User talk:Prisonermonkeys/Archive5

About Rally Sweden

I'm curious as to what you consider "formal reclassification" of the surface. Any source I can find lists at least two surfaces for this year's Swedish rally , snow and ice, and some list gravel as well. So to put it bluntly, what's your source to support that they have not "formally reclassified it"? Tvx1 21:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1 - reclassification has to come from the FIA. That's what all the controversy about the event was over: the event was a snow rally, but because of the slushy conditions, the studded tyres would have been completely ineffective. However, the FIA could not reclassify the event because the sporting regulations state that in order to use studded tyres, the rally must be a snow event. Changing the classification would have made the use of studdes tyres illegal (and there wasn't enough time for the tyre suppliers to source gravel tyres). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

So do you have source from the FIA that still lists the surface as only snow. Bear in mind that even with mixed surface studded tyres can be legal, i.e. snow&ice. Tvx1 22:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have one from the FIA that changes it? All I have seen are reports from the likes of Autosport that simply describe the change in conditions. If the FIA supersedes other sources in Formula One, I don't see why they wouldn't supersede other sources in the WRC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

How can you claim the FIA supersedes if you don't even provide a source stating is was classified a snow rally? Sources can't be superseded by something that doesn't exist. So far I haven't found anything on the FIA site that list the surfaces of the rallies, either formal of informal. Tvx1 23:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The calendar should list the surface. In lieu of that, the sporting regulations. Like I said, studded tyres cannot be used unless an event is classified as snow. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked that and it doesn't. Tvx1 23:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was the explanation given by the FIA - that the drivers could only use studded tyres in snow events. Gravel tyres were not an option because they would have no grip on ice and snow. Although the surface appeared to be muddy, the stages were under constant threat of cancellation because they were essentially defrosting. When the temperature dropped, the mud and gravel froze up (and were snowed over), making the studded tyres viable again. Given the FIA's explanation and the decision-making process behind the stage cancellation, I think that calling the rally a mixed-surface event is a case of OR. Especially since tyre suppliers are obligated to provide multiple tyre types for mixed-surface rallies. They give slicks and studs to the crews for Monte Carlo, and slicks and gravel tyres for Catalunya, the only mixed-surface events on the calendar. The teams only got studs for Sweden. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It certainly isn't Original Research as it is supported by sources. I have scanned the sporting regulations, and I can't find any rule stipulating that a rally needs to be "formally classified" as snow (and only snow) for studded to be able to be considered legal. Anything that's in the rules points to the fact that the FIA decide which tyres are permitted irrespective of any "formal classification" of the rally. In fact you have now yourself presented an example of a mixed-surface rally during which studded tyres were allowed, so you have undermined your own argument that mixed-surface makes studded tyres illegal. Even if we forget the gravel, Sweden would still be a mixed surface rally as it was snow and ice and not simply "snow". Tvx1 18:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Compare the event to the other mixed surface rallies on the calendar, particularly Catalunya. Catalunya is classified as a "mixed surface rally" because the first leg is run on gravel and the remainder of the event on tarmac. The distinction is so great that the teams have to work to completely convert the car over to tarmac specification.

Using your logic, changes in the individual surface within a stage would be enough to consider an event to be a mixed surface rally—even Germany; despite being run entirely on tarmac, there are a variety of tarmac types, ranging from smooth provincial roads to the rough homemade roads running between the vineyards to the damaged concrete and tarmac of an old tank proving ground.

Remember, the FIA and rally organisers cancelled stages on the grounds that they were thawing, and becoming too soft to make the studded tyres safe to use—the soft gravel rips the studs out so that when the tyre hits snow, it loses all grip. The stages that were run could be run because the temperature dropped and the surface began to harden up again. Even though they had the appearance of gravel on television, they were much closer to snow and ice. The occasional patch of softer gravel isn't enough to justify reclassifying the event. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, this isn't only about the gravel. Even without it, it is mixed: snow AND ice. And your Germany analogy doesn't hold up because those were all types of the surface class: Tarmac. But more importantly, you keep refusing to actually provide a source that supports Sweden's surface was formally classified as simply "snow" in the first place. Tvx1 15:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Then look to Rally GB, where stages regularly feature mud, gravel and tarmac. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In that case "gravel" is an inaccurate description. Tvx1 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And once again, you fail to recognise that it is not about the surface, but the tyres being used. Under your logic, every rally is mixed surface because stages can have multiple surface changes within them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Then maybe it's better to rename the column to "tyres" if that's what it's about. It's awfully confusing to list the surface of a rally as snow when the organizers themselves have published an article in which they detail it was snow, ice and gravel. There's nothing in the articles that shows our readers that the contents of those columns is actually dictated by the tyre rules and you can't just assume that the random reader will know that. In fact there is no source for the column's information in any of the concerned article at all. Tvx1 00:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2016 World Rally Championship page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nowrap

Oh jeez, not this crap again. I get that you like the look of the tables when they are all on one line, but it seriously fucks up their automatic formatting features (one of the principal benefits of the Wikitable format) and means that on very many screens it forces a significant portion of the table off the screen, forcing people to have to scroll sideways to read them! That's a shitty thing to do to a reader just because one fathead editor like the way it looks. On some screens, because of the way the wiki markup render in some browsers, having an overwide table actually forces the text into a little bar down the left of the screen. Not only is that a shitty thing to force on a reader, it actually makes the pages as a whole almost unreadable! Pull your neck in and stop being a prat. Pyrope 14:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"on very many screens it forces a significant portion of the table off the screen, forcing people to have to scroll sideways to read them"

Pyrope, you do know that some of these tables are so wide that a significant portion of them are forced off the screen regardless of the user's preferences, right? Look at the 2016 car articles — they have 28 columns: 21 results, points, WCC position, year, team, engine, tyres, and drivers. Width is always going to be an issue simply because there are so many results columns.

The table format worked in the days when the championship had 15 or 16 races, and when multiple teams could use a chassis over the course of several years with a variety of engine and tyre combinations. But given that the championship now tends to see one team use one chassis with one engine supplier for one year, is the current format necessarily the best format? The WikiProject has never discussed it; we've just kept using it because it's the way we have always done it.

Perhaps this:

Year	Entrant	Engine	Tyres	Drivers	Grands Prix																			Points	Position
					AUS	MAL	CHN	BHR	ESP	MON	CAN	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	RUS	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU
2015	McLaren Honda	Honda RA615H	P	Fernando Alonso		Ret	12	11	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	10	5	13	18†	Ret	11	11‡	11‡	Ret	15	17	27	9th
				Jenson Button	11	Ret	14‡	DNS	16	8	Ret	Ret	Ret	9	14	14	Ret	16	9	6‡	14	14	12‡
				Kevin Magnussen	DNS

Would work better like this:

Drivers	Grands Prix																			Points	Position
	AUS	MAL	CHN	BHR	ESP	MON	CAN	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	RUS	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU
Alonso		Ret	12	11	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	10	5	13	18†	Ret	11	11‡	11‡	Ret	15	17	27	9th
Button	11	Ret	14‡	DNS	16	8	Ret	Ret	Ret	9	14	14	Ret	16	9	6‡	14	14	12‡
Magnussen	DNS

Or even a vertical table, though I appreciate that this might be too radical. But I think that the idea has merit, because in the top table, everything from Belgium on is forced beyond the conventional width of the page, but on the bottom table, only the points and position column are forced aside. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That really depends on the device and screen resolution the reader uses. On my desktop computer, which doesn't even has a rather big screen, neither table is forced off screen at all. Tvx1 15:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be trying to accommodate everyone as best we can? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

First off, apologies for the delay. Been a busy week! Anyway, what you have done here is conflate a whole bunch of thoughts but not actually address the original point I made. I know that even with proper wrapping the table might go off the edge of a page. However, with the wrapping disabled this problem occurs for more people than if left to its own devices. Thus, don't use 'nowrap'. Just because a solution doesn't work for some people isn't an argument that you can ignore the problem.

The issue of the table format is not the subject of my original post, but as you have brought it up: columns which see limited use in recent seasons are something you could definitely bring up in a more public forum than your own talk page, but even in the last few seasons we have had chassis used for more than one season and by a different named entrant in each (e.g. Marussia MR03). Of the columns, I'm fairly sure that we could switch to surname only for the drivers, and I am not at all sure why we are persisting with the tyres column when there has been a single supplier in each season for almost a decade now. Pyrope 20:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Pyrope — in cases like the MR03, I imagine that we could tailor the table as needed. We shouldn't be padding out other tables with unnecessary and/or redundant columns simply for the sake of consistency across articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Valid points, but there are arguments in the other direction too, about providing a consistent and easily comparable format that readers can skip between without having to work out exactly what they are looking at each time. If this is something you feel we definitely need to think about, bring it up at WP:F1. Pyrope 20:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Reducing the font size might help. Using the 85% we use in our season articles already reduces the table size considerably:

Year	Entrant	Engine	Tyres	Drivers	Grands Prix																			Points	Position
					AUS	MAL	CHN	BHR	ESP	MON	CAN	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	RUS	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU
2015	McLaren Honda	Honda RA615H	P	Fernando Alonso		Ret	12	11	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	10	5	13	18†	Ret	11	11‡	11‡	Ret	15	17	27	9th
				Jenson Button	11	Ret	14‡	DNS	16	8	Ret	Ret	Ret	9	14	14	Ret	16	9	6‡	14	14	12‡
				Kevin Magnussen	DNS

Year	Entrant	Engine	Tyres	Drivers	Grands Prix																			Points	Position
					AUS	MAL	CHN	BHR	ESP	MON	CAN	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	RUS	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU
2015	McLaren Honda	Honda RA615H	P	Fernando Alonso		Ret	12	11	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	10	5	13	18†	Ret	11	11‡	11‡	Ret	15	17	27	9th
				Jenson Button	11	Ret	14‡	DNS	16	8	Ret	Ret	Ret	9	14	14	Ret	16	9	6‡	14	14	12‡
				Kevin Magnussen	DNS

Tvx1 22:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — thanks for that; I was under the impression that we were already using 85% in those tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of McLaren MP4-30

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article McLaren MP4-30 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Empty tables

Please don't display empty tables in race report (or season report) articles. That just looks ridiculous. If you don't intend to fill them yourself, just leave the article alone with the tables hidden. If you do intend to fill them in, you can use your sandbox to complete the table after which you can copy the whole thing in the article. Just don't make tables visible while they're empty. Tvx1 17:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

2017 Supercars Championship

A user recently created 2017 Virgin Australia Supercars Championship. It seems they want to rename 2017 Supercars Championship but decided to just create a new article instead of starting a discussion about moving the page. I am not too sure on the process here; are you able to assist? – Kytabu 09:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kytabu — I would argue that "2017 Supercars season" is the better fit. Sponsors can change year to year, and they rarely have anything to do with the actual administration of the sport. A prime example would be 2016 Spanish Grand Prix; officially, its title is (in English) is "2016 Pirelli Formula 1 Spanish Grand Prix", by WP:COMMONNAME applies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Update — moved the page to a redirect. Changed a few other edits that were redirecting to the article with sponsor in title. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. There is some inconsistency across Australian motorsport articles with regards to sponsor names, but that is an issue for another day. – Kytabu 09:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kytabu — as far as I know, the only series that consistently does it is NASCAR, and then only because there is no alternative name; it's the "Coca-Cola 600", not "Coca-Cola Talladega 600". Generally speaking, I am opposed to sponsor names in race article titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of McLaren MP4-30

The article McLaren MP4-30 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:McLaren MP4-30 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Was or is?

Hi,

First of all, thanks for notifying everyone about that "special" user's return. Secondly, where is it stated that Project standard makes this past tense - the car is no longer in competition? Couldn't see anything tense-related at WP:F1. I'm asking this, because just looking at McLaren car articles, they start with one of them. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sabbatino — look at pages beyond the scope of McLaren, like Prost JS45. The overwhelming majority use "was". It's an unspoken standard; at the end of tge seadon, the cars are treated like road-going models that have gone out of productions. Using "is" further implies that they are still being used in competition. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. Looks like a lot of F1 car articles need changing is to was. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of McLaren MP4-30

The article McLaren MP4-30 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:McLaren MP4-30 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

McLaren MP4-30 has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Prisonermonkeys. I've nominated McLaren MP4-30, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. ~~~~

Donnie Park (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for McLaren MP4-30

On 16 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article McLaren MP4-30, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the McLaren MP4-30 (pictured) was the team's first Honda powered Formula One car since 1992? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/McLaren MP4-30. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, McLaren MP4-30), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

The Video game Barnstar

---

Thanks for fixing up the plot section on Fallout 4: Far Harbor. I would've had troubles doing that as I don't own the game. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Austrian Grand Prix

Hello. Please link your next Grand Prix articles to already exists wikidata pages. It's next time when we have devided interwiki on half made earlier and second half made on Grand Prix weekend especially to en.wikipedia. Eurohunter (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So remember to link British Grand Prix here. Eurohunter (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I made that race article the same way that I have made every race article that I have created since 2009, and this has never been an issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you know English version Wikipedia isn't only one version here? Do you know interwiki links are located in the box of the left site of article? When you finish your article you need to first check there are already exists articles in other language verions to link your article. Other way you must be sure your article is first. Eurohunter (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of other versions of Wikipedia, but I work exclusively from a mobile device, so a lot of the additional features are not available to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There is avaiable mobile version of Wikidata, so if you can write article on mobile device you can check also other versions already exists or not. You are not only one, which not doing it. This thing need more attention on English version of Wikipedia. Eurohunter (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know what you want me to do. You tell me to check for other pages through Wikidata, but you don't tell me what markup I need to include or where I need to include it. You complain that there isn't enough awareness of the issue on the English version of Wikipedia, but at the same time you expect me to be familiar with the issue. And looking at your contributions, you haven't done anything to the articles in question to show editors what they need to be doing. So how am I supposed to address the issue when you can barely tell me what the issue is in the first place, much less go about fixing it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I expected you have some knowledge about interwiki and Wikidata. Interwiki has been moved to Wikidata so you need to found correct Wikidata page with interwikies to add your article. My way is Google search. You can also just go to your preview Grand Prix article and look on interwiki on left side, so go then to for exemple to French Wikipedia article and look on template on down and move to 2016 Grand Prix. You can see on left side interwikies without your article, click "edit links" under interwkies. Click "Edit" on right side, put your "en" and name article then click save. Eurohunter (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It's understandable? Ask if needed. Eurohunter (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not understandable in the slightest. I followed your instructions, and found that there is no way to do it on a mobile device.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Since you clearly have expertise of this where I do not, perhaps you could make the edits you are proposing.

Until such time as you can demonstrate a practical way of achieving this, I will continue to create and edit articles as I always have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. Eurohunter (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 British Grand Prix

Hey PM! I do appreciate your contributions to the F1 articles here, they are usually very well written. However, please remember to always provide sources for your additions. You failed to do so in the last edits on the British GP article. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase — sorry about that. I usually do everything in one go, but on this occasion, real life intruded for a moment and by the time I had dealt with it, I had completely forgotten about the edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I've added some sources and will expand the background section more later today. This long season is really taking a toll on me too, I am hardly keeping up with the race report articles, still so much to do, especially for China and Baku. Any help you can give there would also be appreciated. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase — I will see what I can do, but I can't promise much of anything. I have considerably less free time on my hands than I once did, so I tend to focus on one pet project per year. Last year it was the MP4-30; the year before that, the 2014 Russian Grand Prix. This year I am mostly focusing on 2017 World Rally Championship season and trying to figure out what the hell I want to do with Volkswagen Polo R WRC, as it's significantly longer than I intended it to be.

And to be perfectly honest, I don't trust myself to be impartial here. I vehemently dislike Lewis Hamilton; it's practically legendary in some corners of the internet. I'm pretty sure I got myself booted from the Autosport forums and F1 Fanatic for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

MotoGP Season Pages

Firstly, I would like to thank you so much for putting warnings in the rider table on the 2017 MotoGP season Edit page to tell people not put in bike numbers for Sam Lowes and Alex Rins unless they have official sources. I didn't know that something like that could be done.

Alas, your warnings have already been ignored.

An IP user, 37.163.126.82, has not only put in bike numbers for these 2 riders, but they have also moved the factory Yamaha riders to the top of the table, thus ignoring the system that was being used to order the table:

• Constructor (Alphabetical ascending)
• Team Name (Alphabetical ascending)
• Bike Number (Numerical ascending)

This is a clear case of vandalism. If you look at the user's edit history, you will see that they have been vandalising the tables on a whole pile of MotoGP Season pages today.

But, because I am also an IP user, I cannot revert the pages back to their last non-vandalised state.

So, seeing as we seem to be on the same wavelength on this matter, I was wondering if you could do the reversion.

Thank you so much for all the hard work you do editing Wikipedia.

86.146.19.225 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. I might take it to WP:RFP in the morning. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Prisonermonkeys!!!

And requesting that the page gets protected is a very good idea. Because I am sure you are getting as fed up with constantly un-doing the same edits over and over again as I am!

Thank you again

86.146.19.225 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Rally Finland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rally. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Padding in Template:F1 Drivers Standings

The Driver column in {{F1 Drivers Standings}} has whitespace for me in Firefox because Kevin Magnussen has padding. It appears to originate from [1]. Do you still see a problem if the padding is removed? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter — yes, that's fine. That was our original solution to the problem; some of the complex markup that we were using was causing tables to become unreadable on certain browsers and devices. We have since found other, better ways around it, but the old stuff remains in a few places.

Right now though, my concern is the way flagicons aren't displaying correctly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

2017 Formula One season ‎

You simply cannot state that Stroll is racing next year as a fact, until it is confirmed by reliable sources (i.e. a team press release). We can report that his father has said that, but no further at the moment. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

JAonF1 is a reliable source. Furthermore, by saying "it has been reported that x", you introduce weasel words to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

JAonF1 is a reliable source, but it is only reporting something was said, not that it is a fact. Weasel wording would be "Some people have said that..." or "It is often claimed that...". Actually quoting a named source - with a citation - is not weasel wording. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(moved to keep conversation in one place) When the father of a racing driver is a part of that racing driver's management team, and is therefore in a position to comment on the next stage of his career, it's an acceptable source because he represents the driver. Furthermore, your additions violate WP:WEASEL because they build a back door into the phrasing. If it comes to pass that Stroll is not announced, you defer responsibility to the source; you're saying "Wikipedia was never wrong, the source was". It's not a literal definition of WEASEL, but it's the same in spirit, and there's no specific MOS guideline for what I put forward just now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not the case at all. We can't convert a comment made by someone, however close to the driver, into a fact in Wikipedia's voice without official confirmation (from Williams, in this case). Consider other sporting contexts; a footballer's agent saying "Bill Smith will definitely play for Manchester United next year" doesn't go into the article as a fact until his signing is confirmed by the club (although the fact that the agent said that may be included). Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This again?

PM, this is getting silly now. I don't know what is going on with you, what the problem you have is, or what can be done about it, but it is very clear that you simply are not able to comprehend the issue that myself, Tvx1 and others have been trying to explain for some days now. With these two edits, you took simple statements of fact, and replaced them with predictions about the future. Unverifiable guesstimates based on your own judgement and intuition. This is just not cool. I don't want to get onto any form of edit war, so I think this needs to be sorted out away from any one page. So what's going on? Pyrope 04:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pyrope — the "stated his intention to [do X]" is garbage. It leaves wide open the possibility of that driver doing something other than what was stated when we have no evidence of it. In fact, it strongly implies that they will. If Felipe Massa says "I'm going to retire", then I don't think that it counts as an unverifiable guesstimation, as you put it. Massa is the first, last and only authority on what he is going to do; to say that he "stated his intention" goes against both the letter and the spirit of his comments. What could prevent him from retiring? All sorts of things — for example, he might get an offer from Force India that is too good to refuse. But anything that is going to change his plans would require a reliable, verifiable source to substantiate its inclusion. Wording the article in such a way that the door is open to the situation changing does not change the fact that you are predicting the future: by acknowledging that something might happen despite what we can reasonably say will happen because of the content of the source, you're speculating on future possibilities—maybe not a specific possibility, but certainly as a generalisation.

There is an obsession—that's all that I can call it—among editors of making sure that the articles are absolutely accurate as of this moment in time with no forethought for the next moment. Hence, the entire article is written with loopholes and trap doors built into it just in case something changes in the future that means that the current version is proven to be wrong at some point in the future.

The standard that we have always used is that when someone who is considered to be an authority on the subject says something is true, then we accept it as being true. But in the past six months or so, that standard has changed; now, it doesn't matter what the authority on the subject says, the mere possibility of something happening at some indeterminate point in the future that may or may not change the status quo is enough for us to disregard the authority of the speaker. If you really, critically, read the article, you will notice the way that this vague and unsubstantiated possibility of something happening hangs over it and undermines the entire article. If, as the wording implies, Something Might Happen, then we should go ahead and delete the article because by its very existence, we are saying that there will be a 2017 season—but, really, what evidence do we have of that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No it's not garbage. You know what's garbage? Writing that a car has been retired at he end of a season while the season is still underway. And it wasn't the first time you did that. The only thing the wording you contest does is state fact. Verifiable sourced fact, that is. It is obvious that from your above reply that you still do not understand the simple concept of "predicting the future". "Might" and predicting the future just don't go together. Predicting the future involves will/will not. Nobody needs to provide a reliable, verifiable source of things not going to happen because no-one is claiming they certainly won't. The standard that when someone who is considered to be an authority on the subject says something is true, then we accept it as being true only applies to us stating in our articles that a team or driver is signed to drive. It does not give us a trump card to assert things to be certain to happen in our own voice. We cannot provide our readers those guarantees you demand for us to give them. Those "implications" only exist in your mind. The discussion on the talk page for the 2017 season article clearly demonstrates that the possibility of confusion you talk about does not exist. There is no intent to create "back-doors" but only to state what's presently verifiable fact. What happened in regards to the 2017 World Rally Championship is clear-cut proof of why it's stupid to use statements using will. For a considerable time Sebastien Ogier and Jullien Ingrassia and their VW rally team were mentioned in the article as "they will start the season as defending champions" only for Volkswagen to withdraw from the sport entirely leaving the French driver and co-driver without a drive for 2017. This means the statement did not become merely stale but outright wrong. Given that no-one agreed with your stance on the 2017 F1 season talk page, your actions are now becoming disruptive. Tvx1 14:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

PM, take a look back at what you wrote and think about it, hard. What you are suggesting is that we should, in fact need, to be telling our readers, with certainty, what will happen in the future. Well, unless you are the unacknowledged lovechild of Mystic Meg, you can't. Ever. We report facts, we do not then use those facts to make predictions about the future. That is straightforwardly unencyclopedic. Writing anything in the here-and-now is extremely strongly discouraged. Go read WP:AO. No, really. Read it. Stating that "on Date X, Person Y announced Action Z" will always be true. There is no uncertainty in it, and the precision of the language means that the statement will always be true from the point it was written until the day the world crumbles to dust. Taking that statement and saying "Person X will do Action Z" is making a prediction. That's what the word 'will' is. It signposts a prediction. Will it actually happen? Possibly. Will it absolutely, certainly, without fail happen? No, you can't know that. Take Mark Webber's recent decision. In an interview for Motor Sport a few weeks ago he was asked about the 2017 season and replied "I'll be here". Two days after the interview was published, not even 48 full hours later, he announced his retirement. This is not about Tvx1 and myself arguing that we should predict the future, quite the opposite. That's actually your line of 'reasoning'. You want to take a statement regarding someone's intentions and report it as though it were incontrovertable fact, even though the action cited hasn't actually happened yet! You make that very point yourself above, and then you argue against yourself and say that we should be doing it. I'm baffled. Pyrope 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"You want to take a statement regarding someone's intentions and report it as though it were incontrovertable fact, even though the action cited hasn't actually happened yet!"

And you want to pretend that somebody's word means nothing because something might change tomorrow, even when there is only the faintest possibility of that actually happening. You accuse me of trying to predict future events, but you're doing exactly the same thing yourself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask you something: when will the article be updated to say that Massa and Button retired? Will it be 1 January 2017? The day of FP1 in Melbourne? Or the day they they die? See, using your logic, they could for all intents and purposes be retired, but because they might come back, we won't be able to say that they are retired, so we'll have to wait until they're dead because that's the one day that we can be sure they won't come back.

Of course, I don't expect you to see any of this. You're too wrapped up in your own self-importance to see the gaping holes in your logic. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, PM, again this is not about taking anyone's word for something or whether we believe them or not. They may absolutely intend for the thing they have said will happen to happen, but that's what it is at this point in time: an intention, not a fact. When they have shown some evidence of retirement we can update the page to say that "they retired", past tense. If they later come back we say "but later they came back", again past tense. Your argument is an intellectually bankrupt straw man. This is precisely what happened with Schumacher and Lauda; the fact that they came back to racing doesn't change the fact that they retired from the sport at an earlier time. Again, both events are factual. Stating now that Massa "will retire" isn't factual, because it hasn't happened. Oh, and Button hasn't retired, he's taken a sabbatical, so perhaps you should rethink the examples you are using? There is nothing predictive in stating that Massa has announced an intention to retire. It is a thing that happened: he intends to retire. Is it certain that he will? No. Please stop trying to make out that this is in some way predicting the future because it simply isn't. However, blandly stating that he "will do" something in the future is almost a dictionary definition of a prediction. Go read a dictionary, and while you are at it go and read all those Wikipedia guideline and policy pages that we have been pointing you to, because it is very clear from the absurdly illogical and poorly-informed stances that you are taking that you haven't. If all you have are personal insults, don't you think you might be on the wrong side of this? Pyrope 22:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"If all you have are personal insults, don't you think you might be on the wrong side of this?"

What am I supposed to do when I am faced with a small group of editors who generally behave as if any edit that goes against their preferred version is a terrible idea before they have even read it?

What makes you think we don't read your edits? Each time there is an issue we address it specifically, with examples and supporting proof. How could we do that if we didn't read them? Pyrope 00:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe this nonsense is still going on. "Vandoorne has signed a contract to race next year" (with reliable sources) = OK. "Vandoorne will race next year" = clearly not OK per WP:CRYSTAL. He could get run over by a bus tomorrow (obviously hopefully not, but you get the idea). Please stop this ridiculousness, PM, you are a decent editor and don't need to cause issues like this. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example: I spent months working on McLaren MP4-30. I paid particular attention to the technical development of the car. To illustrate this, I included two images showing the rounded snub nose, and the squared-off stub nose. The caption was written to draw the reader's attention to this.

But then Tvx1 showed up and included another image. The two images that I included were the silver and black livery (snub nose) and the all black livery (stub nose). Tvx1 included an image of the car with a snub nose and the all black livery, and rewrote the caption to focus on the livery change. Despite my repeatedly pointing out that the images complemented the prose and that the focus of the prose was the technical development of the car and not the livery change (there was a brief note later in the article), he insisted that the images and caption should focus on the livery change. I spent months planning and researching the article, but he showed up and made a snap decision and expected that it would stand as the best version to put forward.

Now, that might be an isolated incident, but it's happening again—this time at 2017 World Rally Championship. There are two images at the top of the article: Ogier, the drivers' champion; and Volkswagen, the manufacturers' champion. As is the usual way of structuring an article, these images identify the champions. Tvx1 insists that these captions should be expanded to discuss Ogier's lack of a contract for 2017, and Volkswagen's withdrawal from the sport. However, these are images attached to the lead, and so should only touch on the main points for the season. Discussing the contract and withdrawal shifts the focus away from the season and places undue emphasis on their situation (while VW's withdraw is significant, it is no more or less important than Toyota's return, and Tvx1 is not promoting an image and caption on that in the lead). Those points are expanded upon in depth elsewhere in the article (and will be expanded as more information becomes available), yet Tvx1 insists that they should be kept because there is "nothing wrong with them". And to make matters worse, he has freely admitted in the past that he has no interest in rallying (though that may have changed).

So yeah, I see a pattern of editors deciding in advance what they want the article to say, and disregarding anything else straight away. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let's unpack this a little. Firstly, you are talking about one editor, but there have been many in recent days who have been taking issue with both your edits and your behaviour. So far as I can see all of those have been specifically addressing the substance of your edits, therefore they have read them and disagree with you. To dismiss the objections to your actions as "decided in advance" is not only failing to assume good faith, it is also ignoring the evidence of the (lengthy!) discussions that have been taking place. Your actions have been very carefully considered by all parties commenting (apart from one or two fly-by comments that even admitted "TLDR", but there's no accounting for folk). Secondly, I wasn't involved with the McLaren discussion, but from what I can see this was another case where you assumed that the effort you put in to the article had somehow bought you ownership of its content. You wanted the article to focus almost solely on technical details, and any attempt to introduce a brief comment on the visual appearance was met with absolute horror on your part, even though that comment did not detract from the technical details you wished to communicate and in fact only added information to the article. I note that you used an WP:UNDUE argument in that case, which seems to be a bit of a theme. In the more recent case, you want to include pictures of Ogier and a VW at the top of the article on the premise that they will be "defending champions" and want the captions to reflect that and only that. Tvx1's additions to the captions corrected your errors (VW have announced that they are not defending their title, and Ogier has not yet found a replacement drive with which to defend his) and qualified why a picture of a vehicle not participating in the 2017 championship appears at the top of the 2017 championship page, which otherwise would be very misleading to our readers. These seem entirely reasonable to me, and your arguments against the additions are not just clutching at straws, what you have running between your fingers could barely be described as chaff. Again, you claimed an UNDUE rationale for your reversions. This is not a magic spell you can cast in the absence of any evidence, you need to explain why UNDUE applies. Assertions that something "should" happen is just your opinion and preference, not a reason. More, you need to apply WP:BRD to do that, not simply start the flaming reversion wars that you seem to favour. Finally, whether or not Tvx1 has any interest in rallying is neither here nor there, they were discussing the information and communication structure of an article. You do not get extra 'fanboy' points on Wikipedia with which to trump other editors if you can't come up with a better argument. Pyrope 06:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Firstly, you are talking about one editor, but there have been many in recent days who have been taking issue with both your edits and your behaviour."

One editor who spear-heads everything. Haven't you noticed the way he's the first one into every discussion?

"You wanted the article to focus almost solely on technical details,"

No, I wanted that section to focus on technical details.

"and any attempt to introduce a brief comment on the visual appearance was met with absolute horror on your part,"

Because it was already covered elsewhere. You just asked me why I believed people don't read my arguments, and here you are not reading what I posted. I made it pretty clear that it was addressed elsewhere.

"even though that comment did not detract from the technical details you wished to communicate and in fact only added information to the article."

It did detract, because a livery change does not bring a performance gain.

"this was another case where you assumed that the effort you put in to the article had somehow bought you ownership of its content."

Not at all. I simply objected to someone who had contributed nothing to the article barging in and making a snap decision about its content without any kind of consultation with other editors and no regard for how those edits fit the context of the article, and then making me out to be the villain when I didn't immediately recognise the merits of his edits.

"These seem entirely reasonable to me, and your arguments against the additions are not just clutching at straws"

Consider this: the purpose of an image and a caption is to supplement existing content. It does not replace that content. Captions in particular should be succint, and the detailed discussion reserved for the prose. Tvx1's captions introduced content with no context at the very introduction of the article. It's poor editing.

"Again, you claimed an UNDUE rationale for your reversions. This not a magic spell you can cast in the absence of any evidence, you need to explain why UNDUE applies."

I did explain that.

It doesn't matter who Ogier drives for—he will be the defending champion whatever he does, even if he becomes a pig farmer in Idaho. The fact that he doesn't have a drive right now is inconsequential.

As for VW, they too will be the defending champions. But more to the point, their withdrawal is no more or less important than Toyota's return. So why does Tvx1 suggest that Volkswagen's situation is mentioned in visual form, but Toyota's is not? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, there are huge problems with the wording all throughout the 2017 F1 article. Problems that undermine every argument that you have made so far. And before you dismiss that as my being petty and disruptive, this is me being petty: I'm not going to do a thing to fix it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll remind you that you were the first one in all the discussions you mentioned. I didn't promote any images in the WRC article, nor have I ever suggested doing so, as the images were already there when I edited the captions. There seems to be a WP:MOTOR tradition to have picture of defending drivers'/riders' and manufacturers'/constructors' champions neer the top of the upcoming season articles until it gets underway. That seems to have implemented in the WRC article as well. I have personal qualms about the exact place of the images. I do feel however feel that captions should concisely represent the current situation. So I don't see what's inappropriate to mention in them that neither incumbent champion is currently scheduled to defend their title. The reasons behind it are in the body of the article. Also, one can't be a defending champion if they are not actualIy defending their title. They are the reigning or incumbent champion in that case. I do find it funny however that you accuse me of "deciding in advance what they want the article to say and disregarding anything else straight away" when you are reverting everyone who dares touching those captions. Lastly, Wikipedia is collaborative effort by volunteers. Everyone can edit it, so yes it happens that articles that are compiled for the most part by one editor get edited by others as well. That's something we all have to deal with when trying to expand wikipedia. Tvx1 13:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"That's something we all have to deal with when trying to expand wikipedia."

But here's something that only I have to deal with: you posted the above as an attempt to resolve the dispute at 3RR. You posted it at 13:42—but you posted the 3RR report at 13:43. How am I supposed to be able to respond to this in under a minute, let alone when I am on the othet side of the world, and would normally be asleep when you posted it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The dispute is not only with me. Others have responded here directly to the issue and disagree with you as well. You ignored them and made another blanket revert braking WP:3RR in the process. It's not only my reply which is an attempt at resolution. The whole discussion is. Tvx1 15:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth are you reinstating those crystal ball statements at 2017 World Rally Championship?? Did the above and previous related discussion mean nothing to you. No one agreed with, so why do still think this is ok? Did the Volkswagen Motorsport and Nico Rosberg cases teach you nothing about writing "x will happen"? Why are you stirring this up again after the article has been fine for over a month?Tvx1 01:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — because Rallye Monte Carlo entries have closed. Where are the sources that say that the teams are planning on doing anything other than what they have said that they will be doing? I know that it's still 2016, but because RMC is on in mid-January, entries close in December of the previous year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And what are you basing that claim on? According to Rallye Monte Carlo's official site entries won't close until the 16th of december. Once they have done and an entry list is published, the article can be updated. But even then, past tense should be used instead of future tense with will.Tvx1 05:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

That's all entries, not just WRC. The WRC teams have to inform the FIA to register for the season beforehand. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, they have clearly changed the date. I've had the 7th marked on my calendar for several months now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: ). Thank you. Tvx1 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Prisonermonkeys. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 GP2 Series

Hi. Where did you find the month when the season starts? Otherwise, how you can say "eighteen-month absence", if you don't know the exact date? Corvus tristis (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — Hilmer's last round was Monza 2015, which was held in September 2015. They missed the last three (effectively four, since Monza was the first week of September) month of 2015, plus the twelve months of 2016. So that's fifteen months. As per the rules of the series, it is run as a support series to Formula One; the earliest that it can start is March, so there's three more months, taking it up to eighteen months in total. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It can, but it doesn't mean that it will actually start in March, as GP2 Series had never visited Australia. Also the exact number of months less important than fact that they missed whole 2016 season. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of 2018 Formula One season for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 Formula One season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Formula One season (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing refs

Please pay more attention when removing references. With this edit, you removed some refs which supported the inclusion of drivers (and co-drivers) who don't appear on the Monte Carlo entry list. Additionally, some of the refs you removed were re-used later in in the article, and because you removed their first (and thus the full ref) inclusion you corrupted the later re-uses.Tvx1 15:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — you do know that there is a bot that comes through to rescue orphaned references, right? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we should deliberately orphan refs. As long as the bot doesn't come through, the articles contains a couple of error messages in the ref-list. You could have simply moved the refs instead of deleting them.Tvx1 01:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

This was completely unnecessary.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2017 Formula One season. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Extended content You had the power to end the dispute by contributing to the conversation. Instead, you came here to post this message. It's quite clear that you have no intention of going through the proper channels of consensus-building (ironically promoted by this message) are instead using this message to settle a petty score. Until such time as you can conduct yourself in a proper manner, you are not welcome here.

FYI

"Less contorted" does not mean "not being contorted". -- de Facto (talk). 19:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water

When wanting to reverse some text can you please take care to not reverse otherwise valid information? I loaded it in separate posts in the first place for that very reason. Your 2 reversals have reinstated various errors, (image stacking, over/under/incorrect linking) and removed of text and cites. Impala27 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your editing

Please refrain from your personal attacks like you did here. Don't make empty tables visible, even for filling them in. It's poor editing and looks ridiculous. Use your sandbox the fill in the entire table and than copy the whole thing once it's finished.Tvx1 07:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — you know perfectly well that I have to work within the limitations of my device. If that means that an article has a blank table for twenty minutes, the article is going to have a blank table for twenty minutes. Because as you say, not everyone lives in my time zone, and at least this way it's guaranteed to be done sooner.

If you really want to quibble over aesthetics, then I'll draw your attention to the following markup:

style="background-color:#f2f3f4"

It's no longer necessary. We introduced it because eighteen months ago, Wikipedia introduced a software update that made tables translucent on mobile devices. I reported it to VPT, and they fixed it. If you checked the markup in every other table in the article, you'd see that they don't use it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

They shouldn't have blank tables ever. There's always going to be a number of Wikiproject members watching these races (even in your own timezone), so the tables will be added sooner rather than later. Last season I added complete tables within minutes of the sessions on many occasions (even on a mobile device). Moreover wikipedia does not have a deadline. If a table isn't added for a couple of days so be it. No table at all is better than a blank one. And regarding the markup, it was still present in the coding of muster table I have in my sandbox. You don't see that coding when you use the visual editor (which I did), so just overlooked it when I copied the table. Anyway, I thanked you for removing it.Tvx1 07:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am supporting Tvx1 about this issue. Stop adding blank tables, use your userspace for edits like this [2]. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — I edit exclusively from a mobile device. There is a limit to the number of characters that I can view in a window at any one time. Building those tables in my userspace is a wonderful idea, but the problem is that once they're there, I can't copy them and paste them into a new article. If you had given me ten minutes, I would have finished the tables, proof-read them and then hidden them from view. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you can't use your userspace, then add the table with results after the finish of the first race, like it normally should be. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If your device can handle the full table in article space, it surely can do as well in userspace. And yes, you can copy and paste it from there into an article on a mobile device. I have done so successfully myself on a couple of occasions.Tvx1 12:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll continue to edit the way that I see fit. You know full well that I hide the blank tables once I have put them in place. So instead of criticising me for having a blank table in an article for ten minutes, maybe you should be thanking me for doing a fiddly job that you can't be bothered to do yourself? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, if it sounds disrespectful to your job, but blank tables are monkey business. It is much easier and faster to use table from the previous year with slight modifying. Creating absolutely new blank table is a pointless waste of time. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't always hide them. During the Aussie GP weekend you left some blank tables visible for hours in the race report and when I hid them you reverted and berated me. And do go criticizing me for not adding/updating tables. I regularly add finished tables to the race reports.Tvx1 15:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 World Rally Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Škoda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Gazoo

Hi. Where is your consistency? If you forget you was the man who moved RUSSIAN TIME (official name) to Russian Time according to the same rule which I quoted. It is the same case. Gazoo is not an abbreviation [3]. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — where is it written that once someone has made up their mind, they're not allowed to change it? I might have moved RUSSIAN TIME to Russian Time, but that was years ago. GAZOO Racing is part of the identity that Toyota put forward, and the name appears that way on all documentation created by the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It's sounds weird. How "GAZOO" complies to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters? Corvus tristis (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing that expressly forbids it. And even then, it's a generally-accepted set of guidelines, and while editors should follow it, it does allow them to use their discretion and deal with things that aren't immediately covered by the MOS.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

But officially the team in all documents is known as TOYOTA GAZOO Racing. Why you don't use caps for "TOYOTA"? Corvus tristis (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it's the name that the team uses to refer to themselves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please provide sources that the team known as Toyota GAZOO Racing and not "TOYOTA GAZOO Racing", also we had the team with the almost exact same name in the 2017 FIA World Endurance Championship. In Toyota press release we see the same TOYOTA GAZOO for both WEC and WRC teams. Where you have find "Toyota GAZOO" I have no idea. You are referring to documents but haven't provided any of them. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — this one, which appears as source #50 in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, one 2016 source, while we have fresh Toyota press release with "TOYOTA GAZOO". It is still a very unconvincing argument for caps in GAZOO solely. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I assume that Japanese teams tend to use caps in their names, but there is no sense to copy that [4]. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It has come direct from Toyota, announcing the formation of the team. That's good enough for me.

And I don't think you can make that assumption about Japanese teams. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I will refer everyone to the Method of Style for Capitalization of words in Roman script on Japan-related articles. Japanese often capitalize words in Roman for emphasis and effect, but that does not mean that the words are actually capitalized. Anyone with a passing glance at Super GT entry lists would see that they randomly capitalize whatever they want. The team is Toyota Gazoo Racing. And no, it is not an acronym. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree. The team are free to refer to themselves however they choose, and Wikipedia makes allowances for stylistic choices that do no observe the traditional rules of grammar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are free to stylize as they choose, but as clearly stated, they are capitalizing it simply for promotional purposes, and Wikipedia's MOS does not recognize those sort of stylizations for encyclopedia content. Their use of GAZOO does not negate the fact that the word is Gazoo.

As pointed out in my SuperGT example, "TOYOTA PRIUS", "LOTUS", and "GULF RACING" are named, but clearly are Toyota Prius, Lotus, and Gulf. I'd also point out the "DENSO KOBELCO SARD LC500" despite the fact that it is Denso Corporation and Kobelco. "CALSONIC IMPUL GT-R" being run by Impul. "MOTUL MUGEN NSX-GT" being sponsored by Motul and run by Mugen Motorsports. "KEIHIN NSX-GT" sponsored by Keihin Corporation. "MOTUL AUTECH GT-R" run by Autech. And so on. A Japanese's company's choice to stylize something in capital letters does not negate that the word is Gazoo in an encyclopedia format. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

In all of those cases, all of the words are being capitalised—like "CALSONIC IMPUL GT-R". But here, it's "Toyota GAZOO Racing, not "TOYOTA GAZOO RACING". And given that they're using the "GAZOO" tag across multiple disciplines, it's pretty obvious that they're building it as a team identity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

In the examples I listed, yes they are all capitalized, but many others are not. Some teams capitalize PORSCHE, some are just Porsche. Audi Sport Hitotsuyama doesn't capitalize anything. Mugen is an international brand of Honda, yet is capitalized in this instance. Again, their capitalization is arbitrary and only reflects an often temporary stylization.

Further, the link to the article explaining the definition of Gazoo clearly has a picture of a car labeled "TOYOTA GAZOO Racing". The³5₉ (Talk) 15:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 Supercars Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott McLaughlin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Red Bull Racing

We all agree that Red Bull Racing is an Austrian F1 Team. But please, leave the references in the racing record for the 2005 and 2006 seasons as they are proof that Red Bull Racing had a British licence for its first two years before switching for an Austrian one in 2007.--RafaelS1979 (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Rally season report

First of all I think you are doing a great job on the reports on the rallies held so far in the 2017 WRC. However, what I don't understand is why you keep putting these in the season article. They are very good, well detailed reports on nearly every stage of the rallies. Surely these reports belong in our individual rally report articles, which currently don't have any prose at all. A season article actually requires a season report, explaining how the championships' developed, not detailed reports on every stage of every single rally. I really think it's curious that your first instinct is to put this individual reports in the season article.Tvx1 02:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"They are very good, well detailed reports on nearly every stage of the rallies."

They're really more of an overview. If I went into detail on every stage, each section would be about six times longer than they currently are.

"what I don't understand is why you keep putting these in the season article"

That's the style that has been used across season articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make it wright. This reports are would be invaluable for the individual report articles, yet for some reason no one want to put them there.Tvx1 11:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You can set your preferences to remind you when you are about to save an edit without leaving a summary. Prefereces > Editing > tick box marked prompt me when leaving a blank edit summary. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 GP3 Series

Hi. Please check an information in third-party sources before adding. Valentine Loeb? Seriously? Corvus tristis (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)