Jump to content

Talk:2014 International V8 Supercars Championship

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

Co-drivers

[edit]

Co-driver field added to allow cites to be added as they become available, rather than as on the 2013 International V8 Supercars Championship pa where post the Sandown 500 it is yet to be completed and will be a larger task done restropectively. Co-drivers start to be named as soon as straight after Bathurst.V7867 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. There is speculation straight after Bathurst, but generally not confirmed. Additionally with so few main game drivers signed up for 2014 and with a few RECs on the move the co-driver market will start later this time around. Although it's very easy to call that speculation too.
At the very least there is no reason to create a co-driver column until any of them have been announced. Empty columns are not a good idea. They encourage editors to add every rumour they think.
The only reason you've named to put the column in is based on your prediction that drivers will be named next month. That's not good enough. Not close to good enough. Remove. --Falcadore (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that V7867 is a new editor. And remember what it was like when you were a new editor. You made mistakes; we all did. Which is why the tone of you final paragraph is completely inappropriate and unacceptable. All you're likely to do is deter him from editing further.
V7867, ignore Falcadore's last paragraph. He usually knows what he's talking about, but he can be tactless at times. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
V7867 is not a new editor. He or she is an infrequent editor. Editing history goes back almost a year. --Falcadore (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't excuse your attitude. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the final driver line up now confirmed, have added collapsible wikitable as used in 2013 article V7867 (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are all of the TBAs required, surely a blank cell would suffice? Particularly as (car # TBA) needs to be included for some teams where combinations haven't been announced. V7867 (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of adding (Car # TBA) next to a co-driver is to highlight that combinations haven't been confirmed. The inclusion of both drivers in one field and the lack of a breaking a line does indicate this. But to the casual reader, this subtle difference, or the meaning of it, is likely to go unnoticed. V7867 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is is that the prevailing argument for the presentation of content in a certain manner on motorsport season pages is "the casual reader is an idiot"? It's happening here and on Formula 1 pages.

Not only does listing the endurance drivers as having their car number as TBA assume readers are idiots, it has never been used before, and we never had a problem with it. There is currently no pressing need for it, either. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I was going to bring up last year (but never did) is why were/are the satellite teams separated from their main teams in the endurance table? Shouldn't it be the same as the season table? KytabuTalk 00:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, endurance table should mirror season table order. V7867 (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any suggestion that "casual readers are idiots". It is more tailoring the article to the wider readership who may not have a great understanding of motorsport or wikipedia formatting. Those editing the article have a detailed knowledge of the subject at hand and understand the difference that a break line, or the lack thereof, has. But the casual reader may miss the subtle break, or quite reasonably dismiss it as a formatting error. As it stands, the casual reader could assume Greg Ritter is down to drive with Scott McLaughlin, unless they understand the significance of the lack of a break line.
Just because something wasn't used in a prior year's article, doesn't mean new ideas shouldn't be suggested. I am sure there are many articles that have improved year-on-year as new editors introduce different thinking. Kytabu's idea about consolidating satellite teams with their parents is a good example. V7867 (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just because something was not done in a previous season's article, that does not automatically make it a good idea. The break is not as subtle as you are making it out to be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't stated that because a change is suggested, that it is automatically a good idea, merely that they are worthy of being considered. V7867 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you need to consider the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Bold edits are naturally encouraged, but do not be surprised if they get reverted. In that case, you move to the talk page to discuss it. You do not simply restore your preferred version of the article; having your edits on the page does not make them any more credible than if they are removed. Likewise, if your edits are not in the article, that does not make them any less credible than if they are in the article. You are far too quick to restore the page to your preferred version and you have come very close to breaking the three revert rule on several occasions, which is edit-warring. The trend is towards conservatism; the page should remain as it was while changes are being discussed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]









Car numbers

[edit]

These shouldn't be here. They are speculation, therefore they should be removed. 58.165.160.237 (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Premat and context

[edit]

Copied from User talk:V7867

Please stop removing context from the article. No, we do not mention how long eachas ndividual driver raced for each team. But what we do do is to provide some context as to the driver's situation. For instance, in the case of Chad Mostert, we mention that he was loaned out to DJR during 2013. We do not just say that he replaces Will Davison.

Articles should be written in such a way that they are entirely self-contained. Someone with no knowledge of the sport should be able to click the random page function, land on the article it through and understand it. Given your preferred version of edits, the reader has no clue who Alex Premat is, except that he was replaced by Robert Dahlgren. And given your logic behind trimming down Premat's entry, we might as well cut the whole thing down to "Robert Dahlgren replaced Alex Premat", because if details of Premat's place in the sport are not important, then no driver should have any details attached to their entries.

The moral of the story is that context matters. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct to mention Chas Mostert’s prior relationship with FPR, as he is not new to the team but was a FPR driver for a number of years prior, more of an internal promotion than a new hire.
Likewise it is relevant to mention Robert Dahlgren’s prior relationship with Polestar, given that it is more of an inter-Volvo transfer.
If a reader has "no clue" as to who Alex Premat is they can drill down on the wikilink. Whether a driver drove for a team for 2 or 20 years irrespective of their nationality, is not relevant in the context of the 2014 season. The article is about the 2014 season and should focus on that, rather than getting bogged down in the detail on how long prior drivers were with teams or in the series. These are covered on the relevant team and driver articles.
Likewise no mention is made (assuming they don't drive in 2014) that Russell Ingall left Walkinshaw Racing after 2 years, or Tony D'Alberto is not present for the first time since 2007, these details lack relevancy in the context of 2014. V7867 (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) A reader should not have to "drill down" on Premat's article just to understand who he is and how he fits into the picture. Although this article is about the 2014 season, it does not exist in isolation. There should be done context provided as to who Alex Premat is. After all, we outline who Robert Dahlgren is and what he did before joining the team, but you just give the name of the guy he replaced.
2) Secondly, you have inconsistently applied this faulty logic. You have removed all of the context from Premat's entry, but kept all of the context for everyone else. By your logic, the driver changes section should read like this:
  • Will Davison moved from FPR to Erebus.
  • Maro Engel will leave Erebus.
  • Chas Mostert will move from DJR to FPR.
  • Scott Pye will move from LDM to DJR.
3) And so on and so forth. If you are going to remove the context from Premat, then you need to remove it from everyone. If you are going to have context for one person, then you need to have it for everyone. You cannot apply one rule two different ways and expect to he a good editor. You need to be consistent.
4) Finally, your aversion to mentioning the time period is misplaced. Just as we do not give the reader no context, nor do we write a full biography for them. It is noteable that Premat was with the team for two years, and the argument that "we don't say how long Driver X was with his team" holds no water. There are details of other drivers' involvement with their teams that we do not mention about Premat.
5) And as one final note, would it kill you to learn some grammar? Seriously, the Dahlgren-Premat point in the article is badly written. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1} So a driver leaves a team and is replaced, again the length of service by the outgoing driver is not relevant to the 2014 season, adequately discussed on team and driver articles. The reason for giving Dahlgren's history is to illustrate the existing Polestar/Volvo connection, its more of a transfer within the Volvo family than an external hire.
2) Agree, with the exception of Mostert who is an existing FPR driver.
4) As per 1) how is the length of service of an outgoing driver relevant? Same should apply for all drivers.
5) Refer User talk:Prisonermonkeys#There is no easy way to put this ... for response. V7867 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you contradict yourself. If Dahlgren is important enough to have background in the article, then Premat is important enough for it, too. Similarly, if Premat is not important enough for background in the article, then neither is Dahlgren. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dahlgren is a participant in the 2014 series, Premat is not. V7867 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of things which annoys me that in these sort of instances is more is written about some competitors who do not compete in a season than some of those who do. It's backwards reasoning. This should be an article on what DID happen in the 2014 season, not what did not happen or happened in 2013. It's a completely backward sense of priorities. But you can't convince Prisonermonkeys of this, I've tried. --Falcadore (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, you wanted to limit the details of Van Gisbergen's retirement and move to Tekno to the 2012 season page because the announcements were made in 2012, even though Van Gisbergen contested the entire 2012 season and the changes did not take effect until 2013. Which made no sense at the time, and which still does not make any sense.
Even though Premat will not contest the 2014 season, that is no reason to simply leave him as a name in the article. Some context is important as he does not exist on isolation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of talking about the specific - this is a broad brush issue. Drivers who leave a category generally should not be mentioned in the season following. If a driver retires it is a big thing in the season he retires, not the next one. If he is just replaced then probably he is on the low side of notability. --Falcadore (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

While I appreciate the desire to have a uniform style to the writing of the article, would it be too much to ask that we observe the rules of grammar? Contrary to the assertation of some, the grammar used in parts of this article is not "fine". It might be something I would consider to be acceptable from one of my Year 7 students, but for our intents and purposes, it is not. We should be recounting the events in the order that they occurred - DJR returned the REC to Triple F, who attempted to secure a budget for the season, but were unable to do so, and so gave it back to VESA. But for some reason, one editor seems to be prioritising Triple F's ownership of the REC, evebecauseh they have not used it for two years. And since the sequence of events essentially involves the same action twice - handing and REC back - prioritising Triple F's original ownership has led to awkward and clunky sentence structure.

If you think this is "fine", then I would have serious questions about where you lreaso grammar, because you clearly were not taught very well. Nor should I have to take to an article talk page to give you a lesson in grammar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a bit pedantic about the grammar; it really isn't as bad as you seem to be suggesting. KytabuTalk 09:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe - but it is nowhere near as good as it could be. And prioritising consistency in the ptesentation of prose is no excuse for intentionally allowing poor grammar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that one editor has taken a dislike to another 'treading on their turf'. Rather than try and resolve in a civil manner Prisonermonkeys has decided to resort to hurling abuse [1], presumably in the hope of scaring the editor off. Won't be happening.
In edit [2], Prisonermonkeys introduced 'Ingall retired fom the sport'. This is clearly wrong. Regardless of whether he is a participant in the series full time, he has not left the sport, just may have retired from full time driving. We all make errors, or phrase things in a less than perfect fashion, but perhaps editor should get his/her own house in order before delivering condescending lectures to others over their less than perfect posts?
Then we have this one [3] which Prisonermonkeys claims was 'poorly written' and promptly introduces a typo. And on his/her most recent post above [4] when banging on about no excuse for poor grammar, yet another typo. If mobile device isn't up to scratch, editor should wait until he/she is behind better hardware, surely posts aren't that time sensitive?
The only conclusion that I can draw is that Prisonermonkeys is a just nasty piece of work. Whatever faults my grammar may have, they pale into insignificance when compared to Prisonermonkeys uncivilised conduct. V7867 (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to accuse another editor of acting improperly, when your first response to someone raising the issue of grammar in the article is to try and discredit them for unrelated issues? Whatever issues my spelling might have, it does not change the fact that your writing skills are lacking to the point where the article is suffering for it.
I find it curious that you accuse me of treating the article as "my own turf", considering that I have never claimed the article as my own. However, you have described it as "turf" and you evidently think it is yours for the taking. All of this is supported by the way you constantly restore your preferred version of the article when the only difference is that someone has taken the content and improved upon it. Nothing has been added or removed, but simply refined. Which is odd, because you admit that you can phrase things in a "less than perfect fashion", and yet you refuse to accept edits that simply improve upon what has been written.
I strongly suggest that you stop behaving as if every single edit has to be approved by you before it is included in the article. Accept that other people know what they are doing and are capable of doing it. And leave your ego at the door. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only hope that one day I can reach the dizzy heights that you set. Me egotistical? Pot, kettle, black?V7867 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever does claim it is their own turf. It is the act of doing, not the claim which defines ownership.
Also, debates on personal writing styles don't belong in this talk page. Prisonermonkeys, if you have an issue with someones grammar, advise how you wish to help editors improve their grammar on their talk pages. --Falcadore (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

[edit]

Please tell me that we are not going to have to do this every single time an edit is made.

I have restored an older version of the article to fix the caption under McLaughlin's image. The reason for this is because the "Volvo Polestar Racing" and "Volvo S60" wlinks were next to each other, implying that there is an article titled "Volvo Polestar Racing Volvo S60", which there is not. And while MOSLINK might not say that this should not be done, MOSLINK is only a guideline, and common sense dictates that you keep links separate. Especially when your argument from two days ago was "readers might get confused". This is precisely what I was talking about when I told you not to restore your preferred version of the page because that is your preferred version of the page, and not because of the merits of those edits. You accuse others of breaking WP:OWN, but this is a perfect case of trying to OWN an article: we have two versions of a caption that effectively say the same thing, but the only difference is that one is clearer than the other. You are consciously choosing the unclear version, for no reason at all.

Also, I have no idea why you are including the date the photo was taken in the caption. It is irrelevant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix - Thursday 13 March to Sunday 16 March

[edit]

Sorry to bother you guys, The page is very nice, thank you. Last time I edited a WP page, my pain staking work was deleted so I now ask before.

The "Scheduled Events" calendar does not list the "2014 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix" that was held on March 13 to March 16.

Race 1 Shane Van_Gisbergen - Team TEKNO VIP Petfoods - Holden Commodore VF Race 2 Shane Van_Gisbergen - Team TEKNO VIP Petfoods - Holden Commodore VF Race 3 Shane Van_Gisbergen - Team TEKNO VIP Petfoods - Holden Commodore VF Race 4 Scott McLaughlin - Valvoline Racing GRM - Volvo S60

I checked 500 edit on the page, no mention of it... It is listed in on the official results: http://www.v8supercars.com.au/championship/2014-v8-supercars-championship/results

Cya Netweezurd (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the AGP support race does not count for championship points. This article is for championship events only. See 2014 V8 Supercar season for coverage of non-championship events and other V8 Supercar classes. KytabuTalk 23:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 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) 09:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 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) 04:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_International_V8_Supercars_Championship&oldid=1196664743"