Talk:Debora LMP296

Debora late 90s models

There's no point in having three articles. The LMP297 chassis is identical to the the LMP296, and the LMP299 was built on the LMP296's tub. These are not different cars. Pc13 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree, and strongly so. The LMP296 and LMP297 were not built on exactly the same chassis, and have an overlapping race history that a single article would not be able to tell you about without being confusing. The LMP299 was a development of the LMP296, and there are many cars that share basic tubs but have their own articles. For example, the Porsche 956 and Porsche 962. The existence of other things, in this case, is justification for this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. The LMP296 and LMP297 are models of a single chassis each and have interchangeable bodies. The LMP299 is not a development of the LMP296, it's the exact same chassis with slight body alterations. Presently Lola B10/60 and Lola B12/60 are both redirects to Lola B08/60, as each type is an evolution and the name varies with the year of build (B09/60 is identical to B08, while B10 is a new bodywork evolution) and does not represent a new model. And BRM P301 is a section inside the BRM P351 article. The 956 and 962 have different articles because they have a different wheelbase. But there are several examples of both the 956 and 962, while there are only two Deboras of this type. Pc13 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• The LMP296 and LMP297 having overlapping racing histories that would be a complete and utter mess within one article. The LMP297 was also a brand-new chassis, so including it just doesn't fit. The LMP296 and LMP299 articles are long enough that separate articles for them is beneficial; putting them together will either result in the loss of information, or an article that is bigger than required. There are plenty of other instances of cars being minor updates and still getting their own articles, and this is the standard practice for many other task forces of WikiProject Motorsport as well (notably the Formula One WikiProject). The fact that this task force hasn't necessarily followed this path is more down to the limited number of people who have actually written these articles, rather than anything else. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Overlapping racing histories is not a problem. See Maserati MC12 or Aston Martin DBR9 for more practical usage. As it is they are overly detailed, it should be more important to add actual technical data on the cars. Neither of the articles justifies its notability so far anyway. Pc13 (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• The MC12 is exactly the same car in multiple series, same with the DBR9 (which emphasizes my point further; it's separate from the Aston Martin DBRS9 page). Neither of those situations are remotely relevant here, as we have the cars competing in the same series, but in a very messy way. To say that "neither of the articles justifies its notability" is flat-out wrong, since they clearly establish the cars were used, on multiple occasions, in the FIA Sportscar Championship and the 24 Hours of Le Mans, which is clearly enough for notability. The articles are most definitely not overly detailed; they talk about the car's racing history. And yes, it would be nice to have technical data on the cars, but most prototypes of this era, when not built by one of the bigger firms, don't have very much in the way of technical data online, and I don't have access to the books that may well contain it. Please, stop making comments that appear to be borderline trolling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So why are the Lola B08/60, B10/60 and B12/60 the same car, but the Debora LMP296 and LMP299 different? And there you go again with the Le Mans thing. Taking part does not make you notable. Winning it does. The FIA Sportscar Championship was always a minor international series and the Debora raced in the secondary class. They are overly detailed because there are race by race recaps. I don't understand how it is important that a car finished a race in 8th, 10th or 13th place. And stop adding links to Waterair Sports. That was a sponsor, not the actual technical structure's name. Pc13 (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would not class them as the same car, particularly given that there were fairly notable shifts in the LMP regulations between those years. The Le Mans thing has no consensus either way, but that issue is for drivers, not cars (nor has the exact class anything competed in ever been part of a notability guideline, despite what you might wish); racing cars that have been used in international events are generally notable, but there is a massive hole in our coverage of racing cars; it would be better that you went and filled some of it, rather than wasting time here. I have not recently added any links to Waterair Sports, so there you go again with the borderline trolling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But the cars are even less notable than the drivers. Debora's only international title was in the secondary class of a minor international championship, before it had FIA certification (it was called SRWC then). There's no borderline trolling, the Debora LMP296 article does have two links to Waterair Sports, and that was not a racing team, it was a sponsor-themed entrant. If you want me to actually start trolling, I have to question if you actually know anything about these cars outside a collection of statistics, and to ask why you are deliberately deceiving readers by claiming the LMP296 and LMP299 are different cars, when the evidence proves otherwise. But if you want me to actually improve the article, no problem. I can start by unilaterally merging all three. Pc13 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am not "deliberately deceiving readers", so fuck off if you're going to make up shit like that. I added the links when I wrote the article, so your comment of "And stop adding links to Waterair Sports" is bollocks. Merging the articles would most definitely not improve things. I question if you're here to do anything other than waste time. Go and write a new article on one of the many things that needs one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so from your article, all of your sourcing is RacingSportsCars.com, which means all you have is race results and the writer's guesswork on chassis history. And yet you are here claiming that the LMP297 and LMP299 are so fundamentally different that they require a seperate article. Based on what? You have zero sourcing on the development of these cars, what exactly is underneath all of the bodywork, or what even is different from an LMP296, LMP297, or LMP299 besides engines. Different regulations in different years means squat, cars are easily adaptable, Audi had no problem adapting an R8 under FIA SR1 regulations, and Pescarolo regularly ran his C60s in both series.

If you have no source, then you're absolutely pulling it out of your ass that these three cars are different. I'd wager, especially from such a small bespoke manufacturer like Debora, that there are fewer differences between the LMP296 and LMP299, than there are between the Acura ARX-01a and the HPD ARX-01g. And yet those nicely fit under HPD ARX-01. Your claim that it would be confusing to combine the history of three different cars wouldn't be a problem if you didn't feel the need to simply state the finishing position of the car in every race every season. Summarize. Please see Lancia LC2 for a summarizing article, with proper sourcing, describing a car that featured numerious variations over its history. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• So it's my fault that I want to give the reader more than just a microscopic glimpse of the information that there is? Utter rubbish. If I go through any properly-written recent F1 car article, I'll find the vast majority of the race results in there, so your claims simply don't make sense, and fall 100% under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because I don't follow the extremely narrow-minded view some of you old fogies do, you throw a hissy fit and insist I am wrong, without a shred of evidence. It is also not the writer's guesswork on chassis history when other sources I've looked up corroborate things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You are claiming that these cars are different enough to warrant a separate article, when you have zero reference to back it. You do realize Wikipedia has referencing requirements, correct? Not only on having references, but on the quality of those references. What other sources do you have to corroborate, that aren't simply repeating the same information on RSC? And don't give me WSRP, they both quote each other.

Nearly all Formula One cars run a single season and are discarded, there is nothing else to summarize other than the 16-20 races they run. You're writing about a car running for 4 seasons, it should not have the same amount of detail. Tell me the difference between your summary and Brabham BT19.

Explain to me what the hell the problem is with combining these articles? "It'd be too confusing to combine their race histories" is not a reason to have a seperate article for the same thing. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are clearly missing a lot of things. The Debora LMP296 raced in 20 events, the LMP297 in 7, the LMP299 in 21. Pretty much the same as the "16-20" you quote as F1 cars running, eh? Equally, you've provided no evidence that they are so similar that they have to be in the same article, have you? [1], [2] both state that the LMP296 was used in the 1996 24 Hours of Le Mans. [3] corroborates the 1998 season for both the LMP296, and part of the LMP297's usage as well. Oh look, another source - and I've now finally found something that'll give me technical specs for the LMP296. Kindly care to stop trolling and wasting my time, by insisting things have to be done your way, when we both know that your argument is as full of holes as swiss cheese? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

First, the evidence that the three cars are similar is from what you have provided, they all are based on the same chassis, and beyond that there is almost nothing visually that makes them appear to be any different. Second, claiming the three cars ran more races than a typical F1 car only strengthens the arguement that their race history should be summarized, not a repetition of statistics for every single event. Third, I have no clue how you feel the first three links qualify as WP:RS. Just because pages exist on the internet does not make it a reliable source. And hooray, you found an actual decent source with actual prose that is not simply a statistic. This would have been helpful before you dropped this article onto namespace. Fourth, you seem to feel that you should be allowed to do as you please. WP:ILIKEIT is equally the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Brushing off "old fogies" who disagree with you and claiming they are trolling you is not going to get you anywhere. We don't have narrow-minded views, we simply know how to write an article properly.

So, answer me again, why the three articles cannot be emerged. Your lack of knowledge and guesswork about the manufacturers, the cars, the people involved, and the actual history of what you are writing about is a bigger waste of time than you repeating statistics and being stubborn. The point of this discussion is to nip it in the bud rather than having to fix an ever increasing amount of articles. I have no problem with enthusiasm, but recklessness has no place here. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Claiming the cars ran more races than a typical F1 car? One car ran exactly the same number, another ran a couple more. Stop with this ludicrous bullshit you're pushing there. You clearly do not know how to write articles properly, when you're sticking to the same narrow-minded viewpoint you lot took back in 2005, when the rest of the project has moved beyond that. And for all your whining claims about my "lack of knowledge", not once did you actually attempt to correct any errors that I may have made, or improve things yourself. No, you demanded that I follow your outdated and narrow-minded way of doing things that belong in 2005. I do not feel that I should be able to do as I please; I am merely following the ways of far more up-to-date and better run areas of the project. The point of this discussion is for you to try and bludgeon me into submission so that I become a mindless fool who isn't willing to move with the times. I did not claim any sources were necessarily reliable, I just said that they corroborate things (and most of those sources I have seen multiple times in sports car-racing articles anyway, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• And for all your mindless filibustering, you've not provided a single source either way to suggest that the cars are so identical that they have to be mixed up in one clusterfuck of an article, have you? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to write an article? I don't even know how to address that, on what basis do you make this claim? What exactly were we doing in 2005 that the "project" (what project?) has moved beyond? And what exactly have they moved beyond to? What better run areas are you talking about?

Further, it should not be my job to fix your articles, you wrote the bloody thing, you should have done enough research in the first place to create an article properly instead of simply guessing to fill in the blanks. First you want to tell me I don't know how to write an article, then you want to complain that I'm not fixing the article you messed up. How does that make a shred of sense? And no, just because some sources are used on other articles does not mean they pass WP:RS. Some people have no clue what they're doing, just because an article exists does not mean it magically is of good quality. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And if you're providing sources that aren't reliable, then they don't corroborate anything! Just because you found Joe Cool's random blog that repeats information does not mean it backs up your original information. That's the entire point of having reliable sourcing, so that we are not simply taking information that may be popularized yet wrong. I mean, wow.

And, as I stated before, the LMP299 is built on an LMP296 chassis. How exactly is that not the same? No one said identical, we've said similar enough to be the same basic thing. Again, the ARX-01a is not identical to the ARX-01g, but they're all still built on the same basic design. All three cars are built on three chassis, LMP296-01, LMP296-02, and LMP297-01. LMP296-01 is the sole LMP299. So, I'll repeat myself ad naseum, what exactly is preventing these three articles from being merged? How would it create a "clusterfuck"?

And the victimized youngin' routine is getting old really quickly. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I'll take a page from your routine here:

I disagree with your claim that these three seperate articles should exist, and strongly so. These three are the same basic cars and should be merged as there is not enough information to warrant a seperate article that will just repeat much of the same information. The articles should be merged and their racing histories combined into a summary of their numerous seasons. The existence of other such articles justifies this merger.

That seems to be your basic modus operandi for when anyone questions your articles. You went through it with the Ginetta Zytek, you went through it over redlinking, you've gone through it on DYK, etc. Your sole justification seems to be "I've seen it elsewhere, therefore I'm not going to listen." The³5₉ (Talk) 17:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm merely commenting that for all your whining about a couple of errors that I've made, you made no attempt to fix them whatsoever. I've seen some of the pages I've pulled up in that sources list (http://racing-reference.info/ and http://www.ultimateracinghistory.com/) used on multiple occasions by multiple editors. As you're the one demanding a change, it's on your head to prove that your change is required. You haven't done that, not even close. So kindly fuck off and do something productive for once. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not my job to do your research for you. The onus is on you to provide a reliably sourced, correct article when you submit it to namespace. This entire discussion has been attempting to fix errors, the problem is simply that you refuse to acknowledge them. And again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not qualify something as a reliable source. As for merging, I have asked you repeatedly what is different about this three cars, and you have provided nothing to show that they are differential enough to need three articles. That is the point of the discussion, to answer questions. You have provided none. Do you have anything to dispute that LMP299 is an LMP296 chassis? Do you have anything to show that anything on LMP297 is different from the LMP296s? Do you have any reason other than "it'd be complicated" to not merge the articles?

Getting answers to correct articles is productivity. Quality over quantity. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bullshit have I "refused to acknowledge errors". It has clearly escaped your very narrow vision that I have gone around and fixed every single issue with Waterair Sports that I could find, and that I have expanded the LMP296 article since your moaning started. I do not dispute the LMP299 is an LMP296 chassis, but that alone does not mean they should share one article. Do you have anything to show that the LMP297 is substantially similar to the LMP296, other than your own waffle - you've not brought any sources to the table at all, let's not forget. The Ferrari 288 GTO is just an enhanced Ferrari 308 GTB, are you going to go there and demand that it is merged? That the Porsche 934 is merged to Porsche 911 Turbo? Didn't think so. Doubtless you're happy with the Reynard 02S article, despite how absurd it is to have so many different cars in one article like that. I used to wonder why barely anyone was writing sportscar articles; now I know, it's self-appointed Tsars like you, demanding everything be done exactly how they want it, and tag-teaming to get their way. You don't like that I won't follow your outdated path, you don't like that I have the guts to stand up against your tag-teaming rubbish, and you don't like that I am actually interested in filling the gaps we have, rather than just going through the motions. Contrary to your claim that I have provided nothing here, I have improved this article and fixed the one factual error I made in every circumstance that I could find, whilst you have done three shades of fuck all, whined incessantly, and haven't done a single thing else. Well done you, Tsar The359! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Let's just get this out of the way first: You're not the savior of sports car racing on Wikipedia. There are no guts in being stubborn and ignoring those that have experience on Wikipedia, and there's certainly no guts in continuing the every increasing string of names for your detractors. Not sure how can be a troll, old fogey, and a tsar all at once. Nor are you "filling in the gaps" when you don't even know any history surrounding the cars involved other than their results. Nothing about how they were designed, what their intent was, what went into making them, or even why they ended up with some of the results they had! Explain to me how you are not going through to motions when the sum of your articles are "This car raced here. It finished here. And then it raced here, and finished here." Ad naseum. You want to bring up the Reynard 02S, tell me what's different from that article and Ginetta-Zytek GZ09S. A history of the car, filling in the gaps, is far better than "this car finished here."

You acknowledge that the LMP299 is an LMP296. Yet insist the articles must be kept seperate "because of rule changes and stuff". What is different between these two cars? What were the rule changes, and how did they affect the Deboras? Were the cars compliant to the new regulations or did they need modification? Where is your proof that anything was changed on the LMP299 to make it such a new car? Are you simply guessing that rule changes forced Debora to somehow revolutionize their car in such a way that it was almost completely different? And surely, if the LMP299 is the same as the LMP296, then it makes common sense that the LMP297 is the same basic design, just with a different designation. They obviously had to fit the same ruleset if the two of them ran alongside each other. Same applies to Lola's naming scheme, in which a B12/80 is the same as a B08/80, just built in a different year. They are not automatically different just because they have a different title. Is your Ginetta-Zytek GZ09S/2 fundamentally any different from a GZ09S? Even the ARX-01 series, which went through its own rule changes, is still the same car underneath, despite six different designations over its time.

So, for the umpteenth time, what is stopping the merger of these three articles? "It'd be too complicated" is not a reason. Pc13 even offered to do the merger for you! The³5₉ (Talk) 19:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought you'd moved on to actually be productive somewhere; evidently not. I am not the savior of sports car racing, nor did I claim to be. I am, however, one of the few people who is actually active in improving Wikipedia's coverage on the subject. You continue to make obviously false comments, provide precisely no sources at all, and continually misquote me. I never said that rule changes were what made the LMP299 and LMP296 different, nor did I acknowledge that the LMP299 is a LMP296 (because that's obviously false as well; it's based on the same chassis, but it is not a LMP296). I have continually asked you to provide sources for your position, since the WP:BURDEN is on the person proposing/demanding/whining for a change; you've never done that. Claiming that because the LMP299 is based on the LMP296 chassis tub, that the LMP297 must be identical as well involves some fatally flawed logic. As a result, there's little need for me to provide anything beyond what I already have. The Ginetta-Zytek is not "my" car, and no, it is not fundamentally any different, hence why those cars are in one article. A change in nomenclature and bodywork is enough to justify a new article, if the cars get treated as separate entities in sources and have reasonable amounts of racing history, which these are and do; the same approach is taken with modern Formula One articles, after all, which follow the same sort of setup that I do, and that is a far more developed sub-project than this one. And you still haven't been able to accurately prove me wrong on my way of presenting race results. And you attempting to attack the Ginetta-Zytek GZ09S shows that you're clearly only interested in wasting time and being unproductive, since that article is categorically more than just a summary of race results. An article containing just race results is far better than no article at all, and if I had access to offline sources, I would expand things as much as possible. Why are you so insistent that I follow your very narrow-minded methods, which aren't even a reflection of Wikipedia as a whole, rather than actually filling in some of the other gaps, or helping to expand articles I've written with some of these offline sources that you apparently have access to? You've persistently dodged that question. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:BURDEN. It applies to those writing an article. You wrote an article. You information you are presenting as fact is being questioned. The burden of proof is on you to prove your statements. Show me that the LMP297 is different from an LMP296. It has a different chassis number is not proof. Show me that the LMP299 is different from the LMP296. You clearly stated "I would not class them as the same car, particularly given that there were fairly notable shifts in the LMP regulations between those years." On what basis do you make the claim that they are not the same car? Are you simply guessing or do you have any evidence on what has actually changed between the LMP296 and LMP299?

Let's take a little trip down memory lane and see what Debora ran from 1996 to 2002:

• LMP296 bodywork in 1996, sculpted sidepod with narrow front fender opening
• LMP296 bodywork in 1998, straight sidepod with no front fender opening
• LMP297 bodywork in 1997, sculpted sidepod with narrow front fender opening from 1996
• LMP297 bodywork in 1997, straight sidepod with no front fender opening

So, what exactly is different between the LMP296 and LMP297? The bodywork from both cars is interchangable, in fact the LMP297 ran both sets throughout 1997. The LMP296 also fit both sets of bodywork.

• LMP299 bodywork in 2000, straight sidepod with no front fender opening

OK, so the LMP299 debuts with the exact same bodywork as the other two cars. Certainly seems different to me.

• LMP299 bodywork in 2000, new nose design, same straight sidepods
• LMP299 bodywork in 2001, reverts back to the old nose, keeps the straight sidepods
• LMP299 bodywork in 2002, another new nose, same sidepods, adds a pod-style intake beneath the rollbar
• LMP299 bodywork in 2002, same nose and intake, more subtle sidepods

So, the LMP299's only change, in the seven seasons of running the car, is a different design to the nose bodywork and a last ditch change to the sidepods at the end of its life. And beyond that, the car started its career in the exact same way the LMP296 ended its career, and then went back to that same design a year later! So this car is an LMP296 tub, which carried LMP296 bodywork for part of its life, yet is somehow different? Where? How? What the hell is different about this car? A change in bodywork is not enough to justify a new article, especially when you do absolutely nothing to address the development of said bodywork. A change in nomenclature is most certainly not justification for a seperate article. All modern Formula One cars are designed seperately every year, there is no chassis from one year that can carry all the parts from a car from a different year, everything is bespoke. Every car is physically different, and can certainly be cited as such. All you have is "well it has a different number, it must be different." And the simple fact that both articles have a race history does not negate their ability to be merged, there would be absolutely nothing preventing these three articles having a merged racing history. You're not even close to having a large article in any of these three articles, so size is certainly not an issue. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• The WP:BURDEN is on those requesting a change in a merge discussion, or a move request, not on those desiring the keep the status quo. "I would not class them as the same car, particularly given that there were fairly notable shifts in the LMP regulations between those years." is indeed what I said - about the Lolas. So stop deliberately misquoting me by putting things in entirely the wrong context. Not all modern F1 cars are designed separately each year, and there is certainly no reason for everything to be "bespoke"; the Super Aguri SA07 was just a revamped Honda RA106, and the Toro Rosso STR2 is almost identical to the Red Bull RB3, and yet I don't see you bitching away at those articles, do I? Equally, the vast majority of F1 cars have, until recent times, had fairly consistent designs from one year to the next, and you don't moan about those, do you? Nope, the only reason you want this to be merged is to make a WP:POINT and to try and force someone to follow your ways. That ain't gonna happen, sunshine. Look at all the bytes of text you've wasted here, how many articles could you have written with those, hmm? Whilst you could potentially argue a case for the LMP299 and LMP296 merger, there is simply no case for the LMP297 to be merged in, as that was a separate chassis altogether. In absence of any proof on your side that the car's underpinnings are substantially identical (and your "well the LMP299 used the same stuff as the LMP296" claim isn't even close to a proof), you have literally no case there. I don't have to prove a damn thing, when you don't provide anything whatsoever to prove why your change is even remotely an improvement. Wikipedia is here to help readers, not some person with a bee in their ass demanding everything is done their way, and merging everything together (particularly with the lossy merger you propose) is categorically not helpful to readers, period. I wonder; when will you drop this pointless crusade, and fuck off to do something useful? Hmm? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

To quote WP:BURDEN: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Your claim that the cars are different is being challenged. Provide a reliable published source. Writing an article is not the status quo, there is absolutely nothing in WP:BURDEN that says that the article cannot be questioned once it has been written. The rest of the jumble of having a e-pissing contest over how many articles either person is creating now or lately or whatever rubbish you want to come with is just useless to the discussion. Being useful would be producing an article on something you know a damn thing about.

I'm not bitching about the Hondas or Red Bulls because we're not discussing those articles, we're discussing the Debora LMP296. I would however point out that Spyker F8-VII was merged with Force India VJM01 after a lengthy discussion on WP:F1, so the Red Bulls and Hondas were likely discussed in the matter, but I do not recall specifics as it was several years ago. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS still has not magically disappeared from Wikipedia.

...Although I cannot help but point out Debora LMP295, which merges the Debora LMP201, as well as the Debora SP93, which merges with the Debora LMP294, so apparently having different nomenclature is not reason enough to separate the articles? And the LMP295/LMP201 have similar chassis numbers, but are not in fact the same chassis, as is the case with SP93/LMP294 and LMP296/LMP299.. But apparently these two cars are not mergable, but the totally separate LMP295 and LMP201 chassis are? Keep in mind that chassis codes are assigned by the manufacturers, and can mean whatever they want them to mean. There is no real certainty that the tub of LMP295 #01 is identical to LMP295 #02. But then there's also no reason to think that a chassis named LMP297 is different from a chassis named LMP296. One of the Lola-Aston Martin B09/60s was in fact an older B08/60 chassis revamped into a new car, and the rest of the chassis were all given the bespoke designations B09/60 and B10/60. And yet all were the same car and same tub design. And don't even start to be witty and claim they should be merged.

So, in the end, the Debora LMP296 and LMP299 have the exact same tub. And since you have absolutely no reason they are different other than a random guess and a lack of understanding in how prototypes are constructed or designed, there is nothing stopping a merger of those two articles. And to go further, the design of the chassis or similar enough to have no noticable affect on performance if the bodywork attaches the same, since attachment points are part of chassis design, see Ganassi Racing's struggles at the Rolex 24 several years ago to keep at least three different engines cover attached when an accident ripped the attachment points out of the chassis frame. So, we have the LMP297 and LMP296 running identical engines and bodywork, so there's absolutely no sense in the claim that they are different just because someone stamped the car with a 7 instead of a 6. Of course, even your hallowed source, racingsportscar.com lists LMP297 #01 being entered as an LMP296 for an event, but I guess you just chose to ignore that, or is there fallability with your source? But really, let's extend it further. The LMP200 and LMP2000 both feature the LMP299's new nose design, and the LMP299 ran alongside both the LMP200 and LMP2000. Are you implying that Debora, which as a constructor really only exists to serve the Bonnet team, designed three completely different cars to achieve the same task in a span of two years? Again, same bodywork, same engines, yet somehow different? Hmmm. And somehow in the beginning, the SP92 is a completely different car from the SP93/LMP294?

So what we really have, for those with enough common sense, is Debora's early C3/LMP cars with the 1992-1994 series, then when we get proper LMP rules and the cars built for the FIA SR categories, the 1995-2002 cars. Not your fantastical idea that Debora somehow designed eight completely different cars in a span of a decade, especially when the mechanicals of these simple cars is this. And even Pierre Bruneau, who took over the last of the Deboras, ran in a similar scheme with Pilbeam Racing Designs, the 2003 car designated MP91 is just an development of their MP84 from 1998 which ran in the same class as Debora.

As for the "loss of information", anyone can do this and get 95% of the information you have in these articles. All you've done is taken statistics and put them into prose. Wow. Races aren't told by the results. "Both LMP296 chassis were entered, but the LMP296-01 chassis did not arrive." Why? Why don't you fill in that "hole" in history? "...was not allowed to participate in the main event." Why? I don't even see a citation for this. Are you just guessing? "The car did not start the race, due to engine problems." What was wrong? Engines can have problems and still run, and there's all kinds of problems that can happen. Did any of these cars ever lead races in which they did not win? Any sort of records? Anything at all that isn't a race result? You're not telling me a story, a history lesson, you're telling me a statistic. We are not here for statistics, WP:NOTSTATS does not specify that stats can only be numbers and charts.

And let's just admit that you're guessing on your entire argument here. And so am I. The difference is mine makes sense, and is supported by other users. You claim that I'm not productive because I'm not spending my time creating an article right now? Maybe because I take my time doing proper research so I don't have to guess and building a proper article on something I understand beyond a listing of results and chassis titles from racingsportscars.com. Quality over quantity. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• The LMP295 was used in one race, the LMP201 only in the practice session of the same race. That's why those are in one article, and doubtless you'd try to delete the LMP201 if it was in its own article anyway. The SP93 and LMP294 also have very limited racing history. The racing history of the LMP296 and LMP299 is much more extensive, therefore they have their own articles. Simple. You're pulling every single bollocks argument out of your ass in order to bludgeon things your way; the presence of the LMP297 chassis in the LMP296 list is a typing error, nothing more, nothing less (and the source is not my "hallowed" source; it has been used in GAs for years and years). You make all these fancy claims about research - so where's the evidence of it, hmm? You're going just by what you can see on the surface, not doing anything more than that. And the fact that you're clearly not complaining about the Red Bull/Toro Rosso situation, where the only difference between the cars was the engine, shows your entire rationale - you don't like what I'm doing, so you're going to whine and whine and whine until you buckle me - which won't happen. Your argument is supported by one other user, who almost always follows your viewpoint in discussions anyway, so that means precisely fuck all. With all the time you've wasted on here, where you've done absolutely no research whatsoever, you could've easily written two or three articles with all of your "research", and still had time to point out the one error I made (the Waterair Sports bit) - let's not forget that all you did with that was whine and whine and whine, never tried to correct it or even provide a correction. If I saw someone had made a clearly good-faith mistake, I'd fix it - so why didn't you? Oh wait, you don't actually care about accuracy, all you want is for Wikipedia to look like you wrote everything. Yey for you! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So which is it now, there are separate articles because the cars are different or separate articles because you seem to think the race history is too complicated to combine? You seem to sway back and forth on this several times. Bullocks arguments? Really? I'm citing Wikipedia policies and pointing out numerous examples to disprove your guesswork. Such as guesswork that your source made a "typing error"? Again, you are basing this on what? Do you have any actual shred of information that you actually understand about these cars? I highly doubt you even knew what Debora was before you found the French blog.

I've pointed out my evidence. Photographs are evidence, as is common sense. You've presented...well, a lot of fuck yous and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not much else. I don't have to be arguing other articles in order to have a valid point for this one. I don't have to be writing articles to have a valid point for this one. And certainly the fact that others agree with me does not negate the valid point over this article. Surely, if you claim I want Wikipedia to look my way, I would be arguing the Red Bull/Toro Rosso, despite knowing full well there was a consensus reached over it years ago. And certainly if I did not care about accuracy, I would not be questioning your sourcing and understanding of the cars. I'd also point out that Pc13 pointed out Waterair Sports being incorrect, and it is generally frowned upon to edit an article while discussion is ongoing, lest we begin an edit war.

Since after all of this you have not backed your "facts", and your entire argument has boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT, I'll start merging the articles when I have free time. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since you have not provided any non-OR evidence of your proposal and have no consensus for any merger, I will immediately revert any of your WP:POINTy mergers. "it is generally frowned upon to edit an article while discussion is ongoing, lest we begin an edit war" - my right bollock it is, if it is to fix a factual error that isn't actually being disputed. You've provided no evidence that your merger would improve Wikipedia, just that it would make you feel a little more important, so fuck off and go and work elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:OWN will not fly here, calling out that you will revert the article is the very definition of WP:POINT, and clearly edit warring. Tread lightly. Further, photographic evidence and information backed by data is not WP:OR, this merger simply falls on WP:SENSE. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• You have no consensus whatsoever for your time-wasting merger, nor any evidence for it being valid, so I have every right to revert your disruptive actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• And WP:SENSE is something you're clearly referencing in order to make it seem like what you're doing is somehow right, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with what you are proposing whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC on the potential mergers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Debora LMP296, LMP297 and LMP299 articles be merged? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Option 1: No, keep them separate

1. Support as article creator, due to the lack of evidence that would support a merger. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Option 2: Merge LMP296 and LMP299, keep LMP297 separate

1. Neutral - If option 1 fails, then I will back this, but I don't believe that this would be beneficial. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Option 3: Merge all three

1. Oppose - no evidence whatsoever that the LMP297 is categorically the same car as the LMP296. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - Invited here by Legobot randomly, no previous connection to this topic area at all. Here's my logic: I think there's a lot of overlapping TYPE of information in each of the three articles. They're all about the racing history of the three models. Why couldn't this be consolidated into one article with a briefer history on each within the same page? It could be made into a table, or made a section of the page with three sub-sections. I get that they are, in fact, different, with different specs. But in the grand scheme of things, all three are cars in the same line from the same manufacturer, so three separate articles doesn't make sense to me. Best of luck. GRUcrule (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This was clearly not going to go anywhere pretty, and that merge request has turned into enough mudslinging (and edit-warring threats from both sides), so I'm filing this RfC (on the advice of a trusted admin) to get some outside viewpoints. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutral To be up front, I was randomly sent an RfC request to look at these pages. I have no prior knowledge of these types of cars or, nor am I knowledgeable in the related field. However I did look at both cars on google images and honestly could not tell the difference. So solely based on an outsiders quick review of the question at hand, I say the cars are not so unique that they each deserve a separate page.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 06:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Could you select an option in the above RfC then, please? Also, I feel that you should be taking more than a quick review before commenting on something you feel you aren't knowledgeable on (not trying to badger you or put you off though, I'm just glad *someone* came here to way in with an opinion) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Debora LMP296. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lemans-history.com/new/mostra_eq.php?ano=1998&equipa=%20%2022&equipa_seq=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020094600/http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html to http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html#1998
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020094600/http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html to http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html#1999
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020094600/http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html to http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html#1998
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020094600/http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html to http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html#2000SRL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020085619/http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiascc.html to http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiascc.html#2000SRL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020094605/http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablealmsteams.html to http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablealmsteams.html#2000LMP
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020094600/http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html to http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiasccteams.html#2001SR2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020085619/http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiascc.html to http://wsrp.ic.cz/tablefiascc.html#2001SR2

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) 19:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)