User talk:A7V2/2022/November

"...this is a pretty standard way of writing this (where engine manufacturer is different to the make of the car)".

If you could direct me to the policy/guidelines, and also state why you haven't added a footnote, then I'll no doubt be able appreciate your comments better. TIA.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer I'll be honest mate, given your edit summaries on that article I was under the impression you were trolling. It is pretty standard practice in sources to write it this way (probably universal in race reports and such, except where engine is left out), and a similar practice is followed on Wikipedia where a separate engine column is unneeded/not included. Probably every single formula one race would have vehicles named in this way, eg 1966 Monaco Grand Prix or 2022 Bahrain Grand Prix. Do we need a footnote for everytime we write Alfa Romeo-Ferrari since they are well known manufacturers? Does them being well known matter? Would you prefer it if we linked to Chevrolet small-block engine like most of the entries in the tables on National Sports Sedan Series? If by footnote you mean an inline citation, then we can add a separate one but then that begs the question of why not include one for every entry on that table, and then remove the general citations at the top of it. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC) EDIT: on second/third thought, I will change the link to Chevrolet small-block engine. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not trolling - I think that's a first . I worked with a Janglia driver in 1972 and 1973, but never saw it, likewise his Capri with some yank V8, but I saw a UK national magazine with a feature on the driver with pics of both. I did see his Group 1 3-litre Capri cornering on two-wheels in the centre of an English city (to scare the girls at 8 AM on his way to work), and also his Boss Mustang 302 road car that would break the tyres loose when engaging the clutch on the 1st to 2nd gear change.

Turning to the article, it's not encyclopedic to show a Volkswagen Audi group road car with a GM engine, being non-factory produced, unlike Iso Grifo or Jensen Interceptor. This needs to be explained to an average reader - with a refnote IMO, although this itself would be deemed as original research, unless referenced; it's the lesser of two evils. The Phillip Island results.pdf primary source does not explain this, although it is in a large-capacity class. A quick Google shows Speedcafe and the primary source driver database which are barely-adequate but would help.

If you don't know how it should be done I will gladly add this, but I'm not about to waste my time if you intend to WP:OWN this article, as it's a largely buried trivial aspect. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for accuracy, though. I am also concerned about what appears to be PackJerkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) writing about himself, although I think it will go away.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer As to why I thought you were trolling (trolling probably not quite the right word, more along the lines of "taking the piss" (I'm not sure how universal that expression is or where you are from, hopefully you know what it means...)), your first edit, reverting Packjerkins, firstly while it's possible this is Jack Perkins (racing driver), we should AGF since there is no evidence it's not just a fan (unless you have some evidence?). Further, you stated that it was unsourced, but it was sourced at the top of the table. While the source had become a deadlink, it was trivial to find the newer version. Then your second edit summary was I believed (and to an extent still believe) nonsense, or at least over the top, since this is a perfectly common way of writing this.

It is very easy to verify the engines used in Sports Sedans, the vast majority are Chevy V8s and this could be sourced to a program if need be. I'm not sure why you have an issue with the speedcafe article? As to whether an explanatory note is required, I still disagree, and think something which would require many articles to be changed (like National Sports Sedan Series) should be discussed more widely, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport. Sandown Raceway and Sydney Motorsport Park both have sports sedans written this way in their fastest lap tables, and I have never edited either of these articles, and I've never heard of anyone raising this as an issue before. A7V2 (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are confusing En-Wiki with what Australians would better-like as Aus-Wiki. The areas I hang around regularly get messed with by, in descending order of frequency, Indonesians, Malaysians, Thai and Vienamese drive-bys, so I hope you'll understand that IMO a new editor writing about one person is unlikely to be unconnected - I don't have to stretch AGF that far. It's not upon me to try to evaluate the motives - it's under WP:BURDEN; this also applies to you and your deletion of a maintenance template, without fulfilling the requirements. Merely ssaying 'it's well known in racing circles' and/or 'have sports sedans written this way in their fastest lap tables' doesn't help your cause (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The speedcafe article contains merely a passing mention "...will mark Perkins’ fourth outing aboard the 750bhp Chevrolet powered Audi A4 following Hossack’s speedway accident in April.", not an article about the perkins A4 Chev.

...And this is all beacuse you deleted what you interpreted as a piss take (where's the AGF, mate?) and don't want an explanatory footnote because...OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In no way or at no time have I suggested a footnote elsewhere.

It's clear you have a skewed view of an Australian, writing about Australians, in Australian racing series, and that you want to WP:OWN the article - remembering this is about a race track, not a racing series that may be unfamiliar to non-Antipodeans.

I'm sure you'll be delighted to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the only example I can see where a road (type) car has the 'wrong' engine in the Phillip Island article - but, of course everyone, everywhere, knows intimately the Australian standard V8 conversions, right?

This has only happened once before in the last 10 years, quote: "It is a well known fact within the racing community which many people have agreed should be noted as a historic fact."

You can take it to a Talk Motorsport series, but don't ping me. I think I've exhausted all of the AGF-quotient I originally had ascribed towards you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange response. I'm owning an article because I revert a revert of something which can be sourced, and then revert the addition of a maintenance template with a faulty reasoning (or at the very least, reasoning I disagree with). You have made more reverts on that article than I have, but it is me OWNing it. Good to know.

This is nothing to do with Australia, it is common across sources from other countries (see the Formula One examples I gave). Not sure what you mean here about me claiming otherstuff? I was giving examples to show that it's not just me writing it this way. And naturally if you think this requires a note on one article, why would it not require a note in an identical situation? That's nonsense. See also WP:SSEFAR. The reason I said I thought you were taking the piss is because I honestly did. This didn't mean I wasn't AGF, hence why I left the explanatory edit summary, as I do with all but the most blatant vandalism. I was merely telling you how it looked to me. I thought it was clear that I didn't think that once you wrote what you wrote on my talk page ("I was under the impression...") so I apologise if that wasn't clear. I'm not sure what you think "this" is to have happened once in 10 years. If this is only the second time you've seen WP:BRD then I don't know what to tell you. I am one user and you are one user. We aren't going to agree on everything. But things like saying particular wikilinks are inadequate and inappropriate, or that something is "not encyclopedic" is an opinion, not a fact. I am of course not going to take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport as if you don't want to be pinged I don't see what the point would be of having a discussion where the person advocating a change doesn't give their view. If you change your mind, feel free to start a discussion or let me know here and I can start it. You can throw around all the BS you want about me being biased or whatever, that's fine, perhaps I am biased in certain ways but so is everyone, and that is the purpose of having discussions to form a consensus which you don't seem to want to do, as everything you say is a fact and everything I say or do is ownership or Antipodean bias. A7V2 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]