Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Problems with List
There are a number of problems with this list including the incorrect descriptions ....
Extended content
|
---|
There are a number of problems with this list including the incorrect descriptions in the notes and locations. I considered a list of named corners. I decided not to create a list like as it was technically complicated to create and maintain. The reasons for this have appeared with some of the descriptions of the locations are longer than others and the locations are inaccurate, confusing and misleading. Also sub-editing pre-existing articles to create Frankenstein notes is also misleading, confusing and shows a lack encyclopaedic value. As mentioned previously, this process will eventually lead to further AFD nominations and deletion of articles. There is also an emphasis on fatal accidents. The article is a list of corners and not an memorial WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and Wikipedia does not allow this type of listing. The list includes an Executive Summary. However, the second paragraph includes again the 1979 Whipple quotation by an American journalist. Again, the article is about a list of corners. The Whipple quotation from 1979, at the time could describe any motor-cycle racing circuit and the "lean-angle" became part of the Grand Prix Motor-Cycling technique from the late 1950's (used by off-road motor-cycle competitors before this date) and again the 1979 Whipple quotation could be used to describe any circuit in 1979. The technique now developed by competitors racing on road circuits like the Snaefell Mountain Course and the Isle of Man TT usually have less lean-angle and less aggressive than the current Moto GP style which is developed from the A.M.A. Grand National Championships in the USA in the 1970's. The fastest lap for the 1979 Senior Isle of Man TT was 20 minutes, 15.46 seconds an average speed of 111.75 mph. The current lap record is 17 minutes, 6.682 seconds an average speed of 132.298 mph. The only major road improvements since 1979 have been at Quarry Bends, Windy Corner and Brandish Corner and major road resurfacing work on the Sulby Straight, Mountain Mile and Windy Corner to Keppel Gate. The increase in speed since 1979 has been the replacement of the old 500cc class with the modern 1000cc Superbike class along with improvements in suspension and tyres. The road improvements at Windy Corner and Brandish have only reduced speed by two or three seconds per lap. A neutral point of view WP:NPOV has to be demonstrated and the repeated block use of the 1979 Whipple quotation for different purposes is dated, confusing and inaccurate. There has been a change of style in race signs since 2011 and currently the race marker boards from Brandish Corner to Signpost Corner have been removed for the winter(the board at Keppel Gate has been damaged by road traffic). Also, for photographic purposes, walking on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road at any time of the year is downright dangerous and for the Isle of Man TT Races an one-way and clearway (no stopping) system operates. The reliance on download images from Google Maps for photographs at some point may lead to copyright issues. The list is also very difficult to view on a mobile phone. agljones(talk)20:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
|
- This is Done after suggesting it was and seeing no objections right away at least. Done in terms of all explicit or implied suggestions having been added to #Actionable suggestions now. So collapsed by me. Fine for anyone to "uncollapse" the above. --doncram 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Technical Issues.
I find it a little difficult to understand what you are trying to develop in the list....
Extended content
|
---|
I find it a little difficult to understand what you are trying to develop in the list or corners article. When I rewrote the Snaefell Mountain Course article, I considered an list article. I thought it too difficult to create and maintain. (At this point, you will have to understand that none of the subsequent Snaefell Mountain Course articles existed and you already have the background information to work with). I decided to adopt the normal Wikipedia template and the start writing the articles which has been (more or less) successful. Also, I was more aware of the technical problems of incorporating information in a list and this information is what you enquire about. Again, I am not sure what information that you intend to include in the list article. ( I do understand the process as I have previously been through the technical problems involved). If I had created a list article, I do not think I would create a list article in the style that you have already created. I would have created a location and notes section as you have already created. At the moment as I mentioned previously the location descriptions are inaccurate and misleading to the point I have to refer to a road map for the location. The notes section have either no entries or some note sections are longer than others. Information has also been ‘Cut and Paste’ to the notes section from another article. This position may attract further AFD nominations in the Isle of Man motor-cycle network as the previous articles would be seen as duplications/non-notable bends and it is unusual to have large text inclusions for each listing with a pre-existing article(s) . I can only suggest that each note is standardised to two or three small sentences and purpose written and standardised for this section and avoiding ‘Cut and Paste’ from other articles. In respect to 1) The article is a list of corners and the fatal accidents are listed in another list. The only exceptions to this may be Birkin’s Bend and Guthrie’s Memorial. 2) Again a list of corners rather than an article. Course changes are to be found in Snaefell Mountain Course article. 3) Again a list of corners rather than article about course speeds. (I have tried to create separate article about racing motor-cycle development and racing prototypes and it keeps getting deleted.) Technology and course speeds are to be found in the main Isle of Man TT article and also the proposed separate History of the Isle of Man TT articles(see Talk pages). 4) Again a list of corners rather an article. It is perceived that there is now a general ‘road-racing’ style(it varies with different competitors) but it is also found in use on other road-racing courses). The 1979 ‘’Whipple’’ quotation is very generic and could describe any style at any circuit(I guess that you have not noticed a photo in the article which covers the problem with points 3 or 4) in 1979. 5) I am afraid that the list can [not] be viewed very easily on mobile phones( I am not sure about tablets or IPad). I have sometimes had to change the size and colour of the article background for mobiles and older computers that can be found in public libraries or internet cafes. 6) There are other articles available about the Isle of Man TT Races. The emphasis on the ‘Whipple’’ quotation may not give a neutral point of view about the more controversial aspects of the motor-cycle racing in the Isle of Man. There are also again the problems with notability with relying on just one article. AFD nominations or deletions. I have no intention of making any AFD nominations or deleting any articles as I do not have administrator rights. The AFD nominations is a very serious problem for the Isle of Man motor-cycle article network on the short-term and also over the long-term. As you can see from the talk pages there has been lengthy discussions about the AFD nominations and over the past five months and it has been valuable time that has been wasted. In respect to the AFD nomination for the ‘Windy Corner’ article there was no consensus on deletion or on merger. I did explain that shifting the emphasis back to the ‘non-notable bend’ would again attract an AFD nomination or a merger proposal. This is what has happened and a merger proposal has occurred due to what another contributor described as a “ deletionist super-vote.” The “Windy Corner” article can be now described as a ‘stand-alone’ Isle of Man article outside of its motor-cycle connections and there is no need for the article to be either deleted, merged or only exist in a list. I would be able to develop the ‘Windy Corner’ article further as with other similar articles except for the merger and the recent repeated AFD nominations which stopped the Isle of Man motor-cycle network developing further. The named corners section of the Snaefell Mountain Course was originally intended for competitors names only. In respect to the problem with photographs, I am not sure if images from Street View from Google Maps have copyright issues. Also, the Street View does not include the new style of race marker boards. The articles have attracted non-copyright photographs and this can be seen for the article for Bray Hill. agljones(talk)20:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
|
- Collapsed the above, as, knock on wood, i think this is Done in terms of any explicit or implied suggestions here having been noted in #Actionable suggestions section. Feel free to uncollapse. --doncram 19:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Alternative table format and other comments
Distance / Miles | Photo | Sector | Description | Timing Sector |
---|---|---|---|---|
26.00 | 9 | 26th Milestone | Bungalow | |
26.85 | 9 | Guthrie's Memorial | Bungalow | |
27.00 | 9 | 27th Milestone | Bungalow | |
27.02 | 9 | Mountain Mile | Bungalow | |
28.00 | 9 | 28th Milestone | Bungalow | |
28.29 | 9 | Three-quarter Mile Post | Bungalow | |
28.45 | 9 | East Mountain Gate | Bungalow | |
28.81 | 9 | Mountain Box | Bungalow | |
29.00 | 9 | 29th Milestone | Bungalow | |
29.23 | 9 | Mike Casey Memorial Shelter | Bungalow | |
29.45 | 9 | Stonebreakers Hut | Bungalow | |
29.45 | 10 | Verandah, Isle of Man | Bungalow | |
30.00 | 10 | 30th Milestone | Bungalow | |
30.65 | 10 | Les Graham Memorial Shelter | Bungalow | |
30.99 | 10 | Bungalow | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
31.00 | 10 | 31st Milestone | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
31.60 | 10 | Hailwood's Height | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
31.75 | 10 | Brandywell Corner | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
32.00 | 10 | 32nd Milestone (Duke's) | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
32.61 | 10 | Windy Corner | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
33.00 | 10 | 33nd Milestone | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
33.51 | 10 | The Thirty-Third | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
34.80 | 10 | Keppel Gate | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
34.99 | 10 | Kate's Cottage | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
34.00 | 10 | 34th Milestone | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
34.66 | 10 | Creg-ny-Baa | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
34.67 | 11 | Sunny Orchard | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
34.99 | 11 | Gob-ny-Geay | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
35.00 | 11 | 35th Milestone | Cronk-ny-Mona | |
35.34 | 11 | Brandish Corner | TT Grandstand |
I have included a revised list. It was easier to demonstrate with a revised list rather than write long descriptive paragraphs. Please note that the distances are estimations and are traditional in miles (no metric conversions).
The revised list, for illustrative purposes only, includes a link to the existing Wikipedia articles. These Wikipedia articles fit together as described by a previous editor "like pieces in a jigsaw." There description includes a brief title and no long description. Including a long description will cause the pre-existing articles to be subject to AFD nominations and be deleted. It will also completely stop the development of the Isle of Man network of motor-cycle articles and the lead Isle of Man TT articles to be found on Wikipedia Netherlands will lack of standards, problems of accuracy and plagiarism.
Actionable Suggestions. Notes:
1). The revised list has no reference to fatal accidents. (see below; neutral point of view)
2). The revised list has no reference to lap records which are found in the main Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix articles.
3). The revised list has no reference to technology changes (these are found in the Isle of Man TT pages and are to be moved to separate articles; see Talk Pages). The course changes are found in the Snaefell Mountain Course article.
4). The revised list has no reference to competitor styles. ( I would not know how to even start this article ! )
5). The revised list is not mobile-friendly.
6). The revised list has a neutral point of view. I must apologise at this point as I may have confused the issue. If you include the fatal accidents in point (1). and as a controversial aspect then you must demonstrate a neutral point of view. There has only one article quoted in the "Whipple" article. Perhaps a second article needs to be quoted to demonstrate an alternate point of view.
7). As with points 3) and 4) the revised list has no reference to technical issues or style issues. Again, I must again apologise if I had confused the issue. The photo that I referred to is on page 24 of the Whipple article and includes a photograph of Mike Hailwood riding 500cc two-stroke Suzuki RG 500. Wikipedia describes Hailwood as to be "....regarded by many as one of the greatest racers of all time." The riding style of Hailwood is almost completely difficult to describe and runs counter intuitive to the Whipple article. The total number of Isle of Man TT wins for Mike Hailwood is 14 and not 18 as quoted in the article. The motor-cycle is two-stroke Suzuki 500cc and is quoted as having a power output of 90 hp.
8). The gallery section of the Bray Hill article has 5 photographs. There are copyright issues with four of the five photographs. There are other photographs in the Snaefell Mountain Course articles have copyright issues and also a number unnecessary redirects. Wikipedia also has rules about the placing of photographs. Leaving an list article incomplete and the article may be deleted respectively, regardless of an potential AFD nomination.
9). The revised list has many photographs missing.
agljones(talk)11:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing an alternate format for a table. Very efficient [for you] to communicate that way [in showing what format and information you prefer], yes, good.
- Quick reactions: I like the column with miles from start. I don't like the "Sector" number column or the "Timing Sector" column", at first because I don't understand exactly what they are, and I don't see why general Wikipedia readers would want to know those. I assume those numbers and names are somehow part of the administration of the TT race, and are too "technical" or "directory-like" or minutiae or otherwise not helpful, is my first reaction anyhow. I'll consider the overall table suggestion further though.
- About 8, about possible copyright issues for four photos used at Bray Hill article, that is NOT about this list-article or any photos in it or any photos proposed for use in this list-article. Please stop bringing up copyright issues about photos not used and not proposed for use in this list-article, here on this Talkpage, okay?. I will open discussion with you about that at User talk:Agljones#Copyright issues on photos instead, okay?
- About some of the above comments, I added explicit or implicit suggestions to the #Actionable suggestions section below. Have not addressed all points. --doncram 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Notes:
1). The table was brief draft and for illustrative purposes only. A second more improved (draft) table would take some time to complete as it requires to address some of the technical issues.
2). The Snaefell Mountain Course is divided into a number of sectors and each sector has a Chief Sector Marshal and Deputy Sector Marshal. For example, Sector 9 runs from the Ramsey Hairpin to the Black Hut. The list could be sub-divided by sectors. The Snaefell Mountain Course now has a number of sectors for timing purposes and this include Glen Helen (TT Grandstand to Balig Bridge), Ballaugh (Balig Bridge to Ballaugh Bridge), Sulby Speed Trap, Ramsey (Ballaugh Bridge to Ramsey), Bungalow (Ramsey to the Bunaglow), Cronk-ny-Mona (Bungalow to Brandish Corner) and the TT Grandstand (Brandish to the TT Grandstand). I have previously quoted a sector time in the Windy Corner Talk pages for the 2014 Senior TT Race won by Michael Dunlop (lap 2 sector time from the Bungalow to Cronk-ny-Mona for Michael Dunlop is 2 minutes, 16.322 seconds an average speed of 136.285 mph).
3). Previous comments in regard to copyrighted images only referred to existing photographs.
agljones(talk)19:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Deletion (of article and/or all descriptions)
This new section to record reasons for and against possible deletion of this list-article. AND also about deleting all descriptions. --doncram 14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
This new section to record reasons for and against possible deletion of this list-article, to separate such discussion from discussion about improving the existing list-article. Anyone is free to open an AFD process to call for deletion, but maybe it helps to build up arguments here first. --doncram 18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Reasons to delete include, briefly:
- 1 The list-article might attract photos that have copyright problems?
- 2 This list-article existing will tend to support the deletion of articles about individual corners or other articles?
- 3 (add more)
- Discussion of reasons to delete
- About 1, that's not a problem at all, IMO. There's no reason to think the existence of this list-article will cause any more copyright-violating photos will be uploaded to Commons, and there are very well-functioning processes to get rid of any that are. --doncram, 11 March 2015
- About 2, it is possible for cases on the margin, though any AFDs about other corners are supposed to be determined on basis of sources and Wikipedia notability criteria. This list-article provides a different possible result of an AFD about an individual corner, i.e. that it could be redirected to a row in the list-article, but IMO that is a good thing. Windy Corner, Isle of Man was redirected to here, but the apparent consensus of its RFC decision was actually to merge into Snaefell Mountain Course (probably to Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners), and this just provides a better target. --doncram, 11 March 2015
- Okay, from Agljones' statements in #Technical Issues section, I guess no one is suggesting deletion. Okay, great, so this section is Done --doncram 03:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
But Agljones seeks to delete all descriptions (item 10 in "Actionable suggestions"). Agljones: "Including a long description [about corners within the table] will cause the pre-existing articles to be subject to AFD nominations and be deleted. It will also completely stop the development of the Isle of Man network of motor-cycle articles and the lead Isle of Man TT articles to be found on Wikipedia Netherlands will lack of standards, problems of accuracy and plagiarism." So Agljones suggests descriptions need to be eliminated. (summarized by doncram, 14 March & 16 March).
- Doncram response: Deleting all descriptions pretty much would eviscerate the list-article. Note that Windy Corner, Isle of Man redirects to its row in the table...some description of it and other corners that redirect should be provided. Other stuff about Netherlands and plagiarism doesn't make sense.
- Agljones, could you discuss here? --doncram 14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
ordering
Alphabetically or by mileage from race start? --doncram 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Long comments from Agljones
- (separated out from section on "Include or remove fatal accident mentions" --doncram)
Extended content
|
---|
Agljones, i split your comment out into this new section because it seems to be a new review by you of the article, starting with your views about the first section of the article, and going on with many complaints. It is not acceptable as a post in the separate Talk page section on the topic of fatal accidents. Could you comment BRIEFLY within the fatal accidents section, please, only about the fatal accident mentions in this article? Please don't repeat your views about how fatal accidents should be "addressed and documented in the main Isle of Man TT article", and so on. Or about the RFC at the Windy Corner article which was closed with decision that it should be redirected. This is a Talk page only about improving this article.
And, I'm sorry, but I just reverted all your recent edits to the article. I'm not going to organize a point-by-point discussion of why your edits are unacceptable now. I would be happy to discuss those edits one by one or discuss other editing issues one by one, but you have to help keep discussion manageable. E.g. by dealing with your views about photo copyrights elsewhere. E.g.. by helping to split out small issues, and cooperating in discussing only one topic in a section, and staying on topic. I've made a lot of effort to try to communicate with you, but it's gotta be a two-way street. Depending on how you respond, maybe this is heading towards requiring use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. --doncram 22:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) |
- Agljones comment + shorter reply by me collapsed by doncram as appears to repeat already-expressed views, or not about changes to this article, or spurious. Collapsed section can be checked by anyone to see if there's anything relevant to any actionable item suggestion, but offhand I see nothing new.
- I'll respond to odd suggestions: about whether I used internet translator on text in the Netherlands wikipedia articles, no I have not (and have not ever consulted them). About whether I've allowed others besides myself to use my account, or have used sockpuppets: I have not. --doncram 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Agljones, too long and rambling to be understood, so I am collapsing. You completely lose all credibility with me, by trying to suggest that I've been using sockpuppets. Nonsense! And, you ask me to let other editors use my login??? I see no implications for actionable suggestions. --doncram 13:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reply
I am replying here at this point as I am unsure at which point to reply as you have collapsed sections. Again, you have broken-up section which is a unusual procedure which you final admitted to after being repeatedly "stonewalled" about this issue.
- I will reply briefly first about the Memorial issue.
- 1). If you check my contribution list you will find that I made a large number of contributions to the aircraft accident listings of Wikipedia. This area of Wikipedia would delete all names as it is WP:NOT#Memorial.
- 2). The fatal accidents to competitors are a highly controversial issue and I did give some of the injuries and types of accidents and I do not feel its necessary to be "stonewalled" over the issue again. They do not give encyclopaedic value to the description of the corner.
- 3). Also fatal accidents on public roads have also occurred due to for example by drivers over the blood alcohol limit (which is a controversial issue) and they have not been listed.
- 4). The accidents are already listed together and there is no need to relist them and leaving some sections blank would suggest that there is some reason for this and as you have concluded yourself that this would imply not a neutral point of view.
- Personal explanation.
Again, very brief.
- 1) I have been working on a revised list format and have completed the first section of research. The second section will be finished in perhaps 6-8 weeks.
- 2) Continuing from 1) again very briefly I gave you a list of corrections and they have been ignored and I have been again "stonewalled" over the issue. The revised format will deal with the technical problems that you have not addressed despite being asked to do so.
- 3) Continuing 1 & 2). The list descriptions are not good enough for Wikipedia. I am not sure if you consider it as a "peer review." These descriptions can be listed in Google in about 35 minutes and they are difficult to remove.
- Conclusion.
Again, very briefly.
- 1) All your questions and inquiries have been "non sequitur" (it is not clear when you have asked a question and then you reply to your own questions)
- 2) In Wikipedia you should own your edits. Do not think that other editors will do work for you.
- 3) The technical issues of the Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix including the overall Isle of Man motor-cycling have been completely underestimated by yourself as a Wikipedia editor. This list has completely stopped any further work of improvement in the Isle of Man TT articles section. I will not allow this to continue further and the conflict problems in this list where removed.
- 4) There has been an issue of quality and I have removed all the conflicting sections and descriptions. There has to be consistency all the way through the list which is completely absent due to missing sections, use of references to to create meaningless paragraphs and the persistent problem of very poor standard of English grammar and language.
- 5) The issues need to be dealt with promptly by you as you have reversed the edits. Do not try to progress the issue by "stonewalling" tactics, unusual editing practices, personal remarks, trying to in-force compromises, stifling issues by collapsing sections for your own interests or setting editing standards and then ignoring them.
- 6) Last point briefly. I have persistently asked you not to make any personal remarks which you have completely ignored. You have made veiled threats. If there is a problem then proceed to a formal grievance procedure and do not make veiled threats again.
- Postscript. Corner X is not a hairpin and the accidents in 1955 and 1994 did not occur at this corner X. In respect to the 1994 accidents the scrap marks are still visible in the road and the damage to the hedge at Corner Z can be seen on Google street view not at Corner X. The 1955 accident can be read on-line and the description is that spectators at Corner X observed the accident at Corner Y. (Explanatory note, the descriptions give to the media by Police or Race Officials is deliberately very vague of the site of accidents and it requires local knowledge and technical understanding of racing-lines and how motor-cycles behave to understand where an accident has happened. Also, as it is not possible to list all 220+ corners and sometimes a nearby corner is used as a description). agljones(talk)17:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay I have read your new long comment. Again mostly it seems to be a new review by you of all your complaints. I don't see any new actionable suggestions to add to the open list. Like your saying descriptions aren't good enough, is already covered in actionable item about descriptions being incomplete/unfinished. However, I take your point that I was closing actionable suggestion items above, when I viewed they were done. So I have revised that to clarify what is my view on status of each, instead, indicated now by "DONCRAM view of status", with my view of whether the item is done, or there's disagreement which I think is to be resolved by RFC, or other. And i inserted "AGLJONES view of status" for each, where I hope you will indicate your view of the status of the item, and how you think the item should be resolved. It seems to me that we need several separate RFCs to settle disagreements. But before inviting others, I'd very much like to settle what else can be settled, and be clear on what each disagreement is, so that others will be able to participate efficiently. Can you please indicate where you agree that items are settled or not, at each "AGLJONES view of status"? --doncram 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Tag as "citation needed" or remove unsupported statements
Extended content
|
---|
If one believes a statement is true and is probably supported specifically in a linked article, I don't think removal is best. A lesser option of tagging is available. A better option is to get the citation you feel is necessary from the linked article. --doncram 07:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC) |
Lost in edit conflict (?) about the 11th milestone
I followed Wikipedia advice and observed the three strike rule. I also followed Wikipedia advice and made no reply for 7 days. I revised the article on the 25th March 2015 to correct the problems with older names that are not used. If you check the article history I have not edited the article since 2009 and there has been other edits by other contributors. On the 26th March 2015 you replied on my talk page with the following comment;"Thank you for adding an infobox and otherwise improving the 11th Milestone, Isle of Man article and others... and I apologize/regret undoing all three of your recent edits there....but I shouldn't have undone them all, it wasn't really necessary and I don't really mind any of those changes."
Have you asked a question or not ? Then you answer your own question. Do not expect editors to reply to your questions when they are in many sections and then you answer your own questions. Then you move replies and then reply and I cannot follow the string. It is your decision to do this not mine. Then you have described my answers as "too long and rambling to be understood" and "over-long, ridiculous, nonsensical" Do not make personal comments and collapse sections when it is in your own interest. Why do you ask me when you think my replies cannot be understood ? Do you expect me to reply after so many personal comments? Under Wikipedia rules it is advised to answer questions but it does not give a time limit and then you have placed a comment on my talk page (?) Wikipedia describes editing as a "hobby" and not a job.
It was your decision to create this list and Wikipedia describes it as owning your own edits. It is your decision to use this photo and the answer to your question lies in the revised article which I thought you read from your reply. I will not make any further replies for 7 days as per Wikipedia advice and please accept this. If there is no further improvement in this article as outlined in my reply of the 16th March 2015 (I think that is the date it is difficult now to locate the date) or the issues in the collapsed sections then I will edit them to remove the problems after the 7 days. Please note my Reply at the very bottom of the article.agljones(talk)21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
about External links
I just removed these 3 items from the External links section, as they give "404 error". All 3 are from www.iomtt.com/TT-2009/Circuit-Guide, so appear to be from 2009, so maybe iomtt.com removed them:
- Competitor Guide Sections Greeba Castle to Glen Moar Mills with Steve Hislop, 11 times TT winner
- TT Spectator Guide Section Ballagarey to Ballaspur
- Map of course
Are there 2015 equivalents? --doncram 19:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I also very much like this video with narration focusing on the corners, as highly relevant for this list-article, and added it as the only external link right now. It could use more.
External links can include a link to a commercial site, as long as the site is relevant and is "neutral and accurate" with respect to the topic (per wp:ELYES), or that is informative from knowledgeable persons although site does not meet reliable source criteria to be used as a regular source (per wp:ELMAYBE's #4). --doncram 19:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Questions Highland Course and no-speed-limit
There's a statement in both the main and alternative versions, of approximately: "Some corners were also part of the Highland Course and Four Inch Course used for the Tourist Trophy automobile car races held in the Isle of Man between 1906 and 1922." Could that be improved in both, to say which corners? Can it be more informatively stated, such as: "The corners from ____ to ___ were also part of...."? Perhaps all those corners are consecutive, or perhaps there are some deviations where the Highland Course might not have gone through some corner that is now part of the Snaeffels course. For now in the main version I'm planning to indicate by asterisk for each corner, whether it was included in the Highland Course, according to what's said in the corresponding articles, but those articles may not all address the issue. Agljones, could you share what you know? --doncram 17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC) And I'd like to know where the no-speed-limit portions of the course are. Are there multiple ones, or is it just over the mountain portion? --doncram 23:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- See the above reply about trying to extend the list into other non-relevant areas. I can think of better things to research than speed-limits and they are verifiability issues under Wikipedia rules. There is no relevant question here to answer and the editor needs to reassess the amount of involvement in this article and again do not resort to vandalism.agljones(talk)16:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. About no speed limits, fine, no problem. I have other sources and will figure out myself whether i can compose something useful to say or not.
- But, umm, about which parts of the SMC were included in the Highlands and Four Inch Course it appears the topic could be addressed easily in the list-article. And there are a lot of linked corner articles that spend a lot of text on the topic, while it would be better for them not to. I think the topic can simply better addressed in the list-article. --doncram 00:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
agljones' preferred version of list
Editor agljones' currently preferred version of this list article is copied to Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Alternative version. Agljones may take exception, but I am reverting his recent Bold, major edits which put that alternative version in place, and I will continue to develop the list in mainspace as previously, with its coordinates, descriptions, and more that Agljones' version drops. It is about time to get some other editors' opinions to decide between Agljones' and my different visions for this list. I suggest we spend some time, not too long, cleaning up the main version and alternative version, before inviting others. Let's avoid edit warring, let's just clean up and then get others to decide.
Agljones, small cleanups you probably intend:
- Drop the {{GeoGroup}}
- At Windy Corner in your list, de-link that to just show Windy Corner
I want to finish out some things in the main version, too. --doncram 17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- You have been repeatedly been asked not to move or edits WP:TPO Please do not do this. DO NOT VANDALISE ARTICLES. Do not change the accepted official course names. Overall, your technical knowledge of the subject is not good enough to continue with the article and you have no access to the main primary or secondary sources. Do not create a list of vertically stacked articles with details that differ from the original articles. Do not list fatal accidents to competitors. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL There are issues of insufficient neutral point of view, writing sections and paragraphs using a single internet source which are biased, inaccurate and often ridiculous technical points which are subjected to plagiarism and do reach the correct standards for verifiability and notability required for Wikipedia which is unacceptable. The use of very poor written English is unacceptable. Also unacceptable is repeatedly trying to cross into other articles and other areas covered by the Isle of Man TT network of articles. The descriptions section do not reach Wikipedia standards, contradict the already established articles. Unacceptable are the commercial advertisements or commercial information and written in different styles from an informal blog or travelogue or a series of commercial advertorials which has stopped any further development of the Isle of Man TT article network. agljones(talk)16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- About just the "trying to cross into other articles and other areas covered by the Isle of Man TT network of articles": the "network" isn't working as probably intended, as there's not good material available or interest/ability by editors to develop most of the intended corner articles. Where they're not developed much, it would be better to redirect to list-article. Where there is good development, it's fine and good for the list-article to summarize about them. :) --doncram 00:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is a list of results articles if you wish to participate in the "network." There is the Manx Grand Prix Results 1924-2004. Most of the current Isle of Man TT Results do not have Executive Summaries or Race summaries. Also, History of the Isle of Man TT Race articles 1907-1914, 1920-1939, 1949-1976, 1977 onwards...., History of various manufactures at the Isle of Man TT....Honda, Yamaha, Norton etc, various race biographies, Day by Day Isle of Man TT practice results, Norton Kneeler, Douglas Banking Sidecar, Biland B2b Sidecar, Clypse Course, St.Johns Short Course, Williston Course, Jurby South Circuit, Andreas Airfield, Production TT, Formula 1 TT, Race results for 1905 Isle of Man International Cup, race results for Highland Course, Four Inch Course, Isle of Man Gordon Bennett Trophy, RAC Tourist Trophy 1905-1922, Mannin Beg/Mannin Moar Course, Southern 100, Pre-TT Classic Races, Post-TT races......etc and perhaps there is also the Manx Trophy Rally and Manx International Rally………
1974 Isle of Man TT, 1975 Isle of Man TT, 1977 Isle of Man TT, 1978 Isle of Man TT, 1979 Isle of Man TT, 1980 Isle of Man TT, 1981 Isle of Man TT, 1982 Isle of Man TT, 1983 Isle of Man TT, 1984 Isle of Man TT, 1985 Isle of Man TT, 1986 Isle of Man TT, 1987 Isle of Man TT, 1988 Isle of Man TT, 1989 Isle of Man TT, 1990 Isle of Man TT, 1991 Isle of Man TT, 1992 Isle of Man TT, 1993 Isle of Man TT, 1994 Isle of Man TT, 1997 Isle of Man TT, 1998 Isle of Man TT, 1999 Isle of Man TT, 2003 Isle of Man TT, 2004 Isle of Man TT
The network is generally working as intended. The situation would be improved except with the unnecessary AfD nominations and having to deal with duplicated information in a list article. THIS IS THE ISLE OF MAN TT AND IT HAS TO BE CORRECT. How do you decided when an article is not developed ? Redirecting an article does not allow the article to be developed. How do you redirect the incomplete race results ? Where do you redirect the race results too ? There is an extensive amount of information. The Isle of Man TT is an integral part of the history of the development of the motor-cycle. Redirecting articles has an effect on the general Wikipedia motor-cycle network of articles and do not cross over into this area by including non-relevant information in list articles. Do not make irrelevant and spurious comments and keep on topic.agljones(talk)14:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Include or remove corner-specific fatal accident mentions
Rambling question unreadable. The WP:NOT#MEMORIAL policy can not be by passed by listing only the years as they can be mistaken for road traffic accidents. agljones(talk)12:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Agljones removed and I restored two corner-specific mentions of fatal accidents. Thanks, Agljones for contributing to the article and for your attention applied. Agljones, can we please discuss this here? And I suggest/assert that what is fair is to keep the mentions in, unless there is a consensus or at least one or two other editors' supporting removal. We can ask for some others' opinions. By restoring the comments and opening this discussion section, I am NOT doing something "impractical" and I am NOT setting my own wp:OWN editing policy (to paraphrase statements somewhere above). I am PROPOSING an approach to deal with the issue, and I am ASKING you to accept the proposal. You can choose to discuss here or not, you can choose to remove the statements again or not. I am ASKING you to proceed in this way, but I am also OPEN to alternative suggestions.
Why do I suggest this way?
- Because it's an issue that can/will come up as the list is developed more, so discussion is more worthwhile
- Because there exists a difference of opinion between two editors about whether a) accidents (or mentions of them) are controversial, and repeated mentions create an undue negative POV in the article, or b) the mentions are simply factual and neutral and relevant/useful in corner-specific notes. Being far away I am less informed about local views, but I don't see anything as likely to offend anyone, and I am not aware of any great sensitivity about such mentions. If the mentions, no matter how politely they are worded, somehow do offend persons of some significant group, then I would want to know and and I would want not to offend.
- Because I think the issue, if discussed, might be settled by some compromise (e.g. accident mentions should only be included if some conditions are met)
- Because I believe getting some other opinions would help resolve this; and I am willing to accept removals if there's consensus or at least some support from others; and I hope you will accept keeping mentions if there's not support.
- Because from my experience in Wikipedia I believe that it's generally better to defer somewhat to the preferences of an editor who created and is continuing to develop an article. To favor edits that build over than edits that tear down. To define the "Bold" edit in BRD sequence as the tearing down / disagreeing edit. Later, after the editor seems to be "done" and the article seems to reflect that the editor's best try to accomplish some vision, or if time has gone by and the editor seems to has lost interest or has given up or whatever, then it's okay for tearing-down type edits and the original creator has less say.
Why do I support these specific restorations:
- Because the edit summaries removing them asserted they were not supported, but you and I know they are facts supported by sources in the corresponding corner articles. I view descriptive summaries in a list-article of linked other articles, as generally okay without footnoting, if the reader can find specific sources if they click to the article, and if the statements are not disputed. I don't think you really dispute the accuracy of those statements.
- Because there are less confrontational options, if you do really question something: you can tag with "citation needed" {{tl|cn)) or {{dubious}}, you can discuss at talk page.
- Because I don't see mentions of accidents as being controversial at all, and I am unaware of how or why others would see them that way.
- Because I thought they were relatively salient facts about those specific corners that are useful/relevant in summaries about those corners. (If there are many more important things to say in a summary, say, I'd be okay with removing them.)
- Because I think there are relatively few accident mentions. I do not think every accident needs to be mentioned and I am not planning to make "too many" mentions. I guess I'd define "too many" as when the list-article seems to be overstating their importance, relative to the importance of other available information.
- Perhaps relatedly, I think it's fine for some notes boxes to be empty and for others to have varying amounts of text. The list-article is under development. And even if it were "done" it would be fine to have more text about the relatively more important or interesting corners. Wouldn't it be artificial to require the same number of sentences for corners that are less interesting? And I think it is fine/good for the note-boxes to include "cut-and-paste" selections from corresponding corner articles. Why not?
--doncram 07:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- By edits elsewhere, Agljones has conveyed that he thinks wp:NOTMEMORIAL applies, which it does not. A mention that 2 riders were killed at X corner in 1955 and in 1987, say, does not memorialize anyone. The guideline is about creating separate articles about them...not present here.
- Also Agljones has conveyed he thinks any mention of fatal accidents is POV and controversial somehow, when it is just factual. Agljones seeks to remove all mentions...which is white-washing and is a biased POV. --doncram 13:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agljones, why not reply here, on this topic?
- (end of passage collapsed by Agljones, uncollapsed by doncram 4/13/2015)
How many bends?
The page says the course has “about 220 bends.” Why “about”? Why isn’t a more precise number given? If there’s a reason, it should probably be mentioned on the page, too. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure it could vary according to what amount of mild curve counts as a bend. A very mild curve that seems insignificant at low speed, might seem very abrupt at high speed and be one of the bends that racers need to anticipate. Previously in the article was "about 264 bends", with footnote to Gare Joyce ESPN article. That article says there are 264 bends, not "about' 264,[1] in total, so I think it should say 264 bends per that source.
References
- ^ Joyce, Gare (May 5, 2011), Man vs. Isle: Get as close as you'll ever come to the world's most deadly motorcycle road race, ESPN
However, an editor changed from "about 264 bends" to "about 220 bends" and I expect they have their reason, but I agree they should provide a source and should explain "about" if that is to be kept in. The "about 220" could be tagged with {{citation needed}}. --doncram 05:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)