Talk:Port Imperial Street Circuit

Article name

I know the circuit does not have an official name just yet, but I have "given" it one. When the United States Grand Prix was first announced at Austin, the circuit itself did not have a name, and so we originally called the page "Austin Formula One circuit". I'm using the same logic here - because the New Jersey circuit is right on top of the Port Imperial ferry terminal, "Port Imperial Street Circuit" seemed like an appropriate name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I found a source supporting the name "Port Imperial Street Circuit". I'll add it to the article. DH85868993 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Track map

Can we get somebody to whip up a track map based on the Tilke plan real fast? I'm itching to submit this and the race article to DYK but a map would make it even better. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If only we knew which layout will be used, that or this? --August90 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Those look exactly the same to my eye - just the image is turned 90°. Here's a rotated version of the WSJ image.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume it will be the one you posted, they showed that in the press conference. --August90 (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be ready in 30 min or at least in 1 hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by August90 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesomesauce! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I made a SVG map based on OpenStreetMaps, pictured at right. The southeast sections and pit road are approximations based on published maps. Comments? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Turns 1 & 2 should be a bit further and maybe a bit tighter and with a bit longer radius, otherwise great. --August90 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated. Better? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That looks good. --August90 (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we should include that in the article, as it shows other roads too. One pic showing other roads was removed, because of copyright infringements, so could that replace it? --August90 (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. Not sure about placement, so please adjust as necessary. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a second image is really necessary. A lot of street circuit articles, like Marina Bay Street Circuit and Valencia Street Circuit show geographical features in the map at the top of the infobox. I see no reason why we cannotdo the same for Port Imperial. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge

As stated, this is not an official name, and since this article is esssentially a split from the Grand Prix, why is it necessary to have it sepaarate page, especially at this point? Djflem (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Although not yet an official name, a seperate article is necessary because, as with almost every F1 race, the circuit is shared by support series that are not running the "Grand Prix of America". The³5₉ (Talk) 22:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - It has a link stating that it is, indeed, an official name, and the circuit pages are kept seperate from the race pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Which link stetes that it's official name? Doesn't seem to be in references Djflem (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

here. "The 3.2 mile circuit itself will take the name Port Imperial Street Circuit" - and that predates the Wiki article, too, so it's not taken from there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikimapia now has it noted as the New Jersey Skyroad Circuit Djflem (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds cool. But of course, not a WP:RS! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose. As has been stated, there is a precedent for circuits and races having separate pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No stromg feeling here, just felt that two stub/starters which repeat the same information does a disservice to encyclopedia and its readers at this time, despite anticpation that they may expanded at a later date, most likey in 2012 when more info is forthcoming. That said, I have added refs to both, and would suggest that the DYK just go ahead and use the name mentioned in the blog cited here.Djflem (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose, for the same reasons as Prisonermonkeys. --August90 (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Elevation change

Would File:Port Imperial HBLR jeh.jpg this image be useful to illustrate the elevation change? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, cool pic. Looking at the Google Map that's pretty much going to be right behind the pit lane? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that will be part of the infield. The stairs go from the train station behind pit road up to Pershing Road, which is the ascent road of the circuit. From there you still go up a bit further to Boulevard East. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fotos

A selection of fotos visualizes the circuit. Some may not be necessary but they do give an picture of the altitude changes, curves, hairpin, skyline mentioned in article (and w/o elaborate description) give a feel for course, and should be included Hudconja (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No other circuit articles feature a gallery of turn by turn sequences. Circuit de Monaco has a selection of some of the more famous turns integrated into the article, but not a gallery of every single turn. For such a short stubby article a gallery of this size has no place. Further, changes are almost certainly going to have to be made to the streets in order to handle F1 cars, the least of which will be the removal of speed bumps along the path. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hell, several photos barely even show any actual street, just nearby architecture. How is this relevant? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the article per WP:NOTGALLERY. However having a {{commonscat}} for Port Imperial Street Circuit with these photographs might be a very good idea indeed... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Planned/prposed

As noted by The 359 above, the roadway are not race ready, therefore circuit remains proposed or plannned until it isDjflem (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Er, no. "Proposed" and "Planned" mean "it may or may not happen". If a qualifier is needed, "under construction" should be used. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Until construction has begun, I would still describe it as "planned". --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything scheduled for 2013 "may or may not happen". However, proposed is for an idea put out but without any official confirmation, se Autosport's recent piece on the proposed return of the Argentine Grand Prix. This however is planned as there are things being actively laid out, construction ongoing, and contracts in place. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact it's under construction makes it more than just planned, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is more than planned? Something under construction is "planned" to be built a certain awy, but I can name off the top of my head various things changed mid-construction amongst projects of the world, certainly with the finicky world of Ecclestone contracts. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you describe in what way it is under construction? Has the road resurfacing started? Have the speed bumps been removed on Pershing Road? Is pit lane being built? I was last on these roads a few weeks ago and there was no construction that was visible to me. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been work done on the construction of the garage complex so far. Jalopnik. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

While its design and route are on paper, and events have been announced, a race cannot place on the roadways as they now exist, making the circuit theorectical, ie. a plan or proposal. That needs to be made clear in the lead sentence. Using "is" without qualifying is untrue and deceptive, indicating that it is complete. (Even if I have contract (ticket) with Continental to fly from Newark to London on a plane scheduled to leave at 6pm, I check in, go through security, it isn't a flight until the aircraft leaves the ground). Incidentally, the garage under construction was being built before the announcement and would have be built anyway. It is a ferry parking facility that will be utilized during race, but is not being built specifically for it:http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2011/06/weehawken_breaks_ground_for_85.htmlDjflem (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, Djflem, you clearly aren't a regular on the Formula 1 pages. And that's okay. But there are a few subject-specific terms that we use. There aren't actually accepted as official, though. When an event is started up, it needs to have a few things: a contract with the commercial rights holder, and a circuit plan approved by the sport's governing body. Before it has these things, it is in the planned stage. But once the contract has been signed and the circuit plan is approved, the event is confirmed. There can be no changes to the circuit layout without going through the homologation process. This is the stage that the circuit is at - a contract is in place, and the FIA have signed off on the layout. It is more than simply planned or proposed; it is in a state where it is assumed that it will happen (and only a disaster can stop it). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pre-construction image gallery

I've noticed that the page has been a little unstable of late, with people adding and removing these two images:

View south overlooking Hudson Waterfront with New York and Jersey City skylines.

View to the ferry terminal at the start/finish line

So I thought I'd start up a discussion here as to why these images should or should not be included in the article.

Personally, I don't think they should be, for the following reasons:

1. They don't actually show anything. The circuit has not been built yet, and so there is nothing to see in the images, except for a piece of road and a skyline with no context given to them.
2. There is no evidence to show that either image has anything to do with the actual circuit. Hence, they are not reliable sources.
3. The images supposedly "show [...] the circuit's qualities". I'm assuming that this is in response to the content in the article about the elevation changes in the actual circuit, but the problem here is that these "qualities" are not actually something tangible. Changes in elevation have a very unique effect on the downforce generated by a racing car, because it affects the way air travels over a car. This is obviously something that cannot be shown in the form of a picture, and a caption explaining the effect would simply be too lengthy.

I think that addresses every issue with the images. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The images show the proposed location of the proposed circuit just like map show proposed route. Djflem (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

But there is nothing there to distinguish it as being part of the circuit. There is nothing in the photos themselves to show that they are a part of the circuit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Images of the location of the "proposed" circuit, the reason is was chosen as its site, are appropriate to the article.Djflem (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No other circuit articles have photos of "views that one can see when near the circuit location". These pictures add nothing to the article, quite frankly. Anyone can figure out what a view of Manhattan looks like. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of images

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature encourages inclusion of images and encourages visual learning, specifically effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals. After several years of searching for an appropriate location in the metro region, the one at Port Imperial was chosen for several reasons (the elevation, the access, the marketing, the backdrop) as mentioned in article and countless references. Until such time as an actual circuit exits, which it does not, providing visual cues to help a reader understand where the circuit may be situated is extremely relevant.Djflem (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly does this need another section? The previous discussion was still ongoing.

The article, for its size, has enough visuals with not one, but two maps. Further, to quote the very MOS you're linking to, you should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with The359.

The images are not necessary. They don't contribute anything, because there is currently no circuit there to be shown. And the argument that it highlights the future location of the circuit holds no weight, because there is nothing to distinguish it as being the future location of the circuit. The reader only has the article's word for it, so we could probably show any image of the Manhattan skyline and claim it was the future location of the circuit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I honestly feel that's a bit of a strawman argument. Yes, you could - but the article doesn't. I personally believe the article is better with the photos included, as it does, in fact, contribute knowledge of how the area the circuit will pass through appears. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles about proposed and on going construction projects (Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project and One World Trade Center to mention two)} include images of the site.Djflem (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And both those articles have images that provide context. You can see not only the construction of the building in question, but how it fits in relative to its surroundings. The first image of the circuit location in thi article doesn't actually show any road, hile the second is washed out, shows no construction (since none exists) and is focused on a set of stairs that will not be used by the circuit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project shows a proposal (rendering) and the site because construction not started, WTC shows construction because it has.Djflem (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• 
  1.Ferry terminal at start-finish on Port Imperial Boulevard
• 
  3.Foot of Pershing Road at waterfront, beginning of ascent
• 
  4-5.Pershing Road winds its way along escarpment
• 
  5.Near top of Pershing Road near Boulevard East
• 
  11-12.Manhattan skyline is back-drop for much of race as seen in park in West New York
• 
  12.Boulevard East at 60th Street/Hillside, where after sharp right turn descent begins
• 
  13. Descending curve on Hillside to River Road
• 
  13-14.Hillside descends along face of cliffs
• 
  14-15.Hairpin at foot of Palisades at Port Imperial Boulevard
• 
  15-16. Port Imperial Boulevard looking south
• 
  17-18.Straight run on Port Imperial Boulevard heading south

Above is of series of images which directly correspond to the keyed map in the infobox and the description of the proposed circuit as written in the body of the article.. Any of a number of these could be used in the effort to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.. Djflem (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Then explain to me why the two images in the article are the two images that have been chosen when both of are extremely poor quality? The first one claims to be the site of the circuit, but there is absolutely nothing within it that could be identified as part of the circuit. And the second one is washed out and focused on a staircase. You've been insisting that these are the best images for the article, but they are of extremely low quality, and now you've taken the time to show a dozen images that would be better suited to the article.

Secondly, please explain to me why it is necessary to show the roads to be used before construction has begun. Right now, they're just roads. There is nothing to identify them as part of the circuit, except for the article saying that they are part of the circuit, which is original research. The Marina Bay Street Circuit article contains images of the roads that are used for the circuit, but like this one, they show something that actually identifies them as roads that are used for the circuit.

Finally, you have yet to address The359's comments on the subject, which are certainly something that you will need to do, since he raises a valid point:

The article, for its size, has enough visuals with not one, but two maps. Further, to quote the very MOS you're linking to, you should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.

Until you can adequately address each of these issues, you're not going to convince me that the images are for the good of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is not overwhelmed with images. As Bushranger has said the article is better with the photos included, as it does, in fact, contribute knowledge of how the area the circuit will pass through appears Pre-construction photos of a site are appropriate for articles about proposed construction projects, Any reference to the roads used or about the location in general can be found in the numerous in-line citations and extensive media coverage about its choice of and the reasoning behind it. Djflem (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so what makes the images currently in the article the best images to use? The first image shows buildings and greenery overlooking a river, which strikes me as odd because this is an article about a motor racing circuit, and the race takes place on roads - but there are no roads in the image shown.

The second image is equally bad. Its focus is the stairwell down to the roadway. It shows a sliver of roadway, but the image is washed out in the sunlight. Of the twelve images - the ten you have included here and the two in the article - the two in the article are perhaps the worst two that could have been chosen for the article.

There are also a couple of other issues related to the Manual of Style for images that need to be addressed. Firstly:

"Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading or at the top of the lead), not immediately above the section heading."

The first image in the article under "The circuit" doesn't actually relate to the circuit. It shows the circuit's location, but it doesn't actually show any part of the circuit itself. I understand the argument for an image of pre-construction under the "Construction" heading, but there are better images available. The focus of that image seems all wrong.

Secondly:

Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar.

The article does this under the "Construction" section. The text is wedged between the image of the stairwell and the secondary map. I would argue that the secondary map is much more important than either of the images in the article, since it shows which roads will specifically be used for the circuit.

Also, the Mnual of Style for captions says:

"A good caption [...] clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious"

And the caption for the second image reads like this:

View to the ferry terminal at the start/finish line shown as point #1 on map

This is incorrect. The numbers on the map refer to the individual corners of the circuit, so point #1 on the map is the fisrt corner, not the start finish line. The area where Turn 1 will ultimately be is only just visible in the image, but without any construction, it's unclear, and a lengthier explanation will be too much. I'll change that now.

In short, I think the best way forward is to remove both the images in the article, and replace them with one from the seclection you have posted above. If none of those images are acceptable under Free Use guidelines, then the article is better off without images, because the two that are currently being used are pretty poor.

Have recast the sub headers to reflect the fact that the article is about a proposed construction project, "Circuit" is incorrect since it doesn't exist. Shifted images tp reflect this since it is quite unclear why PM made the choice to add an additional picture (with a misspelled red link in the caption, by the way) of the ferry terminal, which has been corrected. The lay-out is fine and very common in Wikipedia, including Circuit de Monaco. Djflem (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it unclear? Have you not been reading this discussion so far? The image of the circuit site is a bad image because it doesn't actually show any part of the circuit. None of the roads that will be used are visible. You say that this is consistent with the layout used for other articles with specific reference to the Circuit de Monaco, but I invite you to take another look at that page and reconsider. That article does show images from around the circuit when it is not being used for racing, but the difference is that the images on that page actually show the circuit. If you look at the infobox at the top of the page, you would see that the two pictures of the hairpin correspond with turn 6, the Grand Hotel Hairpin. And the image of the tunnel corresponds with turn 9, Tunnel.

But the image showing the Hudson Waterfront doesn't actually show any of the roads that will be used for the race. How is that a good photo to use?

PS - I resent the insinuation that a speelling mistake somehow invalidates my argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

This editing and reversion is growing tiresome quickly. Come to a consensus and stop editing the article to your preferential way, even if it has been days/weeks since the last edit and revert. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, there is a preliminary consenus in favour of keeping the images out of the article. There is certainly no consensus in favour of keeping them in. I am simply restoring the article to reflect the preliminary consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I only see four people offering an opinion and no agreement. I don't see any consensus. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In blindly reverting edits PM has on numerous occasions deleted referenced text material. PM does not address points mentioned and repeatedly claims "contributes nothing" as a compelling argument, which it is not, and which, incidentally, contributes nothing to developing a consensus.Djflem (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have explained to you several ties why I have removed them. The images do not show anything that is relevant to the circuit. They just show patches of land with no evidence of anything related to the circuit within them, and so the reader only has the article's word for it that the pictures are of the area where the circuit will be built. It is essentially original research.

Furthermore, there is a preliminary consensus in favour of removing the images from the article. I suggest you actually read the above discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What part of stop editing do we not understand? The³5₉ (Talk) 17:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Promotional runs

I have had to remove a section giving details of public relations events from the page, because I don't think they're particularly notable. I'm curicous to hear the logic behind their repeated inclusion, since all it amounts to is "some drivers come to the circuit and did some laps to get some attention on the circuit". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear: You didn't "have to" do anything. You "chose to" repeatedly remove referenced material that has been in the article since March, using a misconstrued interpretation of Wikipedia:notability to reiterate your "point of view" (as in "I don't think") numerous times. Media coverage about an officially un-named, proposed (as in unbuilt, doesn't exist, planned, on paper only, theoretical, conceptual) street circuit is appropriate for inclusion in the article.Djflem (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you go and read some of the other articles on circuits. Particulrly the Sochi International Street Circuit, another page for a circuit that is currently nder construction. You will note that there are no details of any promotional or demo events held at those circuits. As this page specifically relates to Formula 1, then it should be written in a way that is consistent with other Formula 1 circuit pages.

Furthermore, the edits that you had included are effectively free of any actal content. All they do is describe which drivers attended the events and on which dates. There are no details of what they actually did, or any of their thoughts on the subject. And since the circit is not actually in any raceable condition, all they can do is give their general thoughts. If you look at the Circuit of the Americas and Yas Marina Circuit, you will see that there are "Reception" sections on each, which include the reactions of drivers after they have had the opportunity to learn the circuit and race on it.

Compare, for instance, what you are proposing to be included:

In June 2012, Sebastian Vettel and David Coulthard did a promotional test run along the proposed route. Portions of the course were again driven in August 2012 by Coulthard.

And what has been included under the reception section of the Circuit of the Americas article:

The reception from drivers ahead of the inaugural race was highly positive. Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton both praised the circuit, suggesting that it would be considerably more difficult to learn than other recent additions to the Formula One calendar. Jenson Button described the first sector as "spectacular", but remarked that he felt that starting second would be better than starting first as the placement of pole position put it on a steeper incline than the rest of the grid. Kamui Kobayashi, on the other hand, was less complimentary, claiming that he did not feel intimidated by the steep climb to the first corner as it was no different to Eau Rouge at the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, and accusing the media of hyping it up without precedent. Mark Webber was also unimpressed, stating that while he enjoyed driving the first sector of the circuit, the second and third sectors were similar to other circuits on the calendar.

So which do you think is the more appropriate inclusion? A subsection that amounts to "these drivers visited the site as part of a public relations fucntion on these dates", or one that reads "these drivers thought this, that and the other after they drove the circuit for the first time"? Because to me, the former is a case of making the mistake of assuming that because something happened, it is important enough to be included on Wikipedia, whereas the latter offers actual, measurable opinions from a variety of drivers on specific elements of the circuit. The latter is therefore of much, much more value to the article. And having read the articles where Vettel and Coulthard drove the circuit, they only really offer a generalised opinion, because they haven't had the opportunity to drive it at speed.

As your edits stand out as being markedly different to the established norm, I believe they fall under the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You have made a bold edit. It has been reverted. Now is the opportunity to discuss it. But in the meantime, please do not restore your preferred version of the page until you have a consensus. That is edit-warring, and we've had enough of that already. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear regarding established norms: Referenced material in an article for 2 months is considered consensus. You made the bold edit by removing it on numerous occasions to publish your preferred version. Please do not misconstrue policy (or create new ones: like photo evidence, for example) to suit your needs.Djflem (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that "it was there for two months, therefore it had consensus" is making up policy. Further, this is edit warring, and any edits made by either of you without resolving the issue is against an actual policy. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Silence and consensus.Djflem (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

First, not a policy, stated right at the top. Second, the material has been questioned, therefore it is no longer silent nor is there any longer any consensus. If silence was consensus and we weren't allowed to go against consensus, we'd get no editing done. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It's still PR bullshit and has no place being here. If you want to add a section on the circuit reception, wait until the drivers have actually driven the circuit at speed and are in a position to comment on it, rather than just doing a few demo laps in a road car for the cameras. The comments may be treated as unreliable becase they are intended to promote the event. They are advertising.

Djflem, you need to justify these edits before you make them again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, PrisonerMonkey, but

• 1. You have misreprensented your edit. You have not "removed it again". You have deleted a entirely new paragraph.
• 2. You have have incorrectly applied Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. All sources are reliable.
• 3. You have have misconstrued Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.

Media coverage of an event, place, or structure and how that event, place, or structure is promoted, viewed, and received is within the scope of articles about the subject, as seen, for example in Statue of Liberty, the paragraph you have provided, the one regarding the proposed New Jersey F1 circuit.

The reception from drivers ahead of the inaugural race was highly positive. Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton both praised the circuit, suggesting that it would be considerably more difficult to learn than other recent additions to the Formula One calendar. Jenson Button described the first sector as "spectacular", but remarked that he felt that starting second would be better than starting first as the placement of pole position put it on a steeper incline than the rest of the grid. Kamui Kobayashi, on the other hand, was less complimentary, claiming that he did not feel intimidated by the steep climb to the first corner as it was no different to Eau Rouge at the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, and accusing the media of hyping it up without precedent. Mark Webber was also unimpressed, stating that while he enjoyed driving the first sector of the circuit, the second and third sectors were similar to other circuits on the calendar.

In June 2012, Sebastian Vettel did a promotional test run along the proposed route afterward saying, "This place is exceptional; there is no comparison in the world. Very soon this will be one of the races every driver wants to win." Commenting on the elevation changes and turns he said was reminded of the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps and the Circuit de Monaco. According to Vettel "there are lots of quick, floating corners on this circuit and I think we'll exceed 200 mph here ... you've got to have big b---s to tackle a course like that. In August 2012, David Coulthard drove portions of the course to test out the roadways as part of the creation of a promotional video for Red Bull Racing featuring the street circuit and environs that also included demonstrations at Liberty State Park and reaching speed of 190 mph (305.78 km/h) while driving through the nearby Lincoln Tunnel.

• 4.You have made a bold edit. It has been reverted. You need to justify this edit before you make it again, to do so otherwise would be edit warring.

As the circuit itself develops, so will the article about it, including if and when it is driven at speed.Djflem (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The entire purpose of these events was advertising. The drivers naturally talked the event up for the media.

You have made a bold edit. It has been reverted. You need to justify this edit, which you have not done, before you make it again, to do so otherwise would be edit warring

No consensus for removal of referenced material

Here is the link to the edit Prisoner Monkey made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Imperial_Street_Circuit&diff=560277110&oldid=560160750 in which s/he deleted reference material. That bold eidit was rejected. There is no consensus to remove it. Can PM explain how they have come to the conclusion reached in last edit summary? Djflem (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to include it in the first place. As its inclusion represents a substantial departure from the established practice of edits on pages for Formula 1 circuits, the burden of responsibility to acquire a consensus rests with you.

As I have explained to you, your edits don't contribute anything to the page. Those drivers at those events were there at a sponsored public relations event. The entire purpose of them being there is to generate publicity both for the sponsor and the event, so they are naturally going to depict it in the most positive way they can. Do you know what that "demo run" actually involved? The drivers doing laps of the circuit at the speed limit with journalists in a car provided by one of their sponsors.

You claim that because the section is properly referenced, it is an acceptable and necessary inclusion to the page, and that any attempt to undo it is a direct result of misinterpreting Wikipedia policy. You have not once addressed any actual concerns over the validity of the content included. For example, WP:RS clearly states that:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.

Because this is a sponsor event, the comments themselves compromise the source. The drivers are being paid to promote the event. The source itself is reliable, but the content within is not because of an external variable. That might not observe the letter of WP:RS, but consider WP:DIAR, which encourages you to interpret rules rather than follow them blindly.

Secondly, consider this: the article makes it pretty clear that the roads that make up the circuit will be resurfaced before the first race. This will not be a task undertaken by the local council - rather, the new surface will be made up of FIA-certified gravel (which only two quarries in the world are capable of producing) mixed with a custom-made binding agent, all of which is mixed in a very exact formula to meet the demands of the individual circuit. As an example of this, the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal (which is built in a similar way) has its surface made up in such a way to prevent the expansion and contraction of the tarmac during the winter months, when the city regularly freezes over. The unique composition of the surface radically alters the grip levels, which in turn affects the way the drivers approach the circuit. Therefore, how can any driver reasonably know what to expect from the circuit until such time as the new surface is laid?

Similarly, if you have been following the sport, one of the major sub-plots of the 2013 season so far has been the tyres and the way they are made. The tyres produce (and lose) their grip in very particular ways, and drivers have had to adapt to the constant changes in an effort to get the most out of the tyres. There is currently no contract in place for a tyre supply deal in 2014, and given the criticism of the tyres, changes to their construction are likely. Since no-one has experienced the 2014 tyres yet (the supplier only has a rough idea of how they will be made up), how can anybody reasonably pass judgement of the Port Imperial circuit if there is a foreseeable future where the tyres will produce grip in a different way, thereby requiring a new driving style? After all, there is an historical precedent; the tyres changed in 2011, then again in 2012, a third time in 2013, and will almost certainly change once more in 2014.

Finally, Vettel's comments in particular can reasonably be applied to any circuit on the calendar.

"there are lots of quick, floating corners on this circuit and I think we'll exceed 200 mph here"

Formula 1 cars regularly reach two hundred miles per hour, and just about every single circuit - even the most-hated ones like Yas Marina and KIC - have quick corners. Compare that to the reception section of the Circuit of the Americas (quoted above), which has actual, measurable feedback on the circuit, with drivers referring to specific parts of the circuit. They don't talk about it in general terms the way Vettel does here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Still no consensus

This is basically coming down to you two duking it out and both thinking you're right. If you want to break the deadlock, find outside eyes to look over this. Try WP:F1 again with a more blatant appeal, try WP:RFC. Do not simply start editing the page just because the argument has died down after the edit warring warnings were handed out.

I've tried to offer opinions but I quite frankly find the two of you extremely frustrating and stubborn to deal with on this matter. Further, I can see arguments for or against inclusion in the article, so I have no strong opinion either way. Find outside help. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How about I just take a leaf out of your book and make it someone else's problem? I could go to RFC, but why should I when I can just tell somebody else to do it and pretend that I'm acting in the interests of the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You two created the problem, why is it my job to fix it for you? What exactly did you think the endgame of this was going to be? You just outwaiting the other person to get what you want? Did you think lack of outside input might have been a problem in there being a lack of resolution or consensus? I should hope you are aware enough of Wikipedia to know where to find help in settling these things, instead of simply bullheadedly trying to get your way until everyone is sick of it. I shouldn't have to be telling you to go to RFC is the point. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough

OK children. The next time the article is reverted and/or edited to remove or add a large chunk of text, regardless of whether or not you feel you are right or the other person is wrong, I am requesting a page lock and taking this to WP:ANEW, because quite frankly this edit war is embarassing. I quite frankly don't want to go through the hassle of it, but the both of you are way out of line and you're both in the wrong. I really don't care which version of the article gets locked, because as of right now nothing is being accomplished by this rubbish. Honestly, I should be taking this to WP:ANEW now, but I'd rather this get settled in some sort of intelligent manner on its own.

Discuss, reach consensus, then edit the article. If the two of you can't agree, bring in outside opinions. If there is still no consensus, take it to the appropriate arbitration. No matter how long it takes, edit warring the article will not be tolerated. Come to an amicable agreement, then make the appropriate changes to the article if necessary. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you reported this on the basis of the last edit to the page? It's pretty clear that is not edit-warring - it's removing a single sentence that, while in the paragraph in question, is actually a separate issue. While the content of the paragraph as a whole is somewhat related to the article, the sentence that was removed is completely unrelated to the article and was treated as a separate issue.

Furthermore, I'm bemused by this because despite your repeated insistence that we seek external input, you have never once made any effort to do so despite being one of the most-qualified people to comment. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was over a continued dispute over content. Although not a revert, it is still edit warring over the content of the page rather than reaching consensus over the article. The sentence was related to the content of the dispute. I have commented on several occasions, and I have warned on edit warring on occasions. None of it seems to have had any effect. You should know how to find outside help rather than edit warring to make your point. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do know how to seek outside help. But "help" is the last word to describe what I got:

"Not a scheduled event, not an established course, not a past event. This IMO amounts to little more than spam Take it out."

The editor who made that comment hasn't even bothered to reply to my response.

It's obvious that the issue here is the interpretation of where the burden of consensus lies. Each of us believes that the other has the responsibility to gain a consensus. All it would have taken is a comment one way or the other to settle that issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Just look at the edit history of this page, and then your talk page where you've collected half a dozen edit war warnings this year. There just seems to be a disconnect between your behavior and the concept of what edit warring is. You don't get a leave pass for edit warring because of burden of proof, or because you think you are right and the other editor is ignoring you. --Falcadore (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC

The issue relates to the inclusion of the "Demo runs" section of the page. The arguments for and against are here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Include. I really don't care about this, and the edit war looks to be among the most pointless on Wikipedia. However, the content seems reliably sourced and establishes notability for itself. I don't see much point in either including or excluding it, but it seems to satisfy the criteria for inclusion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment: The term "demo run" typically refers to a driver going around the circuit in a Formula 1 car at speed. Tthis was not the case here - it was a paid sponsor event (which I feel destroys its credibility since it's basically advertising) where the drivers too a group of journalists around the proposed circuit at the speed limit and then dud some donuts at the end.

• Yes, it does seem very promotional, but I don't think it violates WP:SPAM. You could always reword/rephrase it so that it's less promotional in tone (for example, paraphrase what the driver said, instead of including his over-the-top endorsement). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't think the section is necessary until such time as all the drivers have the chance to sample the circuit and offer their thoughts. The "Reception" section of the Circuit of the Americas page us what it should look like, because the drivers offer actual opinions, point to specific features if the circuit, and aren't being paid to promote it. In its current form, the section reads like someone who has the attitude that because something happened at all, it is notable enough to be included on a Wikipedia page, whig isn't the case at all.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article states clearly it was promotional, and as mentioned content is reliably sourced, the event establishes notability in and of itself, and is not in violation of SPAM, satisfying Wikipedia criteria. Djflem (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But the problem is that it contributes nothing of value to the article. Iif it was a promotional event, then any opinions passed during it are undermined by the way everything was paid for by a sponsor.

The article should be consistent with the other pages for Formula 1 circuits, none if which contain this kind if rubbish. By adding details of sponsored promotional events, it us effectively advertising. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

With no further comments on this, I still feel strongly that the section should be removed, and have done so accordingly. It is spam. The function was a PR event, and the section does little to address that issue. The whole thing reads like the author's intention was to get the reader excited fir Formula 1 in New York, which is unacceptable. It is unnecessary, superfluous detail, and there has not been a single compelling case for its inclusion in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include Djflem (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You do realise that a consensus is not a vote, right? You're obviously trying to promote Formula 1 in New York. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Three editors have weighed-in on the subject (one tacitly by making an edit to the subsection) finding that the reliably sourced material about an that event establishes notability in and of itself satisfies Wikipedia criteria, which matter. This RFC does not satisfy PM's POV (which is not what is an issue here) and PM has now has chosen to interpret/question it by making a controversial edits.Djflem (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Make it four. Since the two of you are continuing to edit-war, I've re-listed the 3R violation. Hopefully this will put a stop to the back and forth and get the two of you to come down from your towers. Hope is a good thing. --Falcadore (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Djflem, did you actually read the comments the other editors made? We have one opposed, one in favour of and one who supports the inclusion if the content provided some revisions are taken into consideration. I'm bemused ad to how you arrived at the conclusion that two are in favour of the inclusion The RFC does not aactually support any issue.

Also, you are still yet to supply an actual reason as to why this promotional bullshit is so essential to the article. The only rreason why it's even in the article at theoment is because it was in the article when another editor demanded that we find s consensus. I'd you had been ten minutes later with yyour edit this rubbish wouldn't be seeing the light if day.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Arguing over at what point consensus discussion begins, then editting back and forth is using semantics to continue the edit war. Instead of performing the most pointless debate in history how about actually beginning a consensus instead of hiding behind your barricades and relying on others to do your work for you? --Falcadore (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually followed thus discussion?WWe've been trying to achieve a consensus fir months. And by we, I mean I, because I am yet to see Djflem address any of the issues that have been raised, and every time I have tried to open the floor to debate, no-one is interested. So in one corner, we have the argument that the section in question is unnecessary because it is inconsistent with other, related articles, that the comments from Vettel ate very generalised rather than the specific praise or criticism found on other circuit pages, and that the entire thing is compromised because the events the sectionrefers to wwere part of a paid sponsor event to promote the race, so even if the sources are reliable, the obvious intent is advertising. On the other hand, Djflem seems to be making the argument that it happened, so it is obviously notable enough for inclusion in the article, that it was reported by a reliablesource so the advertising is ookay, that it makes New York look good and he likes it, and that this is the version of the article that was in place when another editor stepped in to ask us to get a consensus, so it obviously had to stay that way. He hasn't made a single credible argument fir its inclusion and he us yet to refute any issue I have raisedand when someone does suggest that the section might have some value to the article if iit is rewritten, he interprets that as meaning that the article is fine the way it is.

Why do you think I have been edit-warring? It's because this is a bad edit - a really bad edit - but nobody seems to be concerned with the way obvious advertising through a third-party source threatens to compromise the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Other editors are under no obligation to solve your issues for you. The problem is there is no real excuse for edit-warring on a content issue (it's definately not vandalism). If you find yourself embroiled in debate with another editor you are supposed to seek Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, not continue edit-warring. You have an RFC running, don't ignore it and continue edit-warring.

There are many avenues for dispute resolution. Start with WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and go from there.

Edit-warring will not find you a resolution that you will like. --Falcadore (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I still think its inclusion is bullshit. I'm willing to tolerate it up until the moment the drivers give actual feedback on the circuit when they visit, since the point of the section at the moment appears to be coveting a driver's opinion, even if that opinion is PR rubbish masquerading as something notable. The "reception" section on the COTA page is what we should be aiming fir, and once it happened, the promotional bullshit becomes expendable bullshit. If the race doesn't go aheah (as has been rumoured in the past few days), then the article could probably be deleted. Either way, the problem is solved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to tolerate it. That is pretty much definition WP:OWNERSHIP. If you ever wanted to know the source of the problems you are having with this article, it is right there. --Falcadore (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also further point out that Wikipedia articles are fluid, and can change over time. Real driving of the real circuit is preferrable, but obviously this is the best alternative at the moment. Once real drives start happening (if at all), then they can supplant the current Red Bull part. Just because we may want something from the future to be in the article, does not mean we remove what is currently there. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Did I say that? No, I didn't say that. I said that the opinions of drivers going around the circuit in racing cars at racing speeds under racing conditions would make the current content redundant, and that the current content should be removed when that happens. Not before.

I would also like to thank Falcadore for characterising my comments as a gross violation of WP:OWN. When I said that I was willing to tolerate the current state of the article, it was intended to demonstrate my willingness to come to a compromise on the issue - the very thing that he has been demanding - but that I felt a better solution was available. I should not have to remind him that his editing practices on other pages have come close to breaking the same policies in the past, when all he has really done is argue the issue with equal fervour. Perhaps, in future, we should actually read everything that somebody posts before commenting on it, lest we inadvertently and incorrectly characterise someone's editing practices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Considering that this race doesn't seem likely to happen, may be better to consolidate street circuit article to Grand Prix of America. Djflem (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's technically not over yet. There is still no official calendar and Bernie has still stated if the money can be found he'd still honor their contract. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of that, this proposed road course would only be used for this race, and is entirely dependent on it. As such, I don't think it has enough independent notability to support a separate article. merge. oknazevad (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Formula One usually has support races, which are from other championships, so this circuit would in fact be used for more than just the Formula One Grand Prix of America. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Indy Car or another series could race there in the future just like they did with the circuit at Long Beach, so I oppose. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd oppose as well. The circuit could host other events in the future as well, like Long Beach. ZappaOMati 03:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Race was included in 2014 calendar. No merging. NickSt (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)