Talk:Formula One/Archive 3

More quibbles
Having been an F1 follower for 15 years, the introductory paragraph to this Wiki is very confusing.

"Formula One, abbreviated to F1, is a type of Grand Prix motor racing."

(Grand Prix racing IS F1, there are no other types of Grand Prix. Other classes are GP2, F3, etc).

"It is regarded as the highest class of single-seat open-wheel formula racing and consists of two annual World Championships, one for drivers and one for constructors (teams)."

Very confusing, as it implies that there are two parallel run series. It is infact a single series where manufacturers and drivers compete for separate championships.


 * On the first count I would say that you're wrong, because Grand Prix motor racing existed long before the first Formula One race was held in 1950 (although maybe the wording could be better). Mind you, I'm not sure about the status of the term 'grand prix'. I mean, GP2 races are called Grands Prix, as are MotoGP races, and many others. Also GPWC wanted to set up a Grand Prix World Championship and that certainly would not have been F1, so Grand Prix racing definitely is not the same as F1 in my view. On the second count I think the sentence could do with some clarifying, so I'll just edit it. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 19:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me started on "Grand Prix". Indycar has the nerve to call their events GPs... It's obscene. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

my last edition
Why the death of Ayrton Senna is considered ironic? This was written by nazi-Shumacher fans I suppose. --Mateusc 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Going by the definition "Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs", there were a number of ironies about Senna's death. His signing by Williams, before Prost decided to leave as I recall, was certainly unexpected, particularly in light of their previous history. It was expected that when Senna arrived at the previously dominant Williams team, having left McLaren specifically to get in the best car, he would be unstoppable, but he didn't score a point in 1994. Finally, it may also be the case that the most naturally talented driver of his generation died after making an error, possibly in part due to his extreme 'will to win'. Schumacher doesn't come into it - he was just another frontrunning driver at the time. I fail to see the connection to Nazism. --4u1e 13 February 2006

Future of F1 in US
Does anyone other than Bernie Ecclestone believe that the US race will continue past its current contract? http://www.usgpindy.com/news/story.php?story_id=5472 This is about as unenthusiastic a defense of future races as I could imagine from Chitwood. This article's tone is also way too gentle with the 2005 US race - it was an unmitigated fiasco, and Michelin ended up refunding ticket payments. The Wikipedia article on the 2005 race does a much better job of capturing the tone. I would suggest that this article use a word like "farce" to describe the situation. --Rkstafford 13:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the very fact that the 2005 USGP is mentioned in the section about venue changes reflects the seriousness of what happened. The main article isn't the place to go in-depth about the events of one race, no matter how important it was. The article on the race itself is the place to put it in my opinion (there should also be bits about it in Future of Formula One). \•/ doctorvee » Talk 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Formula 1 was never a mainstream success in United States (as well the Soccer) the GPs (since Phoenix) is ever made for hardcore loving of European motoring supremacy, because north-americans they need proper categories and championships to not pass shame of the Europeans ahead. --Mateusc 20:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

Don't lay it off on Michelin! FIA knew the tires were unsafe, and refused to allow the teams to change. Were the principals suppsosed to tell their drivers, "Go risk your lives on tires we know are lousy", just to entertain somebody? Let loose the lions, Caesar... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05


 * My comment was not intended to blame Michelin for the mess, only to point out that Michelin ended up paying for the refund. It was a complicated mess, and I think the article does a fine job of laying it all out. My impression is that Michelin had much less to apologize for than most of the rest of the significant players. --Rkstafford 20:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Glamour?
From the article: "In recent years, it has also become known for glamour". I have no idea what this means, the last I saw the racers were not particularly glamourous. Please can we clarify or remove. 194.106.59.2 02:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * F1 was always glamourous, sad the error is talk "recently". Either for representing the supremacy of European motoring, either for being a championship with much money involved, for Monaco, Italy, the best automobile race tracks of the world, and everything what the championship synthecizes in terms sophistication and technology. --Mateusc 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow.. Alonso champion
Finally someone takeover Schumacher. I hope F1 will can bright again like the Ayrton Senna/Mclaren golden ages. --Mateusc 18:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That was no golden age, and I was a fan of Senna. 1-team dominance is boring. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

USGP
It is either worth mentioning that the United States Grand Prix will be run on the road course at Indianapolis Motot Speedway next year, or the '05 USGP is not worth mentioning at all. Perhaps in a "popularity" section, but not in the "future" section. It's too big a non-issue to not be fully explained if mentioned. The consistant unpopularity of F1 in the US is more important than Bernie spoiling an entire afternoon for the american F1 fans that DO exsist.

Also it is worth mentioning that Renalut driver Fernando Alonso as unseated Ferrari's Michael Schumacher as world champion, although it might be prudent to wait until the end of the season and give his stats for the year.

I now defer to those more passionate than I to make the changes.

Not Classified
This is message is for the user who posts the race results. When I driver finishes the race 26 laps behind the leader whihc was the case with Mark Webber in the 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix. He was listed as 'Ret' instead of 'NC'. I have send an email to formula1.com and ask them if they made a mistake in the race results and they told me you are right it should be NC not Ret. Here is their email reply to me ---> On 9/28/05, Formula1.com  Thank you for your email. You are correct - he did finish - his status has been amended. formula1.com. So keep in mind its a NC (Not Classified) when a driver finishes the race out of the classifications. Andreasu

See Official Formula1.com site ---> http://www.formula1.com/race/result/748/8.html

Am I right F1 races are limited to 300km and 2 hr? Or has this rule been changed? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Yes, you are correct except for a small detail. Races are limited to the number of predetermined laps (usually the closest above the length of 305 km, but not in Monaco, only 260 km) and 2 hours of running, which ever comes first. // Kakis 2006-01-06

Early Years
Am I wrong, or was part of the Cooper's success due to its monocoque construction? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Oops, forget I said anything... It was Lotus. --squadfifteen.

Second Concord Agreement
I suggest deleting that one line, unless you explain why it matters. Also, could somebody buy a dictionary? It's concord, meaning agreement, not concorde, meaning airliner.... ==squadfifteen, 17/10/05


 * Maybe you should! Concord is an English word meaning agreement or treaty. Concorde is a French word which is analogous. Either way these definitions are academic as the original Concorde Agreement was a document named after the place it was signed, the headquarters of the FIA at the Place de la Concorde in Paris.


 * Also Concorde in a French dictionary isn't defined as "an Anglo-French supersonic airliner", the plane was called that because it was the product of an agreement (or Concord/Concorde) between the United Kingdom and France. Mark83 20:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern F1
Isn't that an oxymoron? How about "Contemporary F1"? --squadfifteen,17/10/05

Team mention
It seems to me necessary to mention the team, not just the driver, when talking about who may or may not have had a chance to win the title. While the driver's title gets most of the attention, the constructors are involved. Besides, it's not a footrace... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Spec Series
I'd say a clarification is in order. F3000 and IROC were "spec series" since all cars were built, and held, to the same spec; Champ cars and NASCAR stockers are built to regulations, just like F1. The regs allow Champ car teams to buy chassis, while F1 doesn't, which explains the homogenization; it may also explain the astronomical cost of F1. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

I deleted "In 2005, we saw a new era in Formula One where 24 years old Spanish Fernando Alonso and Renault won both the driver and constructor championship. Renault won the first race in Australia and the last race in China, but Kimi Raikeneen and McLaren tryed to chalenged the french squad but came back too late." It's not clear this is "new era" and it's irrelevant to the broader history. It also strikes me as a "shout out" to Fernando's fans... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Grands Prix
You're wrong on one point. The very first Italian Grand Prix was not at Monza. It was (I think) Perugia. Also, hasn't Monaco also been on the schedule every time? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05
 * The first Italian Grand Prix in F1 (1950) was indeed at Monza, though the first ever was at Brescia in 1921; however, I don't think we need to consider pre-F1 races in this article (we have Grand Prix motor racing for that purpose). Also, though Monaco was on the 1950 calendar, it wasn't held again as an F1 race until 1955. &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Speed
Someone has added this "and limiting the top speed to 250mph" to the Rule changes section. It looks wrong but I can't find anything other than the top recorded speed was 221.5 mph. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Walk in, beauty
Can somebodby please find a non-copywright pic of the beautiful Lotus 33? We need one! Trekphiler 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC Link
The IRC link at the bottom of the article seems more like an advertisement than something that will provide any useful information. In my opinion it does not belong. --Windsok 13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Most Expensive Sport"
I noticed someone had changed F1 from being "the most expensive sport", to "one of the most expensive sports" I RV'ed this, as I found many, many articles in newspaper and journal databases referring to F1 being the most expensive sport in the world.


 * I made the change, consistent with a discussion that took place here several months ago. This has been bugging me for a while, but I just got around to changing it last night. I'd like to see your references, because I am deeply, deeply skeptical that that's even a meaningful concept, much less that Formula One is the winner. If you can prove that "the most expensive sport" is appropriate, I'll leave it alone, but I want to see some evidence.--Rkstafford 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Expensive for who ? The team owner, the spectator, the TV channels, the sponsors ? Ericd 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely the definition of the expense of a sport is the amount of money required to compete. For Formula One, this would be a figure for putting two cars on the grid 19 times a season and being able to compete at the high level. A total figure for all competitors would give a good indication as some entrants clearly will never get to the top unless they find a loophole in the reg, find a magician of a driver or spend spend spend. From the top of my head, I cannot think of any sports that would come close to Formula One. Certainly considering that Toyota is reportedly spending £275 million per year. I've had a look round for some evidence but can't find any. One thing to note is that there is a constant drive by the FIA to cut costs. One thing is for sure it's probably the most expensive because it provides the best platform in the world for advertising. It should be noted that this is where the very large majority of the money comes from: sponsorship. MonkeyMumford 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's where we go around again. Let me say right up front that I agree that F1 is very expensive and that it should be described as very expensive, but "the most expensive" is too broad. My point is that unless somebody can provide some evidence that F1 is the most expensive sport, measured in all of the ways that reasonable readers would understand that concept, than the text should be qualified. There are a bunch of ways that you could measure total cost, and I'm pretty sure that they lead to different answers. For example, I suspect that putting together a competitive America's Cup team is more expensive, measured in some ways, than fielding an F1 team. I'm pretty sure that the total budget for all 30 major league baseball teams is higher than the total budget for 8 F1 teams, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the aggregate payroll for the Premier League or Serie A is also higher. So, is "most expensive" meant to mean per team? And how do the expenses of the tracks and F1 itself fit in? And do we measure gross expenditures or net revenue? MLB probably has a better bottom line (net revenue, rather than gross expenses), while F1 in aggregate may well "lose money", but much of the money spent on an F1 team could reasonably be recategorized as R&D expenditure for the car companies. That's why I changed it to "among the most expensive"; I think that "most expensive by some measures" would also be accurate, but "the most expensive in the world" is at best unsupported and almost certainly not accurate. --Rkstafford 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week and the discussion has died, so I went ahead and changed the text (again). If anyone out there is tempted to revert it, I would appreciate it if you could address the issues raised here first. --Rkstafford 06:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Some websites that mention F1 as the most expensive sport:
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/circuit_guide/4244777.stm
 * http://formula1.about.com/od/whatisformulaoneracing/a/whatisformula1.htm
 * http://www.tata.com/tata_sons/articles/20050305_fuelling_karthikeyan.htm
 * http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:S4rKUGsQ_oIJ:www.intel.com/cd/business/enterprise/emea/eng/189441.htm+%22most+expensive+sport%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a
 * http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/14443/.html
 * http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2005/jan26/wgrapevine.html
 * http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/176
 * --Windsok 13:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that some (not all) these references be included as part of a reference (or footnotes) section and be refered to from within the text. This would give at least some validity to what is a very broad statement style; a statement that I agree with by the way. Such bold statement styles do tend to be liable to challenge regardless of supportability. Thus the need for independant corroboration. If you need technical assistance on wiki footnotes please ask. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 14:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I still believe the statement is at best overly broad, and these references all sound like throw-away lines, rather than thoughtful statement supported by facts, but I accept that the burden is now on me to come up with information that disproves the statement, so I'll leave it alone until I have some facts. --Rkstafford 18:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd need equivalent figures from the other sports, but there's some indication of F1's expense at http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=35094 which further refers to the current F1 Racing magazine for more details. The headline figure is; "The study suggests that the entire pit lane spent a total of $2,814,720,000 to put 20 cars on the grid for 19 races last year" 4u1e 19:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Circuits
Hi! new vecrotized circuit layouts are available at commons:Category:Racing circuits that may be useful. Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Street Circuits
The article says that Monaco is currently the "only real street circuit". The Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne is held on a street circuit. Also, what is meant by "real" street circuit?

The Melbourne Grand Prix is on a street-circuit, but it was a specially modified street-circuit, so in that sense its not a so-called `real' street-circuit. I should know, I go every year.


 * Much of the track layout at Albert Park was relaid prior to the inaugural grand prix in 1996, with some of the layout changed (anyone have a Melway street directory from the early 90's?). Part of this was to remove the camber and improve drainage. The pit building is also a permanent structure. This is in contrast to, say, the Adelaide street circuit, where (as far as I know) everything was temporary, although I've not seen any photos of the Adelaide track during the off-season. ozzmosis 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 'real street circuit' = urban, temporary and the other 360-odd days of the year the *whole circuit* (less the pits) is public road. Monaco, the American street races (Phoenix, Detroit etc) and Adelaide are/were of this type. Other circuits have used *sections* of public road - Spa Francorchamp certainly used to, although I'm not sure if it still does - and Le Mans is famous for it, but I wouldn't categorize that as the same thing. I think you *could* argue that Melbourne is a street circuit, but for me the degree of modification and the much more open setting makes it more like, say, Montreal than Monaco. What do others think? 4u1e 16:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, none of the Spa citcuit is used as public road any more. anon, 7 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.29.83 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Adelaide is/was pretty much a 'real' street circuit save for the pit straight track section (pit building is temporary) which was especially built for the first GP. It's not used as a road for the rest of the year although you can walk on it.

Formula One Editing
It is becoming aparent that many of the articles on Formula One are starting to be updated at a high rate due to users adding speculation and unconfirmed news. Suggest putting all news and speculation in the news section of Portal:Formula One only. Articles such as 2008 Formula One season should not really be used for speculation. The info here should only be confirmed info. Portal:Formula One can be used for day to day news and the other articles on Formula One should be kept for reference info only, not news. Anyone agree? MonkeyMumford 12:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agreed. --Richard Clegg 17:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 100%. Excellent suggestion. Now, how do we make it happen! :-D. History sections are particularly prone to this. 4u1e 17:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Future of F1?
Do we really need this article, let alone having a section in the main page? It seems that this must have been included by someone who does not like F1. -Krazy


 * I suspect not. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." - WP:NOT --ozzmosis 10:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So can we delete this article? It is a lot of misinformation. - Krazy
 * If speculation is sourced I don't see how it can be original research ? Ericd 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * MonkeyMumford suggested above that speculation should go in the news section of the portal - which seems logical. Firmer information on future changes (i.e. Alonso to McLaren) could go in the appropriate season article. I think there is room for a small section on 'future F1' here - but it would be things like the regulation changes for 2008 (In 1994 it would have been the 1995 reg changes)- really big changes that are pretty definite and will change the way F1 works drastically. It shouldn't be the latest gossip on Super Aguri etc. 4u1e
 * On further reflection - some of this material can be taken into the History of Formula One section - the demise of small teams is complete at present (we will see what happens in 2008) and so can properly go in a history section. I'm happy to do this, if there's no disagreement.
 * I say delete it. -Krazy

OK - small teams section deleted and its content (where it didn't already exist) has been moved to Super Aguri F1 and History of Formula One.

I suggest that the rest of the 'Future of F1' section on this page can be reduced to the following:
 * A brief mention of the proposed rule changes for 2008 - this is a very significant change and may radically alter the face of the sport.
 * A mention that a number of new teams are trying to get the 12th place (Reluctantly, as it will attract the kind of drive by bloating that I ranted about below)

I don't think anything else in this section needs to be here, it can all be moved either to other sections on the main page (doubtful) or to other pages, if it is not already there. On that basis I would also rename the section '2008 Rule changes' or similar.

Do you agree or disagree? I'll give it a couple of days before starting the process. 4u1e


 * It occurs to me that if I'm going to start in a couple of days, I should tell when now is! Now is 20 April 2006. 4u1e


 * OK, no comment, so next bit to go will be the 'Future of F1 - 2005 regulations'. This bit is particularly misleading as it is now historical anyway! Suggest that what needs to be kept is the raw facts of the regs for that year. I think these are already adequately summarised in the F1 Regs article, but will compare and add anything that is missing. Some of the reasoning for the changes may be added to that page, if not there already, and perhaps to the History of Formula One as well. 4u1e 24 April 2006


 * Done. Material mostly already appeared in 2005 Formula One season, Formula One regulations and Future of Formula One articles. Moved a couple of bits to the F1 regs and Future of F1 articles. 4u1e 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggest 2006 rules changes should be next up for the chop. This is a bit different to the 2005 changes, as these are the current regs and mostly already covered in the Racing and strategy section. As previously I will check whether this material needs to be moved elsewhere on the main page or to the 2006 Formula One season page. 4u1e 25 April 2006

Started taking out the 2006 bit. Have deleted duplicate description of the 2006 qualifying regs - they're long and hard enough to plough through as it is, we don't need it twice! Left the shorter version. 4u1e 27 April 2006

Deleted F1 Future bit on 2006 tyres regs. Some of it has been moved to Racing and Strategy and the bit on the reasons for the change this year has gone to talk:2006 Formula One season to see if anyone has any refs for the reasons it offers for the changes. If they have, then they belong on that page, with the other changes for this season. 4u1e 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting fairly close now to what I proposed above (20 April). Just the detailed section on venues to go. Will retain a mention of the changes in this area, and move detail to Circuits or possibly to the individual circuit or race articles. 4u1e 06:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Venue changes material has almost all gone to Future of Formula One and Circuits. Retained a bit as the core of a remaining 'Future of F1 section'. This will need re-writing as well to be coherent, referenced and up to date, but I don't think what I have left is any more incoherent than what was there before. There's still a bit left on the 2006 engine changes - the material already exists in the 2006 Formula One season, Formula One cars and Scuderia Toro Rosso articles, but I think some of it should also appear in a section on the cars and engines to be added to this article as suggested below. I may delete it for now, however as it appears in many other places. 4u1e 14:00 28 April 2006

Changed the title to Future Developments of Formula One, because "Future of F1" sounds so negative, like the future would be uncertain.

Damon Hill commentates on the F1incinema version that airs in UK movie theatres. you could add that in if you want —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.25.166 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2007?
Where is the 2007 season calendar? (actually and the 2007/2008 rule changes for that matter). --Richard@lbrc.org 11:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The 2007 calendar hasn't been released yet. Also, the 2007/2008 rule changes haven't been confirmed yet either. Manipe 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * When they are confirmed (but only then :-))they will appear at 2007 Formula One season

Archive
I've archived a big chunk of this talk page - see top of the page. Was getting too long to see anything. 4u1e 22:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Tyres vs Tires and other UK vs US spellings
Obviously there isn't actually a correct answer to this one. IIRC, Wikipedia simply says keep it consistent on any one page, and don't go through an article changing it to your native version just 'because'. I've just changed back a bunch of tires to tyres (you missed quite a few, by the way, 70.147.228.234) on the basis that they've been that way for a while (so why the need to change them?), that this is very much a sport with European origins, and that most of the teams are based in the UK, so as we have to be consistent on something it might as well be the UK version. Happy to discuss if there is strong disagreement. 4u1e 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to admit I've changed that kind of thing on other pages, not realizing folks would get upset. I have to tell you as an American I think you are right that it should be tyres (even though it looks totally wrong to me) for the reasons you gave about it being a Euro sport.  I wish folks here had more appreciation for it instead of fawning over rednecks driving around in circles.  I agree that the spelling should go along with where the activity or item is native to.  I have changed some cars' classification from coupé to coupe - but only for American cars.  European cars should remain coupé and therefore also in this case tyres instead of tires.  Not much diff any which way anyway.  Semantics.  Highonhendrix 06:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia used American English? -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.136.5 (talk)

-- Ian Dalziel 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it but, why bother. This is a site for both the USA and the UK so I think that they should just keep it one way and be done with it. Then this debate can be at pace. But before that happens, we need to decide which one we will use. I am going to stay out of that one thank you very much... LB22 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tyre...that's how the OFFICIAL F1 site spells it, so that's how it should be spelt here :) db1987db (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is tyre, I can only echo the user above; that is how the official body spell it, so that is how we spell it here. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Length of Article
This is obviously my night for ranting about various topics :-D. This article is getting way too long. It's up at 51kb now, which is absolutely massive and there is a lot of duplication. There seem to be two reasons for this:

1. There is a reluctance to delete out of date material. Quite of few sections of this article currently read "In 2005 things were mostly like this, but in 2006 they have changed to mostly be like the other". Come on! This article need only really state what things are like now. History section excepted, of course, and except the rare occasions where the current situation is impossible to understand without a bit of historical context. When things change - cut out the old version and just describe the new one. Consider putting the old material in History of Formula One, or in one of the other subsections.

2. This leads me onto the other problem. It seems that everyone who goes through here adds their little piece. Some of these are, frankly, rubbish (yes, that probably includes mine). Many of them are useful and interesting, but over time and combined with the reluctance to delete anything they mean the article just gets longer and longer. There are quite a few areas in which this main article actually carries more detail than the relevant sub-article. Please - consider whether your contribution really adds anything. If it does, consider whether it would be better suited to one of the sub-articles, which are edited far less often. There are hundreds of articles one or two clicks away from the front page (see the Articles related to Formula One box), many of which are stubs or at any rate rather underpowered. It seems a shame that the main article is getting to be so bloated while they are given little attention.

There is a very useful (but also difficult) job here for someone to go through and carefully trim back this article - reducing the number of words while keeping the content, or transferring it to a more suitable home.

OK - rant over. Anyone agree? 4u1e 23:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * With some depression I note that some complete codswallop has been added to the page over the last week or so. Cheers to those who have been busily removing it again. 4u1e 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)