Talk:2017 Formula 2 Championship

Rowland

The official website might not refer to Rowland as "Ollie Rowland", but do you know who does? Rowland himself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so what? We use third-party sources, where he more commonly known as Oliver. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cited the Formula 2 website. It's a site about Formula 2 by Formula 2—a self-published source. You should read WP:NCP; it allows us to use the names chosen by the subject. For example, Bono is known on Wikipedia as Bono, and not by his birth name, Paul Hewson. Rowland calls himself "Ollie Rowland", which is the name we should use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also said about other sources, which predominately use "Oliver". Third-party sources in your case use "Bono", not Paul Nelson. So your example is invalid. Read also WP:SPNC. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a case of someone changing their name mid-career, like the given example of Cat Stevens becoming Yusuf Islam. As far as I can tell, Rowland has always used the name "Ollie". So your argument is invalid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The icon system

I have introduced the icon system to this article to overcome some of the readability issues that mobile and tablet users encounter without compromising the ability of desktop users to read articles. The icon system was developed specifically within the bounds of WP:COLOR, and deliberately uses high-contrast colours to aid readers, even when they are only viewing within black and white. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corvus tristis — accusing other editors of vandalism when you have made no attempt to refute the points raised by those editors reeks of WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR: Colors that are useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible may be used with discretion and common sense. Your emphasising of the type of race is unwarranted. Especially because in the next year both races will have qualifying and there will be no difference between them. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, you are a vandal because you have reverted my updates of the standings. Your behaviour can't be considered as civil. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR"

Your specific objection was on the grounds of WP:COLOR. Furthermore, this is an article, not a navigation box.

"Colors that are useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible may be used with discretion and common sense."

They are appropriate, representative and accessible. Like I said, the system was developed on other articles to do just this. And given that it fixes a problem with readability, it's well within the bounds of common sense.

"Your emphasising of the type of race is unwarranted."

Except that it fixes a readability issue, which you have not addresses.

"Especially because in the next year both races will have qualifying and there will be no difference between them."

I'm not making edits in next year's article. Edits in one article should not be made on the basis of meeting another article's needs before meeting the needs of the first article. Furthermore, the differences between the feature and sprint races are more than just the qualifying format—race length, points paid and mandatory pit stops all come into it.

"you are a vandal because you have reverted my updates of the standings"

It is well-documented that I edit from a mobile device. Because of the limitations of the device, I have to make edits in separate sections quite separately. However, you're sitting on the page reverting edits you don't like on sight, which means that you have reverted my first edit before I have made my second, and thus my second edit cannot be saved because you have edited the page. If you gave people ten or fifteen minutes to complete all of the edits, we wouldn't be in this position. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know about differences of the races, and in the next year both races will be equal (race length, points distribution and mandatory pit stops). And we need to meet needs of the both articles, not only 2017 season article or 2018 season article. The fact that you editing from a mobile device, doesn't give you a right to revert updates even for one minute. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And we need to meet needs of the both articles, not only 2017 season article or 2018 season article."

We do, but if there are substantial differences between the two seasons, we cannot force a solution for the sake of continuity.

"The fact that you editing from a mobile device, doesn't give you a right to revert updates even for one minute."

But you have that right? You decided that you didn't like the edits and reverted them on sight. You made no attempt to question the reasons for the changes (despite my explanation), and have since come up with three different explanations for reverting the changes. You have also accused other editors of being vandals and of uncivil behaviour.

Moreover, you missed the point I was trying to make. When I restored the icons, I went to the results matrix to restore the subsequent changes you made. But those changes took time, and in that time you reverted the changes. When I tried to save the second edit, it was rejected because of your edits. This is what happens when you sit on an article reverting edits without asking other editors what they're doing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that your actions are against WP policies, not because "I don't like your edits". It seems that you have forget that we are making an encyclopedia, not a fancy journal (which Wikipedia will become if everyone will emphasise whatever he want), so there is no need to question about this. And some of the other editors were blocked for their uncivil behaviour. Once again, you can't revert other editor updates, no matter what excuse do you have. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I have decided that your actions are against WP policies, not because "I don't like your edits"."

First you said that it was against WP:COLOR, even though nothing in the edits violated WP:COLOR. Then you said that it was against WP:NAVBOXCOLOR, even though it's not a navigation box. You haven't actually provided a single valid justification for reverting the edits, and since you have decided to act as the authority on the article—you're behaving as if edits need your approval before being accepted—that's a case of WP:OWN.

So, I have decided that your actions go against Wikipedia policies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAVBOXCOLOR and WP:COLOR is all part of the WP:MOS so it is a refinement, not a change of an argument. And even though it is about navigation boxes it says things that are applicable for the use of colour in Wikipedia in general. If you disagree that "Colors that are useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible may be used with discretion and common sense.", than you probably in the wrong place, try something on wikia.com.Corvus tristis (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have decided anything but you have reverted my updates, not only a controversial edit. So your actions were clear vandalism. And it is not for the first time. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"So your actions were clear vandalism."

It's pretty obvious you don't know what constitutes vandalism. From WP:VANDAL:

"On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose."

Which I clearly have not done. Similarly:

"The unexplained removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."

Again, I have not done this. If I have done anything, it's this

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

Indeed, I clearly outlined my reasons for the edirs, so it seems the only thing that I have done is disagree with you. On that subject, WP:ATWV says that:

"As a result, the word "vandal" should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed."

One could argue that there's a pattern here—that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of vandalism as a way of trying to force them to back down. My edits do not fit any definition of vandalism, but you insist that they are. Why is that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of the updates is exactly defeating the project's purpose. And as you reverting updates not for the first time, so I can't assume that your behaviour was misguided and/or good-faithed. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So because I've been in conflict with other editors in the past—even if those conflicts were resolved—you can't assume good faith? Looking at your edits in the past, you've been quick to accuse other editors who disagreed with you of vandalism, so why should I assume good faith in your edits? Congratulations, you've broken Wikipedia because by your logic, nobody can ever assume good faith in anybody else's edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 FIA Formula 2 Championship which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]