Talk:1990 San Marino Grand Prix

Longest gap between wins
, I'm not sure what you are trying to do with your persistent reverts. The version you keep rolling back to is clearly erroneous and more deficient than the last one I suggested: if you truly need a reference for a simple stat that really doesn't need a reference (as it can be verified simply by counting the races in between) StatsF1.com is quite alright. And if you want to take beef with sources, the ESPN that you keep rolling back to is not really reliable either – and moreover, it is simply wrong in this case: it says "the leader on this list went ... 99 races ... without a victory", whereas he went only 98 races without victory, as his 99th was victorious. So your first objection – the one based on reliability of the sources – doesn't hold much water, as your preferred reference (ESPN) is actually worse than the one I suggested (StatsF1).

Your other objection, that no one tracks times between wins, has also been refuted: I've provided the counter-point in my edit summary, here it is again: this stat is tracked both on Wikipedia (List of Formula One driver records) and off (see for example the StatsF1 reference I've provided: ). cherkash (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't make statements like I'm not sure what you are trying to do with your persistent reverts when you know exactly what I am trying to do. I have been very specific and cited wikipedia policy. You've conflated two records into when the article is refering only to one. The wording, singular not plural, makes that obvious.
 * You are experienced enough to know that wikipedia can not be used as it's own reference. That's rookie stuff.
 * StatsF1 fails WP:RS. This has already been pointed out to you and has been subject of repeated discussion in other articles and on project pages discussion pages.
 * You can not possibly claim any form of ignorance. --Falcadore (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , there is nothing wrong with mentioning both records – one broken, another unbroken. If you look carefully, I used plural in the latest edit. Your objection seemed to be with one of them not being tracked anywhere. I've explained above that this is simply not true. As you know, there is no official list of tracked/not-tracked records, as such there's enough evidence that the "time" record is tracked as well – and this is enough reason to mention it in the article. cherkash (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course there is not an official list of records that are tracked. But that is not how wikipedia works. It works on coverage in reliable sources. You should know and understand what reliable sources are. I've already sent you the link on sourcing. It does not just say what sources are not appropriate. It also says what sources are appropriate. --Falcadore (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * StatsF1 is fine as a source: it's used in multiple other places without much trouble.
 * Independent of your opinion on StatsF1, you should agree that ESPN is not a reliable source either, not for the stats anyways: it couldn't even get the basic stats right in this case – see my first comment above.
 * We don't even need to use StatsF1 if you insist – the trivial stats like these (time, number of races) can be verified/ascertained without referencing sources. If you insist we absolutely can't go without referencing each piece of stats, then a lot of other articles using stats (incl. drivers' & teams' articles, F1stat template, etc.) will have to be seriously reworked as well.
 * So having established this, what do you propose we do? Keeping one of the two stats (along with the non-reliable ESPN reference) but not the other can't be done as it's inconsistent. Either delete both, or keep both. So what do you propose we do, ? cherkash (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not know why you are talking about ESPN. I don't understand why you would bring it up.
 * StatsF1 fails WP:RS. The fact that it is in use elsewhere is irrelevant and if anythign suggests it should be removed from those other pages. Each wikipedia article must stand or fall by itself. --Falcadore (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * StatsF1 fails WP:RS. The fact that it is in use elsewhere is irrelevant and if anythign suggests it should be removed from those other pages. Each wikipedia article must stand or fall by itself. --Falcadore (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Belatedly figured it out. I was restoring to the previous edit. I paid no attention to the source that was being restored upon removing your edit. It was not my source. Essentially it was unimportant next to the problem of your conflation of two records. --Falcadore (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in whose reference it is – it's a misguided way to argue about the issue, as the references don't belong to people (as in "mine" or "yours"), they merely support statements. Therefore, as I wrote above, I'm still expecting a suggestion on how you propose we resolve this, ? The state you keep reverting to is worse than what I proposed. cherkash (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Obviously. --Falcadore (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The question I asked was: "How do you propose we resolve this?" You disagree with the question?? cherkash (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Since there was no constructive response in almost a month, I've updated the article again: making it very clear there are two separate records only one of which was broken. cherkash (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop refering to an elapsed time record which is rarely if ever refered to and is not supported by a reliable source! There may actually be two records, but the one refering to elapsed time was not in earlier versions of the article and is not refered to by any notable source you have found. You tried to use wikipedia as it's own source earlier on, that's how little it is refered to. --Falcadore (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Both of these so-called records are pretty obscure. There is no reason to refer to one but not to the other. The way I see it, either both should be mentioned, or both should go. cherkash (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There was only ever one. There was just a description of how long the first record took, it was not an indication of a seperate record. You want to challenge the number of races record? Fine you are welcome to do that. But they remain seperate cases. That's how wikipedia works. You've been around long enough to know that. --Falcadore (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)