Talk:2010 24 Hours of Le Mans/Archive 1

Archive 1

GT1 Class

There is not going to be a GT1 class next year os there. Because eurosport said its the last year (2009) for GT1. FiRe (FiRe) 14:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

ACO already confirmed there will be a GT1 class, it will simply be under entirely new regulations shared with the 2010 FIA GT1 World Championship season. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 13:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Asian Le Mans Series

According to the official website, only the class winners will get an automatic invitation for the 24H. It makes sense really, since the "Series" is only one event... --Jcmo (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

The abbreviation for Portugal is "PRT", as shown for Pedro Lamy? I thought it was "POR". Was there a discussion that decided in favor of one or the other? Or is there another nation whose name starts with "POR"? 97.125.93.108 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See here. It varies, depending on which code someone would use. ISO 3166-1 is being used on the page, hence why DEU is also used. Cs-wolves(talk) 19:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tokai University entry withdrawal

Is there any source for the official statement of the withdrawal of the entry from the reserve list? 188.24.91.104 (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, never mind, there is confirmation of this (and Kaneko Racing's withdrawal as well) on Ten-Tenths from Graham Goodwin of DSC. 188.24.91.104 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pekaracing inviation?

The invited entries shows Pekaracing as having taken up their GT1 invitation for finishing 2nd in the FIA GT Championship. However, they are not on the entry list. Is this correct? - mspete93 14:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They accepted their automatic invitation but then withdrew. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I may add a note onto that table to explain this. - mspete93 17:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Statistics for race results

hi does anyone know where we will be able to find Statistics for things like Fastest Lap, Average Speed, Distance and so one?--WrcF1(Talk) 00:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The ACo publishes this information in the results PDFs, but some of this information is trivial and doesn't belong in the article, or at least should be better integrated into text rather than bullet points. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

something like this:

Starters	Finishers	Fastest Lap	Best speed
55	32	#7 Peugeot 908 HDI FAP - 3:24.352	#009 Lola Aston Martin - 302 km/h

I looked here [1] and could not see the total Distance can anyone?--WrcF1(Talk) 12:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not integrated into text. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

this then: Out of the 55 starters 32 of them Finish and the #7 Peugeot 908 HDI FAP driven by Nicolas Minassian, Pedro Lamy and Christian Klien recorded the fastest lap on lap 259 of 3:24.352 and the total distance of the winning #9 Peugeot 908 HDI FAP was 5206.28 km/h. Is this better?--WrcF1(Talk) 17:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's integrated into text, but that sentence as written would fit rather poorly into the race report. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, there were 56 starters, technically (one did not start) and 28 finished; an attrition rate of 50%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.18.240 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As that comment was written and dated a week before this year's race, it's fair to say that perhaps they were using the 2009 race stats for example purposes? --Falcadore (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Like I said, I didn't get much sleep, was too busy watching the race. ;) 68.10.18.240 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Free practice results

can we put the Free practice results on?--WrcF1(Talk) 08:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is practice. It counts for nothing. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please no to practice times thanks. We're not statopedia. Don't waste your time. --Falcadore (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the two users above. Cs-wolves(talk) 15:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless some significant event (accident, vehicle failure) occured, there shouldn't be any mention of free practice. 68.10.18.240 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Final results

Separate tables for each class and the overall table is messy and redundant. Just because you don't like the table doesn't make it invalid or make redundant information acceptible. I won't revert this again myself, but I've left this note here since folding the class results into the main table is a much better option than habing 5 separate tables messing up the whole article. Nice work, yes, but ultimately redundant. 68.10.18.240 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Motorsport is clearly just another area of Wikipedia that is massively owned by a tiny cabal of minority interest project members who arrogantly want to decide what normal readers (i.e. me) do and do not want to see in an article. If you guys think that that massively long and visually awful table is remotely useful, who am I to disagree, I've only been here three years and editted in a wide range of topics, all with the general reader in mind. I mean, who wouldn't agree with the idea that an 10 PAGE LONG table mixing up four very different motorsport classes and mixing finishers with non-finishers, littered with all sorts of info with thee row high entries, isn't going to be the only way to present the final race outcome, and any additional format, even if it is ONE PAGE long and gives information at a glance that otherwsie takes you TEN MINUTES to deduce from that ugly and unreadable monstrosity, is just 'wholly' redundant, and clearly, anyone who sees this and tries to improve the article in that respect is obviously a total lunatic. And if you think tiny bracketed numbers is any kind of adequate replacement, you clearly don't even see what the issue is. So, in conclusion, I'm ever so sorry for 'messing up' your article, but frankly, if you think being tidy by having a single and non-duplicative table is a higher priority than having an article as a whole that is remotely useful/readable, you've got your priorities massively wrong. This article is awful for the average reader, full stop, and I think it's pretty clear why this situation has developed. The359, Falcadore, and IP240, give yourselves all a barnstar for being such brilliant editors by protecting readers from redundancy. A wholly worthy cause I'm sure everybody would agree is Wikipedia priority numero uno. I will leave the 'wholly redundant' table here, so that onlookers can decide for themselves whether it warranted wholesale arrogant removal without discussion, or whether its inclusion would be usefull for readers not obsessed with the race and not willing to go mad and blind by reading its supposedly adequate replacement. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

don't look, no usefull info here!

Finishers by class LMP1 Class Overall No Team Chassis Laps 1 1 9 Audi Sport North America Audi R15 TDI plus 397 2 2 8 Audi Sport Team Joest Audi R15 TDI plus 396 3 3 7 Audi Sport Team Joest Audi R15 TDI plus 394 4 4 6 AIM Team Oreca Matmut Oreca 01 369 5 6 007 Aston Martin Racing Lola-Aston Martin B09/60 365 6 28 (NC) 11 Drayson Racing Lola B09/60 253 LMP2 Class Overall No Team Chassis Laps 1 5 42 Strakka Racing HPD ARX-01C 367 2 7 35 OAK Racing Pescarolo 01 361 3 8 25 RML Lola B08/80 358 4 9 24 OAK Racing Pescarolo 01 341 5 10 41 Team Bruichladdich Ginetta-Zytek GZ09S/2 341 6 18 28 Race Performance AG Radical SR9 321 7 20 40 Quifel ASM Team Ginetta-Zytek GZ09S/2 318 8 23 37 Gerard Welter WR LMP2008 308 9 25 26 Highcroft Racing HPD ARX-01C 296 10 26 39 KSM Lola B07/40 291 LMGT1 Class Overall No Team Chassis Laps 1 13 50 Larbre Compétition Saleen S7-R 331 2 15 72 Luc Alphand Aventures Corvette C6.R 327 3 22 52 Young Driver AMR Aston Martin DBR9 311 LMGT2 Class Overall No Team Chassis Laps 1 11 77 Team Felbermayr-Proton Porsche 997 GT3-RSR 338 2 12 89 Hankook Team Farnbacher Ferrari F430 GT2 336 3 14 97 BMS Scuderia Italia SpA Porsche 997 GT3-RSR 327 4 16 95 AF Corse SRL Ferrari F430 GT2 323 5 17 76 IMSA Performance Matmut Porsche 997 GT3-RSR 321 6 19 78 BMW Motorsport BMW M3 GT2 320 7 21 75 Prospeed Competition Porsche 997 GT3-RSR 317 8 24 88 Team Felbermayr-Proton Porsche 997 GT3-RSR 304 9 27 85 Spyker Squadron Spyker C8 Laviolette GT2-R 280

Infact, for the win, that giant mess of a table is so badly designed, it's not even sortable, so pathetic little bracketed numbers is the only solution it looks like to finding out the 'wholly redundant' date presented above. More barnstars all round, presumably that is another aspect of the article that would be verboten to just 'fix', for the benefit of readers who aren't Rain Man like in the way they read massive amounts of data, and aren't so interested in Le Mans they want to spend half an hour decoding the table, scrolling up and down, making interim notes using a pen and paper as they go. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, and your tables do look very nice and we appreciate your hard work in adding to the article, but the unified table reflects the information better, and in the same manner that the timing sheets from the ACO themselves do, with some additional information. It's not our intent to make you feel unappreciated or unwelcome, but the information already exists on the page, and duplicating it in extra tables causes clutter in the article. If you have a way to improve the existing table, you're welcome to do that. That said, your idea to make the class tables collapsed by default here makes me think that it would be a good way to present the same information in the main article. If someone wants to see the individual class tables, they can be expanded manually by the user. I think this makes a good compromise and does add positively to the article for those interested purely in class data over the overall results. 68.10.18.240 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is nothing to do what so ever to do with formatting. It is two sets of tables displaying the same information. So no.

If it is your contention that class results is as important, if not more so than outright results then that would be best served in the textual description of the race. Wikipedia has long held that the text of an article is more important than the acoompanying illustrating tables. A well written article will serve much better than a multitude of tables. You 'rain man' point underlines that this can best be solved with the article text rather than tabular presentation. These are Wikipedia wide policies, not as you might suggest the narrow views of a few subject specific edittors.

If it is genuinely your contention that the results table is unreadable then you can solve that easily with well written text. And it will leave a far superior result in the best traditions of Wikipedia. The challenge sir is yours. Can you communicate your point without the use of a table? --Falcadore (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. If this were remotely your concern, you would not be damaging the article by removing the table until the replacement text was there, would you? As it happens, I know of nothing, not one single policy, that says that any article must only have one table in it covering the same information, and your idea that it is exactly the same only shows you really really don't have the first clue what the issue is. It is not redundancy, it is plain utility and readability. It is the simple fact of not making an article look incomprehesibly shit to the average non-motorsport obsessed reader who is not interested in taking the time to decipher that crappy table, or insert text into the article when they don't find basic information that should be here in prose but isn't. Infact, I could come up with plenty of examples in other topic areas that would show just how silly this 'one table only' stance of yours really is, including other sports, arts, science, and plenty of other topics I'm sure. And anyway, it's beyond a joke that you want to stand here and lecture me about basic Wikipedia principles, when this article hasn't even had a single reference added to it since the race ended. I came here to remedy that situation, and I've learnt my lesson, so I won't be doing jack else on this article thank you very much. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't have a reference for the race results, and they were ultimately removed. So if you feel you were "bit" by this, you're not the only one. I made a suggestion on a compromise that I feel would improve the artivle, but if you feel that slieghted, then it's your option to not continue work on the article. 68.10.18.240 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And hold the phone. Did you really suggest above that individual class rankings in Le Mans is not considered as important as the overal finishing position? They are considered at least as important, and depending on the specific source, sometimes even more so. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your tables were removed because it was duplication of results. This is not about 'one table only' it wass about showing the same data twice. That does not remotely 'damage' the article. And you don't temporarily substitute tables for text that hasn't been written yet and delete the tables later. You write the text right first time. It does not have to be done the instant the race is finished, this isn't Wikinews. Take your time. Perhaps this is the basic problem here. The assumption that the results have to be up instantly to provide a news source to people browsing the interent within an hour or two of the race finishing is a false one. That is fundamentally not Wikipedia's mandate. It is not, and never has been about getting the results up first. There are a million and one news sites who do that function better and it is there job to do so, not least of which the official Le Mans 24 hour website and Wikipedia should never be viewed upon as a substitute in that regard. Wikipedia is not a news source, never has been. That is what Wikinews is for if anything.

Did you really suggest above that individual class rankings in Le Mans is not considered as important as the overal finishing position? They are considered at least as important, and depending on the specific source, sometimes even more so. I was not suggesting anything, I was putting to you a question. Any 'suggestion' you may see is entirely your assumption. --Falcadore (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a basic duplication pure and simple, and perhaps this is 'the basic problem here'. You personally see no need for it, hell, you probably know the table backwards by now anyway, so it doesn't even enter your head that others might not think this article is perfect. And your apparent view that whatever you do to the article cannot damage it is pretty telling in that respect. You will find hundreds, if not thousands, of other articles, even FA's and Featured Lists, where the same information is presented in two or more tables in slightly different ways, for the convenience of the reader and for the overall benefit of the message of the article. We do not have a paper shortage, and that is about as close to a decent reason there is for this stance as I can envisage. As far as I'm concerned, Wikinews, or availability of news sites in general, has got nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the issue. Not a single thing. With that point I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in your post, but as far as I'm concerned, the table is a valid addition, either an hour after the race or a year after the race. MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many charts are unnecessary in this article. A more indepth breakdown of the finishers in each class can easily be made in text, once it is written. However, simply putting something silly in just because there is no text yet is not the way in which we operate. You seem to have no problem writing large blocks of text, it would seemingly not be beyond you to begin to write some "non-Rain Man" podium results for each class or something useful. I already removed the large entry list chart because it was now redundant with the race results posted, adding four more new charts to simply display the same data another way is equally redundant. See 2007, already rated as a Good Article, for how this will be handled once people can actually start writing. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Have we really not already covered the idea that what you simply declare as unecessary and dare I repeat it, 'silly', may very well not be? There are last time I looked there were more than three people who read this encyclopoedia, let alone write it. Or is this really what passes for reasoned debate in Motorsports articles, simple restatement? Contribute to this article in future? You'd have to bloody pay me frankly. I've been here three years and created hundreds of articles and made thousands of edits, but if you guys think I'm so dumb I would spend an hour creating a table for an article that is just useless, and would never be allowed in an FA, well good luck to you guys, I clearly am a fucking idiot and wouldn't know a shit article if I just saw one. Onwards and upwards for motorsport articles, you'll go far I'm sure. Top tip: you are writing for readers, not yourselves. Try and remember that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The amount of time you spent on it matters not. Have you not just covered the idea that what you declare to be necessary and not silly may well not be? Your amount of time and edits on Wikipedia does not mean that everything you contribute is gold. You're hardly the first experienced person on Wikipedia to have their work removed because it was redundant. And yes more than three people contribute to Wikipedia, but word to the wise, this is hardly the first Le Mans race article to be posted on Wikipedia, nor is this the first discussion of how race results should be presented.

Of course the article as it stands now would not pass FA, but that is mostly down to the lack of pre-event time I've been able to spend on it as well as the fact that the race ended less than 12 hours ago. I certainly wont be likely to attempt to run it through GA until at least the end of the month. However, if you feel you have nothing to contribute to this article in the future, well then this is all quite moot. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But would I be at all surprised to see those same names drafting all prior Le Man articles? Particularly the supposed GAs? Most likely not. I very much doubt pushback is tolerated for long, if it even exists. The slack update rate here actualy supports the idea that Le Mans might be prime territory for the 'that's silly' type edit warring ownership games, as they flourish in areas which hold little or no interest to most editors of the pedia. I'd be truly amazed if this format was ever approved of by a wide variety of editors, who actually sat down and asked themselves, is this the most informative way to help readers, rather than make them go blind/mad by looking at a ridiculously busy and totally inflexible 10 page long table, simply because they decided in their wisdom that you can only ever have one table (we'll skip by the numerous FAs to the contrary), and including any others would be 'redundant', because of course, it can all be said in prose. It makes me laugh to think how you would even contemplate replicating my table in text, let alone how to word so that you even came close to comparable rate of easy comprehension, but I really don't think that's a high priority tbh, if it ever even goes in at all. MickMacNee (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your arguement isn't even making much sense anymore. Pushback? Slack update rate supports edit warring and ownership games? If you're looking for approval, I suggest talking with WP:MOTOR and their subprojects, who have been involved in hundreds of race reports. There's 56 cars, the chart's going to be big and there's no way around it, but it is precise and to the point and presents exactly what people are looking for: the race results. Since we're discussing FAs, I suggest looking at the motorsport articles currently approved for FA, specifically the race reports (unfortunately all F1 GPs at the moment), and then tell me how the race results are presented.

I completely fail to see how the top finishers in each category cannot be described in easy to understand text. Sure, it wont cover every car because with 56 entries it would be impossible to write out the results for every single car, but the podiums for each class would certainly be notable and easy to write out. Why would the top results in each category NOT be a priority? I don't exactly have a checklist or a time line but a description of the entry list and the evolution of dropouts and reserves, a review of the practice session, a review of the qualifying session, and a review of the race proper are all the real priorities here. This is a race report, the report is what will be the bulk of the article. As I said before, see 2007. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"it is precise and to the point and presents exactly what people are looking for". Would you listen to yourself. Honestly. There is nobody in your universe but you is there? This article is hopeless. I came here looking for specific information, and it wasn't for baby food crap like the class podiums. I got so fucking angry at how shit that stupid giant table actualy is for telling me "precisely" and in a "to the point" manner what I actually wanted to know, I wasted an hour improving the article myself to add a table that does exactly what you described, from my perspective. "it would be impossible to write out the results for every single car" - well, of course it bloody would. But that's not what I wanted to addd was it? We can all see on this very talk page how much space it takes to organise the finishers by class in a table added for that specific purpose, which is not a lot. I've seen the 2007 article, and it is similarly useless. I am left looking at it and wondering why the hell the only way I can find out what I want to know, is by looking at a moronically huge table and using a pen and paper and my up and down keys a hundred times. The supposed text replacement is logically to be found in the results section, but no joy. I have concluded that the only way I would deduce it from the text is to have to read the entire Race prose, and track through again collating various relevant titbits, with a pen and paper, or rely on my head and inevitably lose track a hundred times. Not an adequate replacement in a million years. No, it's pretty clear that if you want the info in the above tables qucikly and easily, you are frankly screwed. And to think, this is for something that is considered one of the most important 'want to know' aspects of the Le Mans race. Well, certainly in proper sources anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And this is no surprise either. I think it's abundantly clear there is only one editor on this page, and everybody else needs to hurry up and wait till he finishes the article in his preferred way, with info going in its proper place and its proper format. God help anybody who comes here looking for even basic class information in the meantime, they have a crap table to look at, and that is most definitely their lot. The encyclopoedia anyone can edit? Just not this article. It's beyond dumb to be removing valid info from any article just because its in the wrong place, whether that's text or a table. Although a good place to have put that prose would have acutally been in a Finishers by Class section, but still, we saw how 'silly' that idea was. MickMacNee (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly not one editor, I simply removed something that didn't belong in the article intro. Specifics about non-classification rules don't belong there. Are you just looking for shit to whine about or are you actually here to improve the article? You have yet to actually suggest anything beyond your redundant charts. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you removed info from the article. Didn't move it anywhere, didn't bring it up here, just straight up removed it. Because it's your article, and of course, it's your role to decide what does and doesn't go in it. I get it!. But now, not only do you want to own the article, you want to own the goddam talk page too, and now I have to dance to your tune here too, because apparently the whole 'your charts are redundant' issue is as decided now as it was when you got involved in the first place. You are unbelievable you really are. MickMacNee (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible you can reply without the verbal abuse and histrionics? Refer WP:CIVIL. --Falcadore (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed it and stated quite clearly that it would better fit somewhere else in the article, once the prose is written. Same reason I removed the BMW Art Car note from the results table when it can be better integrated somewhere else. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I already said, improvement of this article does not go to your schedule. You do not get to decide what does and doesn't go in it based on some unseen work programme or your own personal quality waypoints. Valid text stays in unless or until it is replaced by a better edit. That is basic. If your concern was location, then move it. But without expansion, it was perfectly valid where it was. MickMacNee (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And the art car silliness has nothing to do with me thank you very much, although your handling of it shares much of the same troublesome aspects as our interaction. MickMacNee (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain WP:MOS decides what does and does go in for an intro, and that sort of information doesn't quite belong in an introduction, at least in that amount of detail. The information is not there at the moment, but will be readded where it is appropriate once that section is completed. Not that I eliminated all the information, I simply trimmed it down to what was appropriate for such a section. X amount of cars out of Y finished. It doesn't need an explanation of why one isn't classified or how many in each class finished. I certainly have no problem with others adding work as they see fit (I certainly have suggested it to you), but people placing things in the wrong place is hardly helpful.

I also rewrote the entire summary of the race winners in the intro as well because it was poorly written. Do you want to complain that I removed that person's work as well, and claim it as ownership? The³5₉ (Talk) 03:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I hate to break it to you but the MoS doesn't mandate the removal of valid info ever, even if it is just temporary while you get your act together sorting out your page. It hardly matters to readers reading right now that in your wisdom you've gone and filed away that info for later restoration, does it? And no, I'm not the sort of guy who complains when others improve an article, maybe you are projecting at this point? MickMacNee (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So first you complain that Le Mans is of little interest to most editors and readers, now you seem to think that the break down of how many cars in each class finished is so irrelevant that it absolutely must be kept in the article at all times? It's borderline trivial, I simplified the addition into what might actually be relevant or at the very least what is more likely the information people will want: how many cars total finished. The specifics on why one car was not classified are also explained in the results table, so it was hardly a "removal". The³5₉ (Talk) 04:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just 3 cars finished in GT1 is trivial, not worthy of a mention? Sure. I thought you knew about this topic? At least enough to have appointed yourself editor in chief, deciding what readers do and don't want know, while you constantly change your mind as to whether text replaces tables or tables replace text. The only thing I do remember from being forced to read that awful 2007 article is that just two cars finished LMP2 that year. Funny that, for a bit of unworthy trivia. If anything, it is the bare start/finish figure that is more meaningless, unless the goal of the article is to fool the less than savvy reader there are no classes at all, and that all the cars were racing together. MickMacNee (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In the body of the report? No. In the opening paragraph, the lead of the article? Yes it is trivial. The lead of an article should describe what, what, when, the bare essentials. Detail belongs in the body of the report. --Falcadore (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've said it many times now, but things don't seemingly resonate here. There is no policy or even convention that allows you to simply yank information from the lede, and just not re-add it because nobody has written the main body yet. You do not start the intro, then work on the main body. If you have no main body, then the intro is the article, which is the situation we have right now. Full stop. No temporary yanking, no back room development schedules, just the normal expansion process. Normal normal normal. Only not here. Infact its worse, the one large part of main prose is the one thing not mentioned in the lede! MickMacNee (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no policy stating everything in an article must remain. And there are multiple sections needing prose, they can't all be written at once. I simply added the easiest for the moment. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. The Wikipedia:Editing policy. And I quote: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage." So, are we done on this point at least? MickMacNee (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

3 out of 8 is not quite unexpected, especially given the category. That's a better finishing rate than LMP1. "Of the 54 starters, only 29 cars finished the race. The GT1 class cars proved themselves to be the most reliable, losing only two competitors over the 24 hours." is what is stated in the 2007 article, and really the same mention should be made for LMP2 which also only lost 2 out of 12 competitors, which although trivial is somewhat notable, especially given the history of the category. The intro also specifies that there are four categories.

Appropriate. And I did rewrite the passage, it simply removed some irrelevant facts for the intro. I could easily think of tons of "facts" that people could add to this article (laps per driver chart maybe?), none of which would be appropriate for this article in a finished state and would be removed just the same. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, and you are deciding what's appropriate yes? Shocked is what I am. And seriously, if you are going to start pretending that laps/driver is even remotely comparable in importance or relevance to the info in the tables above, then we can just end this now, because you are clearly on a wind up, and/or have zero interest in what a reasonable reader would expect to learn from this article in a reasonable form. Frankly, the 'well, if we did this, we would have to have this and this and this' is a Wikipedia cliche frankly, its about as far as anybody can get from a decent argument. MickMacNee (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if I'm not deciding what's appropriate, then who is? You? Oh, right, the editors decide. I'm an editor, so yes, I seem to have magically decided. And I was throwing off the top of my head a simple example to say that your mantra of "don't remove any information" is foolhardy and not well thought out. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I also do not recall what I have changed my mind on regarding tables and text, unless you mean me pointing out the results table having information which you seemed to think was gone forever. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The 70% NC factoid and related info is where your policy on text/tables seems to have reversed, but its complicated by this bizarre not-now-later development system you've got going here. Who knows what you've removed for later re-addition, on the basis it is or isn't in a table right now. And your idea of what is trivia is odd at best, just how is something both trivial but yet 'somewhat notable' at the same time? That's just slack use of both concepts tbh. And if it is trivial, why is it in the lede? This is just basic race information, pure and simple. You can recite specific class finishing info on a talk page but won't include it in the article, certainly not in a table, or even in prose until you are good and ready it seems. It's just odd frankly. People in this debate have even lifted numbers out of the above tables it seems, while they go around declaring their redundancy. Pretty hypocritical tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The 70% text was originally in text above the chart, someone else added it into the chart, but it works either way, that particular statement about what the rule is for Classified or Non-Classified doesn't need to be in prose, it's a simple explanation of why the Drayson car is not classified. Therefore its removal from the intro, where it didn't belong at all, matters not in the slightest.

And some "trivia" is notable enough to mention, but far too often people turn these race reports into long lists of trivial data. WP:TRIVIA exists for this reason. And yes, basic race information HAS BEEN RETAINED. But I simplified it down into something more fitting of the intro, so that only the number of overall competitors finishing is listed, rather than a deeper break down by class.

What information in the table has been lifted and is redundant? The race winner? The number of laps? That's about the only thing currently in both prose and chart form, neither of which is redundant in the slightest. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop talking as if this article even has an intro right now? It's not an intro. It is the full prose form of the article at present, and thus, all of your assumptions that stem form this about what can and can't be vanished from it, or get squirrelled away in tables (while the other notable/trivia/wtf? info absolutely cannot be presented in tables) are just plain wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Except it is the intro, the article simply is not complete. Why you seem to think it is complete is beyond me. This is hardly the first Wikipedia to not be up to date as soon as an event ends. It would be impossible to have this article complete by now. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And it won't be complete if you keep removing info because it's not complete! It's a perversely backwards approach, which doesn't happen anywhere else on the pedia, and which only makes sense if an article is as I've said all along, being owned by one person who has appointed himself chief writer. It is not an intro right now. That's a basic fact in the normal Wikipedia development model and based on this current article's state, and I've told you repeatedly, time and again, why your removal on this basis is simply wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The only "information" removed has been how many cars in each class finished, which was simply a trimming down of a longer piece someone added, the bulk of which still remains. Hardly something to cry over. Your charts were not new information but simply the same data reformatted. The Art Car link has already been readded, and everyone else's information has remained (article history might still be something worth looking into). This is the way every sports article is built as the event progresses. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Distance record

Hello to all taking care of this page. The reporters on the US telecast, on Speed Channel, mentioned several times that the winning team set the record for distance traveled in this race. I am wondering if you might want to add this to the article. Of course, you will need a RS but I figure that if you do want it in you will be able to find one fairly easily. This is only a suggestion and my congrats to all of you for taking care of this article during and after the race. MarnetteD | Talk 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies it is in the lead and I missed it - again well done on this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Art Car

The art car is still just a car, it does not need special denotion to be pointed out in the overall race results. The fact that there is a BMW Art Car in this race will be pointed out once the prose of the article can be written, specifically in a re-written entries section which will point out notable entries such as this unique car. However, where a special paintjob finished in the race matters little in this article. If you want to point out specifically where a car we happen to have an article on finished, you're more than welcome to – on BMW Art Car, where it's finishing position is a notable piece of information. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 24 Hours of Le Mans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213032336/http://www.lemans.org/files/actu/2009-11-19__4645_gb.html to http://www.lemans.org/files/actu/2009-11-19__4645_gb.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614130803/http://www.lemans.org:80/en/races/24h/update.html? to http://www.lemans.org/en/races/24h/update.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 24 Hours of Le Mans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704214207/http://www.lemans.org/iframes/24hdumans/2010/chronos/2010_24_Heures_du_Mans_24_Heures_du_Mans_Race_24h_Definitif.pdf to http://www.lemans.org/iframes/24hdumans/2010/chronos/2010_24_Heures_du_Mans_24_Heures_du_Mans_Race_24h_Definitif.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lemans.org/en/races/24h/update.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)