User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2016

Oliver Turvey
Hi Pyrope. Thanks for your edit to Oliver Turvey. The curious thing is, 2012 FIA GT3 European Championship season makes no mention of Turvey (or McLaren MP4-12Cs for that matter). He is listed as driving an MP4-12C in the 2013 FIA GT Series. Perhaps whoever added the original statement to the article made a mistake (or perhaps he was going to drive an MP4-12C in the 2012 GT3 European Championship but it never eventuated). What do you think? DH85868993 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You're likely right. I just quickly removed the forward looking statement. Should have checked its accuracy! Pyrop  e  16:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I've quite often made changes similar to the one you made, on the assumption that the statement would have already been removed if it wasn't accurate. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Porsche 718
Hi Pyrope. Thanks for your edit at Porsche 718 Boxster. My main intention was just to create a separate article to contain info about the 2017 car(s), per this discussion at WP:CARS, to dissuade people from continually adding info about the 2017 car(s) to Porsche 718. DH85868993 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand entirely why you created the article in that way, and I was literally seconds from doing the same thing myself (had the page laid out and everything) before I got cold feet about the fact I didn't have time to check the data. The OP's inclusion of a photo of the 2012 model made me uneasy that they might have just used data from the previous model, especially as they identified no sources. Pyrop  e  01:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hopefully now that the article exists, the good folks at WP:CARS will look after it. (But I'll also check the older versions of Porsche 718, in case any of the previous attempts to add the information about the new cars there included some sources). DH85868993 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

1955 Le Mans
I actually didn't check the talk page 1st. Should have done. Still think it is beneficial; however, I'll respect consensus.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayrton_Senna&type=revision&diff=709720058&oldid=709684640

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.84.130 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary list syntax, poor logical flow, grammatical lumpiness, change for change's sake, lack of edit summary from IP editor. Pyrop  e  16:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How about how the list syntax delineated the items more clearly than specky commas (consider smaller displays); or how the logical flow became from the most general/abiding ("considered by many as the greatest") to his demise; or how grammatical lumpiness such as two consecutive sentences beginning "He was" was removed – all hardly "change for change's sake"? And would this litany as an edit summary have changed your mind?

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Eddie Jordan
Per WP:RM, the Eddie Jordan move should have been discussed, and so the move should be reverted. Also, he has never been a commentator, so that disambiguation is so unbelievably wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , you are reading that guide incorrectly. Discussion is only required where an editor believes a move might be controversial or where the move is to create a dab page at that location. Neither applies here. Secondly, if a move is controversial in one direction then it is, de facto, controversial in the other direction too. Therefore, your use of the prod tag is inappropriate, as this is only to be done in completely uncontroversial circumstances. Finally, go read WP:BRD to remind yourself how this "being reverted" process should be followed by experienced, mature editors. Pyrop  e  17:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Pryce
Jeez - what on earth is going on with this whole thing? I was under the impression WP:MOTOR and, in turn, WP:F1 had come up with a (messy, but fair) solution to the whole thing to keep nationalistics happy? Surprised that User:Llywelyn2000 is a bureaucrat on the Welsh wiki - bit unprofessional and childish to throw a tantrum to what should be a reasonable debate. Just a bit annoying when people want to focus on the tibids like nationality on that Pryce article and not work on finding references away from TLG (Unsure why DT hasn't even bothered complaining yet considering how heavily the article references him). Anyway, back into hiding for me. Just wanted to say cheers. Phill talk Edits 19:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice to see an old friend popping up, thanks for the message! As for the ongoing domestic, it isn't anything that hasn't cropped up before. Pyrop  e  21:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Gemstones vs. Minerals
The garnet gemstone group is a subcategory of the garnet group, which in turn is a subcategory of the mineral classifications. Gemstones are indeed a category on Wikipedia and thus they can be categorized accordingly. They are still in the same parent categories as before. Asarelah (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They are occasionally used as a gemstone, if the individual crystal is decent enough. Garnet species are specifically defined naturally occurring chemical compositions that are rarely of gem grade, but always of that chemical composition.  Thus you are removing a valid category, in favor of a category in a sister category tree.-- Kev  min  § 14:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jenson Button
You do realise 'Sabbatical' was added by the person you once referred to as 'tedious West Country pillock' who has seen it somewhere and has no idea what it is? You don't seem to have been around much lately (at least in the F1 areas Breton & I usually edit!) but some things have come to light about this person... Anyway ...

Oxford dictionary...'leave granted at intervals to a university professor etc., for study or travel'.

Galley press everyday English... 'pertaining to the Sabbath or a recurrence by seven'.

Collins... 'Leave granted to university staff for study'.

OUP... extremely long and convoluted definition referring mainly to the Sabbath...

I would say sabbatical is incorrect here...and using Prost after leaving Ferrari (also sometimes imprecisely referred to as a 'sabbatical') as a precedent, he was away from the sport altogether and not (at least officially) involved with any team. Eagleash (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, perhaps not. I take most circumstances on their merits and judge things as they stand. If you choose to believe that the only modern use of the term 'sabbatical' is in reference to an academic furlough then more fool you. Quite apart from there being respected dictionaries that offer reasonable definitions other than the academic circumstance (e.g. Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, and hey, Wikipedia sources!) plenty of reliable sources have explicitly referred to Button's situation in 2017 as being a sabbatical (e.g., , , , , , , ). A stopped clock is right twice a day, so bear that in mind when judging a contributor's edits in light of their previous contributions. Pyrop  e  04:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A change of duty within a company is not a sabbatical. In my own occupation I've taken defined (and the term of Button's change of role is not necessarily defined as yet) periods where logistically, and for other reasons, I've had to take on a different role and take a break from field investigations. At no time could it be considered a sabbatical. The fact that otherwise reliable sources (by which I mean only Autosport) incorrectly use the term other than to mean a complete break from work doesn't mean we should. ITV, Fox & SKY are televisual tabloids and can't really be taken seriously and motorsport.com has been known to just steal stuff from Wiki without attribution. The dictionary definitions may be slightly outdated given recent colloquial usage but they are all modern (if not 2016 editions) issues. The definitions were noted to demonstrate that the term is inaccurate. And yes I have defended IP boy at the times he has been known to be right in his several thousand edits. Although, he's usually quite good with tables which may be indicative of what we now think may be his situation. I don't intend to change the term back though. Eagleash (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but dismissing major news organizations (two of whom have been or are still official F1 broadcasters) as "tabloids" and ignoring a respected F1 journalist's own outlet isn't on. You can't pick and choose your RS simply because they don't agree with you. It is quite clear that 'sabbatical' has modern use outside academia and its technical definition, and within F1 its use is common (for example, Joe Saward, one of the most literate F1 journalists if the last two decades). The reason you'll not change the term back is simply that in this instance you are demonstrably in the wrong, so please don't dress it up as some sort of misplaced magnanimity. Pyrop  e  16:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I’m also sorry, but I do not have a very high opinion of the broadcasters mentioned. You may have a different opinion and you are fully entitled to it. I do not find them particularly reliable and probably would not use them as a source in most cases. I would much prefer the BBC's output. No magnanimity was intentionally implied in my closing comment. My only implication was that as enough sources refer to it as a sabbatical, then the edit is not a problem. (I was trying my best to be conciliatory and come to an amicable conclusion). The fact still remains that a change of duty within a company would not normally be considered a sabbatical. OK? Can we agree on keeping it in even though one of us feels it's not perfect? Eagleash (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Inaugural season
The wording of the article makes it pretty clear that it is referring to the first World Championship season, not the first running of the race. The old wording ("championship's inception") was clumsy, and I could see the odd implication that you are talking about, but it was changed precisely to avoid that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh for Heaven's sake, read the words you wrote: "The race will mark the seventh running of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and the seventh time that the race has been run as a World Championship event since the inaugural season in 1950." Firstly, the first race was in 2009 and has run ever year since. That would be 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Yes? Now go back and count those years. How many are there? Bearing that in mind, is the 2016 race due to be the seventh or eighth? Secondly, no. You've just changed the wording back to suggesting that the Abu Dhabi race could have a history that dates back to 1950. The phrasing you have used absolutely does not imply that the 1950 season was related to the initiation of the World Championship and not the first season that the Abu Dhabi race ran. The form of words I put together got around both inaccuracies and made the race's history (or lack of it...) entirely clear. Quite why you reverted it I have no clue. Pyrop  e  02:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the wording that you put forward is inconsistent with all of the other race articles.

The whole point of the sentence is to anchor the individual race in the context of the championship's history. However, there is simply far too much information out there to justify including all of it; you run the risk of weighing it down with extraneous detail once you start talking about how many times individual circuits have hosted the race, particularly when pre-war Grands Prix start getting involved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is based solely on the fallacy that you must have consistency between articles. This simply isn't true, and is actually pretty harmful as you are noticing. An article's lede should summarize the article, and obviously an article on, say, the Monaco race is going to be very different to Abu Dhabi. Forcing the two to be the same is idiotic. Explain to me why it is so essential to mention the World Championship's history in an article on an individual race, especially at the cost of conveying that race's history... Pyrop  e  03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't come at the cost of the race's history. The wording makes it pretty clear that the race has been held seven times since the first season in 1950. I don't think that the wording implies that the history of the individual race dates back to 1950 at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Even in your reply you make that mistake. The race hasn't been held seven times ( you going to at least correct your inability to count from one to seven? Ooops, no, I see that DH has already had to do that for you...) already since 1950, it has been held seven times since 2009. By even mentioning 1950, and especially in the obtuse phrasing you used, implies that the race dates back that far. Pyrop  e  20:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Season report
Just thought I'd show you the latest updates to the 2016 season report:
 * "Mercedes took another 1-2 finish with Hamilton leading Rosberg for the third time in a row at the Brazilian Grand Prix, in a race filled with various crashes due to the extremely wet conditions, with Max Verstappen completing the podium. Going into the final round at Abu Dhabi, Rosberg still leads his team-mate by twelve points."

I think that this is fairly poor. It doesn't address anything specific aside from the result and deals with the treacherous conditions only in generalisations. It's certainly much more brief that the sections for other races and needs to be expanded upon.

Ordinarily, I would go ahead and rewrite it, cleaning it up and bringing it up to project standards. However, since you feel that I don't contribute anything constructive, I'm going to leave it alone and invite you to rewrite it themselves if you can. Of course, I can't remember the last time you actually contributed anything substantial to an article, and you have made it pretty clear that cleaning up somebody else's work is beneath you, so I am not holding my breath. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * At no point have I said that you don't contribute anything constructive (another baseless accusation that you couldn't hope to provide evidence of.... oh boy). You are certainly one of the most active WP:F1 members. However, you have some very serious problems with both your understanding of the English language and Wikipedia's editorial policies, not to mention your obnoxious attitude to anyone who dares disagree with you. You are also extremely fond of making bold yet absurdly ignorant pronouncements that, I imagine, you feel support your cause, but unfortunately only serve to undermine it by crippling your credibility. The above is one such, as it shows you are entirely unfamiliar with my editing beyond those few occasions when they cross over with yours, and even there I think you ought to see a doctor about your serious memory issues. I clean up plenty of material elsewhere, and I have attempted to clean up your material even within the last month. That occasion is a lovely illustration of my point. Despite your clear lack of understanding of sentence syntax (specifically the subject and object of a sentence) and basic counting errors, you decided to revert my cleaning-up without even the courtesy of an edit summary, restoring all the crud that I had attempted to clean. I think holding your breath would be a very bad idea, as I'm not sure your grey matter could stand the oxygen deprivation for any great length of time. Pyrop  e  06:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Fred Roots
Per WP:LEDECITE, the birth and death dates don't need to be cited twice if they're already cited in the prose. Also, why take out the copyedits as well as collateral? Connormah (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * LEDECITE states that lede citation needs must be balanced against utility, not that there shouldn't be citation. Where data is presented in a simple, numerical format, the only place in the article where that is so, I feel it helps the reader to give the explicit source. As for the other points, I don't see any copyediting, just preferences. The source given specifically describes his death as peaceful (thus clarifying that it wasn't an accident or horrific illness) and the separate sentence for the death age is just a stylistic thing rather than any strict diktat. As for using a fuller version of his name than simply "Roots", this helps with the balance and flow of the section considering that his son is mentioned by name a little way on. Just helps to fully distinguish the two guys. Pyrop  e  04:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)