User talk:Prisonermonkeys/Archive3

Re:Refs

Don't sweat it man, I've just been snippy regarding the bare links in the past, and with it being as late as it is (just after 3:30 am), sometimes the blood boils over a little. So I apologise for that. Cs-wolves(talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting it here, as it is the same subject matter. I suppose I could repeat what I said above, but no need to as it's already there. Any bare link always irritates me nowadays, and I have no idea why that is! I just think that I'm that used to the fuller cites, it's almost like a come-down when you see a bare one. About the PDF one, I do believe that it needs to be archived. As far as I'm aware, the link from the Brickyard is only going to be up for seven days, which is fairly certain to not be beneficial in the long-run for the article itself. But apart from that, looks to be alright! Craig(talk) 11:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Formula One Record Finishers

Although it is obvious 24 is more than 23, it is not obvious which race was the previous record holder. The link and reference to the 2011 Chinese Grand Prix should be in there. If you can think of a better way to word it, go ahead, but that information should be there. Sellyme^Talk 10:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Formula One season

I personally find linking the sponsors wierd as I think it is entirely reasonable that the term Vodafone McLaren Mercedes refers specifically to the Formula One racing team and I think it is more than a reasonable expectation of general readers (our prime audience) to be expected to link to the Formula One team McLaren. The title says Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, not Vodafone, McLaren, Mercedes. By way of an example, it would be like a term like Mr Bernard Ecclestone esquire and linking Mr and esquire to dictionary definitions of the terms, or the film Star Wars linking to a celestial body and the history of warfare. Vodafone McLaren Mercedes when used in that three word capitalised manner refers specifically to the Formula One team. It is a level of over-correctness I find annoying and gets in the way of good writing practice. It reached a peak a year or so ago in some Sports car racing articles where Silk Cut Jaguar linked to the cigarette company and to the British road car manufacturer and did not link at all to Tom Walkinshaw Racing, the racing team actually operating the race cars. It completely defeated the point of having the links in the first place as the hyperlinks would then link to subjects only tangentially related to the topic. --Falcadore (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Consistency is correct. It should be consistently removed from ALL article per the Manual of Style. --Falcadore (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I already did, however as this is relevant to manual of style, and there are specific issues of clarity here, I went ahead and made the changes, citing the relevant Manual of Style. Consensus could perhaps be raised to change the manual? --Falcadore (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The manual is fairly specific with a cited example that is a fairly close match to F1, and I had already stated that all articles should match. --Falcadore (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Scarecrow

Holy crap. The book hasn't even been out 1 day and you've already got a plot summary written. Nice job! Stickee (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prisonermonkeys. You have new messages at Mjroots's talk page.
Message added 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Prisonermonkeys. You have new messages at Mjroots's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Skyfall

Hi Prisonermonkeys, noticed you copied and pasted text into the Skyfall (film) article. Text in wikipedia is licenced under the Creative Commons license and needs attribution, further details can be found at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia. (Hopefully I fixed the problem by deleting and restoring it). Edgepedia (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See talk page of Skyfall for expaination. RAP (talk) 13:33 3 November 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying is that you needed a link back to the original article. (Or am I now reading a {{tl:Copied}} template on the talk page.) Edgepedia (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In edit you pasted text into the article without explaining where you got it from. Please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia where it's all explained. Edgepedia (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prisonermonkeys. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Grand Prix of America

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Port Imperial Street Circuit

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2013 Formula One season

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 F1 season

I've given the editor in question some advice. Hopefully they'll take the hint and I won't need to unlock the case to my banhammer. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 Formula One season

Semi-protection ends in 5 minutes...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please look at what users have said and done before claiming they support you! Unless you get more users against it than for it just leave it till they reveal a decision. This is only in a couple of days however clearly explains the facts of what is happening at the moment. As another user said if you continue to remove whilst more users are for it then you are dangerously close to vandalizing. I would hate to have to accuse you of vandalism and have to report you so please refrain from putting words in other editors mouths and assuming their support. Colinmotox11 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

One user you say is against it has actually said he supports it! And the other helped with making the first note suitable. The other two (maimai009 and The359) have not said they are in support of it. Stop assuming they are. This brings your list down to 3 and our list up to 6 which is a majority for us. You are going close to vandalising because you are making up stuff about what people think and changing the article. Stop doing this until you either have enough agreeing with you - there are 3 who have said this or Petrov gets confirmed - then I will happily remove it or let you remove it. Until either of these points arises do not remove the note. Colinmotox11 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have broken down the numbers for you so you can see clearly, on my own talk page. Colinmotox11 (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the barnstar Prisonermonkeys :D Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Person of Interest summaries

You're doing a GREAT job with them. I guess I shouldn't even try to add my own little summaries anymore. I leave them to you now, LOL. QuasyBoy 23:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

M:I - GP

I appreciate your coming 'round to talk about the plot. And, happily, as these things go, a bevy of editors has continued to massage things here and there -- critical plot points being restored, verboseness being trimmed -- and as a collaborative community I think we've accomplished a guideline length that gets the plot in. Times like this make me kind of proud of how we're constructing this amazing encyclopedia as a team. I know, I know, that sounds corny. It's still true. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In 2012 World Rally Championship season, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages León, Faro and AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 FIA GT and FIA WEC pages

I understand you're trying to improve several season articles beyond the F1 pages, however I think some of your alterations to the FIA GT and FIA WEC articles has sort of taken away from what was once there. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind removing prose in paragraphs discussing the changes in entries and calendars, and instead making or adding bulleted lists. I know that it makes information easier to find, but in what is essentially still a stub article it makes it look rather sloppy. I am also not too keen on the creation of charts for the entries at the moment when all that has been announced so far is teams intending to enter, while no actual entry list has been published by the FIA, and will not be until January. It is certainly possible that teams will be rejected or that background changes will effect the contracts certain teams have, despite what Stephane Ratel happens to mention to make the series appear healthy. (There is already news of Munnich switching from Lamborghini to Mercedes). At the very least the chart for FIA GT is awash with TBAs that serve no purpose other than to list the teams and manufacturers for what is effectively the third time in that section alone (prose, chart, and bulleted list). I feel the same way about the FIA WEC list with a whopping two entries and similar fill in the blank elements.

So basically, I intend to remove the entries chart and integrate the bulleted lists back into prose in these articles. I have tried my best the past two years with the FIA GT1 season articles to try and avoid some of the problems I see with the F1 articles and not simply copy what has been done there. I just wanted to discuss it with you rather than appearing to control the articles. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2012 World Rally Championship season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vladimir Antonov

I1 Super Series (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hyderabad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Bare refs

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I forgot about the comment. For the most part we are just acting preemptively, for an article to reach good and then featured status, refs need to be filled out, archived, etc. It does help to have the references in the reflist instead of in the actual text as well. As you can imagine, when you have 160+ refs in some cases, doing all that at the END is a huge effort and personally it really taxes my hands to the point of pain. Especially filling out the refs which is a chore and a a half to find publishers, sources, etc. Also if the page has disappeared you're left with more work if it hasn't been archived. I didn't mean to make the snarky comment in the edit history and I should have brought it to the person's attention bt I didn't know who had done it at the time and I tend to get fed up if I spend too long on here reverting minor vandalism and such. You don't have to fill out the refs but if you could avoid putting them in the text, at least on The Dark Knight Rises, it'd be appreciated.

Thanks for reading Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Virgin/Marussia

Hi Prisonermonkeys. I was wondering: What was the source for your statement that "the FIA will no longer recognise Marussia's results as Virgin's; they are officially a new constructor, even if nothing else about the team changes"? Note that I'm not necessarily suggesting that you're incorrect; I'm just wondering what your source was. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually came here to say the same thing. I noticed earlier that you started the Marussia F1 article, while we still have the Virgin Racing article as an active team page. I brought it up on the Wikiproject talk page, as I'm not sure we decided to treat it as a new team - instead there seemed to be the consensus to simply rename the Virgin article. Anyway would appreciate your thoughts QueenCake (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Calendar table

I can understand your point of view of not needing two columns just for the race title. However, I don't think it makes sense not to use (excuse the double negative) the common name of the race - be it Hungary, Germany, Brazil or wherever. I'm not necessarily arguing that we need the race sponsor in the table. But it doesn't make sense to me to call the article the Hungarian Grand Prix or the 2011 Hungarian Grand Prix and then not explicitly mention the 'Hungarian Grand Prix' in the calendar. I'm almost 100% certain that no where else would an English-language source (given this is English Wikipedia) refer to any of those races by anything other than their English names. If two columns are not allowed then the one that is most important I feel is the common name - the one that everyone else in the English language uses. - mspete93 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Lotus/Renault/Caterham split

Why did you create four completely separate pages for Caterham, Lotus, Lotus F1, and Renault. Lotus is a continuation of Renault F1 and Caterham F1 is still Team Lotus. Could you please explain the rationale behind your decision, as there has been no official word on their status, as well as the editors having not come to a consensus decision.Gaeaman787 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Although there is the case that Sahara Force India is not a new team even though they changed their name from Force India. Did you base it off of a trend or is there an actual rule that clearly states what you said?Gaeaman787 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

But here's my question, when Renault changed its name to Lotus Renault GP, and then Lotus, are those three seperate teams (though Renault was just the engine manufacturer when LRGP got started), are they counted as threee separate teams, or does Lotus F1 continue from LRGP, with Renault F1 being the defunct one. The old 1970s team was called Equipe Renault (observing the background of the 1970s Renault photo.) I'l toss it off of you first, but why not have one article for Equipe Renault from the 70s, Renault in F1 as a engine suppplier and a F1 team, and Lotus F1, formerly Lotus Renault GP. I guess everyone was surprised at your move since Caterham Cars is an offshoot of Lotus, Marussia bought into a team it already half-owned, though Virgin is still a sponsor on the team, and there's been no decision on the fate of the Renault F1 article (thankfully this is less chaotic than the NASCAR silly season -_-)Gaeaman787 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

But Genii capital and then Group Lotus bought into Renault F1 in 2010 and 2011 respectively. The team as LRGP had Lotus as a title sponsor for 2011 although Renault sold off their part of investment prior to 2011. So technically, Lotus F1 started in 2011 as LRGPGaeaman787 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall

I will explain my logic:

Article version:

"MI6 is attacked and James Bond, agent 007, must seek out and eliminate the threat. But when the past actions of his superior, M, have consequences in the present, Bond finds himself questioning his loyalty to her."

Press release:

"Bond's loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost."

• "Bond's loyalty to M is tested" - All this says, is that it was tested, it does not say that Bond himself is questioning his loyalty
• "her past comes back to haunt her" - I can see how you would jump from that to "past actions [...] have consequences in the present", however once again there is little to back that up.

The problem here, is the summary is so vague and brief it is left far too open to misinterpretation, hence why it is better to go with a direct quote.

--Chris 05:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Skyfall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Beauty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re. Proposal to change calendar format

Hi Prisonermonkeys, I don't have a strong feeling either way regarding your proposal here and here, but I would just like to draw your attention to WP:MULTI. To avoid discussions on the subject becoming fragmented, I would urge you to have the discussion at only one talk page, with a link to the discussion on the other talk page. I will leave it with you to decide if you wish to do this, and how to go about it, as it is your idea afterall! Kind regards, Schumi555 13:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Monte Carlo Rally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malcolm Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

F1 thing

Just because you have consensus to do something stupid doesn't make it any less stupid. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, because maybe, JUST MAYBE, someone might want to view all the car launch dates at one time? Did you really never think of that? Wicka wicka (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. Wikipedia can and should catalog all available information. Nothing is off limits so long as at makes an article more useful. Anyone who argues otherwise is wholly without merit. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. It's an article about the 2012 season. Caterham is launching their 2012 car on February 26th, 2012. How in the world is that NOT relevant to the 2012 season? People come to Wikipedia for everything these days, let them find it. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You are insane. It's a piece of information about the 2012 season. It belongs in the 2012 article, full stop. There's nothing else to it, especially not your bullshit assertions of what does and doesn't count as relevant to the season. You're making all this shit up. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Barry Nelson - First Actor To Portray James Bond

Barry Nelson was the first actor to portray James Bond, in a 1954 television production. Sean Connery was the frist actor to portray Bond in a THEATRICAL motion picture. Stonnman (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why no edit summaries?

Hi, Prisonermonkeys would you mind providing edit summaries, as per WP:FIES, when you edit an article. This will help the rest of us understand your reasons for your edits. Without summaries, you risk having your edits misunderstood or even reverted as "changed without explanation". -- de Facto (talk). 09:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

MR01

Hi, I'm planning to revert your edit as you didn't provide any explanation why you did it and I believe it made the article worse by duplicating the details of little relevance to the car (Nich Wyrth, name change, etc). Those details can be found in the team's history section, if anyone is interested. I think "less is more" is a good guidline and there's plenty of more relavant information about the car that can be added to the page, e.g., Pat Symonds, new design, delays, etc. C1010 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 International V8 Supercars Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DTM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Be aware of the 3RR

Prisonermonkeys, you have made at least 3 reverts at 2012 Formula One season in the last 24 hours - be careful now, someone less tolerant than I may be watching! -- de Facto (talk). 23:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

202.216.85.160

Him again... I've also seriously rolled back 2009 World Rally Championship season and 2008 World Rally Championship season - loads of recent edits - no reasons, no refs.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ordinal numbers

Ordinal and cardinal numbers above nine are perfectly acceptable written in figures, i.e. 19, 16, 25 etc. Since we already have a precedent for writing 15th, 17th etc in race reports, I think we should stick to this across F1 articles. I think it's long-winded and a little pretentious to be writing thirty-nine and seventy-three when 39 and 73 comply with the MOS. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. When you recently edited Lotus E20, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Allison (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Column alignment

Center, not middle. FYI. --Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Marussia (again)

Hi Prisonermonkeys, With reference to your complaint, it would be easier for me to address it if you were more specific about what you didn't like in my edits. I reviewed my last edit and I feel I disagree with every claim you had made, specifically:

1. that the content I include isn't supported by the references I provide
2. that my use of contractions is improper
3. that I overuse phrases like Marussia F1 Team

I'm reasonably open-minded about my edits and if you can clarify your points with concrete examples that show where I supposedly did wrong, I'm ready to consider them in good faith. Regards, C1010 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys: "This is the proper use of encyclopaedic language. It is a formal writing style, so you cannot use such casual, everyday words."

The Wikipedia policy on contractions isn't is not as forbiding as you present it, and I quote, "But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable; and occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway." However, I agree that a more formal style would be more appropriate in Wikipedia articles, so I'll try to remember it in my future edits.

You haven't addressed the items 1 and 3, so I'll assume they are no longer issues.

Generally speaking, you may want to consider being less agressive when you raise questions about other people's edits, especially when your opinion is not fully supported by Wikipeia policies and your own edits are not perfect, for example, "where it is due [to] be driven", "it will use a combination of wind tunnel testing [and] CFD modeling in its design". Regards, C1010 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2012 Australian Grand Prix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Albert Park

2012 Clipsal 500 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Caruso

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: "No such practice in the past"

I believe this link: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Accessibility shall explain why it is not! --Aleenf1 03:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Rally de Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Special stage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

GT1

Please do not confuse my opinions on certain matters with ownership. Although I have poured a lot into building the GT1 articles and to improve their quality over the past few years, my opinions on matters that come up are not swayed by what pride I may have in my own work. My opinions are offered based on my own personal view of the discussion, my knowledge of Wikipedia policy, as well as previous discussions and debates that may have touched on that particular matter in the past. Although not related to my work on GT1, to use your own example of introducing IndyCar-style summary boxes to the race season, my very first thought was to the numerous discussions, both recent and in years passed, about the need to move away from multiple redundant charts and add more prose to the Formula One articles. Add to this my belief that you yourself supported the drive for more prose in the articles, and all I could think was that I could not believe that you would make such a suggestion, so yes it was blatantly scoffed at. So no, there was no attempt to control changes to that particular article, and in fact I am still not 100% happy with the state of it even today. Various other suggestions to on the F1 project I have replied to with thought out opinion and logic, either for or against new ideas, so this one particular example should not set the tone. I do not understand the belief that I have disallowed discussions of things, as my offering an opinion in a revert is certainly open to questioning if my explanation does not suffice. However, I should point out that in the matter of adding or not adding specific cars, mine was the only opinion ever actually offered at the time in regards to that addition.

Back to GT1 one though, I am not against changes and there have certainly been some made over the past three years by other editors, the original 2010 article as I built it differs greatly from the templates laid out in 2012. When I first wrote the 2010 article, I did not link every driver because I knew there were quite a few red links, and I did not care for a page full of red links as a matter of personal opinion. But I am well aware of the policy of including red links for articles that should exist, and therefore when another editor red linked all drivers, I was fine with that because I knew it was better not only for the article and the expansion of other GT1 articles, but for meeting Wikipedia policies. I did however take some offense to being scorned for re-adding the redlinks without yet writing the articles, only after I myself had just written a new team and driver article in the previous days.

As for your specific mention of including the cars, I would hope you would notice throughout the previous season articles as well as the race articles I have tried to, at least at first mention, list the team and manufacturer together as this series puts heavy emphasis on the manufacturers. The team championships, despite not actually awarding points to the manufacturers, still lists the manufacturers for ease of understanding for a reader. And even listing the manufacturers in the race winners columns is not something I view as wrong, although possibly considerably unbalanced aesthetically. However, listing the specific car models is something that steps too far I think. The average reader is not going to know the difference between A Lamborghini or A Lamborghini Gallardo and A Lamborghini Gallardo LP600+ GT3. The key element in the equation is simply Lamborghini, at least in my view of what the common reader needs to know to understand the article, since each team represents a manufacturer, not a car.

As for being bold, I have no problem with being bold, however I do not think be bold is free reign to become reckless. New ideas are good, but I think most of the time new ideas should be proposed rather than implemented under assumption that they are automatically improving the article. I would point out that, besides a single question, there have been no discussions on the talk page for the 2012 season. I find it somewhat troubling when, after you helped by creating the chart for the race winners, which I edited in what I believed to be a minor way (a bunch of floating "No.s" in a chart just looks weird and likely confusing to others), you turned around and went a completely opposite direction with it by hiding it, and then decided that the same change needed to be made to the Formula One article. I personally don't agree with it on the GT1 article, and I certainly don't agree with it, as well as the expansion to the championship tables, on the F1 article. And from my experience, others will not be happy about this bold move either.

Change can be good and change can be bad, but it is my personal belief that there has to be some sort of benefit to the article to warrant a change in the first place. Doings things slightly different without any real benefit to the article just seems to be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. To me it makes absolutely no change to the article to have the full chart of race winners, despite being blank, versus having a small chart with only one row in it, despite the fact that it will be expanded later. They both have their pluses and minuses, and it seems to me that the net gain from the change is zero. Therefore my argument is "Why change it?" And to add another one that I know I've dropped in WP:F1, "If it isn't broken, why fix it?" Negligible issues are not what the GT1 article needs, my emphasis is still on prose and actual writing, despite how little I personally manage to actually complete. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. When you recently edited Emanuele Moncini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix

Thanks for updating the article. I'm writing this regarding your last comment that "there is nothing more that can be said about the protests". In the coming days bigger protests against F1 are supposed to be held, starting from tomorrow. You might want to move some material from the article to Timeline of the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising. Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I made that comment is because there isn't really anything more than can be said. There are protests against the race; we have established that. If we keep listing all of the protests and when they happened and the reactions to them, we are just going to drown the article in redundancy. They don't say anything more that has not already been said. That content is (as you say) best-suited to the timeline article. In the meantime, since this is a race report, the focus should be on the teams and drivers and personnel, and their actions and reactions within the country. If there are any major protests that have a direct influence on the sport - like, for example, the reported firebomb attack on the Force India hire car - then they should be mentioned. But I just think that, as it stands, the article has covered everything that can be covered with regards to the protests. Unless you have access to something that I've missed; I'm Australian, so I really have to go and search at length for reports on Bahrain. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What I meant is, the coverage on protests should be probably summarized and added to the timeline article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the content of the page could be copied over to the timeline article, but I don't think it should be removed from the race page. The background to the protests and the various stances around the Formula 1 paddock are important to understanding the rest of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course while still keeping this. Sorry for bothering you. You're doing a great job. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not bothing me at all. Any comments on ways articles can be improved are always appreciated. Especially when I'm the only one really writing said article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, here's a suggestion. In this Guardian article John Yates speaks about the possibility of using live ammunition against protesters. Also, you might find something worth adding in this article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It won't be GA or FA till it has some images. I'll contact photographers and see if I can get any. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are some news you might want to include in the article:

1. Empty stands: [1] [2] [3] [4]
2. Porsche Supercup team MRS: [5] [6] already covered.
3. Media outlets not covering: [7]
4. Protester killed: [8] already covered
5. Protesters arrested in BIC: [9]

These links (and more) were collected by a guy on an opposition political forum in a thread labeled "Here is the documentation of all news that prove F1 in Bahrain has failed", so I'd rather not insert them myself and I would advice that you use them with caution (not that you're not careful anyway). Also, you must have noticed that some people are unhappy with the "controversial" part, despite it being strongly referenced from multiple RS. You've done a great job with that article; it's a wonderful piece and would definitely be good for a GAN or FAC. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Any time, man! I would've moved it over on to the user page anyway, so you've saved me a job. ;) Craig(talk) 17:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing V8s

Then should Car 3 be fixed in the same manner? And since when is the 66 a HRT car? HRT and WR always used to be independant teams with common ownership previously. --Falcadore (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cant say I'm a fan of that primarily because unlike DTM where Mercedes and Audi support all of their teams, this is not the case in V8 Supercar. Grouping them all together implies to some extent that Holden and Ford support all teams. V8 Supercar has more in common with NASCAR organisationally than DTM and you'd never group NASCAR teams in the DTM style. --Falcadore (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally it would compromise the formats of the 2012 Dunlop V8 Supercar Series and the 2012 Kumho Tyres V8 Touring Car Series which follow the same format then both series do or has in the past had multicar teams with both Holdens and Fords in the same year, sometimes simultaneously, thus splitting the same team into two halves of the table. Team alignment I feel is more important than manufacturer alignment. --Falcadore (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)