Talk:2019 Supercars Championship

McLaughlin's number

Please do not change McLaughlin's number from #1 to #17 without a source. 1.129.109.136 (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not change McLaughlin's number to TBA with a Tooltip, either. For one, Tooltips are not accessible to mobile and tablet readers. And secondly, McLaughlin's car is entered with the #17 REC. "TBA" implies we have no idea what number he will use, which is untrue because we know he has the #17 REC until such time as he announces otherwise. 1.129.109.238 (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Scott will run the #17 next year. Source Hiflex480 (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

All good! Mitchell519 (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Triple Eight Numbers

Can we keep the Triple Eight numbers as they are for the time being, with Jamie Whincup with 88 and SVG with 97? As there is no evidence to prove that Whincup would run 888 and SVG to run 88. I know this part will be edited quite a bit, but until such evidence to prove it, just keep it as last year please? Thanks Hiflex480 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Co drivers

Who are the 2019 supercars co drivers Joshyflash (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed from all teams in regards to co-drivers. I know quite a number of teams are going to reshuffle their co-drivers, namely Triple Eight, Kelly Racing and Brad Jones Racing. But with no credible sources about co-drivers, it is recommended for the time being to leave the table black, until there is proper knowledge of the said cars Joshyflash. Hiflex480 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Triple Eight image

Although this image is the most recent shows both T8 cars, it is a poor image to use:

The angle of the cars is oblique, the cars are small, and the glare and safety fence obscure the image.

This picture is a much better example:

The car is large, clearly visible and there are few additional elements to distract the eye. Although it is older than the Newcastle image, it is a much better image and should be used. 1.129.105.195 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops, meant to tag @Hiflex480. 1.129.105.195 (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

All good, I tried to get both RBHRT cars in it, but if you want to use the photo from Eastern Creek, I'm fine with that. I can revert it now if needed. Hiflex480 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed 1.129.105.195. Hiflex480 (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've changed it, but someone has changed it back. Hiflex480 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Recentism

To the IP making these edits: please stop and discuss what you are doing before you make changes. For one, you are removing important markup that makes reading the article difficult for some people. If you don't know what the markup does, don't assume it does nothing and that you are free to remove it. Ask first.

Secondly—and of more concern—is the sources you keep adding to the article. These add nothing to the article that is not already there; the only difference is that your sources are more recent. Articles do not need to have the most-recent sources to be valid, and relying on them risks violating Wikipedia's policy on recentism, which in term opens the door to a less-than-neutral point of view, which is a serious problem. 1.129.104.218 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:115.69.165.214, the above comment is intended for you. 1.129.105.235 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Mustang; S550 or FN

Seeing there has been some recent edit warring on the designation of the Mustang, S550 or FN, I have removed. As far as I can see, none of the cites in the article at present include either. Only reference I have found is that Ancap have the model sold in Australia as the FN. http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.com.au/app/public/assets/9f94b77a282f08ad9db0c1c2270688e46b054b30/original.pdf?1528182528 Fecotank (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am a Ford Employee and the Ford Mustang (2018-Present) is designated as FN. the previous model is designated as FM (2015-2018). I supplied reference for this Redbook Car review https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2018-ford-mustang-gt-fn-manual-my18/SPOT-ITM-501889/ . The Chassis platform it is built off is S550, so both names are correct. To me it should read at least Ford FN Mustang, it could read Ford FN Mustang S550. But again, should at least read Ford FN Mustang, so not to be confused with the FM which was the earlier model built on the same S550 platform but with diffrent front and rear ends. theclass13 07:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Am inclined to agree that FN is the most likely, but as it hasn't been officially confirmed think it best to leave out until this has happened. The operations manual that list the eligible models, is usually published in February so this may clarify. Otherwise the official entry list should. Fecotank (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The sixth-generation of Mustang is known as the S550. That may change upon launch in Australia, but until then, you cannot simply ignore it because you have a source that may or may not contradict it. You cite February as the date the operation manual is published, so it should remain the S550 until then. 1.129.105.192 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As no cites have been added to date confirming that it will be entered as either the S550 or FN, best to leave out, to presume one or the other is WP:SYNTH. Fecotank (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The citations provided are adequate. The state that the sixth-generation Mustang will be used, and the S550 is the sixth-generation Mustang. If it gets rebadged for an Australian launch, it can be changed, but the possibility of a rebadge does not invalidate the fact that the S550 is the sixth-generation Mustang. How about you read the policies you are trying to enforce? 1.129.111.182 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

None mention S550, so not the case. Fecotank (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, the S550 is the sixth-generation of Mustang. This is, quite literally, the first sentence of the sixth-generation article: "The sixth generation Ford Mustang (S550) is the current iteration of the Mustang pony car manufactured by Ford." Your argument is that the car might be known as the FN. Mine is that the car is currently known as the S550. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that it is your responsibility to prove the claim with sources. So how about you a) read some of the policies you are enforcing, b) stop threatening admin intervention against people who disagree with you, c) accept that other editors are capable of thinking for themselves and d) open your mind to the idea that those editors might actually know better than you. Not every edit needs your personal approval. 1.129.110.250 (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If a reliable source can be produced, then there the issue will be resolved. Yes the article stood with S550 for an extended period, but when brought into question, is was correct to remove when some doubt arose. As a cite has yet to have been added to back up either S550 or FN, it should be excluded until such time as one surfaces. The overriding policy is WP:V, thus the WP:BURDEN is on those who want to add something, not those deleting something uncited. Fecotank (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This so-called "doubt" stems from an unverifiable claim (an editor who says that he is a Ford employee) and a source that you acknowledged was insufficient. 1.129.109.186 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the suggestions it will be S550 or FN remain uncited, so it does remain in doubt. Fecotank (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

At this point I'm wondering whether you are truly ignorant or just play-acting. As pointed out, the sixth-generation Mustang is the S550. That is not in doubt. 1.129.109.186 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Truly ignorant? No, but I do have the ability to accept when I am in the wrong rather than lashing out at those who disagree with me. Fecotank (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

And yet, you refuse accept that you are wrong here. Put your money where your mouth is and accept the car is the S550. You don't own the article. 1.144.108.46 (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Having both names in the title is fine. Both a correct and relate to different parts of the vehicle. theclass13 10:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Never have I suggested that I own the article, the inconvenient truth is that for all the claims being made that S550 is the model designation, still no cites have been produced. Yet multiple sources, albeit not actually confirming its Supercars status, indicate it is sold in Australia as the FN.[1][2][3] So without a concrete cite, it remains dubious. If the S550 designation can be backed up by a reliable source, it will be perfectly correct to include, but if it can't then it fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, and thus should be excluded. Fecotank (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You might not have claimed to own the article, but your behaviour is characteristic of someone in violation of WP:OWN—especially the way you are demanding sources that meet your exacting standards rather than community standards and the way you clearly do not understand the policies you are trying to enforce. 1.144.111.106 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Supercars rulebook came out last month, and it states in C1.2 Model Eligibility & VSD’s, there is no Mustang S550 nor FN Mustang, but Mustang GT. Source. Hiflex480 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Then support using Mustang GT. Fecotank (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 February 2019

Hi there,

I have some more information regarding the driver lineup for the 2019 Supercars Season.

Regards Hamish HamishWheels (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

888 dispute

With regards to this dispute, I have changed to a compromise version which closely mirrors the source [4]. I know next to nothing about Australian motorsport (other than the Melbourne Formula 1 race and Australian people involved in Formula 1) so I have no idea if

Triple Eight Race Engineering will not actually use #888 in 2019 except for the Jamie Whincup/Craig Lowndes car in the Pirtek Enduro Cup.

means it will be used in all 3 Enduro Cup races or just one. If the belief is they will only use the 888 in one of the races, it still makes no sense to single out one of the Enduro Cup races without a source which actually clearly specifies which race is meant. If the belief is it means all (which I admit I find likely) since it's disputed, either find another source which clearly says all 3, or achieve consensus here that it means all 3. It's clear there is dispute and edit warring is not going to solve anything. BTW, I may not comment further, but for clarity I have no objection to saying "in the endurance races" although am also clearly fine with my compromise. But I am opposed to saying just Bathurst 1000 until and unless a source is found which actually says just Bathurst 1000. And I do not believe just me and the other IP counts as a consensus yet, so please do not use my comment as an excuse to revert to the endurances races version. (I also don't know if there are other races which aren't in the Enduro Cup but could be considered endurances races.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This was the reason the page got protected for a week. If it states the Pirtek Enduro Cup, then it should be for all 3 events (Bathurst, Gold Coast and Sandown). This edit war should be settled, as I don't want this page to be protected again. It needs to stop soon. Hiflex480 (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you it's mostly likely the meaning is the same, but ultimately there is dispute, and in the absence of clear consensus that the meaning is the same following what the source says mean there can be no reasonable dispute until and unless a source is found which says something else. I didn't really make this clearer earlier, but possibly the bigger issue is whether other races could be considered endurance races even if they aren't part of the Endurance Cup, although it's not clear to me the other IP is even disputing this. Regardless though, by following the source we avoid such confusion. If readers remain confused, it indicates our source isn't clear anyway. But as said, until and unless either a different source is found which says something else, or the source we have is found to be not an RS (in which case we should remove the footnote completely), it's a moot point.Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Roland Dane: "My plan with that number is either Shane or Jamie will run it at Bathurst and the enduros next year with Craig..." [5]. So it will be used in all three Enduro Cup events. However, I would still wait until October to add it to the table; how is a race number that won't be used for another eight months relevant to the championship right now? I would even go as far to say that co-drivers do not need to be in the table until September, but I imagine there would be much more opposition to that idea. – Kytabu 04:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

My idea is that unless there is more sources that confirms who will run #888 for the enduros, the footnote should be omitted, as it is now, until there is sufficient evidence that it will be used for the enduro with either J-Dub/CL or SVG/GT. Hiflex480 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The quote from Roland I posted above (and the rest of the article) clearly states that #888 will be used on Lowndes' car. As Lowndes is driving with Whincup, their entry will be number #888. It is confirmed in the racing numbers history article too: "The first of the active Supercars teams to be named after its racing numbers, Triple Eight Race Engineering will not actually use #888 in 2019 except for the Jamie Whincup/Craig Lowndes car in the Pirtek Enduro Cup." In any case, this does not change the fact that the number will not be used until October and should remain omitted from the table until then. – Kytabu 00:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Heavily agree. Hiflex480 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The 888 was always going to go with Lowndes. The cite from 29 November was pre the announcement that Lowndes would pair with Whincup, so now that has been confirmed, it is 88 that will be rested. Clearly for all 3 races not just Bathurst that the IP seemed convinced it was for. But seeing it turned into such a shitfight, agree best just to leave it out. Fecotank (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Clearly for all 3 races not just Bathurst that the IP seemed convinced it was for."

I never saw a source that confirmed that it was for all three rounds. That seems to be a recurring problem with you: you don't understand the importance of sources, like when you assumed that the T8 wildcard had been cancelled because the V6 engine was shelved even though none of the sources supported it.

"The 888 was always going to go with Lowndes."

Do you have a source to confirm it? If yes, please share it. If no, shut up until you can prove it. 1.144.104.15 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The Speedcafe article from 29 November that I linked to above clearly states both that #888 will be on the car that Lowndes is driving and used in all three events. – Kytabu 01:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem is that you were the only one that interpreted it as only for Bathurst, everyone else read it as for all three races. Anyway it a moot point now, the relevant text has been removed entirely. As the article has editing been restricted to registered editors for the next 2 weeks courtesy of your edit warring and refusing to accept the consensus was against you, you will either need to either need to use your registered account, or ride the block out. Fecotank (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"Problem is that you were the only one that interpreted it as only for Bathurst, everyone else read it as for all three races"

The specific phrase used was "in the endurance races". That can be interpreted to mean one race or all races.

"refusing to accept the consensus was against you"

It's a bit hard to call it a consensus when there was no discussion. And while consensus is important, it cannot contradict the sources. The source never said that the number would be used for all three races, so any consensus that the source said so was invalid. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The quote in the 2nd paragraph of this thread states 'Pirtek Enduro Cup', the majority of editors have interpreted this to read all 3 races. No cite has been produced stating that it is for the' Bathurst 1000' only that was the subject of the original edit war. There was a fair bit of chat via the edit summaries prior to this discussion being initiated, and there too it appears only one editor was of the opinion that it only covered Bathurst. But as the consensus above has resulted in the footnote being deleted entirely, we are now talking about a problem that no longer exists. Fecotank (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"the majority of editors have interpreted this"

There are inherently problems with interpreting sources. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Often cites are subject to interpretation. The best way to resolve is to discuss the issues and hopefully arrive at a consensus. That is what has happened here. Neither of the 2 cites provided stated, suggested, hinted or insinuated that is was only covered the Bathurst 1000. That was the consensus reached on this page. Now a consensus has been reached, it should be respected. Fecotank (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Often cites are subject to interpretation."

They should not be. If a source needs interpreting, it's a bad source to use.

"That was the consensus reached on this page."

A consensus cannot contradict a source. The claim that the number would be used for all three rounds was not supported by by the source, so the consensus was invalid. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, still not over it are we. Perhaps if you are so resolute that you are in the right, you should reinstate? Or is it just a case of WP:LASTWORD? Fecotank (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This is about you not understanding a key Wikipedia policy. We go by what the sources say. If a source needs to be interpreted, it's a bad source to use. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand the policy perfectly, we need to reflect what the cite states. Yet it was you insisting that it was for the Bathurst 1000 only when neither of the cites stated as everyone else noted. If you want to lecture others about policy, fine, but please don't be hypocritical Fecotank (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Whose the loser who keeps updating the page with false info?

Sounds like a bloody 12vey to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.199.160 (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Schwerkolt Racing

The vandal that has moved the team article and keeps changing the name in the entry list after 3RR has been reported to WP:MOTOR. The 'team logo' image also appears to be unverified. Do all regular users agree to move the page back to its original home? 2001:8003:3C97:8200:FCFE:7140:ED62:51D1 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that both cases should be reverted to "Charlie Schwerkolt Racing". Holdenman05 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"Champion elect"

Please note that there is no such thing as a "champion elect". It is not a title that the championship awards. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Calling McLaughlin "champion elect" also has the effect of saying "not really champion". Given the Bathurst controversy, any attempt to explain why he is not really champion may be vandalism. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)