Talk:Renault Formula One crash controversy

Article name

Could we possible think of a name for this article that is actually not a media colloquialism? --Falcadore (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Couldn't agree more. The use of the suffix "gate" is absurd. It implies Watergate was a scandal about water. MrMarmite (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A suitable name for this article is currently under discussion here. DH85868993 (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Note:' I've moved that discussion here.... MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, somebody wrote an article about the Piquet crash in Singapore last year. On the face of it, it looks like a reasonable article, however necessary it was to create it. My beef is the hideous title. What does "Crashgate" even mean? The lazy journalistic trend of naming any scandal "...gate" is diabolically undescriptive. Watergate had nothing to do with gates, and neither does this. Somebody please think of a better title, we don't have to descend to soundbite titles for articles, we're not tabloid journalists. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been a lot of deliberate race-fixing crashes in F1, albeit none quite like this one, but why aren't any of them called Crashgate? Senna / Prost, Schumacher / Hill, Schumacher / Villeneuve etc. We avoided using the dreadful "Spygate" for the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, surely we can do somethng similar here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, horrible name. 2008 Singapore Grand Prix race fixing controversy? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect into 2008 Singapore Gradn Prix. It is not enough to justify the separate article. There are three sentences in the 08SGP article that sum up the situation perfectly adequately, we don't need to know everyone's facial expression and lunch order. --Falcadore (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it needs a separate article (none of the above incidents had allegations of blackmail, legal actions filed, and the departure of the top two folks from a F1 team, considering what's happened. 2008 Singapore Grand Prix Controversy should be fine, I would think, SirFozzie (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like the title, it is concise and the incident is being referred to as "crashgate" by the media. The title is in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. The article is well referenced from numerous sources and is justified in existing as a separate article. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how Crashgate is a common name, I've only seen it used sparingly. It's not even a very specific name, it's silly to assume this is the only controversy to arise regarding a crash. Having sources is not justification for having a separate article either. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving the name aside, if the article was inserted into the 2008 Singapore GP article it would dominate it. If you think the article shouldn't exist either PROD it or AfD it and let the community decide. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dominating the article is a problem? Might I interest you in a 2005 United States Grand Prix? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If the biggest interest in that particular race was the row over race fixing and the Piquet crash, the article should reflect that. There's no need for a separate article. And the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix isn't meant to be strictly a place to dump the box scores. --Pc13 (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The controversy over the 2005 USA GP happened at the time of the race, not a year later. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is a problem. It involves this Grand Prix. Why would it not be covered on the article about the subject? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 11:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge it into the grand prix article - It is a controversy that is localised to events at one grand prix (whether they took place at the race, a year from the race or ten years from the race - they are all about that race. There was no widespread allegation) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for a redirect as well. This controversy is basically restricted to the race itself, and nothing has happened since which wasn't directly connected to the race. We could expand the post-race section in the race article, without all the quotes and things. This is starting to get blown out of proportion - it's basically just a middle-ranking team who bent the rules in a slightly new way, and will doubtless receive a punishment. It's really not the biggest controversy to hit F1 - it's not like nobbling another team (Spying scandal) or causing a deliberate crash in order to win a championship (Mr Schumacher). I think the "blackmail" and legal issues are fairly minor, and people quit teams all the time. Ron Dennis being a bigger example than either of the Renault guys. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This controversy is basically restricted to the race itself i don't agree too much, wasn't there at least an alleged blackmail attempt? Loosmark (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You do know what 'alleged' means don't you? Isn't something that is 'alleged' more or less un-wikipedic? --Falcadore (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose a merge for the simple reason that before this article, details about this incident were not being kept at the Singapore GP article, but was being spread over other pages as well, notably the BLP's involved and the Renault page. I don't oppose a rename, but if it has to be done (and 'crashgate' is easily a current common name for it), then I suggest not having a year in the title, because of the oddity of it breaking in 2009 but referring to a 2008 crash. I suggest Singapore Grand Prix crash controversy. MickMacNee (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to stop Crashgate being a re-direct to something that doesn't sound a heavy metal band made up of journalists looking for a rage orientated-outlet. --Falcadore (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally i think this article should be part of the 2008 race article, at the very least id like the name changed from something that (as noted above) sounds like a metal band. That said i think whats most important is to make some headway towards a decision about what to do. As such shall we have a deadline, for say, sunday about what decision is to be made (with a poll?). Please don't think im trying to force the issue, and i have no problem with everyone disagreeing with me about where the article is put, but these types of issues tend to degenerate into lots of people putting their point of view across, and getting angry, with nothing much happening at the end of it.

So can we at least agree to discuss this till sunday then make a decision one way or the other? Zaq12wsx (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This article would massively overbalance the Grand Prix article, I doubt you could get agreement for a merge. But anyway, apart from deciding a new title, there is no point doing anything about a merge until after the meeting on 21 September, when there will be a better idea of the eventual stable size of the article. Also, the article is being considered for the front page on that date, so it would be helpfull if it is not in the middle of a merge at that time. MickMacNee (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, 2005 United States Grand Prix. A Grand Prix subject dominated by a controversy should have an article dominated by that controversy. The fact that this involves other articles such as Flavio Briatore and Nelson Piquet Jr. has no bearing on whether or not this should be a separate article. Being nominated for news (crystal balling?) on the WP Main Page is hardly a reason to ignore the suggestions of others. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, other crap is never a good argument. Secondly, the actual facts and issues surrounding the USGP controversy is so linked to that actual race, it would be impossible to split that into race and controversy articles without doing a disservice to the reader. However, this crash and scandal is almost inconsequential to the actual Singapore race (barring the fact it seems to show the race was fixed). You will actually find sources out there stressing that this incident pretty much had nothing to do with the Singapore Grand Prix as a venue, and it would be wrong to tie the two things together. And given the size of this article now, it is not justifiable to double the GP article in size by mergeing, to cover details that have impace across the sport, and are happening a year after the event. The content of the Singapore GP article is basicaly just part of the background for this article, nothing more. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And it is impoprtant that this incident should not be spread across multiple BLP's and other aticles for lack of a central article, because when that happens, you inevitably get conflicting accounts, the downsides of which should be pretty obvious. Even simply using the basic bar of general notability, 'crashgate' or whatever its yet to be called definitely merits a full article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff exists? Seriously? It's called an example from an actual good article about handling a controversy. And how are the facts in this case NOT linked to the Singapore Grand Prix? Sure there's some fighting between the Piquets and Briatore, but there was also fighting outside the race after the USGP. Fixing the result of a race has nothing to do with the race? Inconsequential? Come on now...

Size is no issue here, we're not even close to needing a separate article based on size alone. The USGP threatened to have major implications across F1 as well. It certainly brought Michelin into legal wranglings a year later. And we have a central article for BLPs to refer to: 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. And I would hope conflicting accounts would be easy to handle with reliable references.

Why the hell was this moved anyway? Since you yourself claim that this involves multiple articles, why would the WP:F1 project page not be the best way to discuss multiple articles? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to just disagree then, we are clearly worlds apart on policy and style issues. You can try and get consensus for a merge if you think I'm crazy and don't know what I'm talking about, but like I said, I doubt you will convince enough people to support it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re the suggestion that a decision is made by Sunday, can I suggest that we leave such a decision until Wednesday 23rd. By that time things should be much clearer following the WMSC meeting on Monday and whatever fallout comes from that. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Buh? Crazy?

How many people in this conversation alone have supported merging? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"this crash and scandal is almost inconsequential to the actual Singapore race" - Huh? If that were anything like true, we wouldn't be talking about it at all. Incidentally, it is not true to say that the race was fixed. An element within the race was fixed, but the result was not fixed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The scandal could have happened at any venue is the point. Deciding to tack it onto the Singapore Grand Prix article just because that's where the original crash happened (over a year earlier) helps nobody understand the central topic that this article deals with. This article is the very definition of a stand alone notable topic, and it isn't even over yet. MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is as of yet no evidence of anything happening anywhere but at the Singapore Grand Prix. What happened at the Singapore Grand Prix is the central topic. The FIA's investigation is over the Singapore GP, the WMSC's decision is regarding the Singapore GP, how can this not be the central topic? You seem to think that the additional quarreling between Briatore and the Piquets is enough for another article? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is this "central topic" if it's not the race and what happened during the race? The investigation centred entirely on what happened during the race, and all developments afterwards were related to the race. It's not in any sense a standalone topic - how can it possibly be? Outside the events of the race, there is no topic at all, barring the relatively trivial handbags between Briatore and Piquet Sr. And it is basically over. Once Renault have their punishment, whatever that may be, that will be that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The objections to merging are scope, size and time difference, and above all, the massively demonstrated separate notability of this scandal outside of the race. The objections are not because they are unrelated topics. People can read this article about this topic completely on its own, and not miss any detail, that is not the sign of an article that absolutely must be merged with another one. It does not need to be merged with an article that is mostly a quote farm about reactions to the first ever night race, or tables and tables of race stats. It gives no benefit to the reader, and infact will make navigation and reading harder, and the only justification seems to be is that they are related to the same initial incident. I could understand if you were coming at this from a policy point, such as WP:UNDUE, but you aren't. We have a million separate but related articles that are essentially on the same subject, that is simply the way of the wiki. MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We might just have to disagree there, I honestly couldn't agree with you less. In a week or two this will be so much old news, and will have very little ultimate impact on the sport, barring the exit of Briatore, and the (quite possibly temporary) exit of Symonds. It does not need its own article, let alone one as unnecessarily long-winded as this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We're pointing out that your use of policy is a bit misguided. Just because there is enough information for a stand-alone article does not demand that it be created. And as for "We have a million separate but related articles that are essentially on the same subject, that is simply the way of the wiki." I'm fairly certain you covered that with other crap. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

People should refer to the sourced information in the article to determine how important this is to the sport, and should not rely on any subjective personal analysis of its merits or lack of. That is what being objective is all about. Per all the relevant policies, this topic passes the bar of stand-alone notability by a mile, and notability is not temporary, so it doesn't really matter if this becomes 'old news'. As for long winded, both of you have expended more effort in attacking the article than I have in creating it. Rather than go to all that effort, you should have just Afd'd it if you really cannot bear its existence. This is my last word between us, unless or until there are more eyes on the party. But my recommendation to wait until after the hearing stands. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Disproportionately large quantities of hot air in the press when there's nothing else going on doesn't make it terrifically notable. I heard today it was the most controversial thing ever to happen in sport. That should tell you everything about the way it has been handled by the media, it's not even remotely objective. Time will tell, but I'll eat my keyboard if this has far-reaching consequences. It isn't even nearly the most controversial thing to happen in F1. It's not that I cannot bear the article's existence, apart from the pathetic title, I just don't share your opinion of its massive notability. And As for long winded, both of you have expended more effort in attacking the article than I have in creating it - that might explain why it's not very good. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: I do not think the article should be merged. The page on the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix is about the race weekend as a whole; it focuses on everything that happned that weekend. And while this incident is indeed a part of that weekend, there is so much going on - Piquet's claims, Symonds being offered immunity, Reneualt releasing Symonds and Briatore, the possibility that both with be extradited to Singaporeto face criminal charges - that it threatens to overtake the article. If they were merged, the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix page would simply be about the controversy, with information about the race proper tacked on. Reference should of course be made to the incident, but also with a re-direct to another page - this page - for more information. I also agree that the title should be changed; the "-gate" suffix is too much of a colloquialism and a cliche. If you go up to anyone on the street and mention Watergate, they'll know what you're talking about, but that same luxury does not exist with "Crashgate". They'll probably ask you to repeat yourself, if they don't just stare at you blankly. Therefore I think the title should be something along the lines of "Nelson Piquet race-fixing allegations" or "2008 Singapore Grand Prix race-fixing controversy" or the like. Reference can still be made to Crashgate - the first line could read something like "The Nelson Piquet race-fixing allegations (also known as "Crashgate") were ..." etc. - and the article can be linked to on the "Controversies ending with the -gate suffix" or whatever-it-is page, but the title needs to be something more formal and more descriptive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes you wonder what Wikipedia would have called the Watergate scandal article had it happened in 2009. MickMacNee (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy - Watergategate.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Watergate Scandal is the oney and only accurate 'gate' is not relevant. Crashgate remains a terrible name and is about as encyclopedic as changing Michael Schumacher's article to Schumi.

We are losing the point a bit here with merger discussions, and of which I freely acknowledge to being one of the first sinners.

2008 Singapore Grand Prix race fixing controversy works best for me. Perhaps Mr.MacNee with his adeptness at bulk moving can shift the mergering talk to a separate scetion and we can get on with the one thing where there does seem to be some consensus, renaming. --Falcadore (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to Renault Formula One crash controversy. It came to me in a moment of clarity. MickMacNee (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've updated all the pages that link to the article so that they now read "Renault Formula One crash controversy" instead of "Crashgate", though I didn't go though user pages. I just think it looks better than using "Crashgate" everywhere (the use of "-gate" just seems to crass).Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I didn't forget to do it, I was just waiting to see if the rename was objected to or not. No point immediately changing all the links if an hour later it gets reverted/changed. MickMacNee (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the new name is worse than the original. Whether you think the name is uninventive, crass or whatever is no grounds for the switch. Like it or not this issue is known as Crashgate. The difficulies fidnign an altenrative name just go to show what an artificial and synthetic name it is in a deliberate attempt to avoid the natural title. The situation is worse now than immediately after the move - there is not even a mention of Crashgate in the lead. I'm sorry but you can't edit reality to suit your personal preferences. The new title is not even unambiguous - for instance Senna died in an Renault-engined car in a crash that was hugely controversial. Doubtless you can find other examples where an actual Renault car has been involved in an accident that was controversial for soem reason - shunting another driver off or the like. CrispMuncher (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not even seen it refered to once as Crashgate in professional media here. As a name, it is far from universal. --Falcadore (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick 20 second Google search pulled up a couple of references: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article6842843.ece and http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e671f34-a69e-11de-bd14-00144feabdc0.html I take it the Times and the FT are professional enough for your liking? CrispMuncher (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not my contention that it did not exist, just that the nickname had failed to gain widespread acceptance in the media, particularly non-internet media. --Falcadore (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also not used on Radio 5, or Radio 4, the main British radio news stations. It's also not used in our usual motorsport sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A bad name for the article, because there's nothing "controversial" about this event. A "controversy" would be "a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views".[1] No such thing here. "Scandal" would be a better fit ("A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society"[2]). GregorB (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding 2009 was not the most helpful change. Especially since this is about an event that took place in 2008 but is only coming to light in 2009. There should be no year mentioned in the title. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Useful Source

Anyone wanting to contribute to this artice (with an improved name) will find this Autosport article very useful for putting together the actual events, rather than trying to piece the jigsaw together from various contradicting sources. - mspete93 [talk] 16:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good find, I've archived a copy just in case. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading the autosport article now. There are several articles linked from there which I haven't read yet. It looks like we've go a goldmine of info to massively expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to add some of it when I get the chance, but feel free to go ahead, as it could be some time before I get the time to do it. - mspete93 [talk] 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

I think there should be an image in the article showing the Marina Bay Circuit and highlighting the turn where the accident happened. I'd do it myself ... but I don't know how to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Implications of a suspended sentance

"the Renault F1 team had been handed a disqualification from F1, which was suspended for two years pending any further rule infringements."

Does this mean that renault will have to be extra conservative about anything that could possiblly be considered rule breaking or risk having thier disqualification de-suspended? Plugwash (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked up a precise reference but their was something in the ruling about it needing to be a "comparable" offence, generally considered highly unlikely to occur. A "routine" violation such as an underweight car or pit lane speeding is not going to trigger it. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"The World Motor Sport Council will only activate this disqualification if Renault F1 is found guilty of a comparable breach during that time." per FIA press release. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Witness X

The gutter press - "can reveal Alan Permane was Witness X, the Renault employee whose crucial evidence contributed to Briatore’s conviction. Nanonic (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the article lacks a reference to the FIA's dossier and the Renault internal investigation and Witness X itself (important, because that witness corroborated Briatore's involvement). Alan Permane seems to have been at Benetton in 1994. Rps (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Renault Formula One crash controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004081125/http://www.fia.com:80/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Pages/wmsc_210909.aspx to http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Pages/wmsc_210909.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090922183617/http://timesonline.typepad.com:80/formula_one/2009/09/a-load-of-utter-rubbish-from-renault-after-a-complicated-night-for-nelson-piquet.html to http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2009/09/a-load-of-utter-rubbish-from-renault-after-a-complicated-night-for-nelson-piquet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090915193657/http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com:80/10092009/23/transcript-nelson-piquet-jr-statement-fia.html to http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/10092009/23/transcript-nelson-piquet-jr-statement-fia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Piquet alleged that he had been asked by the team to deliberately crash

Remember this driver have been fired, and before that bullied by Briatore. He has many reason to take a revenge and his testimony is dubious, especially while if was given immunity to charge Briatore. Symond refused immunity and was then banned for several years. Macaldo (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2019

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Renault Formula One crash controversy → Crashgate – By and large, the common name of this scandal is Crashgate. Although I appreciate that we should shy away from gating every scandal that comes along, this is one scandal where the "-gate" name stuck, even gaining usage by the official F1 website. See also: Deflategate, and also my similar move request at Talk:2007 Formula One espionage controversy. Sceptre (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm not convinced that "Chrasgate" is the common name for this event. It also vague and non-discriptic. The current title is a perfect encyclopedic title for this event, per WP:PRECISE. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. See the above discussion on the name as well.Tvx1 13:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Where's the "controversy"? I fail to see how Renault ordering Piquet Jr to crash to force the safety car was "controversial", it was straight-up cheating. Renault did not contest the charge of conspiracy before the FIA, so there's no "controversy" there. The only "controversy", ten years on, is the question of how much Alonso knew. As far as the "COMMONNAME" argument goes… F1's website calls the event "crashgate" in their 2014 retrospective of the Singapore Grand Prix; at the time it was just known as "crashgate" [3], a 2019 Autosport retrospective of the race refers to the crash as "crashgate" [4], the BBC refer to it as "crashgate" [5], the list goes on and on. Like I said, I understand that not every scandal needs its own "-gate" suffix, but that doesn't mean that, when we take a look ten years after the fact, we ignore the fact that the -gate suffix has demonstrably stuck. Sceptre (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Existing title is perfectly okay. "Crashgate" not encyclopedic. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.