Talk:Superkart

Short circuits?

You could also say Formula One compete in hillclimbing, they do at Goodwood don't they? And they hold the track record too. You could even document your point with videos and all.

I cannot imagine why a 250 cc would do any better than KF1 on a short and twisted track and would be delighted to see time sheets proving me wrong (feel free to include ref. in the article). In the other hand. I have seen 125 gearbox running at 120 mph on long circuits and 250 cc Superkarts way over that at Magny-Cours this year. A long circuit is the only place where a Superkart can make good use of its power.

Cheers - Wikigi | talk to me | 07:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the hillclimbing (at Goodwood) isn't an offcial MSA championship though, is it!

Does it matter that SuperKarts don't go as fast around short circuits? I'm sure a GP2 car could go faster round Silverstone than it could round Monaco, but that doesn't mean the Monaco race doesn't count!

Cheers - 82.23.32.26 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

80cc & Non-Gearbox

Just because you do not like these classes does not alter 20 years of history for these classes. --Falcadore (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Au contraire", I love Rotax Max and race myself in that category... But it should not be confused with a 95 hp Superkart. Driving a Rotax is very challenging on a short circuit and extremely boring on a long circuit where top speed barely reach 85 mph. I would think it is pretty much the same with 80 cc karts. - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you have felt the need to be revisionist once again. Just because some Superkart classes do not match your personal opinion of what constitutes a Superkart is frankly irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a collection of personal opinions. The British definition of a Superkart is not the global definition. This is not an exclusive article. I am concerned some edittors here are beginning to betray Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If the Australian sanctioning body spends several decades sanctioning 85cc gearbox and 100cc non-gearbox Superkart titles, the different naming of these types of karts in Britain is not an acceptable reason for deletion. I will add a reference to the article accordingly. --Falcadore (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Follow the sources like I did.. Superkarts Australia list currently 4 classes, and your new réf. has not listed 80cc class or any non-gearbox class since 2005 !! Your point on gearboxes defining Superkart ("Australian definition of Superkarts varies from the European defintion as the presence of a gearbox is largely used to define a Superkart, rather than 250 cc engine capacity") doesn't make any sense, as you are listing a Rotax Max class without a gearbox as Superkart, this is POV or WP:OR at best. Wikigi | talk to me | 07:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The dits I have made explain all of that, including that 85 is a defunct class. Did you read that, or indeed any of the explanatory notes or just delete on sight? Wikipedia is supposed to cover ALL information, not just purely current information. There was also an explanation for the role Rotax Max plays in Superkarts in Australia. If you looked up the websites of the Superkart Club of New Soth Wales, the Adelaide Superkart Club and the Victorian Superkart Club, you'll find plenty of evidentiary detail as to Rotax Max's role in Australian superkart racing.

As I have provided references to the official sanctioning body it completely defeats accusations of Original Research. It is referenced. It actually happenned. If you want to say it didn't you are welcome to fly down here, hunt down all the trophies and destroy them, but the championships did and do exist, and I have provided refences. --Falcadore (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If your intend was to give information on Australian Superkart history, create a dedicated section in dedicated article Australian Superkart Championship. All information as what a Superkart is has to be current here. And please, spare us with the chitchat - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't write of 20 years of racing for no other reason than it disagrees with your world view, anymore than than if we deleted all reference of 1.5 litre Formula One from the Formula One article. I'm sorry Jim Clark but you didn't race cars worthy to my personal standard of what I believe Formula One to be. It's not historic either, the karts are still active as the notes explained, Rotax Max is still certainly active. If you want this article to only be about British Superkarting then let's move this article to Superkarting in Britian. I provide a reference that is current. It does not supplant Superkart Australia, Superkarts Australia does not manage all of Australian Superkarting. At present SA manages only one out of seven or eight Australian Superkart racing series, so, I'm not the one picking selectively, and you are diplsaying your lack of knowledge on the subject. --Falcadore (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can claim to know the entire back story and current state of superkarting worldwide. Certainly someone in the UK shouldn't judge whether an Australian Kart isn't a superkart if in Australia it is in fact deemed so. Wikipedia is international. This article has too many unwelcome reverts due to certain members. 86.24.146.150 (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I suggest you guys skim through WP:Reliable sources. This is not a RS. Edits that lack reliable sources can constitute original research - WP:OR. I'm very very ignorant on the subject matter here but please consider my recommendations. First, stop reverting each other's edits. You are both bordering on edit-warring. Second, file a request at the appropriate projects - like here. If that doesn't work petition an RFC.Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"spectacle" as a section

I laughed when I saw this. Is this really a good title? I agree, it must be a spectacle, but maybe a title that's a little more normal could be considered? Leathwick (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Ownership question

I am concerned over User:Wikigi's behavior in this article with regards to showing excessive WP:OWNERSHIP tendencies, reverting all content including referenced content, if it does not conform to their particular view of the subject. Any assistance would be appreciated. --Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore: Could you give a couple of concrete examples, particularly of Wikigi deleting sourced (referenced) material? (The best way is to provide "differences": go to the article History page, and click on a change that Wikigi made, then copy that URL here into this RfC). That would make it easier to contribute an opinion. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

[1] --Falcadore (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Were sources deleted here? I provided full explanation for my editing (based on source already there). - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the diff, and I dont see any sources being deleted, or other blatant policy violations, so it looks like that edit by Wikigi is valid (assuming the text is consistent with the sources: I have not read the sources). Wikigi: I do see you deleted the 80/85 cc paragraph, and your comment says "it no longer exists". Would it be useful to readers to mention this class, for historical reference (e.g. "The 80/85 cc class was raced from 1970 to around 1985, but was eliminated because blah, blah, blah")? Some readers may find that info useful. --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, thanks for your time. With regard to the 80/85 cc paragraph, I have expressed my opinion under the above section "80cc & Non-Gearbox", it was specific to Australia and is mentioned in the Australian Superkart Championship article. - Wikigi | talk to me | 05:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This article however is titled Superkart, so Superkarts of all descriptions, past present and future fit perfectly well under the banner. If Australian Superkarts don't fit this article as you see it, perhaps the contents of this article should be moved to Superkarts in Britain, and we can start a new Superkart article that reflects that some parts of the world define Superkarts differently than others. Is that not fair/correct? --Falcadore (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You keep trying to mention karts (80/85 cc gearbox, 125 cc gearbox, Rotax Max) in this article re: Superkarts. I don't see how this could be correct. - Wikigi | talk to me | 05:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And this is the trouble. You are allowing your personal definition of Superkarts to override referenced additions. Personal definitions of terms do not have a place in Wikipedia, hence my concerns about ownership, and the RFC. Page 13 of this PDF may help you. --Falcadore (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "override referenced additions", 80 cc class is gone from Superkart events in Australia since 2005, as your source indicates. 125 cc (with and without gearbox) are still mentioned in the article. This conversation is a waste of time. - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did. Being gone since 2005 is not a reason for removal. This article is supposed to encompass all Superkart racing regarless of year, not just 2011 Superkart racing, and certainly not your own private definition of Superkart racing, as mentioned by Edittor Noleander above. Your response stating more or less that it was an Australian Superkart so therefore ti does not matter carries no weight either. If there was a 30cc machine called a Superkart in 1935 then it would be just as worth of addition. You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is for. If you want to write only about what is a correct definition right now in 2011, then perhaps you are confusing Wikipedia with Wiktionary?

Additionally the assertion that this discussion is a waste of your time and should stop for that reason speaks directly towards WP:OWNERSHIP. Editting Wikipedia is a collaborative process involving all interested edittors. That a particular issue should be determined only by the amount of time your patience is willing to discuss it is pretty much a close match to the definition of Ownership editting as I understand it and is against Wikipedia's policies of editting. --Falcadore (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I too, being from the UK, wouldn't define those karts as 'superkarts' if Australia do indeed class them as so, then they should probably be included. If the class does not exist it should be put into the article in a historical perspective. I concur with the WP:OWNERSHIP conclusions however, it is not your article Wikigi. Perhaps a break from this article for a while would help? :) 86.24.146.150 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

First, no-one here has ever prevented anyone from creating a History section. Second, I am surely not stupid enough to claim this as "my article"... but I have put my ass more than once in a racing kart seat, it would be much better if you guys knew what you're talking about.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh because I haven't? You are assuming, and presumably claiming superiority that Wikipedia does not recognise. If you don't claim ownership, then don't make repeated claims that your time is more important, or remove content backed by references.

Why can't it be in the Australian section? Makes much more sense to be there, as you have already pointed out Australia is substantially different, why have two section that highlight the differences? --Falcadore (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikigi, the mention by you that things would be better if the other editors would have raced carts implies you feel you have a superior position in editing this article because of your experience, which is in opposition to fundamental policies of WP. Although the knowledge of expert editors can help guide all other editors to a better understanding of important subject concepts, all editor's contributions, including those of experts, must past the muster of adequate sourcing. In other words, I as a layperson, having no experience in the subject, should be able to verify the source of each editor's position by referencing the sources. If so, an expert's edits are no 'better' or worse than anyone else's. Kilmer-san (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this section introduces classes being run today. - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. --Falcadore (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikigi: There is no problem with including information about obsolete classes/events in the article: readers expect some historical information, even about events that are no longer current. Likewise, there is no problem with including information about a class that was "just Australia": the superkarts are highly localized per country, and over half the article is specific to individual countries (UK, Australia, etc). The goal of a good article is to provide information to users, not to hide it. If this article were huge, and covered 20 or 30 countries, then perhaps marginal information should be forced into per-country articles. But the article is still very small and it is beneficial to provide info so readers have "one stop shopping". I think the information should be included. --Noleander (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say it was a problem? Just do some research about the history of Superkart and put it together under a dedicated section. I don't get you guys. - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You really consider a kart powered by a 29 hp Rotax Max engine to be a Superkart? Or a 80 cc kart? I know it is listed as such in Australia but if you see such a kart running on long circuit it is sort of a joke don't you think?

I'm afraid I'm disinclined to believe you. You have consistently editted on your own personal beliefs, and refused to co-operate or collaborate, and now, once under scrutiny, it's "oh I don't have a problem". But still now you setting conditions underwhich you may allow edits. There have been too many instances and your language has too often been dismissive of anyone not in agreement with you. --Falcadore (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you are making up quotes... get a life Falcadore. - Wikigi | talk to me | 07:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Seen the latest editing by Falcadore and won't be touching it. The re-introduction of long gone 80 and 100 cc karting classes next to classes being run today in Australia is plain wrong. In addition, and again, running a kart on a long track doesn't make it magically a Superkart, even if some local associations with little competition in real 250 cc Superkart classes like to complement their W.E. events with other categories. - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"it would be much better if you guys knew what you're talking about.." Well, I have been racing karts for 7 years, and one of my friends actually raced superkarts nationally in the UK up until last year when he moved into Cars. I like to think I know what I am talking about. Perhaps you may enlighten us all on how much more of an 'expert' you are than anyone else on here? Sourced information should not be removed. 82.23.40.132 (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Whomever you are (seven years uh? ... you think that's a lot?), you missed the point by a long shot. No "sourced information" was removed. Point was, should defunct classes be listed with current classes instead of being noted under a dedicated History section... If you have anything positive to say in order to improve this article, go ahead! - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Long & short circuits in karting

"Long circuits" and "short circuits" are clearly and specifically defined by CIK-FIA technical and sporting regulations as well as by many other national governing bodies. I added 3 sources just on that particular point today, it should put this silly editing war to an end. - Wikigi | talk to me | 07:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a few issues, and seemingly so do others, with the Superkart article at the moment.
1. The distinction between the long circuit and short circuit is not needed in the article. It is the same reason why (in this article) we do not need to explain why kerbs are sometimes painted red & white, how an engine works, what exactly a tyre is etc. etc. Superkarts race on BOTH types of circuit (in the UK and other places it seems) thus the distinction between the two types of circuit is completely irrelevant to learning more about Superkarts, which is what the article is for. A list of examples of the circuits is useful but explaining the difference between long and short circuits is not. For example: A road car can drive on city roads, country roads, farm roads, gravel roads, narrow roads, inclining roads, wet roads, very long roads, slip roads, picturesque roads, Swedish roads, on bridges, in tunnels and many other places....but does the Wiki article for Cars mention this? NO, because its not needed in the article.
2. I do not question the existence of the terms, so whilst sources are good they do not help the situation.
3. Why are "Short Circuit" and "Long circuit" in quotation marks??? It isn't a quote and the use–mention distinction for quotation marks as you've used them is a) untidy for an encyclopedia and b) not really proper english. You've been corrected on it (literally more than 5 times) but you still insist on putting it back in. Why? Kartcrazy (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Distinction is needed for the simple reason that Superkarts only race on one type of track (Long circuit) under CIK-FIA regulations. For the same reason MSA regulation make a point to define what "Long Circuits" are (see pdf : Specific Regulations for Karting). Your point #3 is relevant, delete quotation marks if you see fit.
ps: Where have you been for the last four years?
Wikigi | talk to me | 16:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

8888888

Mariokart!!!!!!! 84.203.104.29 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)