructor as you've defined it is a Formula One World Championship regulation. Which as I've maintained since the beginning and is my primary point, it does not apply to non-championship events.

I would not be making these changes to a World Championship grand prix. --Falcadore (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Only multi-year totals which concern chassis. Multi-year totals for engine constructors drop the chassis. Williams-Ford and Williams-Renault are not shown separately because Williams-Ford (e.g.) is not a single constructor. Williams is the chassis constructor and those stats are for chassis constructors. Common usage (and often Wikipedia usage) for the term "constructor" may be just for the chassis, but that does not change the fact that the engine builder / rights owner is also termed a constructor. And, no it is NOT only a World Championship regulation - why would it be? You have zero evidence to suggest that the term "constructor" does not apply to non-Championship events. We've had this discussion before, where Pyrope tried to explain it to you. If you want to have that discussion all over again, I suggest doing it at the WikiProject, because I'm not really interested in explaining it all a hundred times here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be? Because they don't have point scores for "constructors" in the majority of other series. Trhey certainly don't for non-championship warm-up Formula Libre events. If they don't have a championship there is no need to regulate it. This has been my primary point since the beginning. It's not related to Pyrope's explanation, which related specifically to the F1 WC which I completely accepted. --Falcadore (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are points necessary before a constructor is called a constructor? It makes zero sense and you haven't produced anything to back it up. You seem to think that "constructor" is some kind of strictly-regulated term that only applies in certain events. It is certainly strictly-regulated for the F1 World Championship, but that is not to say that outside the World Championship the term is never used or forbidden in some way. Unless you have a source to say so, which you apparently don't. Do you also think that a driver in a non-Championship race cannot be called a driver because he's not earning any points? It is an identical argument. By the way, this race was not a Formula Libre race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I just don't think Constructor take precedence over the Car name unless there is a specific reason, like a constructors championship. This is the way we do it in every other branch of the sport in Wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. "Constructor" is used in dozens of NC articles and has been for literally years. "Car name" is not used in F1 NC articles, nor is it used in the sources found in them. You have not produced anything, aside from your opinion, to suggest that lack of a Constructors' Championship is a reason to exclude the word "constructor". You and I disagree, so you will need both a source to back you up, and a consensus, to make these changes. I suggest you look for both, the latter at WPF1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen much of a source in the other direction either. Your reasoning appears to be "that's the way we do it". A habit of many years is not a reason to not do something. We change editting policies in such a manner all the time. I would suggest that WP:Motorsport might be a better place to bring this up as it is something that affects open wheel articles in general. --Falcadore (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If there would be an actual discussion of the issue that did not consist of "shut up, you are wrong, this is the way we do it" then I'd be happy to revert the article until a consensus was reached. --Falcadore (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) You say that's my reasoning when you've just said "This is the way we do it in every other branch of the sport in Wikipedia." The StatsF1 source used in the article has "constructor" written over the list of cars used. There's a source for you. And no, WPF1 is the place, because I am concerned about NC F1 articles, not anything else. I simply do not care what wording is used in IndyCar or GP2, and no uniformity across radically different series is required, or desirable. Those series should use the terminology widely used in those series and the relevant sources. You want to make the changes, so you look for consensus. Right now, we are simply 1:1, so we stick with the (very) stable version until there is a wider appetite and an actual reason to change it, because you still haven't provided one.

I haven't once said "Shut up" or anything like it, so don't try to suggest I'm being uncivil. I have tried to discuss this while you persist in this discussion while providing nothing in terms of a source to back up your argument. My side of the discussion consists of "I don't agree with your opinion, please provide a source that could verify the change you wish to make." Not much to ask, is it? If you could provide a single reliable source that agrees with you, that "constructor" is not used outside the WCC, then that would be the basis for a more sensible discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't once said "Shut up" or anything like it. I did not say that you did. Not once. It wasn't aimed at you or even a targetted remark at all.

Isn't reverting for a discussion exactly why I just said? --Falcadore (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that this: "If there would be an actual discussion of the issue that did not consist of "shut up, you are wrong, this is the way we do it" does not imply that that's my argument? Or are you suggesting it's your own argument? Not aimed at me? There's nobody else here... Maybe you should just strike it. I do not understand your last sentence. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Falcadore (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If it was meant for you, I would have named you specifically. Regardless of whethere there were two of us here or not. --Falcadore (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. I accept your explanation and I'm glad you explained it because it looks like the opposite. Getting back to the point, I'm happy to leave the '71 Argentine GP article as it is while you initiate a discussion at WPF1 to try and get a consensus for the change(s) you want to make to NC F1 articles. If you're not going to start a discussion or if that discussion does not produce the consensus for your change(s), then in due course I will reorganise the tables as per the proposal I made on the article talk page, to which you have not responded. You'll note that that proposal includes the addition of the chassis designations, something which you wanted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't be able to start it now as I have run out of time. I am about to have a very sad day on a personal. Having had a big weekend working a major motorsport event I've been able to keep things in check, but now I have to go and do something extraordinarily upsetting. I likely might not be in a good emotional state of mind for a couple of days. I said I would revert and I meant it. --Falcadore (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no hurry. You and I have our differences on here, but real life is always bigger. You have my sincere sympathies regarding your personal issues, and I hope they go as well as they can. Take whatever time you need - this stuff isn't so important in the grand scheme of things. All the best, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Automobiles

Thanks for the report. The problem is with filenames that that dots in them. Please if you find these problems try to undo the last edit instead of rollbacking. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Bathurst 1000

Thanks. Sources don't agree on the reasons for the diff start/finish lines but what you say re the location of the start line makes sense and agrees with sources that mention it. There is still the reasoning behind the placement of the finish line with one of two reasons usually given - making the race exactly 1000km long, and ensuring that all pitting cars complete the current lap. Obviously, these aren't mutually exclusive.

I'll tweak my text to better reflect the situation. 124.148.242.206 (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Hello. You may wonder why I send you one, but I am here to thank you for giving me some pointers. I know we don't see eye to eye with everything, but you are the one who has helped me the most. I think you deserve this for putting up with me. From TollHRT52 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 MAVTV 500 IndyCar World Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ed Carpenter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Event clash

I'm working on Japan. Might come back to Bathurst if it hasn't been done, but I've been working on it for three days now, so I'm a little Bathurst-ed out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Falcadore,

The 2012 Bathurst article is pretty much done, but the race results table is still missing most of the race times column. I can only find articles that express the full race time for each car, rather than the difference behind the leader, and I'm not very good at maths. Do you think you might be able to take a look at it for me, please, or see if you can find any source that might have the time differences in them? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of attendance records at Sport in Australia

I endorse your removal of the attendance records. What do you think about the same data having just been added to Football in Australia? The IP editor has been busy at Sport in Queensland too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel Football in Australia article should be deleted and replaced with a disambiguation page as it suffers from attempting to combine five disparate, almost unrelated subjects into one article. Should be just a disambig page pointing to Association Football in Australia, Australian Rules Football, Gridiron in Australia, Rugby League in Australia and Rugby Union in Australia. --Falcadore (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Petit

The reasoning behind my listing of ELMS LMP2 cars amongst P2 and no giving them a separate class is that Petit was a bit different from Sebring. First, the FIA's control of the WEC meant that Sebring had to be completely separate, down to there being separate entry lists from IMSA and the FIA. Separate podium ceremonies were also held for every class in both series. However, in 2011 for Petit when it was part of the ILMC, and thus under the control of the ACO, there was no separation of classes with the lone exception of the addition of LMGTE Am to separate it from "GT", which is what LMGTE Pro was entered as for Petit. A single entry list from IMSA was made for Petit in 2012, with no separation of ELMS and ALMS P2 cars. GTE Am was created solely because the GTE Pro cars, had they entered, would have run in GT.

Finally, I do not believe that there was a podium ceremony for the ELMS LMP2 teams at Petit, and Thiriet by TDS in fact stood third on the P2 class podium. Although their points system was different, I do not believe that ALMS and ELMS LMP2 teams should be separated in this instance as there is no evidence that a separate class existed. In fact, ELMS and ALMS P2 cars both ran blue number plates, while ALMS GT ran green number plates and ELMS GTE Am ran orange, denoting a separate class. Marking the ELMS entrants should not really be necessary as it should be fairly obvious which teams are from Europe. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think is obvious at all. You have to look at the flags of the entrants for example. But that fails because Rebllion Racing is a European team, but there is no ELMS P1 class so that is an ALMS entrant. You would have to know that P2 is the top class of ELMS for it to be obvious and nowhere in the article does it state that. Someone not familiar with motor racing might look at the Muscle Milk HPD and see two German drivers and easily assume it is an ELMS car.

As to no evidence of a seperate class for ELMS and ALMS, you basis is podium presentations? What about point scores? That treats the cars completely differently. The differences I feel are far from obvious and someone with no familiarity to motor racing at all (Wikipedia's primary audience) would be completely unable to tell. I feel your assumption of obvious is based on information not displayed in this article. --Falcadore (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

ILMC and ALMS used different point scores in 2011. They still combined LMP1, LMP2, and GTE Pro/GT and did not hold separate podiums. In the eyes of the event as a singular entity, there was no separation between ALMS and ELMS at Petit for LMP2. How exactly does creating a class that theoretically did not exist help explain the differences between ALMS and ELMS any better? In fact, certainly creating a false separate class implies an incorrect notion that the two classes have some major differences to justify their separation.

Obviously the article needs more prose and explanation, but in any event, there are no separation of the LMP2 and P2 categories at this race. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't edit war if you want to remove the "LM"s, although the ELMS series does call the class LMP2 as opposed to ALMS P2. It is important that the ELMS entrants are highlighted in some manner as both the ALMS and ELMS series articles point to this one article and I believe it is not obvious to tell one from the other. Do you have a suggestion? --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Auckland 400

Thanks for pointing that out. It explains why the 2013 calendar had a link that redirected itself.

Speaking of Toll, I think he needs a bit of help with his editing. I get that he is very enthusiastic, but he has made some odd edits in the past, and when I try to help him, he rarely acknowledges that I've said anything (and has ignored it in the past). I admit, I'm not the most tactful person in the world, but I do feel that he's been around long enough to know how things are/should be done. Maybe he just needs a bit of help to point him in the right direction. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to try - at the risk of sounding tactless, unlike some editors such as Pch172, Toll at least has the potential to contribute. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Grand Prix. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
To do more than just template you, I do understand and in a way agree with your stance. This may be a situation where you need to get others in the WP:F1 to come help out with reverts and explain to Crufjsa why articles are not updated until after the race is over. TreyGeek (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

V8X Magazine

Don't think I am not watching that Afd page. I get enough shit at school behind my back so don't start. I can see you arent the only one, so I will be asking RandyKitty about this too. Since nothing more has been forthcoming from the article creator and nobody else seems tobe able to come up with sources either. The article creator does indeed create lots of stubby unsourced articles.... TollHRT52 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (AEDST)

SvG

Sorry, Falcadore, but I don't understand your logic in inclunding van Gisbergen's retirement on the 2012 page rather than 2013. If he retired in the middle of 2012 and was replaced for the last two races of the season, I could understand your point, but he's finishing 2012. His situation is no different to Michael Schumacher announcing his second retirement in 2012, but not actually retiring until the end of the 2012 season. He is mentioned as retiring on the 2013 page, but not on the 2012 page, so I don't see how SvG's situation is any different. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not discuss this at the already started discussion? --Falcadore (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

F1 Updates

Can I just ask why? No one else has had a problem with this, and as a matter of fact, I took over from a different user doing that. Also, why are you not reverting the race page then, because obviously none of that is confirmed then....... By the way, it's the end of the race, so a revert will just happen anyways. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. It is fundamentally against Wikipedias purpose to act as news reporting service. It is an encyclopedia. Are you somehow not understanding of this?

And results are not declared mid-race. It's pretty simple to understand. Those mid-race DNFs aren't sourced from anywhere are they? Just wait until after the race when results are final. --Falcadore (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would call LG a source, I would call most websites that update a source, but I'm not going to reference every retirment, like we won't do that not, so why when the race is on? Take it to discussion for March 2013. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Wikipedia is not a live newsfeed. Update the results after the race, not one lap at a time. We don't update football scores after each goal. I'm sorry waiting is so difficult for you. --Falcadore (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Falcadore is absolutely correct here: we should never be updating any event "as it happens". This counts for sporting events, reality TV shows...even on breaking news coverage, we need to be sure to wait until we have confirmed solid information from sources, sometimes even multiple sources. Please don't update that way again for future events. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC) If you're interested, though, Wikinews does cover breaking events, so you could live update there until the information is confirmed and finalized, then bring it here.

You forgot...

Uncle Tom Cobley! Ha! Britmax (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. Never head of that song. --Falcadore (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an obscure English joke. Compare the chorus listing the people riding the mare with your list of drivers who have won twice in America from your edit summary. Britmax (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Webber

Look, sorry if I came across a bit curt at Talk:Mark Webber#Requested move. I'm always paranoid that requests which I deem very sensible are being derailed by rather unencyclopedic pile-on votes. This is what Wikipedia does to me; it's like being in love with a serial cheater. :D --78.35.235.104 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula 1

If you accidentally created a page and no one else has edited it, just tag it {{db-author}}. I've done this for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoever at the team sports international competitions

Thanks for your involvement in that discussion. One of the awkward things about it, and what first attracted my attention, is the very strange language structure of the article name Australia at the team sports international competitions. It just isn't normal English (even ignoring your point about nations vs national teams). Unfortunately, User:Kasper2006 has a Userbox on his User page saying "This user can contribute with an advanced level of English." That's clearly not the case. It's hard to communicate with someone who doesn't recognise their own limits on this front. And it's hard to raise this issue on the article Talk page.

So we're debating at multiple levels. Firstly, should such articles exist? Secondly, what should they be called? And how do we communicate effectively with someone whose English isn't great, but who thinks it is?

(PS: I don't have a problem with someone whose skills in a particular language are limited. It's the non-recognition of that situation that's the problem. I theoretically speak Indonesian and French, but there's no way I'd put a Userbox on my page on the Wikipedia's in those languages claiming I had an advanced level of skill in them.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Priority"

Could you please stop making edits like this? You know perfectly well that Michael Schumacher's indecision over his future in Formula 1 is what prompted Mercedes to start seeing out other potential drivers. You edits that "restoring priority to the driver who is competing in 2013 over the one who is not" blatantly misrepresent what happened. By removing any mention of Schumacher's indecision over his future, you imply that Mercedes simply chose not to renew his contract and went to Hamilton instead when we can prove that Mercedes wanted Schumacher to stay since they offered him a renewed contract.

I don't know what's gotten into you of late, but the Falcadore that I know doesn't make such lazy, lousy edits and then revert whatever he doesn't like without discussion of the subject. We had a discussion on the matter. No consensus in favour of your approach was obtained. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I brought it up on the talk page as per your suggestion and nobody supported your opinion so that seemed like a consensus and I acted. You want to change the consensus bring it up again. --Falcadore (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Recentist

Hi Falcadore. Just been back for another look at the discussion and again had a good laugh about your statement here "This is becoming a content based issue, but I take issue with V8s ever being considered the "norm". Fours have always been the norm. It was not always possible to build eight cylinder engines. Four cylinder engine at one point expanded out to 15 litres in capacity to solve power problems prior to the technical ability to build six and eight cylinder engines being developed. And in every market other the the US have always been in the minority of production. I note you cite an Australian book in defence. V8 engines did not enter the Australian mass market until 1967 (yes they existed prior to that but only in small numbers in a mere handful of models like the Valiant [and only briefly] and the small volume import Customline and Studebaker models) and you cite the conclusion of the era as the 1973 oil crisis. Six years is a very small slice of the history of automobiles. So all I can suggest to you is your refence document is deeply flawed in its conclusions. --Falcadore (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)" It is very clear you cannot have been in Queensland in the 1930s or 1940s. Happy New Year, Eddaido (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• masses of V8s
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

DeltaWing engine

Hi! Please check the discussion page. Good bye! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited K-9 (Doctor Who), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marc Platt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup with Sue Gardner invitation

Brisbane Meetup Next: 11 February 2013 5-8PM - Drinks and light dinner at SLQ with Sue Gardner Last: 3 August 2012

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 Febrary 2013 with Sue Gardner.

Details at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/7. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 10:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in SEQ)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Sports Sedan Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAMS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Maro Engel

I had a scary moment there when I put in Engel's F3 results, saved the article, and then found that the results matrix for V8 Supercars had disappeared. It took me a moment before I realised that you'd hidden it.

Anyway, I wanted to talk to you about that. I know it's out of the ordinary, but it's something I thought we could trial since Engel is going into his maiden season. If it works, we could then consider expanding it to feature on other V8 driver pages. I know the format is also a little unorthodox, but it was the only thing that I could make fit within the horizontal bounds of the page, but I think it actually works quite well. Any thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I routinely hide empty tables, just one of my things. Race-by-race matrices have been used widely on V8 Supercar drivers previously, just on none of the full time drivers. Guys like Geoff Brabham, Mika Salo and Sebastien Bourdais by way of example. Not terribly keen on the idea myself, not a lot of reward for the effort. Puts a lot of emphasis on individual races in some series while ignoring others entirely.

I personally think a matrix like appears on David Reynolds (racing driver)#Career results has more value. It captures a drivers entire career while providing links back to season articles which carry the race-by-race performances where notability justifies it. --Falcadore (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

F1 Test Drivers

Thank you! This was all I needed. I shall not impede you further. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Liqui Moly Bathurst 12 Hour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bernd Schneider (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Test drivers?

A litle wondering, why did you delete all the test drivers from the F1 season pages?

It was discussed, at great length on the Formula One discussion page here, that if the contributions of test drivers could not be defined and that if the test drivers themselves weren't named anywhere in the article, that they did not contribute significantly towards the Formula One season and did not deserve to be listed. Boxing articles don't list sparring partners by way of comparison. --Falcadore (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

You deserve this.

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For doing a great job on the Fomula 1 season pages and level-headed management of the test driver debates EricB68 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

V8 event template

Hey Falcadore,

Do you think you could take a look at the V8 race template for me, please? I tried to expand it to incorporate fields for a fourth race, since the Texas 400 will be held over four races of 100km. However, there seems to be an errant bit of coding that I have left behind that is leaving a short line of raw code at the top of ever event page (like Texas V8 400, Bathurst 1000, Sydney 500 and so on). Could you please take a look at the template and see if you can find what I've missed? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of AFL stuff from Sport in New South Wales

I can accept the material being deleted. That's in accordance with Wikipedia policy, so it's fine. (Though someone must have got the info from somewhere in the first place. It's too specific to be just made up.)

I don't think much of your Edit summary though. It shows bad faith and POV pushing, rather than an attempt to create great content, as was most of the editing of that content and discussion a couple of weeks ago. Very sad. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to Edit Warring in your preferred content? And please, no more ridiculous inferences of vandalism giving you a free pass - edit warring is edit warring regardless of content, there are no free passes for such behavior (it's a Bright-line rule). You can't make up your own rules of conduct and critise others without looking like a hypocrite.

I made my own apology for my incorrect behavior right back at the start, but attempts at civilising the debate fell upon deaf ears. Did you look up and have a read of any of the recommended links to policies and guidelines, or are you continuing to assume what they say? --Falcadore (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Stuff the Edit warring allegations. That's irrelevant to the main issue, which was that right from the start, everyone except me there was pushing an anti-AFL POV. An outsider should not be able to tell which sport an editor supports in such a discussion, but it was obvious. And don't tell me that because I opposed the anti-AFL POV pushers, that I'm pro-AFL. I take immense pride in my balanced approach to editing here. I've been accused of being pro- and anti-AFL, and pro- and anti-soccer. I reckon that's great! (I don't edit much League stuff, so I don't think I've been accused either way there.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant at all. It goes towards standards of editting behavior, which you freely accuse other editors of poor behavior. If you take pride in your editorial behavior you should know many of these things already. Edit-war is one of the most in use principles of wikipedia behavior, there is no real excuse for any editor of significant experience to not be familiar with this policy. The fact that you saw fit to invent your own policies (whether because of ignorant assumption or because of deliberate intent) to dismiss the words of others points directly to your own form of POV, ie, your own edits take precedence over anyone regardless of their merit. This is the main issue.

And you will need far more evidence than this very clear-cut issue of an unverified claim to make any form of anti-AFL bias accusation stick. To paraphrase much repeated religious text, remove the log from your own eye before addressing the specks of others. --Falcadore (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you are an AFL fan? My mistake. (You hid that well.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Brisbane Lions member as it happens, but that is something which is irrelevant. I try not to involve myself in BBFFC articles. --Falcadore (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Good move. I'm a Cats fan myself (it's genetic - my father's fault), but I don't even have their article on my Watchlist. Much safer that way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:2013 Toyota Racing Series‎

It's not just a schedule section, it's Race calendar and results section, so it's notable to results. Yes, poles and fastest laps doesn't contribute points to the standings, so it will be better idea to remove it from the matrix. Cybervoron (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DNF doesn't contribute to points. Thus DNF is not a result, it's a trivia (statistic) that should be deleted, if we follow your logic. Cybervoron (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, when I mentioned that I was interested in your knowledge about some series? Talk is about Toyota Racing Series and my application was to this series, not to the others. If we are talking generally, information about poles and fastest laps is covered by the every series (in contrast to the results of free practices, the description of the weather, etc), so it's more than just trivia. Cybervoron (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In a throw away line at the end of reports. That's just your controversial suggestion, poles and fastest laps doesn't violate WP:TRIVIA. There is no consensus that information about poles and fastest laps is trivia. Cybervoron (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Falcadore; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

JPS

I don't doubt the entrant was JPS, but the constructor remains Lotus, doesn't it? Or is the table entry "Lotus" also wrong? Does that also make this wrong? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I said the TEAM was renamed, not the entrant. Think of it like Arrows and Footwork. --Falcadore (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read

Hey, I was wondering if, when you have time, you could read over my expansion of the V8 Supercars History section. Do you think it's too long and convoluted? ^Kytabu_Talk 10:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey Falcadore :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't me who called West's Lola a Formula 3. As far as I know Gary West built the Lola more as a hillclimb car than anything else, and he definitely has never raced it in F3. Next time please check who did that edit before you question me--HoldenV8 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

apology accepted :)--HoldenV8 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Championship Leader table

(copying from original conversation just in case you missed it, please delete if you are watching the other talk page)
I was just continuing on from the table in the 2012 season article. In any case, the prose doesn't say which driver was leading after each race or the points lead after each race. ^Kytabu_Talk 07:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what we have individual race articles for though. Information specific to a grand prix should be located on the Grand Prix article, not tabled in the season summary. --Falcadore (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is informative to be seeing the table containing information about the race lead for all the races (at one glance) and that generalizes the purpose of the table, it no longer is specific to any particular grand prix. I say the table should be re-instated.Amit Dash (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)