Formula 1 2010 Season colors in points system table[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
I would prefer something like this: {{flagicon|Europe map}}. What do you think? John Anderson (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cool. I honestly didn't know that.!HoldenV8 (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your GIF links were blank images. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok cool, thanks HoldenV8 (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Any method of making things easier would be interesting. --~~
You should now have "[rollback]" links everywhere. Prolog (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Stock car racing Production car racing merger[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah I agree with that but I never actually made that change to John Bowe page.....HoldenV8 (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And with your additional reversion - that triggers a 3R violation against this IP user. --Falcadore (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. It looks like one User with three IPs. Dolphin(t) 04:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which infobox are you referring to? Can't find a problem that you mention. --Falcadore (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level[edit]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why not reference it then? --Falcadore (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Formula One for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. 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, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. I look forward to your participation. – SMasters (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I know it does. I wanted the edittor concerned to know it was not easily understood. --Falcadore (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The grid position is allocated even if they do not use it. --Falcadore (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
2011 International V8 Supercars Championship[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think you need analyse what you've just written. --Falcadore (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to explain that more clearly. What's not to understand? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which is exactly what I was saying. I was not suggesting to revert without confirming. --Falcadore (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then I'd suggest bringing it up at WP:F1 and waiting for a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fair enough. If you wish to remove them, go ahead.HoldenV8 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
