Jump to content

Talk:2013 International V8 Supercars Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Driver list

[edit]

The 2013 series is ten months into the future, and based on past behavior where teams merge, form and collapse at a months notice, there are very large slices of assumption in this list. It is far to early to be creating such a list. Outside of Formula One no other list of 2013 drivers exist. So it has been removed. --Falcadore (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FPR - four or five cars?

[edit]

I have made changes to the wording of the article, which suggested that FPR will run a five-car team in 2013. FPR lends technical support to Tony d'Alberto Racing, but TdAR is not run as a satellite team the way Rod Nash Racing is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shane van Gisbergen

[edit]

SvG retired during the 2012 season, not the 2013 season. The act of replacing him occurs in the 2013 season but he has already left the series by then. So when a replacement driver is announced it could be said that he is replacing Van Gisbergen. His retirement though occurred in the 2012 season. It's been noted in the 2012 page where it belongs. --Falcadore (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But SvG will complete the entire 2012 season. It's not like he is being replaced mid-season. Consider the 2013 Formula One season page, which mentions that Michael Schumacher will retire at the end of 2012. It's not mentioned on the 2012 season page, and why should it be? The annoucement came in 2012, but the actual retirement comes after the season has been finished. I see no difference here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His retirement is a 2012 season event. His replacement is a 2013 season event. It is just that simple. Additionally, the 2012 season does not finish the moment the last race concludes. There is at least one black-tie presentation ceremony, by which time, Van Gisbergen will have already left SBR. It is frankly ridiculous to suggest it is a 2013 season event as whatever has caused SvG to consider his future has plainly happenned in 2012. --Falcadore (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the announcement of his retirement is a 2012 season event. If he was competing in 2012, but not competing in 2013, then surely that goes on the 2013 page. And if not, why is this something that is observed on every other motorsport season page? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Events have occurred which have caused him to consider his future. He announces his retirment. Completes his duties to SBR. Leaves team. Is no longer part of team when season concludes at presentation dinner. ALL in 2012. The act of replacing SvG with another driver has nothing to with SvG beyiond him not being there. He doesn't have a say in the decision. His retirement may take effect in 2013 but by then he's gone and has been gone for three months.
In short 2012: SVG leaves. Then 2013 begins and SBR have a new driver. How this is not incredibly simple to understand fails me completely. At some point common sense has to kick in with your reasoning. --Falcadore (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how and why this is any different to the aforementioned example of Michael Schumacher announcing his second retirement from Formula 1 at the end of the 2012 season, but this detail is included on the 2013 season page. This follows the structure that has been used for every driver change on every motorsport season article. I don't see why van Gisbergen's decision to quit is more relevant to 2012 than 2013, considering that he is contesting the entire 2012 season, but none of the races in 2013. The cause of van Gisbergen's retirement might have happened in 2012, but the effect won't be felt until 2013. To record the events on the 2012 page and not on the 2013 page will make thi page inconsistent with every other motorsport season page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to. What happens in the Formula One season article is not (yet) my concern. There is a logic to this arguiment that seems to be passing you by here. A new driver doesn't instantly take over the seat because Van Gisbergen has left a team, nor is the car still his until the team announces a replacement. When SBR announces who takes over the #9 Ford does not have any affect as to when SvG leaves the V8 series. And it is very definately a 2012 event. It could be that the Formula One season has it wrong too. Hamilton taking over as a Mercedes driver is a 2013 event and unless Schumacher is staying on with Mercedes GP in another role then he has long ago left the team when 2013 season begins.
Hamilton replacing Schumacher is a 2013 event, but Schumacher leaving the team is a 2012 event.
You are aware that it is possible that custody of a car can be vacant during the 2012/13 transition period? --Falcadore (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that. And in the same way, I'm sure you agree that we can't have SvG retiring in 2012 and his replacement taking the seat in 2013, with nothing to connect the two. At the very least, van Gisbergen's departure from the series needs to be mentioned on this page, explaining why his seat was available in the first place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I need to give you a suggestion in writing with the correct emphasis.
2012: Shane van Gisbergen retires from V8 Supercar competition.
2013: Erebus Racing announces Lachlan McScottishson will join the team driving the #9 car driven by Shane van Gisbergen in 2012.
And there you have emphasis in the correct order. A driver leaving SBR in 2012 is far less important to the 2013 article then the announcement of their new driver. It defintately should not be written in the revrse order with SvG leaving the team given emphasis over the new driver announcement. --Falcadore (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But without a new driver announcement, van Gisbergen's departure is naturally going to be the most-relevant part until such time as his replacement is announced. To remove his departure now implies that it will not happen in some way because it is knowingly overlooking reliably-sourced content that is highly-relevant to the section of te article in question. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only on the assumption that he has not left the team. His leaving the team is a 2012 news item. It isn't a 2012 news item that Barack Obama won the 2012 US election. --Falcadore (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that van Gisbergen creates the vacancy by leaving SBR his influence over the seat ends completely once he leaves the team. Van Gisbergen has no relevancy to, nor influence over the identity of his replacement. It would be different if Van Gisbergen was staying on with the team, or had some form of ownership over the #9 franchise slot. We don't know what will become of the #9 REC, indeed the events surrounding the #49 REC goes to show that we should not assume that there will be a simple replacement of the driver. --Falcadore (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still have absolutely no idea what you're trying to argue. And at this point, I'm not entirely confident you do, either. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just insulting. That short form then: the identity of the driver who creates the vacancy has no bearing on the 2013 season. It is just a vacancy to be filled. --Falcadore (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this to me then: how is a driver's departure from a team only relevant to the year he leaves the team if he contested the entire season with that team and will only leave after the season has finished? The annoucement that he is leaving might have been made one year, but the physical change in teams is the most important part here because that is what is actually changing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you seem to believe a season finishes when the final race is completed. What is happenning in Formula One right now should demonstrate to you that that simplistic approach is not accurate. --Falcadore (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe that the best place to mention the changes is the place where the physical effects of the change are felt the most. For example: if a driver is competing in one car in 2012, and finishes the 2012 season with it, but moves to another car for 2013, then the change applies to the 2013 season, even if he announced his intention to leave his 2012 team in 2012. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The identity of the driver does not influence the physical affects. Poor editing logic elsewhere is not a good reason. You are more than welcome to invite WP:Motor comment, but as this is a two-editor logger-head situation it seems RFC might be more appropriate. --Falcadore (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The identity of the driver offers background to the seat becoming vacant in the first place. For instance, Michael Caruso is leaving Garry Rogers Motorsport. We list the team as GRM, though the team is also known as "Fujitsu Racing". Casual followers of the sport may not know what the article is talking about if we say "Driver X joined Garry Rogers Motorsport". But if we say "Driver X replaced Michael Caruso at Garry Rogers Motorsport", it makes it easier for said casual followers of the sport to understand how everything is connected, because they know who Michael Caruso is, and thus they know which seat has become available.
As for this "poor editing logic", it is something that is applied to every motorsport season page. Look at the 2013 Formula One season page, for instance, which describes Michael Schumacher's second retirement at the end of 2012 and Lewis Hamilton taking his seat in 2013. Both the annoucement of Schumacher's retirement and Hamilton's signing happened in 2012, but the actual move does not apply to 2013. Why do you have no objections to that, but you insist that van Gisbergen's retirement only applies to the 2012 page simply because he announced he was leaving at the end of the 2012 season during the 2012 season? To me, that is faulty logic because it's contradictory - it's okay to do things one way on one page, but it's not okay to do things that way on another page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The background of the vacancy is based on events based in 2012. The background to that is events in 2011. And so on. Why not include Van Gisbergen joined SBR way back in 2007 as a pasrt of its satellite operation of the Team Kiwi franchise? And the background to that is TKR history of moving around from team-to-team... and so on... how far back do we go with background? Instead cut a hard line at what is directly relevant. When SBR hire Driver McSteeringperson it is because they have a vacancy. Driver McSteeringperson has likely NO personal involvement with Shane Van Gisbergen. The only connection is that he created the vacancy in the previous season. Its easy logic to understand. Wh have seperate articles on Stone Brothers Racing and Shane van Gisbergen for what you refer to as background, which is still not relevant to the 2013 season. --Falcadore (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, tell me - what's your take on Russell Ingall's retirement? He's announced that he is leaving the sport at the end of 2013, and he made the announcement in 2012 ... so why haven't you seen fit to include that on the 2012 season page, the way you insist van Gisbergen's announcement should be? After all, by your logic, this content should be added to pages based on the year the annoucement is or was made, rather than the year the annoucement actually affects the championship. You have made no move to mention Ingall on either the 2012 or 2013 season pages, which contradicts your assertation that van Gsibergen's annoucement is most relevant to the 2012 season because the annoucement was made in 2012. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about the timing of the announcement, it is just the illogical priority of spending time describing what someone is NOT doing compared to what someone IS doing. Surely that is understandable? Also as you requested I brought the subject up at Formula One, and there hasn't been much support to the backwards prioritising of stating the person who isn't taking part over the person who is.
The priority is subject material relating to the topic which in this case is the 2013 season. The announcment that someone is not taking part in the 2013 season should be given a MUCH lower priority over those who are regardless of circumstance. --Falcadore (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Wall

[edit]

Has he actually been signed for 2013? Because I don't think he has. The source says I’ve got three drivers, so it won’t be a problem, but Brad doesn't necessarily mean Dave by I've got 3 drivers. It's like saying James Moffat is going to Nismo. It hasn't been confirmed. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2012 (AEDST)

Then we delete it. Simple. --Falcadore (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entrant column

[edit]

I removed this as there are almost no articles in wikipedia motor racing that have two seprate columns for the same thing - indication of the team involved. I prioritise the team name over the entrant as the entrant name does not alwasy indicate which drivers are team matesx, for example most recent Brad Jones Racing teams. This is in order to make important details easier to understand for casual readers, which as always are wikipedia's priority. --Falcadore (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But at the same time, teams are frequently known by multiple names; for instance, "Triple Eight" and "Team Vodafone". To the casual reader, it may not be immediately clear that these two entities are, in fact, one and the same. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The team articlers can carry that information. Two columns devoted to team desciption is excessively and virtually unknown in wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Exhibit A. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one, followed by two columns describing the car. --Falcadore (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The "Team name" is the formal team name that the team refer to themselves by. The "Constructor" is the the name which the FIA accepts and credits all results to. On this page, "Team name" would fulfil the same function as the "Team name" column on the 2013 F1 page, whilst "Entrant" would fulfil the role of "Constructor" on that page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of your proposed columns represent a Constructor as there is no mention a car anywhere apart from HRT or FPR, so I don't accept the anology. --Falcadore (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Giz at Tekno

[edit]

Please be aware that this story at V8Sueprcars.com.au is not confirmation that Shane van Gisbergen will race for Tekno Autosports in 2013. The article makes it quite clear that it has only been speculated that van Gisbergen will join the team, and that Tekno's owners - the Webbs - have denied it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, since Tony Quinn does not have anything to do with the running of Tekno Autosports, his comments about van Gisbergen's return do not qualify as confirmation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the article has been updated since you referenced it. Besides, that isn't the source I used. I have used two other sources that confirm it and don't talk about it being speculated. Mattlore (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has the news come from Tekno or van Gisbergern? Usually unless it comes from the team or the driver it's treated as speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is an interview I referenced from the driver and his teammate, whose the owners son. Mattlore (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, then. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the motorsport pages, but it is generally accepted that in order for a reference to be considered valid, the source needs to name and quote someone who would be in a position to comment on something. Van Gisbergen and Webb would be fine, because they are inherently involved in the team. Tony Quinn, on the other hand, isn't an acceptable source because he doesn't actually have anything to do with the running of the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The motorsport project might run into problems there because that sets a different standard to the Wikipedia policy which states to "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't see how the motorsport project can require a direct quote and say that a reputable media source isn't enough without one. Mattlore (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does need to be established the person involved has a connection with the organisation. Otherwise it's someone offerring an opinion regardless of how reputable the source. The most impecable newsmedia sources in the world indulge in other people speculations all the time. --Falcadore (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately a project cannot establish their own preferences or rules which means that as long as a source meets the reliable source tests then it will be considered valid in the encyclopedia. Mattlore (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the issue isn't it? Is it reliable if they publish the words of any old person? And reliable sources publish speculation all the time. Last I saw Wikipedia had policies against speculation which have nothing to do with any Projects preferences. --Falcadore (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To give you a relevant recent example a very wide number of reliable sources published stories "confirming" that Casey Stoner was joining V8 Supercar. What had happened though was a newspaper journalist found a speculatory preview story that had been written ahead of time and embargoed pending actual confirmation because the same newspaper was publishing the Event program for the Clipsal 500 and wanted the story for the program, so it was written so something could be placed in the bank as insurance ahead of contribution deadlines for printing. The journalist found the preview and turned it into a story without checking with anyone because the right people were quoted in the story and published it. Later the smae day because the deal has not been confirmed Stoner issued a statement saying "Don't believe what you read". But becuase one reputable source had published (incorrectly) all the others copied it. So what does Wikipedia do, keep the information saying Stoner is racing V8 Supercar even though Stoner has denied it and we say "but News Limited papers are reliable sources"? --Falcadore (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are contradictory sources then that of course is a different situation and if there is one that is from a direct source then that would be the most reliable. Mattlore (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the original reference you gave, Mattlore, let me ask you this: how do you know that Tony Quinn knew van Gisbergen was moving to Tekno? Sure, he's working with van Gisbergen in anotehr racing project, and it is entirely conceiveable that van Gisbergen would have told Quinn himself. But without van Gisbergen confirming the move, we have no way to prove that Quinn knew in advance. Even if he was talking to the most reliable reporter from the most reliable newspaper in the world, it is still conceivable that Quinn was wrong. And that is why the editors of the motorsport pages have this unwritten rule that edits need to be supported by references that name and quote someone directly related to the issue - it is because it is the only way we can be 100% certain that the information going into the article is accurate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't 'know' anything about Tony Quinn, or care. The source I used stated "[The NZ Herald] can confirm that the sabbatical is over and van Gisbergen will be back in a V8 Supercar later this year." Now the article goes on to quote this Tony Quinn person, but note that the newspaper is confirming, not merely "believes that" or "it has been speculated/reported that". Media sources often use weasel words like that when they can't confirm something through multiple sources but this particular article did not. The article is also written by the Herald's senior motorsport writer who has put his name to it. In effect the NZ Herald and the writer are putting their reputation on the line.
That example meets the tests on Wikipedia and is a reliable source. You would need a contradictory source (like a direct denial to the article etc etc) to then challenge the facts. Mattlore (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you wouldn't know Tony Quinn from Job, and yet you are still willing to take his word for it when he says van Gisbergen is racing in 2013, even though you have no idea who he is, how he knows this, or even if he is right. And you're willing to do it because a newspaper "put their reputation on the line"? Newspapers get things wrong all the time - haven't you ever heard the expression that you should only ever believe half of what you read in the papers? You claim you don't know or care who Tony Quinn is, and yet you're willing to trust his comments as confirmation of van Gisbergen's move to Tekno Autosports. If you're going to continue like that, you might as well stop editing Wikipedia now.
Whatever your sentiments on the matter, there is a long-standing consensus that a change like this is only confirmed when the team(s) or driver(s) in question comment on it in public (and the publication names them; this is to stop "anonymous sources within the team" confirming something). You can preach about the general reliability of sources as much as you like, but this is what the motorsport editors feel is best. And you should note that although Wikipedia sets out a Manual of Style, they are to be treated as guidelines rather than biblical commandments. It is not unheard of for individual WikiProjects - like the motorsport pages - to have their own Manual of Style.
Finally, answer me this: what would you have done if the reference from the NZ Herald was added into the article, only for Tekno Autosports to go ahead and sign someone else for the seat a week later? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, all I am doing is pointing out that your idea that "motorsport editors" can make "rules" that apply only to motorsport pages is incorrect and if you continue to believe that you may run into trouble down the line for not adhering to Wikipedia policies. It's even in the introduction to the article on Wikiprojects. Mattlore (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And all I'm doing is pointing out that your original edit was unacceptable because you had no way of verifying whether what you were editing into the article was actually true. By your own admission, you had no idea who Tony Quinn is, and yet you were willing to take his word for it that Van Gisbergen would join Tekno simply because of the publication it appeared in. For all you knew, Tony Quinn was someone who went to high school with Van Gisbergen that the paper approached because they wanted to get a story out on short notice to beat other publications to the punch, but needed a soundbyte to make the story substantial enough to print. Now, you can point to the WikiProject guidelines all you like, but the simple fact is that your original edit was a bad edit. And although it was substantiated by a better article several hours later, that does not change the fact that it was a bad edit. We all make them. But we don't waste time trying to retroactively prove ourselves right, and we don't lose sleep over it. We move on, we learn from it, and we make the page better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed mate, I think you've missed the point because the source I used didn't rely on a Tony Quinn quote and you think I've messed up by using a source that didn't include a direct quote from a driver or owner, but we'll both have to move on. Mattlore (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was the source you gave for the edit in question. The entire article is based on the interview with Tony Quinn. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible enduro driver table

[edit]

I've included a separate table showing endurance driver pairings to the article, and I have set it so that it automatically collapses. The reason for this is because I felt Falcadore raised a valid point the other day: namely, that the table should not be filled with blank spaces reading "TBA" (however, I feel that it is justified for the full-season entries, because there are only two seasons until the season starts, so confirmation of those drivers should be imminent). With a collapsible table in place, we can fill in endurance and GC drivers as that information becomes available, but preventing the main table from having an unfinished look. Once those driver combinations have all been confirmed, we can think about moving it back up into the main table. Furthermore, including drivers who will only contest two races in a table with drivers who will contest every race adds undue weight to their importance.

Alternatively, we could keep the collapsed table as it is, and introduce a "races" column (similar to the "rounds" column used on the Formula 1 season page) to show who raced what and where. I felt that the driver table on the 2012 page became a bit messy when Kelly Racing started substituting drivers in and out due to injuries, and that the solution used - footnotes - was rather inelegant. It would also help for any other mid-season driver changes. This, however, is not something that needs to addressed immediately. For now, I just thought it pertinent to explain why I added the collapsed table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what we could do is just leave the enduro drivers out completely until more names are known. That then fixes the TBA issue. There is no rush to include it, September is a fair way off. --Falcadore (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Photos

[edit]

How can I upload my photos from my computer onto wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.77.9 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to create an account at Wikimedia Commons then follow the instructions at uploading wizard. --Falcadore (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be totally honest, I think that we're going to need some better pictures. I appreciate the lengths people went to to get them, but they're not of particularly high quality. The FG Falcon picture is okay, but it's a year out of date; it works for now, but I'd prefer to find something a little more current if it can be managed. The VF Commodore and L33 Altima pictures are a little washed out and blurry, and there's not much to distinguish one from the other beyond the caption. And the E63 picture is off-centre and has someone holding a BlackBerry in front of it. The pictures are good enough for the time being, but I think they need to be changed as soon as possible.
I've found some people online who have taken some very high-quality photos and I'm currently trying to covnince them to post some of their pictures on Wikimedia Commons, but they all want photo credits and links to their portfolios. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Kytabu has just uploaded a few new ones, and they look perfect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Fiore

[edit]

I see someone added Dean Fiore to the driver table at Lucas Dumbrell Motorsport, with an edit summary commenting that he had been confirmed by the team as racing for them during the test at Eastern Creek. However, the source given was the one already being used to list LDM as using car #88 (and, since the team had not confirmed Fiore at that point, it is not a valid reference), and I can find no alternative source to support this claim. After all, Fiore could simply have been testing for the team pending a full contract that has not been signed yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fiore has now been confirmed by the team - http://v8xmagazine.com.au/index.php/news/9-news/748-fiore-confirmed-at-lucas-dumbrell-motorsport

V8dude2 (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. Whether or not Fiore has been confirmed is not the issue at hand. The problem is that he was being added to the team and driver roster without a valid reference supporting his inclusion there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stats creep

[edit]

Why has the calendar table acquired pole position column? --Falcadore (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it didn't previously?
No, wait; I see what you mean - it didn't previously.
Still, I don't see why the article shouldn't contain pole position. The DTM, WTCC, BTCC, ETCC, STCC, SuperGT, Superstars Series, TC 2000 and Stock Car Brasil season pages all contain a column for the pole winner. And while some of these series award additional points for pole position, most of them do not. So I find it very odd that the season page for a major international touring car series like the V8 Supercars should not have a field for the pole winner when nearly a dozen other pages that deal with a similar subject—and several of which are nowhere near as notable as V8 Supercars—do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that it does. How is it relelvant to the schedule? Why not add fastest lap, or best dressed crew chief. I also find it odd that those other series do to. I think it's just stats-creep, copied across from those series that do offer pole position points. --Falcadore (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a combined results table and series schedule. Your regularly complain that the Formula One season pages have a results summary table and a results matrix; this adresses that problem by merging it all together. Now you're complaining that they've been merged together. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.
Similarly your argument of "I find it strange that other series do it" is not sufficient enough to justify removing it from the article. You're going to need a consensus on this one. You haven't made any case against its removal aside from a straw man argument, especially when its inclusion makes it consistent with the style of other, similar pages.
Once again, you've decided that you don't like the way a page is set out, and so have taken it upon yourself to make the changes that you see fit. You don't even allow for a proper discussion - you post something on the talk page, wait a few hours, and when you get no responses, take it as silent approval to do as you see fit (when ironically enough, it took you over a week to respond to the case for its inclusion). And then you expect everyone to accept it and move on. Cut the bullshit father-knows-best attitude. It's wearing thin. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you've decided that you don't like the way a page is set out, and so have taken it upon yourself to make the changes that you see fit. So essentially what you are saying is that I, and not anyone else, just me, is not allowed to make ANY changes to an article without checking with you first?
Because it's a combined results table and series schedule. Your regularly complain that the Formula One season pages have a results summary table and a results matrix; this adresses that problem by merging it all together. If that's what you've understood by my 'complaints' then you've not taken in a word of what I've said. To combine a results and series table implies that there were two table to combine when there was not. There was a race schedule and a results matrix. There was not another table to combine anywhere. Unless you meant the results matrix, which is still there so its not combined at all.
Pole position has nothing whatsoever to do with the schedule. Sometimes you might show a 'round' winning result in a results schedule, where results matrix would not demonstrate round results, but pole position is jus duplicating data from the matrix. --Falcadore (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially what you are saying is that I, and not anyone else, just me, is not allowed to make ANY changes to an article without checking with you first?
No, what I'm saying is that you aggressively revert changes until you get your way, and I for one have had enough of it. You have been asked to find a consensus for your changes, which generally means that you should stop editing until you get one.
To combine a results and series table implies that there were two table to combine when there was not. There was a race schedule and a results matrix. There was not another table to combine anywhere. Unless you meant the results matrix, which is still there so its not combined at all.
We've been over this before, and elsewhere: the results matrix is a complex table. You cannot get information at a glance unless you know what you are looking at. And while experienced editors will know that, newcomers will not. Wikipedia articles should be written with the assumption that the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is though in some circumstance you actually LOOSE information in a presentation this way. Have a look at 2013 Dunlop V8 Supercar Series. What you have done is deleted the previous locating where Round winners used to in order to duplicate race winners. To delete one thing so you can say something else TWICE, is unacceptable. So until you rethink this table, you need to have a fresh look at its flaws. That has nothing to do with edit warring my opinion in. There is a fundamental flaw that you have overlooked. Fix that before you attempt to blame it on my personality. --Falcadore (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what that has to do with this article, since V8 Supercars no longer award outright victories to the driver who scores the most points at a race meeting. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the format of this table is not flexible enough to be used at all categories without removing some information. The original intent was to use it for round winners and since then others have added on other stats the create this format, and the original function to highlight round winners has been lost because someone says oh but we have to have the poles written in twice. The poles should never have been there in the first place because that wasn't the reason winners were there. I'm just trying to restore the original function of this table, NOT edit war in something new. You've said your copying in the format from other categories and adding that it doesn't matter that because V8s don't have round winners, but you're missing the point when I say the format is flawed on these other tables so why copy a flawed document? --Falcadore (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't believe that it's flawed. Recognition of the pole-sitter should go somewhere, and since the results matrix is a complex table and relying on it as the sole source of this information is therefore out of the question, the only options are to either include the pole-sitter in the schedule alongside the race winners, or create a results summary table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a matter of priority. Qualifying is the preliminary to the main event. Races are the main event. Pole position should not be given priority over Round results, the original intent.
Unless you can make the case that recording pole position is more important than round victors which are being deleted, I'll be restoring where appropriate. --Falcadore (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I mean where pole position is taking priority over rounds results which is just wrong. [1] --Falcadore (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But having overall round results in the V8 Supercar table implies that there is an overall round winner - which there is not. That system was dropped years ago. Drivers are now recognised as winners of individual races. I'm still not sure why you keep referring back to the Dnulop Series table, because that category uses a different scoring system. If there if anything that should be removed from this table, it's the "Rounds" column. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because perhaps I'm speaking generally rather than this season specifically perhaps? You don't think this sentence sounds broadly speaking The point is the format of this table is not flexible enough to be used at all categories without removing some information. The original intent was to use it for round winners and since then others have added on other stats the create this format ?
Elsewhere you've said: that's not a small fix - you just undid the details of the individual races; your edits imply that only one race was run at each round, which is not true. How can you draw such an implication when there is a large results matrix just below it indicating there are a larger number of races than rounds?
And how can you accuse me of not gaining a consensus to restore a tables original functionality when I have seen NO consensus to turn a calender into a trivia database? You do see the hypocrisy evident in such an assertion don't you? --Falcadore (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the subsequent edits to the page - I have since removed the pole position column and replaced it with a round winner. I did that based on your comments above, that there is an overall round winner, in addition ot my standpoint, that there are individual race winners. So I'm not really sure how you can call that "a trivia database". If I reverted to the old version first because that had the three-column format pre-loaded, and made implementing such changes easier. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SVG again

[edit]

A footnote in the article states "Shane Van Gisbergen's participation is provisional, pending the outcome of legal action against him mounted by his former team over a contractual issue." Anyone have a reference to back this up? Both references at the moment merely state the team is considering action, neither says that legal action has been launched or that his status has been made 'provisional' (what ever that means). Mattlore (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation. He's on track racing right now. If it turns into something later it can be updated. --Falcadore (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. I've removed the footnote. Mattlore (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season review

[edit]

I re-wrote the "Season review" because, by its definition, it's a review of the season, not a collection of individual race reports. We have individual race articles for race reports. --Falcadore (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of moving it further down the page. The reason is that the current version of the section mentions personalities and teams with no explanation of who they are or how they fit in relation one another. Since all of that is laid out in the table, the season review should not come until after the event schedule (but before the points standings). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you've done is the opposite of showing how they relate to each other. A season review should explain the season - ie the championship. So the points leader comes first, then explain how Lowndes became the points leader. What you've done is more a progressive season report, which is not the best method of summarising a whole season. --Falcadore (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote that version because firstly, it was far too long; secondly, it was more of an opinion (ie describing McLaughlin as "very impressive") than anything else; and thirdly, it was little more than a list of drivers and their championship positions with a bit of trivia attached. It's a style that is more befitting of a magazine, not an encyclopaedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we'll have to see how it looks after the second event. Noting each race one at a time does not summarise anything. --Falcadore (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again I have to point out that summarising each race individually does not summarise the season. A season review should look at the season holistically, not one event at a time, particularly when we have individual race reports to described individual races. --Falcadore (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


– In 2011 the V8 Supercars were given the "international" category by the FIA, some people have interpreted that it makes the V8 Supercars Championship name change to "International V8 Supercars Championship". While International V8 Supercars Championship is used in some media, V8 Supercars Championship is still used by a number of media outlets (including the broadcast rights holder) and by the V8 Supercars. Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs) has ignored the very V8 Supercars source, the fact that I've point at WP:COMMONNAME and continues to use the FIA "rules". The three articles should be moved back to "20xx V8 Supercars Championship", inline with the V8 Supercars and media's use of the far more common name, unless someone show/demonstrate that "International V8 Supercars Championship" is widely used. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"International" is a status bestowed upon the series by the FIA at the request of series organisers provided that they meet criteria set forward by the FIA and continue to govern the series in accordance with FIA regulations. To remove "International" from the article title implies that the series is being run in the same way as it was prior to "International" status being granted. However, this is misleading, because the series is being run differently, a fact supported by the article. References #83 describes the way the Pukekohe Park circuit has been redesigned "to meet the new FIA safety standards for a grade 2 certificated circuit"; Grade-2 certification is the minimum circuit requirement for any circuit featuring in an "International" series.
Consider also Article Titles, which states the following:
Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles
You will note that pages related to touring car seasons in Australia go through four distinct naming phases: Australian Touring Car Championship, Shell Championship Series, V8 Supercar Championship Series, and International V8 Supercars Championship. Each of these changes coincides with a restructuring of the series, so using the "International" title is appropriate because it best reflects the state of the championship.
Therefore, any argument that the article should be retitled under COMMONNAME is invalid. The series has clearly changed, and even if the media continue to refer to the series by its COMMONNAME title, changing the article to reflect this is misleading and incorrect. You have put too much weight on the guidelines (remember, these are not hard and fast rules) set out by COMMONNAME, and have not considered alternative arguments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether V8 Supercars are meant to use the word "international" in the title per FIA rules or not, isn't Wikipedia's problem. Since there is some confusion as to the "official" title (whether it is the FIA or V8 Supercars), assuming that the official title is V8 Supercar Championship, not having the word "international" doesn't imply that it isn't an international event, that is what the content in the article is for. Again I've asked for evidence of wide spread use of International V8 Supercars Championship, not wikilawyering and pure original research. Bidgee (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was never any confusion until you came along. I also find it very difficult to take your arguments seriously, considering that you accused me of fanboysim when I disagreed with you, have not bothered to address any of the points that I just made in this discussion and instead claimed that I am wikilawyering (when ironically, that is exactly what you are doing), and delete comments from your talk page for no reason at all.
The simple fact is that you haven't addressed any of the counter-arguments I have just made. For one, I have supplied sufficent evidence that the series is run differently compared to previous years, thereby making the name justified, and which you have subsequently ignored. Secondly, I have pointed out the pattern of naming conventions based on the structure of the series over the course of decades, which you have again ignored. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that pages related to touring car seasons in Australia go through four distinct naming phases: Australian Touring Car Championship, Shell Championship Series, V8 Supercar Championship Series, and International V8 Supercars Championship. Each of these changes coincides with a restructuring of the series,. No it was not. The major resturcures ocurred in 1969, 1976, 1978, 1985, 1993, 1999 (definately NOT 2002, that was purely a name change) and 2011. --Falcadore (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee, have you been edit warring over these article names? --Falcadore (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has been. I've been reverting them to their original titles (based on the way you maintained the Mercedes F1 W04 page when the name was being discussed; keep the original name for the sake of page stability while the issue is debated), and told him to get a consensus before he changes it again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not asking you PM. Nothing personal, but it was a question asked of Bidgee. --Falcadore (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Looking at the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, I would be comfortable with either name being used. Both meet recognizability, though the simpler V8 Supercars Championship is probably more recognisable for those uniniated with the topic. Naturalness probably favours the simple version, as more people would search 2013 V8 Supercars Championship than with the international. Precision probably favours keeping international in the title. Conciseness favours the shorter version and Consistency could be argued to favour either. The real spanner in the works for me is that the parent article is at V8 Supercars and not at either International V8 Supercars Championship or 2013 V8 Supercars Championship. There is also the 2013 V8 Supercar season page to consider, which tries to be a wider-scope overview article of the year. Usually I'd be in favour of the season articles matching the page name, but neither do in this case.
Ultimately however I've had a look around the official page and I can't find it referred to it anywhere as the International series,[2] in line with this, the page should be moved. Mattlore (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A name as simple as V8 Supercars Championship is not sufficiently distinctive to determine which V8 Supercar Championship, of which there are several. 2011 V8 Supercar Championship would serve better as a disambiguation page. --Falcadore (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This reference demonstrates that the series is recognised by the FIA as an "International" event. "International" status brings with it a whole host of changes to its organisational structure. So even if the series refers to itself by its old name, it is no longer the same series. To remove "International" from the article title implies that nothing has changed, when we can prove that it has. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It's true that the International tag has dropped away this year compared to 2011 & 2012. V8 Supercars regulations however refer to VCS teams rather than VC teams so if a change was to be made (and primarily to the 2013 season, not 2011/12) then it should be to V8 Supercar Championship Series, not V8 Supercars Championship. Although in this link you may find it interesting to note what CAMS and the FIA (and I think you will agree their opinion is important) say the series is called. International V8 Supercar Championship Series. Since the moniker of V8 Supercars Championship is not officially used ANYWHERE I would oppose a change to this name. --Falcadore (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The official page uses V8 Supercars Championship [3] [4] Mattlore (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
V8 Supercars Championship Series here in V8 Supercars official regulations. If they can't decide should we ignore them? --Falcadore (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are potentially three names used by official bodies then I guess that lends weight to going with the one in common use. Out of interest I did a google search, "2013 V8 supercars" = ~574,000, "2013 V8 Supercars Championship" = ~186,000, "2013 V8 Supercars Championship Series" = ~52,800 and "2013 International V8 Supercars Championship" = ~26,800. Mattlore (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The official site might refer to the series as the "V8 Supercars Championship Series", but bear in mind that that site is owned by the series mangement, and everything posted to it is posted by the series management, making it a self-published source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that official regulations are owned by VESA, and they have to be approved by the FIA so claiming self-published is pushing it. --Falcadore (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fact remains that with three different V8 Supercar championships, and other events besides, it is not distinctive enough to identify itself correctly. Fails the Precisions component of article naming policy. --Falcadore (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME, the media use the term "V8 Supercars Championship" not "International V8 Supercars Championship", I don't know what the argument is. WP:COMMONNAME is clear, we use the name that is commonly used, in this case that is clearly "V8 Supercars Championship", a reliable source that the competition is officially called "International V8 Supercars Championship" would be a very good start to keep the current name, but even then, until if filters through and gets used by the majority it won't pass WP:COMMONNAME. The about us page states that it has been endorsed internationally, but no where does it use the name "International V8 Supercars Championship", additionally, there are many international events endorsed by the FIA: Formula One is one, it's official name is "FIA Formula One World Championship" this is a good example of WP:COMMONNAME in play, and rebuts the claim that international is needed. So is Superstars Series, in the calendar that Prisonermonkeys links to named "Superstars International Series" as it is called in the page, but the page is still at "Superstars Series", I think the problem here is a basic misunderstanding of WP:COMMONNAME, a page sits at the name most commonly used, and if the name is shortened, that is explained in the page. Liamdavies (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you think that's why the Formula One articles are named as they are then the misunderstanding is yours. Formula One article labels Formula One in all its history, not just the championship. The season-by-season articles also included all non-championship events. COMMONNAME plays no part. --Falcadore (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 International V8 Supercars Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2013 International V8 Supercars Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 International V8 Supercars Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_International_V8_Supercars_Championship&oldid=1196640991"