Talk:Force India VJM05

Engine and wheel spec verifiability

I tagged unreferenced assertions of engine and wheel specification details in this edit. Another editor came along a short while later and removed the tags (and removed other content with no explanation) with the edit summary: "the engine freeze means that the Mercedes engine has not changed since last year - the specs are exactly the same". That may well be the case - if so it needs to be made clear in the article. either way readers need a reference to be able to verify that. Hence I've restored those tags (and the other deleted content). -- de Facto (talk). 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why have you only done this to the one page? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to do it to others too? -- de Facto (talk). 22:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you do, but only in the sense that you need to do these things consistently. For instance, you listed the VJM05's debut as "Expected to be 2012 Australian Grand Prix" - but you didn't do this for any other article. There are eight other car articles (and I expect that to become eleven before long), but you have only made these changes to this one page. Your comments at WP:F1 make it fairly clear that you have at least read over some of the other car pages. I just think that whatever point you are trying to make is let down by the inconsistent application of it. If this is an issue that needs to be addressed, then surely it should be addressed on all pages. Unless you intend to use this page as a prototype. Because of the engine freeze that applies to all engines, the necessary references for the speciications will apply to all pages. I can only imagine that you want to address the issue on this page first, investigate each of the sources in turn, and then once you're satisfied that the page is accurate, expand out to the other car pages. Is that what you had in mind?

As for the actual debut note, I've rendered it as a hidden message on every car page (except the Lotus E20, what with the embargo). I understand what you were trying to do with it, but I think it was a little shaky. The team has every intention of running the VJM05 for the first time in Melbourne. They've spent the winter season preparing the car for the season, which begins in Australia. And the rule changes related to nose heights and the total OTBD ban means that the VJM04 cannot race. Hence "expected" implies that there is a chance the car will not race at all. The wording of it is sound; the implication is what is unstable. I think it's better to leave it as an invisible note until the Austrailan Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If it hasn't happened, it isn't certain, so shouldn't be portrayed as though it has. Each place I've done it, or similar, previously (and yes, plural), you've reverted it - like this? I was surprised that no-one else was bothered, and there were bigger issues to concentrate on, so they were overlooked. You seem to have had a change of heart now, so all is now well (as far as they are concerned, anyway). -- de Facto (talk). 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Force India VJM05. 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/20120105144908/http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/12/12903.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/12/12903.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)