Talk:List of 1965 motorsport champions
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
1965 motorsport championships contested over a single race
[edit]The 1965 Australian 1½ Litre Championship, 1965 Australian Formula 2 Championship & 1965 Australian Touring Car Championship were not "decided by the points or positions earned by a driver from multiple races" as specified in the introduction. This makes the entries misleading. I don't really mind whether we change the intro or delete the entries but they are factually incorrect as they stand. GTHO (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- What ios wrong with the reasoning previously provided? Surely consistency with parrallel article is an important consoderation? --Falcadore (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Consistency is indeed important, but not as important as factual accuracy. If there are other pages which include similar mistakes then lets fix all of them. GTHO (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- But are they, or is the wording different? I believe explained these pages several years ago, and have re-iterated since then. Do you need the explanation again? --Falcadore (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you are able to point me to any page on which this issue is discussed I'd be happy to read it. GTHO (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Given the absence of any justification for their inclusion, I propose to delete any "single race" championships from this and similar pages. GTHO (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- The original intent of the world was to exclude non-championship races and races which were components of other championships so these lists did not get too long. Do you have an alternative wording suggestion? --Falcadore (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- We could use This is a list of the winners of national and international auto racing championships and series which were contested during 1965. We would also need to change the column headers in the tables from "Series" to "Championship/Series". GTHO (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- The original intent of the world was to exclude non-championship races and races which were components of other championships so these lists did not get too long. Do you have an alternative wording suggestion? --Falcadore (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Given the absence of any justification for their inclusion, I propose to delete any "single race" championships from this and similar pages. GTHO (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you are able to point me to any page on which this issue is discussed I'd be happy to read it. GTHO (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- But are they, or is the wording different? I believe explained these pages several years ago, and have re-iterated since then. Do you need the explanation again? --Falcadore (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Consistency is indeed important, but not as important as factual accuracy. If there are other pages which include similar mistakes then lets fix all of them. GTHO (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- It think its time for action. I propose to remove the entries which do not comply with the introduction on this and related pages. GTHO (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Bearing in mind some already have different wording, why not change the introduction as you've suggested mentioned above? What's more important, the maintenance of consistent championships on each page making it easier for readers to follow year-to-year with a better written introduction, or to the letter adherence of the existing introduction?
- You've never said what format you would prefer these lists to take, whether you think every race ever held could be included, or if it should include only certain types of titles. --Falcadore (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I took the lack of response to my intro change suggestion as a rejection of that idea. I take your latest response as support for it. GTHO (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- It could be neither. Shouldn't assume. In this case I have no problem with the amended wording. --Falcadore (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I took the lack of response to my intro change suggestion as a rejection of that idea. I take your latest response as support for it. GTHO (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)