Jump to content

Talk:Mark Webber (racing driver)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial offer to drive for Renault

Why is this not included?

There's plenty of articles that state Webber turned down an option to drive for Renault initially to drive for Williams instead, plenty more state that Webber laments not going to Renault as he would have possibly had some race wins under his belt had he have gone to Renault alongside Alonso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.219.233 (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


2002 results?

Isn't it a bit strange to have that table with Webber's F1 results from 2003 there, without anything for 2002 at least?

any reason a lot of this article is almost a direct copy from Mark Webber's website, here: [1]...? AlbinoMonkey 03:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Race profile

The race profile seems to have an error: "Current team {{{Williams F1}}}" is shown. I can't seem to be able to fix this, nothing seems wrong, it's working perfectly for other drivers like Nico Rosberg.

I don't see the error... ??? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it was temp problem on my side. Thanks Thanh Ha 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I've nominated this as a Good Article - as it's very complete and thoroughly referenced. I'm interested to see whether we can get some F1 articles up to a really good standard, and this seemed like a good one to promote. 4u1e 09:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Needs some copyediting and trimming of info, other wise it's a good article so I passed it. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the trivia section as uncyclopedic and that good articles should not have them. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonder if some of them can be built back into the text? 4u1e 06:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, it's mostly his favortie stuff and things like that, violates WP:NOT. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I second the nomination. Last time I looked in, around January, 2006, it wasn't bad. Now its a very dyam good entry into Wiki! Congrates to the contribiters - I also agree with 4u1e - this a very good standard. DeafCom 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Broken leg

Does Webber's car accident really need to be written up twice in the same article? --Falcadore (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean in the lead and in the Charity Challenge bit? Probably. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 10:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I mean the approaching half dozen edittors who came in and added or re-wrote without reading the article to see if it had been added already or nor. There is so much competitive editing being done in wikipedia that being first appears more important than getting it right or having a good looking, readable end result. --Falcadore (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I did wonder if that was who you were referring to. It's amazing: something happens and everyone wants to write it down ;). Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 10:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a remarkably long page for someone with such an indistinguished career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.200.251 (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you got bored by it, maybe you'd better outline the bits you don't like. --Falcadore (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible GAR

I've started a discussion at the WikiProject Formula One talk page here.--Diniz(talk) 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mark Webber/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article has some issues that need to be addressed.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is OK, perhaps 6/10. There are some loose sentences that should be tidied up but on the whole not a bad effort.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Gaping holes in referencing. References are needed in early career and 2007 and 2008 sections.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns.) Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: Not totally ready for pass, but work is continuing and I'm happy to keep this review open as long as needed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Jacky - had lots to do and found out last two races werent even in here for the 2008 season. I still need to find refs but should hopefully have those finished by tomorrow.--Chaosdruid (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Done rewrite re prose and Peacockiness, done race report for last 2 races 2008 season. Done refs for 2007 done 2008 refs (and some earlier already completed I think - 5 11 hours on it and eyes going gone lol)
Will contact contacted Jacky for update to see what needs doing for final work--Chaosdruid (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Really good work, there are a couple of improperly formatted refs but I'm happy to pass once they are addressed. If I have time I may have some other minor prose related comments later, but they won't stand in the way of this remaining a GA. Really nice work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jacky, I'll get on to the others to get the refs corrected ASAP - I can't read it anymore today, I just keep seeing the same things but if no-one else is on it I'll get on it tomorrow

All ref format fixed - broken link cites fixed - dates/pubs added - formula1,com links checked and fixed (as is know prob) - 50% checked for broken links so far (left column) --Chaosdruid (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If there is anything not yet fixed from the above list then I trust you to sort it out. The improvements have been extensive and I am happy to pass this article at GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Webber 94/95/96

Hi all

Will this be ok to put in the career summary ?

An impressive international debut which saw him finish third in the 1995 Formula Ford Festival at Brands Hatch in England, prompted the famous Van Diemen Formula Ford team (which had run Ayrton Senna and Eddie Irvine in their formative years) to sign him for the 1996 British Championship. Webber finished runner-up in that series and scored a crushing victory at the 1996 Formula Ford Festival. Grandprix.com --Chaosdruid (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

and this - Moving to F3 for the following year, Mark competed with Alan Docking Racing, taking five podiums and a win at Brands Hatch before becoming Mercedes' official works junior driver for the following year. Skysports

and this - 1997 Fourth in British Formula 3 Championship with Alan Docking Racing. Third in Marlboro Masters, fourth in Macau F3 Grand Prix Castrol.com --Chaosdruid (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

and finally (I hope) this one :- Formula Ford Festival 1996 - Mark Webber - Van Diemen DriverDB --Chaosdruid (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about motor racing, but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be OK, as long as they are rephrased to exclude peacock terms and aviod violating copyrights.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Jacky, they are refs so we can include them as "team" in the Career Summary box to replace the ? ? ? ?'s as there are quite a few lol--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

K - some more, but not too sure as to reliability as there is no team name, just that it says "...not until 1993 that he began to get serious about the sport and won the New South Wales state karting championship. The following year he moved into Formula Ford and ran his own team and at the end of 1995 he went to Europe" [2] also says "1995 he went to Europe and talked his way into a test with Van Diemen and was asked if he would like to race a works car in the Formula Ford Festival. He did well and Ralf Firman offered him a drive for 1996"

Sort of assuming that means correlation that he was driving for Van Diemen in the '96 FF Festival--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pink?

Why does his favourite bands not list Pink, even though the reference cited does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.89.252 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this considered even vaguely important? --Falcadore (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did the original editor list three, and not four, of the four bands listed in the reference?
A better question is why didn't another editor delete the sentence as unencylopedic trivial drivel? --Falcadore (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Then we'd have no Wikipedia :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.89.252 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A query

This sentence is in the article, and I have no idea what it means. It seems to be fragmented: "The potential of both the car and Webber, who had certainly worked well to out-qualify his vastly more experienced team-mate, was highlighted by the closeness they had to other teams which ran the Renault engine and although the Newey-designed car had flaws which contributed to Webber's scoreless season to that point."

Can someone suggest a revised sentence? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 12:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd cut the fluff and get to the facts. Essentially the points it is making are...
  • The potential of the car was highlighted by how close Red Bull ran to the other Renault-engined teams.
  • Webber did well to outqualify his more experienced team-mate.
  • The car had flaws which contributed to Webber's lack of points finishes.
Now, the source only provides a reference for the third point. I'd cut the second altogether as it is a matter of opinion that will bias the article whatever source you find for it. "Flaws" is a non-descriptive term. Let's state what the flaws actually were. The source states that the car's hydraulic system had reliability problems which caused several retirements, so I would state this explicitly. The first point is not mentioned at all in the source, but it does state how Webber showed flashes of speed, so let's state that instead. So potentially we have something like..
"Although Webber showed that he was quick enough to achieve high finishes, the Red Bull car suffered from unreliability problems affecting the hydraulic system which forced Webber to retire during several races."
Although, you might want to word it differently. It's up to you. Readro (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support of Sunderland Football Club

Although I have good reason to believe this to be true (I've sat next to him at a football match), can this be confirmed? In June 2006 edition of F1 magazine, all the drivers were asked to give their opinions of the result of the FIFA World Cup. Mark was listed as a Chelsea fan. (Booton 05/10/09)

It's not really relevant, if its unsourced it can be deleted. Did you try a google search? --Falcadore (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Greatest driver

and, as of the 2010 Hungarian Grand Prix, the most successful Formula One driver of all time - in terms of points-in-a-season. per WP:LEAD The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points. Quirks of statistics created by regulations changes don't meet this criteria do they? --Falcadore (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Update after Hungary GP please

The intro at the top mentions four podiums as of Turkey, he has six as of Hungary, and Hungary should be added to his list of wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.233.172 (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of 2010 season

I really think this needs to be expanded but I personally can't edit it because of the "semi-protected" status. His 2010 season overview doesn't yet mension his fourth of the year in Hungary and is awfully uninformative. It also states that he has scored points in every race so far which is old news as well. I would suggest lifting the "semi-protected" status so this article can be updated far more thoroughly and regularly. All of his other season summaries are like little stories going from race to race and ending with a conclusion but this one just says, "... he qualified for pole position in Malaysia, Spain, Monaco and Turkey, winning in Spain and Monaco and coming second and third in Malaysia and Turkey respectively." If somebody could help with that, it would be appreciated, thanks. --FormulaOneFan4Eva (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2010 (AEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.120.157 (talk)

Although a blow-by-blow account of the performances of modern sports people seems to have become the norm in Wikipedia, I don't think it necessarily contributes to a good encyclopedia article. The career summary should be exactly that - a highlight of the significant achievements and events in the sports person's career. Look at Alan Jones (racing driver), which may not be the best article, but includes a career summary of the notable events in Jones' F1 career. I don't think that article would be improved if we started to include year-by-year detailed stories of what happened in each of his 117 races. WP:NOTNEWS certainly applies here. Although an event does not need to be notable in its own right to be included in an article (notability applies to the article itself and not specific parts of its content), I do think it is important that what is added to an article has lasting significance and interest. Recent race results are usually interesting only for a few weeks or months and after that, it is the highlights that are interesting. There also seems to be a tendancy for some editors to try to be the first to add the latest information or update, which often leaves an article messy, disjointed and unreferenced. I think my position here is consistent with the discussion on theWikiProject Sports page.
As far as the win at the Hungarian Grand Prix is concerned, this should, of course, be included in the article and I will do it right away. Thanks for drawing attention to the ommission.
Finally, it's not that difficult to become an autoconfirmed user - create a user name, wait four days and make ten edits and you will be able to work on semi-protected pages! Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Bearing in mind the above, previous years need a significant cleanup, which I don't have time for at the moment. But the excessive detail in previous years' sections shouldn't be seen as a reason to do the same with current year. Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The information on his 2010 season is very less, and it is not even mentioned that he currently leads the championship. A race-by-race analysis is there on pages on other drivers like Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton. The 2010 season needs a complete reshuffling. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The sections on 2009 etc are far too long and need cutting back. If a driver has a 10-12 year career, these articles will become ridiculously long. Rather than adding race-by-race reports, each year requires an overview of a driver's season. The other drivers you mention have the same problem. A whole paragraph on every race is just not sustainable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
M-R-Schumacher - my point is the same as Bretonbanquet's - 2010 is, in my opinion, closer to what should be included in an encyclopedia article (see my detailed comment above). Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The other articles, like Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton will be fine as it is, but the 2010 section of this article looks ridiculous. This article, in particular needs some editing, because the IP's don't add the race reports like in other articles, as this one is semi-protected. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if you read the above link to Wikiproject Sports, but I'll copy it here. In my opinion, it supports limiting the season sections to highlights and significant events.
"The purpose of these articles (e.g., History of baseball, 2009 in sports) is to summarise significant events that are relevant to the sport or period under review. It is very important that the articles are not encumbered by excessive detail, particularly where a certain theme is being promoted. This is in accordance with general Wikipedia guidelines and policies such as WP:NOT#STATS, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY."
Although this specifically relates to articles and not sections, I think the concept still applies. That it rained in China in 2010, for example, forcing Vettel to make an early pitstop, doesn't really strike me as a significant event in Vettel's career or even his 2010 season. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I am not saying the section can't be improved. There are significant events of the 2010 season that maybe aren't covered - the tension between Vettel and Webber is one example that springs to mind. My point is that the race-by-race, blow-by-blow details are excessive and contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as quoted above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I too think this section could be longer, but it needs to concentrate more on the important stuff, e.g. as Wikipeterproject says, the tension with Vettel and the front wing issue, not "he qualified 4th here and passed driver X at the start, then pitted then blah blah". That stuff is for the race articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You could have perhaps cut back the excess detail in my 2010 summary, you didn't need to erase the entire thing which was a massive improvement on the current overview. The 2010 section of this article is pathetic, I mean genuinely pathetic. I would suggest putting my overview back and perhaps cutting back on some of the details (that was an option), because you just totally reverted back to the original section that was so horrible it started this whole conversation in the first place. Either that or you can oversimplify the rest of the overviews for different seasons as well. FormulaOneFan4Eva (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (AEST)
I disagree. It needs more work, but it's certainly not pathetic. I think the improvements should be added to what is there at the moment. The detail that was there was (in my opinion) exceessive and that is what this debate is about - whether or not the blow-by-blow, race-by-race accounts are "encyclopedic" and suitable for inclusion in the article. My view is that this debate should form a consensus as to what is included (which will also apply to previous seasons). Until we do that, I don't think we should re-start and edit war. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree that it was an improvement on the current overview. As I have said before, the current overview does need beefing up a bit, but absolutely not with this unsourced race-by-race trivia. Mini-reports on each race are pointless - we have race articles for that, which can take as much detail as you want to throw at it. The kind of desire that we need "little stories from race to race" is a big problem here. That stuff is irrelevant to the guy's career. And yes, the other sections do need some reduction, as I started with the 2009 section yesterday. I'll leave a note at the wikiproject to try and get some more editors to have their say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It's very annoying having to go to 17-19 separate race articles to get an idea of what happened throughout a driver's season, it makes a lot more sense to have race-by-race mini-reports on material only relevant to the driver in question, as far as I'm concerned. The stuff is not irrelevant to the guy's career, it couldn't be more integral. You say that the current article needs beefing up, yet you've done nothing. You say that the other needs cutting down, yet you've done nothing and it isn't just this article; virtually every single other article of an active driver contains these "over-detailed mini-reports", I don't see why my addition is being picked on and I don't see why it was such a problem seeing as every other year is very informative and detailed. You've stalled into inaction. If my overview was so horrible, have a look at Lewis Hamilton's repective article or Fernando Alonso's... Okay, I expect to see them cut down to something that I still consider to be pathetic. Sorry for trying to help, I don't know why I bothered. FormulaOneFan4Eva (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (AEST)
Firstly, it's not helpful or constructive to start issuing demands of other editors. Nobody is obliged to do anything just because you say so. Secondly, not all other drivers have the level of detail you introduced - it is simply not relevant when a driver had a dull race and came 4th or something. The results table shows very clearly the basic results throughout the season. Thirdly, take a look at the article history and you'll see I started reducing the 2009 section yesterday. Webber has 150 races under his belt - do you really think that 150 mini-race reports are what's required? Or 300, in the case of Barrichello? It becomes unreadable for all but the most avid fans, and a lot of it is unsourced anyway. The longer articles are the ones that we will concentrate on when time allows. Webber's is too long - it takes longer to load that the others. Another editor has reduced Hamilton's article by a substantial amount. The work is being done, but we all have other things to do. Your addition is not being picked on - you'll see that on 7 August, a similar lengthy addition was reverted by another editor. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You can also see that, only today, another editor has been reducing the articles of Vettel, Alonso and Kovalainen. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
FormulaOneFan4Eva, I think you will need to convince us that your suggestion isn't contrary to WP:NOTNEWS and the position of WikiProject Sports doesn't apply. I don't see why sports articles are an exception to the Wikipedia consensus. You don't see a month-by month account of what Barack Obama is doing, for example, even though, I am sure, some people would find it interesting. It is the same in all articles that follow the consensus of, for example, WP:IS and WP:ISNOT. It seems that some editors of sports articles think that the general Wikipedia policy, guidelines and consensus doesn't apply to that kind of article, but of course it does. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected

I've fully protected the article for 12 hours. No doubt I've protected it at the WP:WRONGVERSION, which means I've done it correctly <g>. The edit war stops here, and discussion should be continued in the section above. Further edit warring once the protection expires will lead to administrative sanctions. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is he married? Single?

Why are there no details about his personal life?! Why hasn't a nice girl snatched him up yet?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Because one has but they don't make a big deal out of it. Ann Neal works in F1 so there's additional reason why you don't see her on camera very often. --Falcadore (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well...this should be in the article somewhere! Every other "famous" person on Wikipedia has a Personal Life section which discusses their spouse... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
A read of the section titled "Outside motorsport" would be enlightening. Or did you stop scrolling down when you reached the tables? Britmax (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't blame the IP if they did. Surely the tables should be shuffled to the bottom, below any text regardless of context? --Falcadore (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Err.. Good point, that. Britmax (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2011 Season

The article as it currently appears states in relation to the 2011 Chinese Grand Prix ... 'A KERS failure in the China meant he finished qualifying in eighteenth place'. My understanding is that the lack of Kers had nothing to do with his performance, but a problem with his warming up the tyres on a 1 lap stint (and I would like to alter the article to reflect this). Furthermore, the current thinking is that Kers is worth about 0.3 to 0.5 second per lap, yet MW was a couple of seconds down on Vettel in Q1, and there is some speculation that Vettel's KERS was not working properly as well, in addition to which, the Red Bull KERS system is considered one of the weaker systems on the grid. Thoughts? Leor klier (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are correct (i.e. that KERS failure was not responsible for him qualifying 18th); I have reworded it to just say that he qualified 18th, without specifying why. DH85868993 (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that a brief explanation of the reason why would be appropriate given that readers may wonder why he was (approx) 2 seconds slower than his team-mate - after all, it is noteworthy when events occur which are out of the ordinary.Leor klier (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree - I just wanted to remove the misinformation from the article; feel free to add in an appropriate explanation. DH85868993 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mark Webber and Manchester United...

Hmm... there seems to be a flood of IP editors all altering the Mark Webber page to change his footballing allegiance to MUFC. I'm assuming that the Sky interview that some editors have mentioned (although not provided as a source) must have said something about this, but the version I've managed to find online doesn't. Anyone throw any light on this? The sourced information gives Sunderland, and as this seems to have been a long-standing thing (on his own website for many years) I'm reluctant to take anonymous editors' unsourced claims seriously. Trivial, I know, but irritating. Pyrope 21:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How about we just delete it. Is it really important/notable which football team a Grand Prix driver likes? --Falcadore (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
A very good question. Pyrope 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, just get rid. We can always re-add it if it becomes noteworthy and has a decent source attached to it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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: not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

– Mark Webber (actor) averages more than 10,000 hits per month [3]. While Mark Webber receives more than that [4], the difference is insufficient to qualify the racing driver's article as the primary topic. Moreover, the actor's article's hit stats suggest that a substantial portion of the pageviews Mark Webber gets are from people looking for the actor's article. This article should be moved to Mark Webber (racing driver) (along the lines of e.g. Tommy Byrne (racing driver), Bob Drake (racing driver), or Joe Kelly (racing driver)). Mark Webber (disambiguation) should be moved to Mark Webber. 78.35.235.104 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I went back a few months looking through the hits and noticed at one point the racing driver got more hits in one day that the actor got in a whole month. There does appear to be a spike in the actors hits over the last two months as the hits drop away markedly prior to September. Some I'm not personally convinced by the arguement. --Falcadore (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you opining as an editor or as a Formula One fan? Anyway, if you look at the average hits per day on the non-spike-days of both articles, you'll see that the actor article has about 400 per day, and the race driver has about 800. Very clearly not a primary topic, even a Formula One fan should recognize that. --78.35.235.104 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I say to that as mud sticks once an aspersion is cast other than one should assume good faith. --Falcadore (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, my modest experience in editing Formula-One-related articles has taught me to be wary of pile-on voting by the usual suspects. You are a Formula One editor, and although that in and of itself does not further weaken your argument, I'd appreciate the intellectual honesty of disclaiming any potential conflicts of interest. Needless to say, pile-on votes will be mercilessly disregarded. Anyway, do you stick by your opinion that the race driver is the clear primary topic? I believe there is plenty precedent of hit ratios even more lopsided than the estimated 2:1 we have here being recognized as insufficient to establish a primary topic. --78.35.235.104 (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, firstly, am I one of your "usual suspects"? My interest in Formula One article editing is more historical than modern, if that difference means anything to you. I also had a look at google search and only one of the top fifty searches was not about the Formula One driver, and that other Mark Webber was not the actor. To repeat my above opinion, I don't find your argument convincing. --Falcadore (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're completely honest, aren't you looking at this at least partially from the perspective of a F1 fan though? To the extent that that is the case, my argument is not designed to convince you, it's designed to convince neutral on-lookers. The approximate hit ratio of 2:1 is clearly insufficient to label the driver the primary topic. Even much more lopsided ratios regularly result in the consensus that there isn't a primary topic. It's pretty much a clearcut case AFAICT. --78.35.235.104 (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish. 2:1 makes very clear that one is primary and the other secondary. This can be better handled by a single hatnote rather than a dab page. As for being open and above board with our editing interests, this is coming from a newly-minted IP editor? If you want to continue with this discussion could we have a full history of your editing please, along with all other IP and registered user accounts that you have edited from. Falcadore has a traceable and open editing history, you do not. Put up or shut up. Pyrope 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You utterly fail to understand the meaning of "primary topic". Yes, one has more hits. But "primary topic" means that it can be expected that most people are looking for that topic. Two thirds is the majority, but not "most" in the sense of a primary topic. Not by a long shot.
this is coming from a newly-minted IP editor? -- Newly minted? Hardly. I take it you have never heard of dynamic IP addresses?
Put up or shut up. -- I don't have any conflict of interest to declare with regard to this particular subject matter. Interestingly, the same is absolutely not true for you, see below. --87.78.22.136 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I was honest as I could be. I don't think asking me the same question twice is going to produce a different answer because you've added an adverb to the question. --Falcadore (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed and your statistical analysis awry. November 2012 figures for the two pages are 42,315 (driver) and 17,919 (actor). This seems to be pretty stable over a few months. That's a pretty big margin. As for stating that the comparison of the two suggests "a substantial portion" of the driver's hits are generated by people looking for the actor, where are you getting this idea? If that were true then you would see coincident peaks in traffic on dates where the actor hit the news for some reason. This doesn't happen. The (single) big peak in the actor's traffic occurred on the 6th November. This date is actually fairly low traffic for the driver, and pretty much follows the decay curve that you would expect following a Grand Prix race. Finally, comparing a current, race winning world championship competitor to how we handle pages for three very minor historical competitors is hardly helpful. As I say above, if you really think that this is a serious issue then a hatnote would be the more efficient disambiguator as there are only two pages with significant traffic to deal with. Pyrope 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the next motorsport aficionado who comments here in his primary function as a motorsport aficionado. Ok, my argument is rock solid. 2:1 means that a clearcut primary topic as in "it can be expected that people looking for Mark Webber are looking for the driver and not for anyone else by the same name" cannot be established.
This seems to be pretty stable over a few months. -- Nonsense. E.g. in August 2012, it's a mere 14,534 vs. 12,645. Even the margin of 42,315 vs. 17,919 precludes us from naming the driver the primary topic. Plus, again, you also have to subtract a certain portion of the hits to Mark Webber from readers who were really looking for the actor's article.
Finally, comparing a current, race winning world championship competitor to how we handle pages for three very minor historical competitors is hardly helpful. -- This really doesn't even warrant a response, but here goes anyway: I was very obviously just mentioning those other articles to argue that the disambiguator should be "(racing driver)".
In closing, let me tell you that you have no case, and no point. You're just the run-of-the-mill motorsport editor, and you're not here as a neutral observer. --87.78.22.136 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to be neutral, just open and honest. If you want to know about me you can click on my username. How do I find out about you? So you pick one month from the last few, well done. Two can play that game. Take May 2012, for example, in that month the figures were 45,289 and 8908. As you are fond of ratios that's over 5:1. The rest mostly have your 2:1 ratio there or there abouts. As for that ratio, you need to find a dictionary and look up the common usage of the term "primary". A ratio of 2:1 most certainly indicates that the subject is first in terms of significance. You also provide no substantiation, whatsoever, of your claim that a significant proportion of people find the driver page when looking for the actor. What is this based on? Pyrope 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Open and honest, huh. Like motorsport fans pretending to not be here solely in great and just defense of the motorsport-related article?
You also provide no substantiation, whatsoever, of your claim that a significant proportion of people find the driver page when looking for the actor. -- The burden of proof is on you: It is clearly the plausible assumption that a portion of the hits to Mark Webber are from people looking for the actor. Are you seriously disputing that? If so, please explain your assumption that none or close to none of the hits to Mark Webber are from people looking for the actor. Because that, your, assumption is the implausible one here. Also, it's merely an additional observation, on top of the fact that even the raw 2:1 ratio is not nearly enough to treat the driver as though he was in a completely different league of notability from the actor. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This whole RfM is extremely dubious, and the conversation above is even more so. I suggest asking an admin to look at this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose It is clear that there are three Mark Webbers - The pages sizes are 125,328; 1,881; 4,350 bytes. Viewing figures for last 90 days are 114522; 2769; 47860. This this article is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should not be moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the OP is quoting views per time, it's probably better to quote a proper average views per month over a useful time - thus over the last complete 12 months we get 1017.389; 30.652; 396.005 views per day. Should the actor's average pages view start getting close to the larger number, then maybe we might need to consider a change, but that day has certainly not arrived yet.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
How many of the hits to Mark Webber can reasonably be attributed to people looking for the actor? None, as you are implying in your presentation of raw numbers? --87.79.231.17 (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
See User:The-Pope's answer below about the DAB page stats - those finding the driver and wanting the actor will have to go via the DAB page - the numbers just do not show that  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about the motives of the proposer, as it seems they have some sort of axe to grind with regular Formula One members, and at the very least seems overly motivated to promote Mark Webber the actor. In any case, it is clear that Mark Webber the driver is the primary topic. QueenCake (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about the motives of the proposer -- Luckily for both of us, you don't have to be.
it seems they have some sort of axe to grind with regular Formula One members -- Nah, it's just one of those topic areas where the regular contributors a slightly more dense, on average. I haven't edited a lot of motorsport-related articles, but when I do, it's for reasons that allow for serious doubt over whether most regular motorsport editors even know about policy and guidelines.
at the very least seems overly motivated to promote Mark Webber the actor -- Sorry, but that's just outright ridiculous. The way I stumbled upon this page was by simply typing in "mark webber" and I was quite surprised not to find the actor's article, but instead the article about some racing driver I had never heard of before, because I'm not a motorsport fan.
it is clear that Mark Webber the driver is the primary topic -- Says the motorsport fan in the face of clearcut evidence to the contrary. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Once again with the motivation slurs, you are a card aren't you. Try supporting your arguments with facts and analysis, rather than just your own POV, and perhaps the "dense" people around here might take you seriously, whoever you are (still no movement on clarifying that I see, bully for you and your random accusations of densosity). "Clearcut" your evidence most certainly is not. By the way, how does your cited edit (a minor grammatical tweak) relate to "serious doubt over whether most regular motorsport editors even know about policy and guidelines"? Yet another unsubstantiated gross slur on a very large and productive group of editors, these seem to be a habit of yours. Pyrope 07:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been arguing consistently from the get-go. Here's a quick re-hash for you: The hit stats ratio does not qualify the driver as the primary topic, because the difference is far too small. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that quite a few other people, just like me, arrived at the driver article only while looking for the actor. Of course we can't say for sure what percentage of the hit stats for Mark Webber are due to people looking for the actor, but it further aggravates the "problem" (from your point of view) that the actor and the driver are clearly in the same dimension of notability, as reflected by the fact that even the raw hit stats are very much within the same order of magnitude.
With regard to you motorsport fans: Was I justified in being wary of a zerg rush of motorsport fans just not liking the proposal? Sure looks that way. I'm just not in the habit of not acknowledging the existence of spades. And judging from the copious assumptions of good faith I'm getting, neither are the regular motorsport editors who have commented here so far. But don't let that distract you from the reasoning in the first paragraph. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – the pageview stats do not support a primary topic claim here. The undisambiguated title gets more hits, naturally, but with the relatively small factor that says little about what people are looking for. It's clearly ambiguous enough to need a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
What does a diambiguation page do that a hatnote doesn't? Both methods mean that someone looking for the actor has to click twice, and the majority (two thirds is a clear and unambiguous majority, not "relatively small") who are looking for the driver would have to add an extra click. This is adding complexity and faff that simply isn't justified. Also, yet again we have an unsubstantiated insinuation that a significant proportion of the undisambiguated page's hits are related to people looking for the actor. This assertion simply isn't borne out by the patterns seen in the statistical data. Pyrope 07:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Between the ~2:1 hit stats ratio and the fact that it can be reasonably assumed that quite a few people arrive at the driver article while actually looking for the actor, it could very well be that once the pages are moved and properly disambiguated, the actor will receive almost as many, if not more hits than the driver. What makes you so sure that possibly as many as half of the hits to Mark Webber aren't from people looking for the actor? (Not that even the raw ~2:1 ratio would be enough to determine a primary topic, mind you.) --87.79.231.17 (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
What makes you so sure that possibly as many as half of the hits to Mark Webber aren't from people looking for the actor? - if you were looking for the actor, and went to the driver by default, then the hatnote is to the dab page... which is also tracked and averages about 16 hits per day (Jan to Nov 2012), so compared to the 400 for the actor and 1050 for the driver, it's fairly clear that most people aren't getting to the actor via the driver and the dab page. And, seeming you want to have full disclosure from everyone (except you, of course, you could be related to the actor, we wouldn't know, as you are just an ip with no traceable contribution history), I am NOT a racing fan (watching cars go round a racetrack is very boring to me), but I am Australian, so obviously I know of the driver. Never heard of the actor.
But lets look at the page view stats a bit closer, as raw averages are distorted by the spikes. If you assume that everything single dab page view got to the driver's page first and you remove them from the count, of the 331 days between January and the end of November, the page views have been in the actors favour 26 times, but only 6 of them were more than a 4:3 ratio, and never more than 2:1. For the driver, 47 days it was slightly (up to 4:3 ratio) in his favour, 19 days up to 3:2 views of the drivers page:actor, 96 days up to 2:1, 72 days up to 3:1, 43 days up to 5:1 and 28 days more than 5:1. So you have as many days with a >5:1 ratio in the drivers favour as you do with slightly more views of the actors page. Overall the daily ratio is about 2.7:1 in favour of the driver. To me that makes the drivers page still the primary topic, so Oppose the move. The-Pope (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear "IP Editor Who Wishes To Remain Anonymous" (although I see User:Belligerent Berliner is free, perhaps you ought to try that). Rather than go around in circles with you all over the page, I'll coalesce things here. Contrary to your statement, as you started the RfM the burden of proof is on you. As the Romans used to put it Ei innumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of proof lies on he who acts, not he who denies. Apt in this circumstance, isn't it? Your "reasonable" assumption is, unfortunately, just a guess on your part. The evidence shows otherwise. As I already pointed out above, your guess leads to the requirement that on those days where the actor is in the news you should see spikes in both actor and driver pageviews. This doesn't happen. Ergo, your guess is faulty. You go by instinct and guesswork, I use statistics. As for the primacy issue, in every day life having twice as many of something than another has would normally be considered a pretty wide margin. As an example, in political elections it would be termed a landslide. You have offered no evidence for any of your assertions and yet you come here casting aspersions on others' motivation when they have offered reasoned and evidence-based rebuttals of your position. At no point has any editor, other than you, simply stated that they "don't like it". The first failure of AGF was in fact yours, in you response to Falcadore's first point. They made a good, evidence-based comment, and you laid in with "Are you opining as an editor or as a Formula One fan?" Hoist by your own petard, I'm afraid. If you want people to behave well toward you then you must extend the same courtesy in return. Please do try to come up with something substantive in your, inevitable, response to this post. Pyrope 14:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You're still commenting as a motorsport fan. You will not be swayed by valid arguments. I get it. --87.79.133.209 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
QED. Thanks for demonstrating my point so succinctly. Pyrope 20:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"Wah, wah, my compelling argument is fact!!" etc etc – heard it all before. I've read your argument and I don't agree with you. Suck it up. It's not up to you which opinions get disregarded, and I didn't say an admin's opinion carries more weight than anyone else's. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Your continued repetition of the same incorrect facts is more likely to get your !vote disregarded. See my analysis above - 2.7:1 to me IS enough to prove that a primary topic exists. But I wouldn't use words like "obviously" to bludgeon other's views into submission. The-Pope (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
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.

Mark Webber's helmets

I know this is a lesser issue and I'm certain his helmets didn't change almost at all, but he did change it on one race last year (2012) in Singapore. Apparently it was the only time he ever changed his helmet. The helmet was designed by a young fan fron Croatia, called Zlatka Subotičanec. Out of 1,118 entries, Zlatka's design was chosen by Mark Webber himself. Here is a complete page with all the valuable data regarding Webber's special Singapore helmet. Mark Webber (Aussie Grit helmet promo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.38.188 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Co Drivers

Timo Bernhard and Brendon Hartley are only mentioned in the Le Mans 24 hours results section. Since they shared Webbers car for all the races in the 2014 WEC shouldn't there be more mention of them? Perfectamundo (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Mark Webber. 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) 16:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mark Webber. 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) 23:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Webber. 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) 12:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Webber. 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) 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Webber_(racing_driver)/Archive_1&oldid=1136992212"