User talk:Falcadore/Archive 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 15 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2012 24 Hours of Daytona, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Grand-Am regulars John Pew and Oswaldo Negri teamed with NASCAR driver A. J. Allmendinger and IndyCar driver Justin Wilson to win the 2012 24 Hours of Daytona endurance race? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2012 24 Hours of Daytona.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Falcadore,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thirdly - NO RUMOURS.

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

Thanks mate. Can I just ask...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brisbane Meetup Next: 3 August 2012 - Dinner Last: 26 May 2012 - Dinner @ Southbank This box: view talk edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Falcadore,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey all :).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• masses of V8s
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You deserve this.

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

Hey Falcadore,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whats going on with all the Grand Prix articles changing the flags to where the circuit is like the European GP and San Marino GP. The flags should represent the Grand Prix itself not where its held. There is acceptions for the Pacific GP as there isnt a Pacific flag. Mostly all websites about Formula One use the flags to represent the actual Grand Prix even the events themselves do, For example at the start of the European GP theres a grid girl waving the EU flag not the Spanish flag. Wikipedia shoulnt be any diffrent. I think a new discussion needs to clarify this. Daniels Renault Sport {talk) 14:51, Monday 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1986 Brazilian Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The article was perfect with three tables for years. So why this should not be good now? Also there are enough other articles showing these three tables, which allows all users to find the info they are looking for. I am wondering all the time why all the F1 articles do not show point tables - the most important table for a championship? I am really missing these tables in the F1 articles. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One week of thinking should allow to cool down from aggressive posting and editing... All your notability tags on Olympians and also on professional footballers are wrong, but Canadian Paul already explained this to you. Yes, you are wright, I should do wikipedia favours - let's say goodbye! :-) Doma-w (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Luxemburg Grand Prix's flag be changed to the German flag as it was held in Germany just like the San Marino to the Italian and the European to the Spanish? Daniels Renault Sport ((talk) 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the other standings tables show the top 5 as accurate at the final declaration of results (i.e. with Tyrrell's DQ taken into account and points reallocated). The Brazilian race showed the standings as they were on the day after the race, with Tyrrell and Brundle's points included. I searched for a discussion on the issue and only found one without a definitive resolution. I opted to change the one race to this layout rather than having to change the other 15(?) races to match it. I apologise if this should not have been done.

MTracey1 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been able to check this as I couldn't (at the time) see any impact that this had had on further races, as Tyrrell scored such few points (I have since noticed that Alain Prost's total from the Detroit GP onwards is affected). As I did not notice this previously, my assumption was based on the wording: Points accurate at final declaration of results, which appears on each other GP's standings table, but not Brazil's. This wording suggests (in my opinion) that the scoring had been adjusted to reflect the DQs (i.e. at final declaration)

MTracey1 16:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am only explaining the reasoning behind my error. In my opinion, the wording is misleading - particularly since it appears on every other 1984 page, but not the Brazil one. I do not appreciate being patronised when all I was doing was trying to help! Particularly when my error was based on a simple misunderstanding. It barely surprises me that you recently chased someone off Wikipedia (as your userpage suggests) when you verbally attack a new editor who makes a mistake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTracey1 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please stop adding "notability" tags to articles about Olympic competitors. Per WP:SPORTCRIT, as well as years of precedence, discussion, and AfDs, anyone who attended the Olympics meets Wikipedia's threshold for notability. Yes, it would be nice if the articles were more than one sentence, but there is no minimum article length, except to establish notability, which all of these articles have done by noting that the subject participated at the Olympics. Thank you. Canadian Paul 00:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. What's your source on Rally Japan changings its name to Rally Hokkaido? As stated on the latter's official website, these two have been separate events since 2005. Prolog (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why has Rally Hokkaido redirected to Rally Japan for years? --Falcadore (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Despite some shared history, the redirect should've been deleted, retargeted or turned into an article ages ago. I see you fixed that now. Prolog (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you feel the proposed Thai GP should not be mentioned in the 2015 F1 Season article. Don't worry; I'm not trying to start an argument, I just wish to see your reasoning.Videomaniac29 (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, both on the 2015 talk page and in the edit summary. --Falcadore (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited African Rally Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S2000 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some joker thinks its funny to keep adding Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg as the official Pirelli tyre testers. Are you able to get this guy blocked? Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

International Rally of Queensland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sunshine Coast

International Rally of Whangarei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Per-Gunnar Andersson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Falcadore! In the 1992 Australian Touring Car Championship, I meant to say that the calendar had two races per round, whereas previous has only one. I didn't write that all previous season had, I wrote "previous season", as in "some". Can you improve the text? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three bios? Seems excessive! --220 of ^Borg 13:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1984, 1999 and 2013. Lot has happenned between each one. --Falcadore (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Falcadore. While I don't contest that my edits to the Rubens Barrichello article constitute WP:OR, the article on this doesn't really seem to explain why this policy exists. I wonder if you could explain it to me?

Also, having studied this article more deeply, could it not be argued that the edits fall under WP:CALC?

Either way, I would have appreciated it if you had discussed this with me before simply running a scythe through my work. Thanks for your help. WilliamF1two (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of Original Research, is that Wikipedia editors do not do any analysis, but refer to external sources. We as editors do not draw any conclusions ourselves but refer to the work of others. When you are performing side-by-side statistics comparison you are researching and analysing. Routine calculations would be considered like adding up the number of races a driver has won over his career. By comparing it to other drivers is passed beyond routine calculations and into research.

As your concept was unrecoverable, according to more than one policy, deleting was the only option. --Falcadore (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your help WilliamF1two (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the logos I posted have a source website for them with some editing done by myself. If you find any mistakes please tell me so I can fix it.(Lukeblake (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]