Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Archive 1

Problems with List
There are a number of problems with this list including the incorrect descriptions ....

There are a number of problems with this list including the incorrect descriptions in the notes and locations. I considered a list of named corners. I decided not to create a list like as it was technically complicated to create and maintain. The reasons for this have appeared with some of the descriptions of the locations are longer than others and the locations are inaccurate, confusing and misleading. Also sub-editing pre-existing articles to create Frankenstein notes is also misleading, confusing and shows a lack encyclopaedic value. As mentioned previously, this process will eventually lead to further AFD nominations and deletion of articles. There is also an emphasis on fatal accidents. The article is a list of corners and not an memorial WP:NOT and Wikipedia does not allow this type of listing.

The list includes an Executive Summary. However, the second paragraph includes again the 1979 Whipple quotation by an American journalist. Again, the article is about a list of corners. The Whipple quotation from 1979, at the time could describe any motor-cycle racing circuit and the "lean-angle" became part of the Grand Prix Motor-Cycling technique from the late 1950's (used by off-road motor-cycle competitors before this date) and again the 1979 Whipple quotation could be used to describe any circuit in 1979. The technique now developed by competitors racing on road circuits like the Snaefell Mountain Course and the Isle of Man TT usually have less lean-angle and less aggressive than the current Moto GP style which is developed from the A.M.A. Grand National Championships in the USA in the 1970's. The fastest lap for the 1979 Senior Isle of Man TT was 20 minutes, 15.46 seconds an average speed of 111.75 mph. The current lap record is 17 minutes, 6.682 seconds an average speed of 132.298 mph. The only major road improvements since 1979 have been at Quarry Bends, Windy Corner and Brandish Corner and major road resurfacing work on the Sulby Straight, Mountain Mile and Windy Corner to Keppel Gate. The increase in speed since 1979 has been the replacement of the old 500cc class with the modern 1000cc Superbike class along with improvements in suspension and tyres. The road improvements at Windy Corner and Brandish have only reduced speed by two or three seconds per lap. A neutral point of view WP:NPOV has to be demonstrated and the repeated block use of the 1979 Whipple quotation for different purposes is dated, confusing and inaccurate.

There has been a change of style in race signs since 2011 and currently the race marker boards from Brandish Corner to Signpost Corner have been removed for the winter(the board at Keppel Gate has been damaged by road traffic). Also, for photographic purposes, walking on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road at any time of the year is downright dangerous and for the Isle of Man TT Races an one-way and clearway (no stopping) system operates. The reliance on download images from Google Maps for photographs at some point may lead to copyright issues. The list is also very difficult to view on a mobile phone. agljones(talk)20:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sincerely, for your comments, which explicitly include some good suggestions for improving this list-article, and may imply some more suggestions. :)  For me, I think it would help if you could try hard not to repeat things you've said already at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man, and in general try hard to focus just on suggestions about ways to directly improve this article.


 * This article is here, and was not too complicated to create in its current form, and has been "allowed" to come into existence. So previous reasons why one chose not to create it, like perceiving it would be too complicated to create or too difficult to maintain or what would happen (e.g. causing other elements of a network of other Isle of Man motor-cycle racing articles to be deleted), are all moot, here.  If you really feel the list as an article topic is that bad, please feel free to open an AFD and present the reasons there.  I personally think most or all of your concerns about the existence of this list-article are valid for you to have, though I have less concern about or disagree with many of them, but I think they should only be expressed in the right forum.  Hmm.  How about not discussing them on this Talk page, or limiting deletion reasons to one separate Talk section for that?  (Okay i will start that now: )  Otherwise, could we please keep this Talk page limited to the conditional perspective:  if this article will continue to exist, how can it be improved?


 * Is there any suggestion implied from this section which is not recognized as an item in the section below?  Or is this section done?  -- do  ncr  am  03:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is ✅ after suggesting it was and seeing no objections right away at least. Done in terms of all explicit or implied suggestions having been added to  now.  So collapsed by me.  Fine for anyone to "uncollapse" the above. -- do  ncr  am  19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Technical Issues.
I find it a little difficult to understand what you are trying to develop in the list....

I find it a little difficult to understand what you are trying to develop in the list or corners article. When I rewrote the Snaefell Mountain Course article, I considered an list article. I thought it too difficult to create and maintain. (At this point, you will have to understand that none of the subsequent Snaefell Mountain Course articles existed and you already have the background information to work with). I decided to adopt the normal Wikipedia template and the start writing the articles which has been (more or less) successful. Also, I was more aware of the technical problems of incorporating information in a list and this information is what you enquire about.

Again, I am not sure what information that you intend to include in the list article. ( I do understand the process as I have previously been through the technical problems involved). If I had created a list article, I do not think I would create a list article in the style that you have already created. I would have created a location and notes section as you have already created. At the moment as I mentioned previously the location descriptions are inaccurate and misleading to the point I have to refer to a road map for the location. The notes section have either no entries or some note sections are longer than others. Information has also been ‘Cut and Paste’ to the notes section from another article. This position may attract further AFD nominations in the Isle of Man motor-cycle network as the previous articles would be seen as duplications/non-notable bends and it is unusual to have large text inclusions for each listing with a pre-existing article(s). I can only suggest that each note is standardised to two or three small sentences and purpose written and standardised for this section and avoiding ‘Cut and Paste’ from other articles.

In respect to

1)      The article is a list of corners and the fatal accidents are listed in another list.  The only exceptions to this may be Birkin’s Bend and Guthrie’s Memorial.

2)     Again a list of corners rather than an article.  Course changes are to be found in Snaefell Mountain Course article.

3)     Again a list of corners rather than article about course speeds. (I have tried to create separate article about racing motor-cycle development and racing prototypes and it keeps getting deleted.) Technology and course speeds are to be found in the main Isle of Man TT article and also the  proposed separate History of the Isle of Man TT articles(see Talk pages).

4)     Again a list of corners rather an article.  It is perceived that there is now a general ‘road-racing’ style(it varies with different competitors)   but it is also found in use on other road-racing courses). The 1979 ‘’Whipple’’ quotation is very generic and could describe any style at any circuit(I guess that you have not noticed a photo in the article which covers the problem with points 3 or 4) in 1979.

5)     I am afraid that the list can [not] be viewed very easily on mobile phones( I am not sure about tablets or IPad).  I have sometimes had to change the size and colour of the article background for mobiles and older computers that can be found in public libraries or internet cafes.

6)     There are other articles available about the Isle of Man TT Races.  The emphasis on the ‘Whipple’’ quotation may not give a neutral point of view about the more controversial aspects of the motor-cycle racing in the Isle of Man.  There are also again the problems with notability with relying on just one article.

AFD nominations or deletions.

I have no intention of making any AFD nominations or deleting any articles as I do not have administrator rights. The AFD nominations is a very serious problem for the Isle of Man motor-cycle article network on the short-term and also over the long-term. As you can see from the talk pages there has been lengthy discussions about the AFD nominations and over the past five months and it has been valuable time that has been wasted. In respect to the AFD nomination for the ‘Windy Corner’ article there was no consensus on deletion or on merger. I did explain that shifting the emphasis back to the ‘non-notable bend’ would again attract an AFD nomination or a merger proposal. This is what has happened and a merger proposal has occurred due to what another contributor described as a “ deletionist super-vote.”  The “Windy Corner” article can be now described as a ‘stand-alone’ Isle of Man article outside of its motor-cycle connections and there is no need for the article to be either deleted, merged or only exist in a list. I would be able to develop the ‘Windy Corner’ article further as with other similar articles except for the merger and the recent repeated AFD nominations which stopped the Isle of Man motor-cycle network developing further. The named corners section of the Snaefell Mountain Course was originally intended for competitors names only.

In respect to the problem with photographs, I am not sure if images from Street View from Google Maps have copyright issues. Also, the Street View does not include the new style of race marker boards. The articles have attracted non-copyright photographs and this can be seen for the article for Bray Hill. agljones(talk)20:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, although again there is some repetition from Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man Thanks for clarifying that you are not calling for deletion of this article (so the "Delete" section is done I guess). I respond by adding some more items to the "Actionable suggestions" list (which i moved below and promoted to being a separate section).  I tried to discern all suggestions implied by your comments.  Some of your other statements give explanation and context or seem to suggest deletion (by questioning notability or otherwise) but do not imply suggestions for development of this article, as far as I can tell.  And I add my own discussion comments about some of those numbered items.  Please feel free to add discussion comments referencing numbered suggestions, too.  Hope this is making progress. -- do  ncr  am  03:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Collapsed the above, as, knock on wood, i think this is ✅ in terms of any explicit or implied suggestions here having been noted in section.  Feel free to uncollapse. -- do  ncr  am  19:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternative table format and other comments

 * (section retitled from "List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course (Revised)" -- do ncr  am  19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC))

I have included a revised list. It was easier to demonstrate with a revised list rather than write long descriptive paragraphs. Please note that the distances are estimations and are traditional in miles (no metric conversions).

The revised list, for illustrative purposes only, includes a link to the existing Wikipedia articles. These Wikipedia articles fit together as described by a previous editor "like pieces in a jigsaw." There description includes a brief title and no long description. Including a long description will cause the pre-existing articles to be subject to AFD nominations and be deleted. It will also completely stop the development of the Isle of Man network of motor-cycle articles and the lead Isle of Man TT articles to be found on Wikipedia Netherlands will lack of standards, problems of accuracy and plagiarism.

Actionable Suggestions. Notes: 1). The revised list has no reference to fatal accidents. (see below; neutral point of view) 2). The revised list has no reference to lap records which are found in the main Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix articles. 3). The revised list has no reference to technology changes (these are found in the Isle of Man TT pages and are to be moved to separate articles; see Talk Pages).  The course changes are found in the Snaefell Mountain Course article. 4). The revised list has no reference to competitor styles. ( I would not know how to even start this article ! ) 5). The revised list is not mobile-friendly. 6). The revised list has a neutral point of view. I must apologise at this point as I may have confused the issue. If you include the fatal accidents in point (1). and as a controversial aspect then you must demonstrate a neutral point of view. There has only one article quoted in the "Whipple" article. Perhaps a second article needs to be quoted to demonstrate an alternate point of view. 7). As with points 3) and 4) the revised list has no reference to technical issues or style issues.  Again, I must again apologise if I had confused the issue.  The photo that I referred to is on page 24 of the Whipple article and includes a photograph of Mike Hailwood riding 500cc two-stroke Suzuki RG 500.  Wikipedia describes Hailwood as to be "....regarded by many as one of the greatest racers of all time."  The riding style of Hailwood is almost completely difficult to describe and runs counter intuitive to the Whipple article.  The total number of Isle of Man TT wins for Mike Hailwood is 14 and not 18 as quoted in the article. The motor-cycle is two-stroke Suzuki 500cc and is quoted as having a power output of 90 hp. 8). The gallery section of the Bray Hill article has 5 photographs. There are copyright issues with four of the five photographs. There are other photographs in the Snaefell Mountain Course articles have copyright issues and also a number unnecessary redirects. Wikipedia also has rules about the placing of photographs. Leaving an list article incomplete and the article may be deleted respectively, regardless of an potential AFD nomination. 9). The revised list has many photographs missing. agljones(talk)11:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing an alternate format for a table. Very efficient [for you] to communicate that way [in showing what format and information you prefer], yes, good.
 * Quick reactions: I like the column with miles from start.  I don't like the "Sector" number column or the "Timing Sector" column", at first because I don't understand exactly what they are, and I don't see why general Wikipedia readers would want to know those.  I assume those numbers and names are somehow part of the administration of the TT race, and are too "technical" or "directory-like" or minutiae or otherwise not helpful, is my first reaction anyhow.  I'll consider the overall table suggestion further though.
 * About 8, about possible copyright issues for four photos used at Bray Hill article, that is NOT about this list-article or any photos in it or any photos proposed for use in this list-article. Please stop bringing up copyright issues about photos not used and not proposed for use in this list-article, here on this Talkpage, okay?.  I will open discussion with you about that at User talk:Agljones instead, okay?
 * About some of the above comments, I added explicit or implicit suggestions to the section below.  Have not addressed all points. -- do  ncr  am  19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Notes: 1). The table was brief draft and for illustrative purposes only.  A second more improved (draft) table would take some time to complete as it requires to address some of the technical issues. 2). The Snaefell Mountain Course is divided into a number of sectors and each sector has a Chief Sector Marshal and Deputy Sector Marshal. For example, Sector 9 runs from the Ramsey Hairpin to the Black Hut. The list could be sub-divided by sectors. The Snaefell Mountain Course now has a number of sectors for timing purposes and this include Glen Helen (TT Grandstand to Balig Bridge), Ballaugh (Balig Bridge to Ballaugh Bridge), Sulby Speed Trap, Ramsey (Ballaugh Bridge to Ramsey), Bungalow (Ramsey to the Bunaglow), Cronk-ny-Mona (Bungalow to Brandish Corner) and the TT Grandstand (Brandish to the TT Grandstand). I have previously quoted a sector time in the Windy Corner Talk pages for the 2014 Senior TT Race won by Michael Dunlop (lap 2 sector time from the Bungalow to Cronk-ny-Mona for Michael Dunlop is 2 minutes, 16.322 seconds an average speed of 136.285 mph). 3). Previous comments in regard to copyrighted images only referred to existing photographs. agljones(talk)19:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion (of article and/or all descriptions)
This new section to record reasons for and against possible deletion of this list-article. AND also about deleting all descriptions. -- do ncr  am  14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This new section to record reasons for and against possible deletion of this list-article, to separate such discussion from discussion about improving the existing list-article. Anyone is free to open an AFD process to call for deletion, but maybe it helps to build up arguments here first. -- do ncr  am  18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reasons to delete include, briefly:
 * 1 The list-article might attract photos that have copyright problems?
 * 2 This list-article existing will tend to support the deletion of articles about individual corners or other articles?
 * 3 (add more)


 * Discussion of reasons to delete:
 * About 1, that's not a problem at all, IMO. There's no reason to think the existence of this list-article will cause any more copyright-violating photos will be uploaded to Commons, and there are very well-functioning processes to get rid of any that are. --doncram, 11 March 2015
 * About 2, it is possible for cases on the margin, though any AFDs about other corners are supposed to be determined on basis of sources and Wikipedia notability criteria. This list-article provides a different possible result of an AFD about an individual corner, i.e. that it could be redirected to a row in the list-article, but IMO that is a good thing.  Windy Corner, Isle of Man was redirected to here, but the apparent consensus of its RFC decision was actually to merge into Snaefell Mountain Course  (probably to Snaefell Mountain Course), and this just provides a better target. --doncram, 11 March 2015


 * Okay, from Agljones' statements in section, I guess no one is suggesting deletion.  Okay, great, so this section is ✅ -- do  ncr  am  03:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

But Agljones seeks to delete all descriptions (item 10 in "Actionable suggestions"). ''Agljones: "Including a long description [about corners within the table] will cause the pre-existing articles to be subject to AFD nominations and be deleted. It will also completely stop the development of the Isle of Man network of motor-cycle articles and the lead Isle of Man TT articles to be found on Wikipedia Netherlands will lack of standards, problems of accuracy and plagiarism." So Agljones suggests descriptions need to be eliminated. (summarized by doncram, 14 March & 16 March).''
 * Doncram response: Deleting all descriptions pretty much would eviscerate the list-article.  Note that Windy Corner, Isle of Man redirects to its row in the table...some description of it and other corners that redirect should be provided.  Other stuff about Netherlands and plagiarism doesn't make sense.
 * Agljones, could you discuss here? -- do ncr  am  14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

ordering
Alphabetically or by mileage from race start? -- do ncr  am  11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I kept it alphabetical while developing, as that was easier, but recently reordered into race order using GeoGroup view of locations.
 * I think there's no disagreement, so this section is done. -- do ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Long comments from Agljones

 * (separated out from section on "Include or remove fatal accident mentions" --doncram)

Agljones, i split your comment out into this new section because it seems to be a new review by you of the article, starting with your views about the first section of the article, and going on with many complaints. It is not acceptable as a post in the separate Talk page section on the topic of fatal accidents. Could you comment BRIEFLY within the fatal accidents section, please, only about the fatal accident mentions in this article? Please don't repeat your views about how fatal accidents should be "addressed and documented in the main Isle of Man TT article", and so on. Or about the RFC at the Windy Corner article which was closed with decision that it should be redirected. This is a Talk page only about improving this article.
 * First section (not sure what to call it as you have mixed the first person with the past participle):-
 * 1). Following the suggestion by the editor Cullen365 this article will be significantly redeveloped and improved. The article will be different than its current form.  This will occur when all the technical issues and research have been resolved.  To use your own term the point is "moot" when you created the article and you should have thought about how the article may be redeveloped and accepting the process rather than setting your own editing policy. WP:OWN (The term is not actually "moot" as it is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning a gathering for a discussion which is used in British-English in its original form rather than the corrupted US-English meaning.)
 * 2a), 4), 5) The policy has been stated about including fatal accidents to competitors in the above section. As with other editors, please adhere to this policy and you have already agreed to this type of policy in 3).  Do not set your own wp:OWN in regard to this issue.  For example, in respect to developing a consensus there was no agreement in either deleting or merging the Windy Corner article and you ignored this and imposed your own interpretation of the decisions.   In conclusion, you have already answered your own questions.  Wikipedia policy is quite clear and Wikipedia is not a memorial WP:NOT
 * 2a & 2b) The fatal accidents to competitors, race officials & spectators  are highly controversial  feature of the Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix Races.   As mentioned previously, the Isle of Man TT lost its FIM World Championship Status after riders boycott due to safety concerns and also due to the high number of fatal accidents to competitors. The Isle of Man TT has been subject to a media campaign from UK national newspapers from the early 1950’s until the early 1980’s in respect to excessive criticism to the very high number of fatal accidents to competitors.  This criticism from UK national newspapers continues to this day.  To maintain a neutral point of view  this criticism needs to addressed and documented in the main Isle of Man TT article and other parts of the Isle of Man motor-cycle network.  The negative criticism from UK newspapers in the period 1951-1954 will require specialist research over a period of time for notability and demonstrate a neutral point of view.
 * 3). See above 2a).
 * 4). See above 2a).
 * 5). See above 2a).
 * Second Section;
 * 1). The problems with the section has been highlighted in a previous string including a conclusion. There has been no action to rectify these issues. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and there is no justifiable reason to repeat and duplicate information or re-present and re-edit information and provide an alternative explanation or meaning which contradict a Wikipedia article(s) that already exists.
 * 2). The issues have been disused in the above string (s).  It is ridiculous to suggest that I have to provide a citation for an inaccuracy or something that does not exist.  It is not possible to provide the citation for something that does not exist in the first place.   It is not a case of being "dubious."  The Whipple quotation is vague, dated and generic for 1979 and no other quotation made. It has been included in a paragraph which may possibly be part of the executive summary (?)  The second paragraph  refers to lap speeds with no citation and is a paragraph bridge. The third sentence states;- "Road refinements that replaced sharp corners or bends with broader bends have contributed to the higher speeds."  As mentioned previously, in the context of the increase of speed from 1979 in the paragraph bridge the only major corner revisions since 1979 have been the Windy Corner and Brandish Corner.  Both have been redeveloped due to safety concerns for road traffic on public roads.  These two corners have been developed as constant radius curves and each bend has had appropriate landscaping.  For instance, the Windy Corner has only been widen by no more than 4 metres at the widest point and is not the "broader bend" that you refer too and conversely the Windy Corner car-park has been reduced in size by 3-4 metres.  It is also not acceptable on a motor-cycle  course to have large change in widths that you suggest as it causes safety problems for competitors. The publication Island Racer 2006 page 136 quotes Dave Molyneux, the 16 times Isle of Man  TT Sidecar winner as estimating the time reduction as about 4 seconds with a reduction in the average race speed of about 0.5 mph  for the Sidecar TT class. A similar time reduction occurred at Brandish Corner of about 3-4 seconds and is significantly less than the 3 minute reduction in the overall lap record 1979-2014.  The only other major change during the same period was at Quarry Bends and the road has not been significantly widen.  Provide significant coverage from interdependent neutral publications or the section will again be challenged and removed.  There is a significant issue for Wikipedia with a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and again setting your own policieswp:OWN and you have already admitted that "you like" the Whipple article.
 * 3) and 5). See above Section 1 - 2a) and 2a & 2b).  The policy has been clarified for these articles.  Please do not change this without a consensus.  As an editor, your background knowledge of the Isle of Man TT needs to be improved to address the problems of notability, verifiability, issues of bias and issues of a neutral point of view. Also, as I mentioned previously, a major factor in the fatal accidents to motor-cycle competitors has always been the type of fatal injuries that they have received which is an inherent danger to motor-cycle motor-sport(I think you need to research this yourself and repeated "stonewalling" tactics is unhelpful).  In regard to the edit Gooseneck 1955 and 1994 it is not clear if these fatal accidents are members of the public or fatal accidents to competitors. Again, as I mentioned previously that these fatal accidents did not occur at the Gooseneck Corner.  There is often vague descriptions in newspapers in respect to these fatal accidents to competitors actual occur.  The 1955 accident occurred closer to the 26th  Milestone and the 1994 accident approximately 150 meters below the Gooseneck Corner and Wikipedia is not a memorial. WP:NOT
 * 4) and 6). See this section 1). It is not necessary to use "cut and paste" methods to create duplications of pre-existing articles. As mentioned in section 2) part 1) the previous issues have not been resolved and you also been unable to transfer information without making mistakes.  There is no need to also create "cut and paste" articles or a type of  "Frankenstein articles" as there are too many mistakes, inaccuracies and misleading comments which by-pass the executive summary or relevant facts.  As mentioned in the previous string they are a series of mini-articles and there is a risk of AfD nominations due to lack of notability. There are also problems with poor English WP:MOS, mixing British-English with US informal speech patterns, using nouns as transitive verbs, mixing first person with the past particle, serial commas and the excessive use of quotations.  Wikipedia allows for some para-phrasing, sub-editing or synthesises.  However, using sentences or paragraphs to join separate references or sources which direct the reader to the footnotes is not a viable encyclopaedic practice and is something never to be used. My conclusion in the previous string still applies and in respect to the section for the "Windy Corner" it is a over-long, ridiculous, nonsensical description held together by sources and quotations. I am also unable to dis-concern if an internet translator has been used to translate into English or that a second or third person uses your Wikipedia login or the use of a Sock-Puppet as there appears to be more than one style of writing.agljones(talk)20:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And, I'm sorry, but I just reverted all your recent edits to the article. I'm not going to organize a point-by-point discussion of why your edits are unacceptable now. I would be happy to discuss those edits one by one or discuss other editing issues one by one, but you have to help keep discussion manageable. E.g. by dealing with your views about photo copyrights elsewhere. E.g.. by helping to split out small issues, and cooperating in discussing only one topic in a section, and staying on topic. I've made a lot of effort to try to communicate with you, but it's gotta be a two-way street. Depending on how you respond, maybe this is heading towards requiring use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. -- do ncr  am  22:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agljones comment + shorter reply by me collapsed by doncram as appears to repeat already-expressed views, or not about changes to this article, or spurious. Collapsed section can be checked by anyone to see if there's anything relevant to any actionable item suggestion, but offhand I see nothing new.
 * I'll respond to odd suggestions: about whether I used internet translator on text in the Netherlands wikipedia articles, no I have not (and have not ever consulted them). About whether I've allowed others besides myself to use my account, or have used sockpuppets:  I have not. -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

agljones(talk)03:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was made clear to you in point 2) that the previous policy has been stated and followed by other editors. Please follow that convention or discuss the issue in the talk pages of the Isle of Man TT article. (Effectively you answered your own questions).
 * Wikipedia policy is very clear and Wikipedia is not a memorial. WP:NOT
 * If there is an issue with the WP:NOT policy, I can suggest that you list the article List of Snaefell Mountain Course fatal accidents for an AfD nomination. I would not wish to either vote, abstain or comment on the AfD nomination as I would like to observe a neutral point of view.
 * It has been followed by other editors that safety issues are discussed in the talk pages of the Isle of Man TT article.  please follow that convention if you wish to discuss any type of safety issues in respect to the Isle of Man TT motor-cycle network of articles.  It gives other editors the chance to discuss the issues.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy on how to reply in a talk pages and do not repeatedly break-up strings as you eventually admitting to doing so after repeatedly "stonewalling" the issue.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in asking questions of an editor for any reason and then breaking-up the answer into two sections. Following Wikipedia rules, it would suggest that I am to answer the two sub-sections and sub-paragraphs.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in listing fatal accidents in the notes section as it is difficult for a reader to understand if the fatal accident is a fatal road traffic accident or fatal accident to a competitor
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in using citations in supporting your editing policy or supporting the inclusion of fatal accidents. The two citations for 1955 and 1994 only confirm the name of the competitor and the date of the accident and these citations are only used in this context. This applies for the whole of the article List of Snaefell Mountain Course fatal accidents in the date column numbered 1 to 245. Please follow this convention. They do not confirm the actual site of the accident. The 1955 report can be accessed on-line on the internet and will show that the incident was observed by race marshals at the Gooseneck but the actual accident occurred 350 metres south of the corner.  The 1994 accident occurred 150 metres north of the Gooseneck corner adjacent to the public footpath called Kissacks Lane.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in which fatal accidents to list. There is a highly significant issue for Wikipedia with a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. There is an issue of WP:NPOV as you have adopted an arbitrary policy of which accidents to include and which to leave out.
 * It has been stated in the string that you wished to;- ".... just give factual information about fatal accidents when relevant to describe the individual corners." Which is relevant, the fatal accident or the individual corner  or both ?  How do you decide this issue ?  What is of  encyclopaedic value or matches the standards of notability or verifiability ?  What is the relevance of a motor-cycle competitor at an Isle of Man TT race crashing through a safety fence at an named corner at 135.00 mph, hitting trees by the side of the road and suffering extensive upper body injuries and being partial decapitated ? The motor-cycle broke-up at the corner and the accident was described as like an "aircraft accident."  What is the relevance of this on Wikipedia ?  What is the relevance of a middle-aged motor-cycle competitor at an Isle of Man TT race running off the road at 85 mph in fog and being impaled on a stone-gate pillar and iron farm gate suffering massive facial injuries, including being partial disembowelled by the motor-cycle fuel tank and motor-cycle frame ? What is the relevance of this ? How do you decided this, what is the relevance to the corner ? What is the relevance of competitors being  decapitated, disembowelled, impaled, suffering extensive facial injuries, extensive head and face injuries, extensive upper body injuries, extensive lower body injuries and multiple organ failure, loss of limb/multiple limb loss/extensive blood loss, infective triage by improperly trained race officials, deaths caused by delays in being transported to hospital or lack of proper intensive hospital care ? What is relevant ?  How do you decide this ?  How do you decide if a fatal accident is relevant is its caused by mechanical failure or the competitor was described as off the "racing-line" ?  What is the correct "racing-line" ?  What is the correct racing style ? What is relevant ?  How do you decide this ?  What if the fatal accident is caused by a high speed impact with a stonewall, small or large grass bank, embankment, revetment, agricultural drainage ditch, race marshal communication shelter, bridge wall, telephone box, race marshal or race official(s), large farm animal, small wild animal, bird or rodent, farm or garden gate, small and large pavements, road-side safety features, telephone poles, barded-wire fence, wooden fence pole and wire fence, wooden road barrier, road attachment, road-side advertising sign, road-side sign, road-side traffic sign, gable end of a house, front porch of a house, fatal accidents due to the weather including heavy rain or mist, melting road tar, competitor being hit by their own motor-cycle or a motor-cycle of another competitor, fatal accidents caused by collisions of sidecars,  fatal accidents caused by fuel leaks, fatal accidents caused by sudden tyre deflations, fatal accidents caused by being distracted by spectators or other vehicle, fatal accidents caused by racing collisions with other competitors, fatal accidents caused by not wearing safety equipment,  fatal accidents caused by spectators blocking the road or fatal accidentals caused by fatigue and lack of sleep from the early morning practice sessions and long intensive practice sessions ? What is relevant ?  How do you decide this ? What is the relevance to the description to the corner ? The answer is Wikipedia policy is very clear and Wikipedia is not a memorial.  WP:NOT Follow the policy that has been clarified for you and used by other editors.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy about the editing policy of the Executive Summary or what can or cannot be included in the article and what types of standards apply.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy and use dated, generic and biased quotations which have been used in other related articles, irrespective if the quotation matches the rest of the section or article.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy about how the Isle of Man TT motor-cycle article of networks should develop and which is the main lead article.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy that accompanying information, facts, data, citations or sources should always originate from another linked article and it is impossible to do so as the article has been redirected.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in respect to copyright issues of photographs.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in redirecting articles when there was no clear consensus on either deletion or merger.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in sub-editing information from other articles and including the information in a list article.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in how this list will be develop after all the technical issues and research has been completed.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in using sources and references to justify a sub-editing policy.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in respect on how and when an editor should reply or about the length of replies.
 * Do not use your own WP:MOS policy in respect to the very poor standards of written English.
 * Do not set your own WP:OWN policy in over-writing US-English styles over the top of pre-existing articles written in British-English. Do not use US-slang or legal terms that originate from British-English and have corrupted meaning in US-English.  Do not make personal comments or use the term "disrespect."  Do not use veiled comments in respect to a grievance procedure.   Do allow other editors to use your Wikipedia user login name and do not use a Sock-Puppet. Do not use "Wikipedia Troll" tactics.


 * , too long and rambling to be understood, so I am collapsing. You completely lose all credibility with me, by trying to suggest that I've been using sockpuppets. Nonsense!  And, you ask me to let other editors use my login???  I see no implications for actionable suggestions. -- do  ncr  am  13:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * (moved by doncram from being a new section, to being another passage in "long comments" section-- do ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC))

I am replying here at this point as I am unsure at which point to reply as you have collapsed sections. Again, you have broken-up section which is a unusual procedure which you final admitted to after being repeatedly "stonewalled" about this issue.
 * I will reply briefly first about the Memorial issue.
 * 1). If you check my contribution list you will find that I made a large number of contributions to the aircraft accident listings of Wikipedia. This area of Wikipedia would delete all names as it is WP:NOT.
 * 2). The fatal accidents to competitors are a highly controversial issue and I did give some of the injuries and types of accidents and I do not feel its necessary to be "stonewalled" over the issue again. They do not give encyclopaedic value to  the description of the corner.
 * 3). Also fatal accidents on public roads have also occurred due to for example by drivers over the blood alcohol limit (which is a controversial issue) and they have not been listed.
 * 4). The accidents are already listed together and there is no need to relist them and leaving some sections blank would suggest that there is some reason for this and as you have concluded yourself that this would imply not a neutral point of view.

Again, very brief.
 * Personal explanation.
 * 1) I have been working on a revised list format  and have completed the first section of research. The second section will be finished in perhaps 6-8 weeks.
 * 2) Continuing from 1) again very briefly I gave you a list of corrections and they have been ignored and I have been again "stonewalled" over the issue.  The revised format will deal with the technical problems that you have not addressed despite being asked to do so.
 * 3) Continuing 1 & 2). The list descriptions are not good enough for Wikipedia. I am not sure if you consider it as a "peer review." These descriptions can be listed in Google in about 35 minutes and they are difficult to remove.

Again, very briefly.
 * Conclusion.
 * 1) All your questions and inquiries have been "non sequitur" (it is not clear when you have asked a question and then you reply to your own questions)
 * 2) In Wikipedia you should own your edits. Do not think that other editors will do work for you.
 * 3) The technical issues of the Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix including the overall Isle of Man motor-cycling have been completely underestimated by yourself as a Wikipedia editor. This list has completely stopped any further work of improvement in the Isle of Man TT articles section.  I will not allow this to continue further and the conflict problems in this list where removed.
 * 4) There has been an issue of quality and I have removed all the conflicting sections and descriptions.  There has to be consistency all the way through the list which is completely absent due to missing sections, use of references to to create meaningless paragraphs and the persistent problem of very poor standard of English grammar and language.
 * 5) The issues need to be dealt with promptly by you as you have reversed the edits. Do not try to progress the issue by "stonewalling" tactics, unusual editing practices, personal remarks, trying to in-force compromises, stifling issues by collapsing sections for your own interests or setting editing standards and then ignoring them.
 * 6) Last point briefly. I have persistently asked you not to make any personal remarks which you have completely ignored. You have made veiled threats.  If there is a problem then proceed to a formal grievance procedure and do not make veiled threats again.


 * Postscript. Corner X is not a hairpin and the accidents in 1955 and 1994 did not occur at this corner X.  In respect to the 1994 accidents the scrap marks are still visible in the road and the damage to the hedge at Corner Z can be seen on Google street view not at Corner X.  The 1955 accident can be read on-line and the description is that spectators at Corner X observed the accident at Corner Y. (Explanatory note, the descriptions give to the media by Police or Race Officials is deliberately very vague of the site of accidents and it requires local knowledge and technical understanding of racing-lines and how motor-cycles behave to understand where an accident has happened. Also, as it is not possible to list all 220+ corners and sometimes a nearby corner is used as a description).  agljones(talk)17:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay I have read your new long comment. Again mostly it seems to be a new review by you of all your complaints.  I don't see any new actionable suggestions to add to the open list.  Like your saying descriptions aren't good enough, is already covered in actionable item about descriptions being incomplete/unfinished.  However, I take your point that I was closing actionable suggestion items above, when I viewed they were done.  So I have revised that to clarify what is my view on status of each, instead, indicated now by "DONCRAM view of status", with my view of whether the item is done, or there's disagreement which I think is to be resolved by RFC, or other.  And i inserted "AGLJONES view of status" for each, where I hope you will indicate your view of the status of the item, and how you think the item should be resolved.  It seems to me that we need several separate RFCs to settle disagreements.  But before inviting others, I'd very much like to settle what else can be settled, and be clear on what each disagreement is, so that others will be able to participate efficiently. Can you please indicate where you agree that items are settled or not, at each "AGLJONES view of status"? -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Tag as "citation needed" or remove unsupported statements
If one believes a statement is true and is probably supported specifically in a linked article, I don't think removal is best. A lesser option of tagging is available. A better option is to get the citation you feel is necessary from the linked article. -- do ncr  am  07:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was about Agljones editing in article to remove information, with edit summaries that the info was not supported by sources. But the info was from corresponding corner articles where the sources are available (one click away). -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hopefully message has been delivered. Collapsing. -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lost in edit conflict (?) about the 11th milestone
I followed Wikipedia advice and observed the three strike rule. I also followed Wikipedia advice and made no reply for 7 days. I revised the article on the 25th March 2015 to correct the problems with older names that are not used. If you check the article history I have not edited the article since 2009 and there has been other edits by other contributors. On the 26th March 2015 you replied on my talk page with the following comment;"Thank you for adding an infobox and otherwise improving the 11th Milestone, Isle of Man article and others... and I apologize/regret undoing all three of your recent edits there....but I shouldn't have undone them all, it wasn't really necessary and I don't really mind any of those changes." Have you asked a question or not ? Then you answer your own question. Do not expect editors to reply to your questions when they are in many sections and then you answer your own questions. Then you move replies and then reply and I cannot follow the string. It is your decision to do this not mine. Then you have described my answers as "too long and rambling to be understood" and "over-long, ridiculous, nonsensical" Do not make personal comments and collapse sections when it is in your own interest. ''' Why do you ask me when you think my replies cannot be understood ? Do you expect me to reply after so many personal comments?''' Under Wikipedia rules it is advised to answer questions but it does not give a time limit and then you have placed a comment on my talk page (?) Wikipedia describes editing as a "hobby" and not a job. It was your decision to create this list and Wikipedia describes it as owning your own edits. It is your decision to use this photo and the answer to your question lies in the revised article which I thought you read from your reply. I will not make any further replies for 7 days as per Wikipedia advice and please accept this. If there is no further improvement in this article as outlined in my reply of the 16th March 2015 (I think that is the date it is difficult now to locate the date) or the issues in the collapsed sections then I will edit them to remove the problems after the 7 days. Please note my Reply at the very bottom of the article.agljones(talk)21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Reply at the very bottom of the article": what article? -- do  ncr  am  17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

about External links
I just removed these 3 items from the External links section, as they give "404 error". All 3 are from www.iomtt.com/TT-2009/Circuit-Guide, so appear to be from 2009, so maybe iomtt.com removed them: Are there 2015 equivalents? -- do ncr  am  19:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Competitor Guide Sections Greeba Castle to Glen Moar Mills with Steve Hislop, 11 times TT winner
 * TT Spectator Guide Section Ballagarey to Ballaspur
 * Map of course

I also very much like this video with narration focusing on the corners, as highly relevant for this list-article, and added it as the only external link right now. It could use more.

External links can include a link to a commercial site, as long as the site is relevant and is "neutral and accurate" with respect to the topic (per wp:ELYES), or that is informative from knowledgeable persons although site does not meet reliable source criteria to be used as a regular source (per wp:ELMAYBE's #4). -- do ncr  am  19:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Questions Highland Course and no-speed-limit
There's a statement in both the main and alternative versions, of approximately: "Some corners were also part of the Highland Course and Four Inch Course used for the Tourist Trophy automobile car races held in the Isle of Man between 1906 and 1922." Could that be improved in both, to say which corners? Can it be more informatively stated, such as: "The corners from ____ to ___ were also part of...."? Perhaps all those corners are consecutive, or perhaps there are some deviations where the Highland Course might not have gone through some corner that is now part of the Snaeffels course. For now in the main version I'm planning to indicate by asterisk for each corner, whether it was included in the Highland Course, according to what's said in the corresponding articles, but those articles may not all address the issue. Agljones, could you share what you know? -- do ncr  am  17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC) And I'd like to know where the no-speed-limit portions of the course are. Are there multiple ones, or is it just over the mountain portion? -- do ncr  am  23:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See the above reply about trying to extend the list into other non-relevant areas. I can think of better things to research than speed-limits and they are verifiability issues under Wikipedia rules. There is no relevant question here to answer and the editor needs to reassess the amount of involvement in this article and again do not resort to vandalism.agljones(talk)16:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. About no speed limits, fine, no problem. I have other sources and will figure out myself whether i can compose something useful to say or not.


 * But, umm, about which parts of the SMC were included in the Highlands and Four Inch Course it appears the topic could be addressed easily in the list-article. And there are a lot of linked corner articles that spend  a lot of text on the topic, while it would be better for them not to.  I think the topic can simply better addressed in the list-article. -- do  ncr  am  00:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

agljones' preferred version of list
Editor agljones' currently preferred version of this list article is copied to Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Alternative version. Agljones may take exception, but I am reverting his recent Bold, major edits which put that alternative version in place, and I will continue to develop the list in mainspace as previously, with its coordinates, descriptions, and more that Agljones' version drops. It is about time to get some other editors' opinions to decide between Agljones' and my different visions for this list. I suggest we spend some time, not too long, cleaning up the main version and alternative version, before inviting others. Let's avoid edit warring, let's just clean up and then get others to decide.

Agljones, small cleanups you probably intend:
 * Drop the GeoGroup
 * At Windy Corner in your list, de-link that to just show Windy Corner

I want to finish out some things in the main version, too. -- do ncr  am  17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You have been repeatedly been asked not to move or edits WP:TPO Please do not do this. DO NOT VANDALISE ARTICLES. Do not change the accepted official course names. Overall, your technical knowledge of the subject is not good enough to continue with the article and you have no access to the main primary or secondary sources. Do not create a list of vertically stacked articles with details that differ from the original articles. Do not list fatal accidents to competitors. WP:NOT There are issues of insufficient neutral point of view, writing sections and paragraphs using a single internet source which are biased, inaccurate and often ridiculous technical points which are subjected to plagiarism and do reach the correct standards for verifiability and notability required for Wikipedia which is unacceptable. The use of very poor written English is unacceptable. Also unacceptable is repeatedly trying to cross into other articles and other areas covered by the Isle of Man TT network of articles. The descriptions section do not reach Wikipedia standards, contradict the already established articles. Unacceptable are the commercial advertisements or commercial information and written in different styles from an informal blog or travelogue or a series of commercial advertorials which has stopped any further development of the Isle of Man TT article network. agljones(talk)16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * About just the "trying to cross into other articles and other areas covered by the Isle of Man TT network of articles": the "network" isn't working as probably intended, as there's not good material available or interest/ability by editors to develop most of the intended corner articles.  Where they're not developed much, it would be better to redirect to list-article.  Where there is good development, it's fine and good for the list-article to summarize about them.  :) -- do  ncr  am  00:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a list of results articles if you wish to participate in the "network." There is the Manx Grand Prix Results 1924-2004. Most of the current Isle of Man TT Results do not have Executive Summaries or Race summaries. Also, History of the Isle of Man TT Race articles 1907-1914, 1920-1939, 1949-1976, 1977 onwards...., History of various manufactures at the Isle of Man TT....Honda, Yamaha, Norton etc, various race biographies, Day by Day Isle of Man TT practice results, Norton Kneeler, Douglas Banking Sidecar, Biland B2b Sidecar, Clypse Course, St.Johns Short Course, Williston Course, Jurby South Circuit, Andreas Airfield, Production TT, Formula 1 TT, Race results for 1905 Isle of Man International Cup, race results for Highland Course, Four Inch Course, Isle of Man Gordon Bennett Trophy, RAC Tourist Trophy 1905-1922, Mannin Beg/Mannin Moar Course, Southern 100, Pre-TT Classic Races, Post-TT races......etc and perhaps there is also the Manx Trophy Rally and Manx International Rally……… 1974 Isle of Man TT, 1975 Isle of Man TT, 1977 Isle of Man TT, 1978 Isle of Man TT, 1979 Isle of Man TT, 1980 Isle of Man TT, 1981 Isle of Man TT, 1982 Isle of Man TT, 1983 Isle of Man TT, 1984 Isle of Man TT, 1985 Isle of Man TT, 1986 Isle of Man TT, 1987 Isle of Man TT, 1988 Isle of Man TT, 1989 Isle of Man TT, 1990 Isle of Man TT, 1991 Isle of Man TT, 1992 Isle of Man TT, 1993 Isle of Man TT, 1994 Isle of Man TT, 1997 Isle of Man TT, 1998 Isle of Man TT, 1999 Isle of Man TT, 2003 Isle of Man TT, 2004 Isle of Man TT

The network is generally working as intended. The situation would be improved except with the unnecessary AfD nominations and having to deal with duplicated information in a list article. THIS IS THE ISLE OF MAN TT AND IT HAS TO BE CORRECT. How do you decided when an article is not developed ? Redirecting an article does not allow the article to be developed. How do you redirect the incomplete race results ? Where do you redirect the race results too ? There is an extensive amount of information. The Isle of Man TT is an integral part of the history of the development of the motor-cycle. Redirecting articles has an effect on the general Wikipedia motor-cycle network of articles and do not cross over into this area by including non-relevant information in list articles. Do not make irrelevant and spurious comments and keep on topic.agljones(talk)14:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Include or remove corner-specific fatal accident mentions
Rambling question unreadable. The WP:NOT policy can not be by passed by listing only the years as they can be mistaken for road traffic accidents. agljones(talk)12:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agljones inserted statement above and collapsed all else; i am uncollapsing to show this is still an open issue. -- do ncr  am  01:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Agljones removed and I restored two corner-specific mentions of fatal accidents. Thanks, Agljones for contributing to the article and for your attention applied. Agljones, can we please discuss this here? And I suggest/assert that what is fair is to keep the mentions in, unless there is a consensus or at least one or two other editors' supporting removal. We can ask for some others' opinions. By restoring the comments and opening this discussion section, I am NOT doing something "impractical" and I am NOT setting my own wp:OWN editing policy (to paraphrase statements somewhere above). I am PROPOSING an approach to deal with the issue, and I am ASKING you to accept the proposal. You can choose to discuss here or not, you can choose to remove the statements again or not. I am ASKING you to proceed in this way, but I am also OPEN to alternative suggestions.

Why do I suggest this way?
 * 1) Because it's an issue that can/will come up as the list is developed more, so discussion is more worthwhile
 * 2) Because there exists a difference of opinion between two editors about whether a) accidents (or mentions of them) are controversial, and repeated mentions create an undue negative POV in the article, or b) the mentions are simply factual and neutral and relevant/useful in corner-specific notes. Being far away I am less informed about local views, but I don't see anything as likely to offend anyone, and I am not aware of any great sensitivity about such mentions.  If the mentions, no matter how politely they are worded, somehow do offend persons of some significant group, then I would want to know and and I would want not to offend.
 * 3) Because I think the issue, if discussed, might be settled by some compromise (e.g. accident mentions should only be included if some conditions are met)
 * 4) Because I believe getting some other opinions would help resolve this; and I am willing to accept removals if there's consensus or at least some support from others;  and I hope you will accept keeping mentions if there's not support.
 * 5) Because from my experience in Wikipedia I believe that it's generally better to defer somewhat to the preferences of an editor who created and is continuing to develop an article. To favor edits that build over than edits that tear down.  To define the "Bold" edit in BRD sequence as the tearing down / disagreeing edit.  Later, after the editor seems to be "done" and the article seems to reflect that the editor's best try to accomplish some vision, or if time has gone by and the editor seems to has lost interest or has given up or whatever, then it's okay for tearing-down type edits and the original creator has less say.

Why do I support these specific restorations: -- do ncr  am  07:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Because the edit summaries removing them asserted they were not supported, but you and I know they are facts supported by sources in the corresponding corner articles. I view descriptive summaries in a list-article of linked other articles, as generally okay without footnoting, if the reader can find specific sources if they click to the article, and if the statements are not disputed.  I don't think you really dispute the accuracy of those statements.
 * 2) Because there are less confrontational options, if you do really question something: you can tag with "citation needed" {{tl|cn)) or {{tl|dubious}}, you can discuss at talk page.
 * 3) Because I don't see mentions of accidents as being controversial at all, and I am unaware of how or why others would see them that way.
 * 4) Because I thought they were relatively salient facts about those specific corners that are useful/relevant in summaries about those corners. (If there are many more important things to say in a summary, say, I'd be okay with removing them.)
 * 5) Because I think there are relatively few accident mentions. I do not think every accident needs to be mentioned and I am not planning to make "too many" mentions.  I guess I'd define "too many" as when the list-article seems to be overstating their importance, relative to the importance of other available information.
 * 6) Perhaps relatedly, I think it's fine for some notes boxes to be empty and for others to have varying amounts of text. The list-article is under development.  And even if it were "done" it would be fine to have more text about the relatively more important or interesting corners.  Wouldn't it be artificial to require the same number of sentences for corners that are less interesting?  And I think it is fine/good for the note-boxes to include "cut-and-paste" selections from corresponding corner articles.  Why not?


 * By edits elsewhere, Agljones has conveyed that he thinks wp:NOTMEMORIAL applies, which it does not. A mention that 2 riders were killed at X corner in 1955 and in 1987, say, does not memorialize anyone.  The guideline is about creating separate articles about them...not present here.
 * Also Agljones has conveyed he thinks any mention of fatal accidents is POV and controversial somehow, when it is just factual. Agljones seeks to remove all mentions...which is white-washing and is a biased POV. -- do  ncr  am  13:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * {{U|Agljones}}, why not reply here, on this topic?
 * (end of passage collapsed by Agljones, uncollapsed by doncram 4/13/2015)

How many bends?
The page says the course has “about 220 bends.” Why “about”? Why isn’t a more precise number given? If there’s a reason, it should probably be mentioned on the page, too. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it could vary according to what amount of mild curve counts as a bend. A very mild curve that seems insignificant at low speed, might seem very abrupt at high speed and be one of the bends that racers need to anticipate.  Previously in the article was "about 264 bends", with footnote to Gare Joyce ESPN article.  That article says there are 264 bends, not "about' 264, in total, so I think it should say 264 bends per that source. However, an editor changed from "about 264 bends" to "about 220 bends" and I expect they have their reason, but I agree they should provide a source and should explain "about" if that is to be kept in.  The "about 220" could be tagged with citation needed. -- do  ncr  am  05:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)