Australia: Motorsport Start‑class Low‑importance

2019 Supercars Championship is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian motorsport (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Please do not change McLaughlin's number from #1 to #17 without a source. 1.129.109.136 (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change McLaughlin's number to TBA with a Tooltip, either. For one, Tooltips are not accessible to mobile and tablet readers. And secondly, McLaughlin's car is entered with the #17 REC. "TBA" implies we have no idea what number he will use, which is untrue because we know he has the #17 REC until such time as he announces otherwise. 1.129.109.238 (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been confirmed that Scott will run the #17 next year. Source Hiflex480 (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep the Triple Eight numbers as they are for the time being, with Jamie Whincup with 88 and SVG with 97? As there is no evidence to prove that Whincup would run 888 and SVG to run 88. I know this part will be edited quite a bit, but until such evidence to prove it, just keep it as last year please? Thanks Hiflex480 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the 2019 supercars co drivers Joshyflash (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been confirmed from all teams in regards to co-drivers. I know quite a number of teams are going to reshuffle their co-drivers, namely Triple Eight, Kelly Racing and Brad Jones Racing. But with no credible sources about co-drivers, it is recommended for the time being to leave the table black, until there is proper knowledge of the said cars Joshyflash. Hiflex480 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although this image is the most recent shows both T8 cars, it is a poor image to use:

The angle of the cars is oblique, the cars are small, and the glare and safety fence obscure the image.

This picture is a much better example:

The car is large, clearly visible and there are few additional elements to distract the eye. Although it is older than the Newcastle image, it is a much better image and should be used. 1.129.105.195 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, meant to tag @Hiflex480. 1.129.105.195 (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good, I tried to get both RBHRT cars in it, but if you want to use the photo from Eastern Creek, I'm fine with that. I can revert it now if needed. Hiflex480 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 1.129.105.195. Hiflex480 (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it, but someone has changed it back. Hiflex480 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP making these edits: please stop and discuss what you are doing before you make changes. For one, you are removing important markup that makes reading the article difficult for some people. If you don't know what the markup does, don't assume it does nothing and that you are free to remove it. Ask first.

Secondly—and of more concern—is the sources you keep adding to the article. These add nothing to the article that is not already there; the only difference is that your sources are more recent. Articles do not need to have the most-recent sources to be valid, and relying on them risks violating Wikipedia's policy on recentism, which in term opens the door to a less-than-neutral point of view, which is a serious problem. 1.129.104.218 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:115.69.165.214, the above comment is intended for you. 1.129.105.235 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing there has been some recent edit warring on the designation of the Mustang, S550 or FN, I have removed. As far as I can see, none of the cites in the article at present include either. Only reference I have found is that Ancap have the model sold in Australia as the FN. http://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.com.au/app/public/assets/9f94b77a282f08ad9db0c1c2270688e46b054b30/original.pdf?1528182528 Fecotank (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Ford Employee and the Ford Mustang (2018-Present) is designated as FN. the previous model is designated as FM (2015-2018). I supplied reference for this Redbook Car review https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2018-ford-mustang-gt-fn-manual-my18/SPOT-ITM-501889/ . The Chassis platform it is built off is S550, so both names are correct. To me it should read at least Ford FN Mustang, it could read Ford FN Mustang S550. But again, should at least read Ford FN Mustang, so not to be confused with the FM which was the earlier model built on the same S550 platform but with diffrent front and rear ends. theclass13 07:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am inclined to agree that FN is the most likely, but as it hasn't been officially confirmed think it best to leave out until this has happened. The operations manual that list the eligible models, is usually published in February so this may clarify. Otherwise the official entry list should. Fecotank (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sixth-generation of Mustang is known as the S550. That may change upon launch in Australia, but until then, you cannot simply ignore it because you have a source that may or may not contradict it. You cite February as the date the operation manual is published, so it should remain the S550 until then. 1.129.105.192 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As no cites have been added to date confirming that it will be entered as either the S550 or FN, best to leave out, to presume one or the other is WP:SYNTH. Fecotank (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citations provided are adequate. The state that the sixth-generation Mustang will be used, and the S550 is the sixth-generation Mustang. If it gets rebadged for an Australian launch, it can be changed, but the possibility of a rebadge does not invalidate the fact that the S550 is the sixth-generation Mustang. How about you read the policies you are trying to enforce? 1.129.111.182 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None mention S550, so not the case. Fecotank (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the S550 is the sixth-generation of Mustang. This is, quite literally, the first sentence of the sixth-generation article: "The sixth generation Ford Mustang (S550) is the current iteration of the Mustang pony car manufactured by Ford." Your argument is that the car might be known as the FN. Mine is that the car is currently known as the S550. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that it is your responsibility to prove the claim with sources. So how about you a) read some of the policies you are enforcing, b) stop threatening admin intervention against people who disagree with you, c) accept that other editors are capable of thinking for themselves and d) open your mind to the idea that those editors might actually know better than you. Not every edit needs your personal approval. 1.129.110.250 (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source can be produced, then there the issue will be resolved. Yes the article stood with S550 for an extended period, but when brought into question, is was correct to remove when some doubt arose. As a cite has yet to have been added to back up either S550 or FN, it should be excluded until such time as one surfaces. The overriding policy is WP:V, thus the WP:BURDEN is on those who want to add something, not those deleting something uncited. Fecotank (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This so-called "doubt" stems from an unverifiable claim (an editor who says that he is a Ford employee) and a source that you acknowledged was insufficient. 1.129.109.186 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the suggestions it will be S550 or FN remain uncited, so it does remain in doubt. Fecotank (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm wondering whether you are truly ignorant or just play-acting. As pointed out, the sixth-generation Mustang is the S550. That is not in doubt. 1.129.109.186 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truly ignorant? No, but I do have the ability to accept when I am in the wrong rather than lashing out at those who disagree with me. Fecotank (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you refuse accept that you are wrong here. Put your money where your mouth is and accept the car is the S550. You don't own the article. 1.144.108.46 (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having both names in the title is fine. Both a correct and relate to different parts of the vehicle. theclass13 10:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never have I suggested that I own the article, the inconvenient truth is that for all the claims being made that S550 is the model designation, still no cites have been produced. Yet multiple sources, albeit not actually confirming its Supercars status, indicate it is sold in Australia as the FN.[1][2][3] So without a concrete cite, it remains dubious. If the S550 designation can be backed up by a reliable source, it will be perfectly correct to include, but if it can't then it fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, and thus should be excluded. Fecotank (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have claimed to own the article, but your behaviour is characteristic of someone in violation of WP:OWN—especially the way you are demanding sources that meet your exacting standards rather than community standards and the way you clearly do not understand the policies you are trying to enforce. 1.144.111.106 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]