Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Conclusion for the BRD Process

The list article does not comply with the issue of independent nobility WP:N which need to be addressed. The creative issues in the selection of this list items has not been acknowledge with a citation(s) which is required by Wikipedia WP:CITE. The issues in the Executive Summary description in respect to citations WP:V and these questions need to be answered for the BRD. The Executive Summary duplicates/contradicts the pre-existing Snaefell Mountain Course article and this content needs to be resolved or merged. The article is not a list article and is a series of stacked mini-articles.WP:NOTMIRROR agljones(talk)13:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

All of the complaints here repeat complaints given above in the #BRD and #Executive Summary discussion sections. No further discussion here is needed, IMHO. --doncram 14:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue of 'hatting comments' on talk-pages by the editor User:doncram this been brought to your attention before. [1] Please refrain from this practice of breaking-up sections on talk:pages with replies and do not unnecessarily archive discussions on talk-pages even if there has not been any comments for a lengthy period of time. WP:CIVIL The BRD process does not preclude the discussion of multiple issues. agljones(talk)18:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not "hatted" or broken up any discussion in the four discussion sections opened by Agljones today. Agljones, your comment here seems out of place. Would you please reply to the comments & questions in the three discussion sections above? In fact I asked in one section above whether you would mind it being broken up, but you have not answered there. If there is no response in the above three discussion sections, I do expect those will eventually be archived. There seems to be nothing to discuss in this discussion section here, anyhow. --doncram 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

BRD process

The BRD process does not exclude the discussion of multiple issues as many section have common problems. Dealing with issues one item at at time is a time wasting and lengthy experience as there has been spurious objections to extended discussions. Any editor that registered an objection to the AfD process is not in position to make complaints about the length of the sections of the BRD discussions and should be seen in the context as gaming the system. WP:GAME Any further attempts at archiving this talk-page will be seen as 'hatting' comments. There is no consensus required for the adoption of the British-English style.

P1

The AfD nomination was in respect that the article had not addressed the under-lying requirement for independent notability WP:N, that the article duplicates pre-existing articles and also latent under-lying issues of Original Research WP:OP and the 'creative' issues in producing the list as it has been reproduced without attributing it to its source. WP:INTEGRITY. The AfD nomination also referred that is was now difficult to incorporate new articles or new information in the Isle of Man Motor-Cycling network of articles. There are also now further issues of article length and the (non-list) article creating problems of Circular references. The result of the Afd nomination after relisting was ‘Keep’ and no recommendation or any further comments were made by the administrator closing the discussion and this should not been seen that the requirements of independent notability WP:N had been satisfied or been resolved.

(P2-P6)

As you previously state (P2-P6) it is not possible to quote Wikipedia as a citation or to support issue of issue of independent notability WP:N or notability for a citation WP:V. The issues raised in the ‘lede’ or Executive Summary are not applicable in (P2-P6). As mentioned at this BRD discussion (Part 3 para 1) that the edit summary should not be used at an extension of the article. [2] The issues raised by standalone lists would suggest that this article is not a list article but a standalone article. Wikipedia does not allow the process of common knowledge to disrupt the general editing process or encyclopaedia building process as shown by theses edits [3]] [4] The issues in (P2-P6) do not apply to the manual of style WP:MOS or the use of the selection of suitable images including image size and placement. The issues(P2-P6) in respect to the use of British-English do not apply. Although the BRD is a consensus process, it does not permit article ownership of content WP:OWNERSHIP as there is no consensus is required for the use of British-English words or style. Wikipedia does not permit ‘edit-warring’ over the differences in the British-English style and the terms not used in this style have been previously identified and no further consensus is required.

Local Consensus

As the ‘lede’ paragraph does not mention the racing or other events used by the Snaefell Mountain Course and therefore a “local consensus” has been applied in the list items or rows. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS As suggested previously, the article is not a list article but a series of stacked articles and this is reinforced by the lack of definition in the ‘lede’ paragraph and also the following paragraphs that have no citations WP:V, have little or no encyclopaedic value WP:MADEUP, written in a commercial blog style WP:NOTBLOG and duplicate pre-existing articles or again stray into other technical areas not defined by the ‘lede’ paragraph or ‘executive summary’ of the article. Furthermore, the ‘local consensus’ or “ consensus” has been applied as shown by this edit [5].

2016 Isle of Man TT

The 2016 Isle of Man TT Guide shows a “Course” map with the ‘named corners’ and a study of the map shows that not all the article rows are ‘names’ on the map. Conversely, some ‘names’ on the map do not have an article row and therefore a “local consensus” has been applied (P7) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This “Course” map from the 2016 Isle of Man TT Race Guide cannot be used to support independent notability WP:N for the article as it is a citation from an Isle of Man TT Races motor-cycle publication. It cannot be used to support the selection of the list rows as a citation to support the 'creative' issues in producing the list WP:INTEGRITY as the current selection of article rows is a “local consensus” with the inclusion of a number of ‘non-notable bends and other ‘non-notable features.’ This is reinforced by this edit [6] which quotes the editor User:Lukeno94 that has now been blocked by Wikipedia. The same citation cannot be used for the distance mileage column as the 2016 Isle of Man TT Race Guide does not show the exact mileage distance and only mileposts. Again as you previously state (P2-P6) it is not possible to quote Wikipedia as a citation for the inclusion of this information in the rows.

Relative Length

Although very unclear, the comments about any relative length WP:TLDR would suggest a tacit acknowledgement that the (non-list) article is too long with an excessive number of article rows. It is also a tacit admission (P2-P6) that the length of comments in the article rows is also too long and copied from pre-existing articles WP:CUTPASTE. Also, the meanings of the original article citations cannot support the new text in the article row with/without the citations and is Original Research WP:OR. Additionally, some article rows do not have linked articles and other article rows have text not associated with the original article and again without citations which is again Original Research WP:OP WP:V. To suggest that if the text in the article row is longer than the original article it should be redirected to this article is again a further tacit declaration about excessive row article length and a further implied acknowledgement of a ‘local consensus’ as shown by this edit [7] in the talk: pages Windy Corner that is not permitted by Wikipedia. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS

Summary

The BRD process is obliged to provide a summary or conclusion, The summary or recommendation for the BRD process is that the main Snaefell Mountain Course article should be re-titled as it has not been possible after a lenghthy period of time to find a citation that supports independent notability for the article WP:N or does not have issue of problems of Circular references. The conclusion for the BRD discussion that the article is too long and the citations do not support independent notability WP:N. The ‘lede’/ Executive Summary duplicates/contradicts the pre-existing Snaefell Mountain Course article and this content needs to be resolved or merged. The article is not a list article and is a series of stacked mini-articles (P2-P6) and the issues of notability WP:V have not been addressed. agljones(talk)12:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

To User:Agljones, I appreciate that you are trying to provide "diffs", i.e. links to the "differences" accomplished by specific edits, in order to support several of your claims. But where currently "[32]" shows, you provide a link to a specific previous version of an article, i.e. this version of the Talk:Keppel Gate page, as of time 10:36 on 29 May, rather than a "diff", so it is not clear what edit changes (additions or subtractions of text) you are referring to. Please see wp:DIFF for help on what a diff is and especially on how to link to it. Where [32] shows above, do you mean this diff, which shows the changes made by your edit at time 10:36 on 29 May? Perhaps you could please strike your previous links and replace them with what you meant, at links currently showing as [32], [33], [34], [35] in your comment above. Also note you can label them like I just labelled one "this diff, which shows the changes made by your edit at time 10:36 on 29 May", rather than letting Wikipedia give them temporary numbers like [32], for the 32nd link on this page, which will change when any Talk section above is expanded or removed. You referred one or more times to edit summaries in diffs; you can indeed see an edit summary "(→‎BRD: clarification)" in the diff that I link to, but you can't see an edit summary in a version.

Your writing repeats stuff you said before and is too long again for your own good in my opinion; again "wp:TLDR" would be a valid response. One problem with long writing is that it gives over power to the person reading, who can choose to select any one thing to respond to, out of all that you write. The person can be arbitrary and sort of mean in disregarding much of what you say, and ignoring what you might think most important. I am trying though to decipher what you mean in good faith, however. In your writing, offhand I don't see anything else new[nothing jumps out at me]], but I do appreciate your pointing to a 2016 map of the course. You said

The 2016 Isle of Man TT Guide shows a “Course” map with the ‘named corners’ and a study of the map shows that not all the article rows are ‘names’ on the map. Conversely, some ‘names’ on the map do not have an article row and therefore a “local consensus” has been applied....

That map sounds promising, because it is a source perhaps reflecting someone else's judgment, not our own, about which named corners are equivalent in importance. I AGREE WITH YOU that the current list might cover named corners that are less important, and might omit more important ones. Can you link to a copy of the map anywhere, so that I could see it? It could possibly be used to define a list of which named corners should be covered in this list-article. However, what you write seems to be holding out that possibility, but then taking it away because you don't think the map is a legitimate source, is that right? [In my opinion it might be good to use its named corners as something for us to hang our hat on, pending a better source.]

I will try to decipher more out of what you wrote above, if you will fix the "diffs" and perhaps otherwise revise it to be more clear. --doncram 08:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, now I see that an archiving bot archived 2 sections above, so in fact the "diffs" that are merely numbered, not labelled, now are different, obviously undermining references to them. Something to do better in future discussion, perhaps?

Specifically the bot removed the "Executive summary" discussion section, from in between other sections. I had responded within that section that it seemed duplicative, though, and I don't think this discussion in this section is impoverished due to it being archived. A single shorter discussion section would have worked better than 4(?) long ones started simultaneously, I have said already.

I'm waiting on responses to my questions about the map. --doncram 22:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Isle of Man TT, 2016 Manx Grand Prix and 2016 Classic TT Guides

The “Course” maps are from publications and do not have an internet link. The 2016 Isle of Man TT Guide shows a “Course” map for the “TT Course” and as previously stated in this BRD “….This “Course” map from the 2016 Isle of Man TT Race Guide cannot be used to support independent notability WP:N for the article as it is a citation from an Isle of Man TT Races motor-cycle publication.” The map in the 2016 Isle of Man TT Guide does not state “Snaefell Mountain Course” and cannot legitimately be used to support independent notability WP:N as it states “TT Course.” The use of either of these ‘Course’ maps would be Original Research WP:OR and a ‘saliently’ incorrect use of a citation to define independent notability WP:N. There are no provisions by Wikipedia for “pending a better source” which is another tacit admission that this BRD discussion does have a legitimate base for discussion and there are fundamental and critical errors in the ‘lede-sentence’ and / or ‘Executive Summary of the article. The current article is a non-list article of stacked ‘non-notable’ geographical features WP:CUTPASTE of the Isle of Man and the “Snaefell Mountain Course” is not defined WP:MADEUP in the ‘lede’ sentence and has no citation for independent notability WP:N. agljones(talk)10:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Photographic Image Placement

In respect to the rules of image placement, size and relevance, Wikipedia has a number of rules in regard to encyclopedic pertinence and nature of photographs. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE The image placement in the article is unsuitable and Wikipedia states “ ....Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative” MOS:PERTINENCE The image problems for a number of photographs have been previously identified in the BRD discussion of 10th September 2016 [8] Again, Wikipedia states that;- “ .....Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available” and “....Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used.” MOS:IRELEV A further problem identified with the images in the BRD discussion of the 10th September 2016 was one of scale and Fiducial markers. WP:FIDUCIAL

Also, a requirement by Wikipedia is an Image Lead for the article, “.....allowing readers to quickly assess whether they are on the right page.” The current format of the article has two maps and an image that do not convey this principal and are not as Wikipedia states “.....an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article.” MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE , WP:FIDUCIAL , WP:CUTPASTE A further technical issue for Wikipedia is that for Mobile devices “….an article's first image may be displayed at the top of the article, even if it appears well into the article in the desktop view…..this phenomenon may mislead or confuse readers using mobile devices.” As previously stated with this edit;- [9] for the conclusion for the BRD discussion the length or style of the article and image placement will never by friendly to users of mobile devices and perhaps a small article of different style should be considered. agljones(talk)11:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how the above comments relate to the discussion topic "Conclusion for the BRD process", but I'll reply nonetheless, to try to help the complainant. Note, I can be arbitrary in what I select to respond to, because there is no organization in the discussion, it is just rambling and too long for purpose of any real discussion. (I am just saying: you easily "lose" a discussion if you don't comply with sensible discussion guidelines.) Okay, here goes with my selective replies:

1) A main point in the above "2016 Isle of Man TT, 2016 Manx Grand Prix and 2016 Classic TT Guides", is that it is asserted that the list-article is not a list-article. Huh? It is a list of named corners and other notable features of the race course. It includes a big list of them. How is that not a list? This is silly.

2) In "Photographic Image Placement", there is general complaint about photos in the list-article. It seems very relevant to me for the list-article to include photos of the places listed. Why not? Certainly the photos are relevant. The photos are illustrative about the places being discussed, they are not merely decorative and unrelated to the topic. [A passage here was deleted by another editor. Whatever. The passage explained two hypothetical examples of images that would be unrelated.] But there are no such unrelated images in the list-article. It is non-sensical to argue against using photos illustrating items in a list-article. Practically every good list-article in Wikipedia has photos of the list-items, I believe, or certainly at least photos are common in Featured Lists. This is silly.

--doncram 20:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Final Conclusion for BRD

The final specific suggestions for the BRD conclusion is that the Gare citation, an example of a Circular reference, be removed as it is inaccurate, WP:V it does not state the correct number of corners or support independent notability for the article WP:N The Kneale citation should be removed as it is a violation of copyright and the full citation refers only to the recent Isle of Man TT festival which is not the subject of the article. WP:N, WP:V

The sections of the executive summary / lede paragraphs that are ‘saliently’ ambiguous or adapted from the TTwebsite.com forum should also be removed. [10], WP:MADEUP, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:CUTPASTE The final suggestion for the BRD conclusion is that the main Snaefell Mountain Course article should be retitled to reflect modern usage and sources [11], WP:MODERNPLACENAME which is partial reflected again by this edit [12] and this will allow the Isle of Man TT network of motor-cycle articles to develop. The overall summary is that the number of article references should not be no more than 15 linked articles [13], WP:MOS, WP:TLDR, WP:VERBIAGE, and images which 'saliently' do not comply with Wikipedia criteria in full should also be removed. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE

agljones(talk)11:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Huh? New anti-article arguments introduced in a "final conclusion"? To respond:

a) I don't understand what is the complaint about the Gare source, including how it is a "circular reference". It is not a computer program that has gone into an infinite loop. I sort of agree though with some discomfort about its usage, as I don't see the Gare source claiming any specific number of corners, while it is attached currently to the end of a sentence that discusses the number of corners. Perhaps I should move the footnote to attach at a different point.

b) It is simply false that the quotation from Kneale ("Spectators gather all around the course at locations which have become part of road-racing history: Bray Hill, Quarter Bridge, Ballacraine, Laurel Bank, Baaregarrow, Ballaugh Bridge, Quarry Bends, Sulby Straight, Ramsey Hairpin, Gooseneck, Verandah, 32nd Milestone, Windy Corner, Kate's Cottage, Creg-ny-Baa, Hillberry, Signpost, Governor's Bridge") is a copyright violation. It is not. There are Wikipedia processes for dealing with copyright violations. However frivolous claims will likely be regarded as disruption of Wikipedia.

c) About an arbitrary limit on the number of outgoing links from this list-article, I think that is aimed at limiting the number of items in the list. The proposal would be for this list-article to list just some of the named corners that have Wikipedia articles, and not link to the other ones? What rubbish.

d) I don't get other general or vague complaints. To the complainant, how about you draft a different list-article in your userspace, and put that forward for consideration.

--doncram 02:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary for the BRD process

The correct use of the BRD process is to supply a summary or conclusion. In respect to the comments in paragraph (a), (b), (c) & (d) and the “Final Conclusion for the BRD”;-

a). The Gare citation, an example of Circular reporting and clearly states, incorrectly that;- “…Bends on the course: 264…..” WP:CIRCULAR, WP:V

b). The Kneale citation (2001), incorrectly quoted without the ISBN number and the publication clearly states that it cannot be reproduced in any format without the permission of the publishers. WP:COPYVIO

c). Final Conclusion for the BRD is actually partially supported above in b) by the Kneale citation.WP:TLDR

d). The suggestion of a draft in the user:space would ‘saliently’ bypass the consensus process in BRD discussion. WP:CYCLE, WP:MOS The other issues are highlighted with this refs for Executive Summary [14] of edit 13:29, 10 September 2016

agljones(talk)12:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

General BRD Process and BRD process with reference to citations

It is unclear which sources that editors are using in this article. Also, editors should make more of an attempt to familiarise themselves with the subject matter in the Isle of Man motor-cycle network of articles and attempt to use correctly citations and sources appropriately as defined by Wikipedia rules and all information in the citations has to be verifiable. WP:V

As stated previously, Editors should directly address the BRD process and not use the edit summary to comment on the BRD process as shown by this edit summary. (see BRD part 2 para 1.) [15] The edit summary in general should not be used as an extension of the article WP:MOS or used to bypass any normal editing controls WP:N, WP:V or bypass the BRD process used in good faith. It is stated by Wikipedia in respect to the BRD process that;- “....The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD...” and Wikipedia assumes that the editor is acting in good faith. Any Wikipedia editor that registered an objection to the AfD process is not in position to make complaints about the sections of the BRD discussions and should be seen in the context as pre-empting the BRD discussion, gaming the system WP:GAME, acting unilaterally and article ownership. WP:OWN Any editor that registered an objection to the AfD process is not in position to make complaints about the length of the sections of the BRD discussions should be seen in the context as also gaming the system WP:GAME. (two small page breaks can be inserted into the BRD discussion if there is any further problems) If an editor cannot be reasonably expected to read all 65 section of a BRD discussion [16], then the same editor cannot be reasonable expected to read all the same 65 sections of the main article. WP:MOS, WP:TLDR, WP:VERBIAGE

Gare Citation and number of corners

In response to discussion point a) and the “Final Conclusion for the BRD;-” the Gare citation “Man vs. Isle The World’s most Dangerous motorcycle race” clearly states that “....Bends on the course: 264... [17] and the article states that “...a report asserted there are 264...” corners. This point in respect to the Gare citation and the stated number of 264 bends is clarified with this edit of the 15th April 2015. [18] The publication “Story of the Manx (Grand Prix Races)” by the author Davison uses the term “....TT Course” rather than the term ”Snaefell Mountain Course” and clearly states that there are “.....219 corners” rather than the 264 corner in the Gare citation in the article. The publication “Story of the Manx (Grand Prix)” then lists individually all of these “....219 corners” used for the Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix Races. (see below ‘219 corners’)

Gare citation and Independent Notability

The Gare citation cannot support the issue of independent notability WP:N as discussed at the Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man [19] as it is originates from a sports magazine WP:OR WP:N and is an inaccurate, biased citation. – WP:POISONOUSFRUIT, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:BIAS. The Gare citation 2011 is not in the ‘lede’ paragraph or sentence but contained in the second paragraph. Although, the Gare citation includes the term “Snaefell Mountain Course,” and this a term that is not in common use WP:MODERNPLACENAME and the 2016 Isle of Man TT guide refers to “TT Mountain Circuit” and the guide for the 2016 Isle of Man Festival of Motor-Cycling refers to “Mountain Course.” The use of the term “Snaefell Mountain Course” is an example of Circular reporting in Wikipedia (ie publication / Wikipedia / publication ) which has been shown at this previous discussion on the Kate’s Cottage talk page [20] (the source in my private collection is the Isle of Man Examiner newspaper 3rd June 2003) and issues of “plagiarism” by journalists as shown by this recent BRD discussion [21]. The Gare article does not fully explain the term for independent notability as shown by this reference on the talk:page for the Windy Corner article [22]. There is also a discrepancy between the number of corners of 264 in the Gare citation compared to 219 corners in the Davision publication. (see this reference for issues of mistake [23] (?) WP:MOS Perhaps an editor can explain this edit and see below Summary para C [24] )

Kneale Citation

The Kneale citation in the executive summary only uses the term “course” and not “Snaefell Mountain Course” and therefore cannot be used to support independent notability. WP:N The Kneale citation [25] is not actually quoted in full, without the ISNB number, year of publication or full-title of book series. WP:MOSWORKS The Kneale citation is quoted in the second sentence in the paragraph refers only to the Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Festival and is written in terms which are ambiguous and could refer to any event during the TT festival including the Pre-TT Classic Races and Post-TT races which are held on another circuit which are also part of the Isle of Man TT Festival. Also, the Kneale citation may be a reference to the non-racing event of “Mad Sunday” which is an unofficial, non-sanctioned event, a type of event particular to the Isle of Man TT Races. In comparison the article in the first sentence states;- “The Snaefell Mountain Course, a motor racing circuit” which is different to “….the course” and TT festival in the full Kneale citation. Also, the Kneale publication states that no part of the publication be quoted including in electronic format without the written permission of the publishers and therefore the use of this Kneale citation infringes copyright which is not permitted by Wikipedia. WP:COPYVIO

Common Knowledge, Confirmation Bias and Circular reporting

Wikipedia does not allow the process of common knowledge, Confirmation bias and circular reportingto disrupt the general editing process or encyclopaedia building process as shown by this BRD discussion [26] and these edits [27], [28] (Please read in full and archiving does not break the links it only changes the link numbers).

Ambiguous or adapted sections.

The description of “....jumps where most motorcycle racers clear off the ground, drivers of cars at slow speeds might not even notice a bump...” is original research WP:OR with no citation WP:N. For the purposes of the BRD discussion then an explanation is required for the origin of this research. WP:MADEUP There is a similar discussion from the ttwebsite.com in regard to the number of corners and a comment by contributor Nev14 (25th March 2015) which reads;- “.....the slight kink at the end of Sulby Straight is hardly noticeable at the legal speed limit there of 30mph. But at racing speeds approaching 190mph Having marshalled at Mill Race marshalling point I can tell you that as they lean over and head towards you it quite some kink or curve or corner whatever you call it...” [29] This is an issue of “....a combination of too close paraphrasing, i.e. plagiarizing, and introduced errors/typos (perhaps to avoid detection by plagiarism-detection programs)....” as discussed by this edit [30]. WP:PLAG

‘Lede sentence’ / Gare Citation

The ‘lede’ sentence(s) / executive summary for the article is not defined in accordance with Wikipedia rules. WP:LEDE. There is a note in the lede sentence and this unclear what is the purpose of this reference as it is not permitted to quote Wikipedia as a source. WP:COPYWITHIN Again, it is unclear if the highly inaccurate Gare citation [31] supports independent nobility WP:N as the citation is a reference to “264 corners” in the second paragraph in the article. This statement is incorrect as the publication “Story of the Manx (Grand Prix)” Davision (1947) refers to the “TT course” and states “219 corners.” The comments in a) is a tacit admission that the Gare citation serves no real purpose for the ‘lede’ sentence.

‘Lede’ sentence(s) / Executive Summary

The ‘lede’ sentence for the article now states that;- “....The Snaefell Mountain Course, a motorsport racing circuit....” and Wikipedia article motorsport primarily an article about automobiles states in the ‘lede’ sentence that motorsport is ; “....a global term used to encompass the group of competitive events which primarily involve the use of motorised vehicles...” (Motorcycle racing is listed in "Other racing in this article) The ‘lede’ sentence then states that the Snaefell Mountain Course “....was once part of Grand Prix motorcycle racing....” In comparison the main article states that the Snaefell Mountain Course is;- “....a road-racing street circuit used for the Isle of Man TT since 1911 and Manx Grand Prix races from 1923 in the Isle of Man.” The main article makes no mention of the Snaefell Mountain Course being used for automobile racing. The Isle of Man TT Races were part of the pre-war European Championship. The Manx Grand Prix was never part of a World Championship series. The term “Executive Summary” is used by UK TV presenter James May in Series 1 Episode 3 of the BBC 2 series James May's Cars of the People and the presenter gives a semi-humorous "Wikipedia" ‘lede’ sentence style Executive summary of the BMC Mini automobile.

‘Lede sentence’ – other circuits

The 'lede' sentence states; “.....Unlike the closed-circuit race tracks now used in all Grand Prix championship races.....the course runs 37.73 miles (60.72 km) almost-entirely along public roads of the Isle of Man. “ The roads for the “TT Course” are closed for racing by a Road Closing order under the 1982 Road Racing (Isle of Man) Act and is a “closed circuit.” Also, in the race “circuits” listed in the Wikipedia Moto GP article the Bugatti Circuit incorporates a small section of public road closed for racing and the Assen TT Circuit, Sachsenring and Brno circuits were previously held on public road circuits or “road courses” or incorporate a small section of a former public road. In comparison, during the FIM World Motor-Cycling season in 1972 the majority of circuits were public “road courses.” In 1972, the circuits for the FIM World Motor-Cycling championship including Clemont-Ferrand, Opatija, Imatra, Montjuic , the Imola circuit which was previously based on a public road and the Nurnburgring circuit depending on which section was either part public roads (Südschleife) or a privately owned fee-paying public toll road (Nordschleife).

Note 1 & Note 2

It is very unclear what Note 1 in the article supports in terms of the independent notability WP:N and it not permissible to quote Wikipedia as a source. WP:COPYWITHIN It may support the USA concentric / US-English terms in the Wikipedia article Road racing which differentiate between the terms of ‘Oval-racing’ and ‘non-Oval racing’ and/or ‘road courses.’ The term ‘road course’ is used to described a circuit using closed public roads for an event such as the Isle of Man TT races rather than use the term ‘street circuit.’ The Wikipedia article Road racing linked to the main Snaefell Mountain Course article along with the article section Global road courses [32] unfortunately contains no citations WP:V and no citation to support independent notability for these articleWP:N. Again, the British-English style does not use the US-Concentric, US-English term “road courses” to describe “....purpose-built race tracks” or “....street-circuits....” to describe ‘road courses’ except for a temporary circuit within an urban environment such as the Formula One Monaco Grand Prix. Also, the term such as a “....paved closed circuit” or “parkland” to describe “closed-circuit race tracks” or “short circuit events” in the United Kingdom are these terms are not used in British-English style. In Note 2 in the article, the Governor’s Bridge ‘old road’ was not subject to road improvement and along with the old section of the A18 Bemahague Road are not “closed to normal traffic” with a Road Closing order and the road traffic is ‘diverted.’ (This can be seen with this reference in (Article 4(1)) [33])

official highway named corners

It would be again ‘saliently’ Original Research WP:OR to differentiate between geographical points, local place names or properties found on the “Course” map in the 2016 Isle of Man TT Guide or 2016 Manx Grand Prix against the official “Named Corners” that are part of the Isle of Man TT (Mountain) Course. The ‘burden of proof’ lies with the editor adding or removing text. The use of either of these ‘Course’ maps would be Original Research WP:OR and a ‘saliently’ incorrect use of a citation to define independent notability WP:N. This general point is clarified at the talk:page Windy Corner with this edit that [34] and again with this edit [35] .

This point is partially highlighted by a post on the internet forum for the ttwebsite.com and that a contributor ‘Spannnerman’ stated that;- “....believe it or not according to the IOM.gov there are only 21 official highway named corners on the course....“ [36]. Although at the moment a relatively unconfirmed claim for the purposes of Wikipedia Wp:V, the contributor has a point that there are approximately twenty-two (22) “official highway named corners” on the Isle of Man TT Course that are in whole or in part associated only with the Isle of Man TT, Manx Grand Prix or Classic TT races (which are not the subject of the article). When compared to the Ordnance Survey Landranger Isle of Man map (sheet 95), all but five of the approximately twenty-two (22) “official highway named corners” appear on the Isle of Man OS map (scale 1:50,000 surveyed c1992) and six of these “official highway named corners” do not appear in the (non)-list article the subject of the BRD process. WP: LOCALCONSENSUS

Named Corners

In reference to this edit and partial comment [37], the Named corners section [38] of the Snaefell Mountain Course article was initially designed for only “corners” that were named after competitors and this is understood with this edit “....Edit was [this diff just plopping it in...” [39] [40]. The “corners” named after competitors have been largely been ignored in the (non)-list article and shows an engagement of a local consensus. WP: LOCALCONSENSUS For example, a certain former competitor has been included in the text for an article row as a “named corner, ” but not as an article row as a ‘non-notable’ non-notable feature which is not a “named corner.” However, the same information is not found in the linked article in the article row. The citation for the information about the former competitor is promotional and from a commercial website. [41], WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RUMOUR, WP:V. The policy that Wikipedia does not support commercial information or links is understood by editors at this edit [42]. The location of the “named corner” (actually not a ‘corner’) has a road sign board (see below, Road Signs and Sheep Gates). After a period of time, there is no citation WP:V to be found for the inclusion in a the article row WP:V and despite the existence of metal road sign [43] from circa 2011 is not an official “named corner” and no citation has been found for the sign. (eg press release. cf 32nd Milestone. See below Article Map) The “named corner” is not found on either the course map in the 2016 Isle of Man TT or 2016 Manx Grand Prix Guides and for the foreseeable future unlikely ever to be included on any “official” course map.

Naming Practices; Dunlop Curve

The Naming Practices section states “....While there exist named corners in other racing circuits, naming of corners elsewhere is usually less salient.....” WP:MADEUP The article first gives an example of the ‘Dunlop Curve’ at the Le Sarte circuit which is actually named after the Dunlop tyre company advertising display on the nearby footbridge (now dismantled). There may initially be a valid point in the recent practice of commercial companies purchasing advertising space by naming of corners including the Ford Chicane and the Porsche Curves situated on the Le Sarte circuit. This does not apply to the ‘Snaefell Mountain Course’ as none of the corners or other ‘features’ are named after commercial companies or commercial sponsors.

Naming Practices; Indianapolis Motor Speedway

The section then states “....turns in many courses are primarily referred to by numbers, e.g. turns of the 1909-built Indianapolis Motor Speedway in the U.S. are referred to as Turn 1 through Turn 4.” This contradicts the note 1 in the ‘lede’ paragraph which explains that the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is a ‘circuit’ and also the contradicts the statement “....naming of corners elsewhere is usually less salient....” as the number system follows a logical numerical numbering system. WP:MADEUP The Indianapolis Motor Speedway was based on the Brooklands built in 1907 in the United Kingdom which is a type of ‘Oval Course’ with banking and the corners and other features are named in the ‘less salient’ descriptive style and not using the US-Concentric ‘Oval’ numbering system. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway when built in 1909 and heavily influenced by the Brooklands Oval and contained an internal ‘road course’ within the main ‘Oval’ similar to the current modern-day Daytona International Speedway. The internal ‘road course’ was built on to facilitate more grandstands and it is unclear the previous ‘primary’ naming system of ‘turns’ of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway before the removal of the ‘road course’ or when the current ‘secondary’ numbering system was adopted. The race guide for the 1924 Indianapolis 500 Race displays a map which shows the corners with the grandstands labelled “North-West Vista, “South-West Vista”…etc and the map does not display “ Turn 1 through Turn 4.” The current map for the Indy 500 displays the “South-West Vista corner” rather than ‘Turn 3.’ Contemporary pre-war newsreels and up to about 1956 for the Indy 500 race use various terms such as “first corner, ” “second corner”…etc or "first turn" and other terms such as “Tornado Turn,” "North-West turn," “North Shute,” “South Shute,” “Long Shute,” “Short Shute,” “Back straightaway,” and “Front Stretch ” which are less ‘salient’ naming practices than suggested. WP:MADEUP

Naming Practices former race winner's

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway also has a ‘less salient’ practice of naming internal roads after former race winners. The Named Practices section then states that “....The Snaefell Mountain Course is one of the longer racing circuits and has more turns....” and the term “turns” in this context is not used in British-English and is confusing. Then it states “....In common with corners on other circuits that are named, many are named after champion racers....” This would again contradict the statement that “....naming of corners elsewhere is usually less salient.” Also a ‘local consensus’ has been applied as certain of these corners that are named in this context after ‘champion racers’ are not listed in the article or included in the article rows. (see above; official highway named corners and Named Corners).

Comparison of maps

Evaluation of the “TT Course” map and the “Mountain Course” map published in the 2016 guides shows that the two maps differ in comparison to the number and selection of ‘named corners.’ Both ‘course’ maps show fewer than the “60 named corners” in the article and show only mileposts (rather than mileage distances that require a citation WP:V). (The 2007 Centenary Isle of Man TT Race Guide map only displays six corner names) The use of these two maps would be Original Research WP:OR and a local consensus WP: LOCALCONSENSUS as far fewer ’named’ corners are present on the maps than can be found in the article rows in the (non-list) article and the use of these maps do not support the 'creative' issues in producing the list in the article WP:INTEGRITY WP:CITE. There is no citation for the claim “60 named corners” WP:V or for the use of the term “Snaefell Mountain Course” in the article WP:N WP:V. It cannot be claimed that as a list article there is no need to “cite other sources” which has been “adapted or copied” from another Wikipedia article as the main Snaefell Mountain Course article also has no citations for these terms. WP:V, WP:N It is not permissible to quote a Wikipedia article as a source and no proper attribution has been given for the “adapted or copied” sections from other articles. WP:PATT

Article Map

Study of the map [44] in the article shows that not all the article rows are ‘names’ on the map. Also, the map is titled “Isle of Man TT” and not “Snaefell Mountain Course” and is the incorrect use of a source. When the same article map is compared to the “Course” map in the 2016 Isle of Man TT and 2016 Manx Grand Prix Guide there are further differences in all three maps. The issue is still outstanding that the meanings of the original article citations cannot support the new text in the article row with/without the citations and is Original Research WP:OR. Some article rows do not have linked articles and other article rows have text not associated with the original article without citations WP:COPYVIO which is again Original Research. WP:OP WP:V.

It is correct that Wikipedia allows primary sources such as maps to be used for a citation WP:V. However, the map article titled “Isle of Man TT “ [45] cannot be used to support independent notability WP:N as it is not possible to quote Wikipedia as a source for the article or the creative issues in the selection of the article rows. WP:INTEGRITY The use of the article map relative to the selection of article rows is Original Research WP:OR and the engagement of a local consensus WP: LOCALCONSENSUS as shown in the talk:pages for the Windy Corner article. [46] Engagement of the article map in the article relative to other maps (eg 2016 Isle of Man TT Guide) or other citations is again also Original Research WP:OR. Again to clarify, the use of the accompanying text to a map or photograph as a citation WP:V or to support independent notability WP:N is Original Research WP:OR and not permitted by Wikipedia as shown by the as discussed at the talk:pages for the Windy Corner article and not permitted by Wikiepdia WP:N, [47] (these references [48] and "...Counterarguments include the existence of photos, but that's rather meaningless...” [49] ).

Publication TT Milestones (2011) Wright

The publication ‘TT Milestones’ (2011) Wright displays a “Mountain Circuit” map which also differs in the number and selection of ‘named’ corners in the article. The 2011 Wright publication cannot legitimately be used as a citation to support independent notability WP:N as it originates from an Isle of Man TT Races motor-cycle publication and the article states “....Snaefell Mountain Course....”

247 named corners

The 2011 Wright publication also records in an preface a list of 247 ‘named’ corners for the “TT Mountain Course” which is different from the “TT Course” or “Mountain Course” maps found respectively in the 2016 Isle of Man TT and 2016 Manx Grand Prix Guides. Many of the 247 ‘named’ corners are ‘non-notable’ bends, ‘non-notable’ corners or other ‘non-notable’ features and a small number of ‘named’ corners listed have now fallen into disuse. The number of article rows is substantially less than the 247 ‘named’ bends, corners or other features and shown in the Wright publication (2011). WP: LOCALCONSENSUS.

Highroads Course

The Wikipedia article also states “....Snaefell Mountain Course.....a motor racing circuit” without any citations which may suggest a permanent and purpose built racing circuit for automobiles or motor-cycle racing which is ‘saliently’ a different course to the “TT Course” or “Mountain Course.” The article without a citation then states ;- “The course runs 37.73 (60.72 km) entirely along public roads....” This could initially be confused with the Highroads Course or Four Inch Course as the article states 264 corners rather than the more accepted 219 number of corners. Phrases such as “Snaefell Mountain” circuit have been used by newspapers and publications to describe the course used for the Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Races for automobiles. Also, contemporary newspapers and motor-cycle magazines have repeatedly used the term ‘Four Inch Course’ to describe the course used for the Isle of Man TT Races during the period 1911-1914. The term “TT Course” rather than “Snaefell Mountain” circuit or Course as shown in the article has also been used during the period 1914-1922 for other publications for motor-cycle racing or for the Isle of Man Tourist Trophy races for automobiles.

Four Inch Course

The 1911 Isle of Man TT race results in the ‘Motor Cycling Magazine’ does not refer to the ‘Snaefell Mountain Course’ but refers to the ‘Four-Inches circuit’ and includes a map of ‘the course’ which describes the ‘motor-racing circuit’ as the “Tourist Trophy Course.” It may be assumed that these terms were used also for the Tourist Trophy races for automobiles (1905-1922) and are not relevant for the issue of independent notability WP:N and then then fell into disuse. The 2016 Isle of Man TT race Programme only refers to a FIM course licence name and the number is and cannot be used to define independent notability WP:N as it is ‘saliently’ from an Isle of Man TT motor-cycle race secondary source. However, the Public Notice for the Manx Grand Prix and Classic TT Motor-cycle Races 2016 refers to this description;- “ROADS CLOSED. The main roads known as the TT COURSE SHALL BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC for the 2016 Festival of Motorcycling Practices, Parades and Races as follows.” The Public Notice for the 2016 Isle of Man TT races also has this description;- “The main roads known as the TT COURSE will be CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC for the 2016 TT Practices, Parades and Races as follows.”

‘219 corners’

In respect to the comments in paragraph (c) and the “Final Conclusion for the BRD," the publication “Story of the Manx (Grand Prix Races)” by the author Davison uses the term “TT Course” rather than the term ”Snaefell Mountain Course” and clearly states that there are “219 corners.” The publication “Story of the Manx (Grand Prix)” lists all of these individual “219 corners” for the Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix Races. The “219 corners” from the publication of the “Story of the Manx” (Grand Prix) races again differs from the (non-list) article, the Wright publication and the 2016 Isle of Man race guides which again shows in the article an engagement of a local consensus WP: LOCALCONSENSUS. The publication “Story of the Manx (Grand Prix Races)” by Davison would satisfy for the purposes of Wikipedia “the creative issues” in the production of the list WP:INTEGRITY , WP:CITE or corners for a different new article in respect to the 15 -22 “official highway named corners.” The current use of the Gare citation is inaccurate and does not support “the creative issues” in the production of the list and cannot be legitimately be used as it states “Snaefell Mountain Course” and not the term “TT Course” as used in the Davision publication WP:CITE, WP:V. A majority of the corners listed in the (non-list) article are surprisingly not listed in the publication “Story of the Manx (Grand Prix Races)” and this publication may suggest that this current list article does not fulfil the requirement by Wikipedia of “Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic” [50] WP:LISTNAME. This is understood by the discussion at the talk:pages at the Windy Corner article including this recent edit [51]. This further emphasised that the initial function of Named corners section [52] of the Snaefell Mountain Course article was primarily intended to display corners and other features named after former competitors only. (see above Named Corners).

Road Signs and “Sheep Gates”; Brandywell Corner, Keppel Gate, Kate’s Cottage and ‘The Grandstand.’

The meaning of this edit is ambiguous and unclear [53] at this BRD discussion on the article Brandywell, Isle of Man and may or may not suggest that only ‘named’ corners that have a “road sign” are only suitable as articles or inclusion as a row article and again on this criteria of not meet the Wikipedia requirement of “Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic.” WP:LISTNAME, WP: LOCALCONSENSUS. The road sign situated on the A2 Glencrutchery Road in the town of Douglas near the road junction with ‘First Avenue’ states “Grandstand” and “TT Mountain Course” and does not state “TT Grandstand” or “Snaefell Mountain Course.” The issue of road signs and their significance is discussed with this edit [54]. (Again, see above Article Map section in respect to the existence of photos and the "Waterworks" board has been replaced and not numbered 1 to 4 previously like Rhencullen) The previous historic sign on Glencrutchery Road up to 2010 stated “DEPOTS.” In comparison, this further unclear edit in respect to Keppel Gate / Kate's Cottage [55] may suggest that only ‘named’ corners with a by-pass “sheep gate” similar to the type found at Brandywell Corner may only be included. [56]

Associated Pictures George Formby Movie 'No Limit' (1935)

In regard to point (b) and the “Final Conclusion for the BRD," the Talk:Page for the Windy Corner article [57] raised a number of different issue by different editors and one comment suggested that there was only 15 notable corners as defined by this unclear edit which refers to an undisclosed citation [58] which may be the Whipple citation (1979) or the Kneale citation (2001). The 1935 Isle of Man TT movie No Limit (1935 film) shows the 1935 map of the “Course” on the Grandstand scoreboard which only lists 12 different names. This includes the name “Keppel Gate” (nb not ‘Clark’s Corner’) and the recent BBC4 television programme "Full Throttle: The Glory Days of British Motorbikes" (A race commentator from an old newsreel can be heard starting "...it is at Ramsey when the Mountain Course begins...." shows the Scoreboard for the 1938 Isle of Man TT races and the “Course” map displays “Kepple Gate.” (sic) These 12 names are Isle of Man geographical names which can be shown as many of the corresponding articles have their independent notability WP:N defined by publications by Kneen or Broderick (publications “Isle of Man Place Names”…etc) rather than being only 15 “notable” ‘non-notable bends’ [59] compared to the 60+ in the article. The same map of the “Course” is currently found at “the Grandstand” Scoreboard and displays only 12 names which may support above the “Final Conclusion for the BRD.”

Summary for the BRD process

The correct use of the BRD process is to supply a summary or conclusion.

Summary

Any draft proposal in user:space would not address under-lying issues highlighted in the BRD discussion and AfD nomination that the article and article title has no citation for independent notability, WP:RIA WP:N There is also the issue of the article becoming userfied in user:space. WP:USERFIED

This current situation may or may not suggest an issue of content forking WP:CONTENTFORK in respect to the double “twin-track” approach towards the pre-existing main article as is content copied from either linked articles or redirected articles within Wikipedia without proper attribution in full to their respective content. WP:COPYWITHIN There is a further issue of the “breakout” article as content in this current (non)-list article has not given sufficient attribution to the main Snaefell Mountain Course article and the Named Corners section. WP:SPINOUT The current non-list article and the redirection of articles does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for spinoff. WP:SPINOFF The Davision publication lists all 219 corners on the “TT Course” and satisfies the “creative expression” in the selection of the article rows. The Gare citation and its reference to 264 corners and the “Snaefell Mountain Course” does not satisfy that criteria in the use of “creative expression” in the selection of the article rows. WP:INTEGRITY, WP:CITE To resolve this situation and to avoid the issue of attribution of the “creative expression” in the selection of the article rows, the current format of the (non)-list article would have to individually list all 264 corners as stated in the Gare citation, list all the property names on the course, all other features and include all the names of the Marshall Post (list of approximately 2,000 for the whole article) WP:NOATT Also, remove all references to the Isle of Man TT, Manx Grand Prix and Classic TT races including photographs. WP:CONTENTFORK

Compromise

A partial compromise for the BRD process would be perhaps as shown by this recent list List of nightclubs in Rome (since drafting, now deleted by editor User:Postdlf 14:01, 22 December 2016 [60]) as it show approximately 20 rows as suggested in the ‘Final conclusion for the BRD process.’ The contribtor USER:Ajf773 has discussed a similar issue to this BRD discussion [61] that applies to the Gare citation WP:NOTLINKFARM that;- “.....Anyone can come up with a bunch of fluff from a Google search, and bombard an AFD pretending a stand-alone list passes WP:LISTN or WP:GNG” The editor User:doncram has provided a contrasting response [[62]] to the AfD for the suggested article However, comparing and contrasting the single Gare citation to the AfD discussion for List of nightclubs in Rome, the Gare citation does not appear to support the criteria in A) or C) and a pre-existing navigation template has existed since the 13th January 2007.

Conclusion

This suggestion in the summary is unlikely to be resolved as the main Snaefell Mountain Course article also has no citation for independent notability. WP:N After a period of perhaps eight years, no suitable citation has been found to resolve this problem. The main Snaefell Mountain Course article and all other satellite articles in the network should be renamed to reflect modern usage WP:MODERNPLACENAME with a suggested title to be agreed, for example Isle of Man TT (Mountain) Course_motorcycles. This will allow for the development of the Isle of Man TT network of races to develop. A citation for the revised title for independent nobility WP:N incorporating at least the title TT Course has been found but currently unused.

The current situation with the (non)-list article will not allow for the inclusion of ‘saliently’ new information with its “twin-track” approach to editing, commercial blog-style WP:BLOG and the redirection of articles. The linked articles are under-going a revision process away from the ‘non-notable’ bend style of article and information which is in a blog style WP:NOTBLOG or without citations will be challenged. Eventually, through a process of revision the (non)-list article will become a type of ‘orphan article’ without proper attribution. WP:SPINOUT agljones(talk)13:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

quote improvement

At Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Advice: Copyright Violation; Publication ‘The Isle of Man (Pevensey Island Guides)’ by Trevor Kneale, editor User:Agljones has gone on with complaints about this list-article. Amidst their long list of complaints, there are two points raised that could perhaps be addressed, if they would explain themself clearly and/or provide a suggested edit:

• They suggest that the quote from the travel guide has been altered from the original in some way. What has been changed, supposedly? What exactly would correct it?
• They suggest the reference citation is inadequate somehow, perhaps that there could be an ISBN number or something like that added to the citation. What change exactly would you like?

--doncram 20:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Agljones has commented further there now in this version, indicating they decline to respond here, and that the alleged alteration is that the quote is just one of two sentences in a paragraph. They seem to think that an ellipsis is needed at the end. I disagree, because the quote is an entire sentence ending in a period. And the one sentence stands fine on its own; the situation is not as if it is taken out of context. Adding the second sentence to the quote would not change the general sense given that the author has a high opinion of the race course and its corners.

Bizarrely, Agljones refers there to this page as a "BRD page", which is not a thing, and which sort of conveys that they view discussion as a battle.

So anyhow it looks like there is nothing to improve about the quote. --doncram 14:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone surveilling this talk page (yes, I will continue to use that expression - *Bri*), Agljones is a bad faith, confrontational, tendentitious, disruptive, would-be-controlling, wikilawyering, conflict of interest troll who has resumed deletion of good, hard-published sourced prose because he disagrees with a lot of it, alleging historic and traditional plagiarism amongst the press corp, thereby repeating basic errors ad infinitum. With a proven compromised background, anything he writes will be regarded as suspect.

He has taken to wikilawyering Wikipedia itself, and has been battlegrounding and forum shopping - AN/I, AfD, the Teahouse (twice), Wikiproject Motorcycling, at numerous articles and talk pages, and as mentioned directly above, a spurious approach to Copyright noticeboard.

Since being recognised (May 2014) by me and proven to be compromised (June/July 2015), there is now very little good in this editor's remaining single purpose account (one sock blocked), still wanting to manipulate and censor Wikipedia content. Previously with a notional 95% to 98% single-topic area, he has now started ramping-up edit count with minor maintenance edits of a few bytes each to general topics. From the history of two accounts (that we know of) this change is out of character.

I have now started to template articles that he has been involved in, where I see a need, something I always sought to avoid but has proved necessary by the consistent failure to provide CoI declarations (two minimum) and voluntarily ceasing to edit those areas.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

List articles and images

List articles. When I was investigating (not surveilling, as that implies ongoing patterns) local (to the Isle of Man) author Trevor Kneale as mentioned in the thread above, I chanced upon British narrow-gauge railways wherein are embedded extensive list-tables, having many, many images. Many of the table-rows do not have inline citation-boxes. The reason I have sought to add images to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course is that they act as citations - up, down, left, right, hill/dip, sweeping, etc., PLUS often showing spectators; they congregate at accessible notable points, take pics and sometimes make them available. I choose not for myself but using my smattering of knowledge to ascertain how they can be informative and add to the readership experience. It's advantageous, but not always attainable, to include a machine/vehicle travelling in the correct (one-way) direction as raced.

Images. I have just purchased (and subsequently returned) my first smartphone, iPhone-style with 5.5 inch, high-definition screen and no buttons. The List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course displays perfectly, both in general view and when using the downloaded Wikipedia app, and can be tapped and stretched, etc.

I've uploaded a different version of the map File:Isle of Man TT.png at Commons. I requested an error be corrected, without response at the uploader's Commons talk page, despite waiting many weeks. I deleted the erroneus name, but couldn't add the correction in text. The request can be seen here - scroll down to "Isle of Man map".--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)