Talk:Scalextric

Scalextric Digital

Something needs adding to this page about Scalextric Digital. If I have time I'll try and add it myself... --Rossa 13:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Rossa, I noticed your query, and as no one seems to respond, I will add your query to the teahouse if you wish, as being an inexperienced editor myself, I'll ask another to do it, as I will probably mess up.

Thanks for noticing, EGL1234 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Track Types

Information on Scalextric track types was inappropriately located on the Wiki 1:32 scale page. I moved it here. I did not write it but I did edit and reword it for style and to fit its new location. Not being a Scalextric guy, I cannot vouch for its original accuracy, and my edit may have inadvertently introduced problems, but I assume knowledgeable readers of the page will clear up any inaccuracies. Anyway, it's off the 1:32 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.14.58 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scalextric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080510100425/http://www.scalextricclub.com:80/pages/hist.aspx to http://www.scalextricclub.com/pages/hist.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the “positivity towards contributing” a façade?

My weekend was consumed by editing and practically re-writing this article, hoping that this encyclopaedia would be grateful to my contributions.

I checked back on this article the other day, and I was shocked to find that this page had been vandalised, with almost all references and citations removed, and that was only in one paragraph : the only paragraph that had not been changed back, and all of my hours of work removed.

This is horrific how Wikipedia reverts all our editing without even telling me why on my talk page/ inbox, and Wikipedia also banned me with no reason listed.

This horrific corrupt encyclopaedia needs a 180 turn around, and I expect this article to be changed back to how I left it.

94.207.76.173 (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The last edit was made on March 25. Which edit are you referring to? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to the edit a few days before 94.207.76.173 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A few days before when? On 2020-03-25, EgeorgeLA added a single short (confusing, IMO) paragraph, which was reverted 27 minutes later for being uncited and conflicting with other facts already present. EgeorgeLA re-reverted today (2020-04-21). The history shows that the last significant edit to the article before these was made over a year ago. There has been no "editing and practically re-writing this article". Are you sure you edited this article on English Wikipedia, and not one of the other Wikipedia or non-WMF FORKs? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging Ian Dalziel.
• Neither EgeorgeLA nor the IP address above has any record of being blocked, let alone "banned". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear EgeorgeLA, do not accuse others please of vandalism, this is not good conduct, and also, Ian Dalziel did in fact give an explanation. On the other hand, could someone please add the citations that this section so desperately wants, as it is a major part of Scalextric. I mean, without the transport and control, the cars ain't goin' anywhere!

Thanks, EGL1234 (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As shown by AlanM1 comments above, the anon-IP is either very confused about which article he is talking about or is a troll. Either way, there is no action for us to take except to ignore him.  Stepho  talk  23:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Digital Scalextric

Hi there fellow Wikipedians. Below, I have a proposed section for Scalextric digital, although I do not have the time to add citations, so could someone help me and Wikipedia by adding citations: I would really appreciate it.

"A new and fun dimension to slot racing. Scalextric Digital allows you to race multiple cars on any lane with the ability to switch lanes and overtake with the press of a button on your hand controller. Scalextric Digital uses the exact same track pieces as the standard analogue system but with additional items such as lane changers, powerbase and controllers. For cars to work on the Digital system they need to be fitted with the Scalextric Digital chips."

Cheers, EGL1234 (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That is an exact copy from https://www.pendleslotracing.co.uk/brand/scalextric/digital.html

Exact copying is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. You need to rewrite it in your own words.  Stepho  talk  23:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Controllers

Can someone add a picture of a typical, hand-held, Scalextric controller? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail reference

This reference was recently removed: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530336/First-Scalextric-set-50-years-ago-given-inventors-grandchildren-Christmas-present.html
I restored it but it was removed again, as per WP:DAILYMAIL. I understand that since 2017, the Daily Mail is officially considered a less than reliable source. However, the guideline says "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context." The reference is from 2013 (well before the deprecation) and is of a non-contentious subject (no aliens, sex-scandals or celebrity marriages involved). It is also almost entirely about the Scalextric subject and goes into details of the product and its history - in other words, a good article in its own right. Whereas the replace reference mentions the brand only in passing. Of course, we could always use both.  Stepho  talk  12:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No replies for 5 days, so I assume nobody objects if I restore the Daily Mail reference. I also kept the safe but far less detailed referenced, but formatted it properly.  Stepho  talk  00:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how you could possibly consider an article from 2013 "historical", that's just seven years ago. WP:DAILYMAIL also states: "Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail." Robby.is.on (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no, 2013 is not "historical". If other sources confirm the details, use those; if no other sources confirm those details, unfortunately we can't be sure whether they are accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed again. Deprecated sources should not be used on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is deprecated because it often writes sensationalist crap about popular people as front page articles designed to get people to by the paper. No argument about that. But this reference is not sensationalist. Is not about a popular person. Does not involve weird stuff like sex scandals, money laundering, etc. It's a good, solidly-researched piece somewhere down the back. And it contains plenty of details relevant to this article. The reference from The News barely contains Francis' name and is mostly fact free (at least in our context of the history of Scalextric.) When I compare the 2 references (taking into account the DM's reputation of being free with the facts on leading stories) I find the DM reference to be far better than the The News references.

Also take note that all WP guidelines are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Of course, ignoring the rules should never be done lightly and I would certainly not ignore the rule if this was about some social figure or anything involving sensationalism. But when intelligence and thought is applied, we find this situation is one of the few that justifies skipping the guideline.

I also note that editors keep deleting the reference without discussion or before the discussion is finished. WP:BRD suggests that we discuss first, then apply the result of the discussion afterwards. Remember that this reference has been here a long time, it's not a new addition.  Stepho  talk  21:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could stop adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add it - it's been perfectly happy there for years.  Stepho  talk  07:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"its use as a reference is generally prohibited" is pretty clear. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"generally" means that it's not a hard and fast rule to be applied in a knee-jerk fashion. Intelligent decisions based on the data at hand counts for something.  Stepho  talk  07:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing at WP:DAILYMAIL indicating a case-by-case judgement. It only allows use "rare cases in an about-self fashion" and "old articles". Neither applies to our case. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:deprecated sources says "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." The source is deprecated, not banned or blacklisted. I see nothing contentious in the way in which it is being used. Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It also says: "uses of the source must fall within one of the established acceptable uses".

Plus, like WP:DAILYMAIL: "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF" and "Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources as summarized in the RfC: for example, the 2017 closure of the Daily Mail RfC mentioned that participants said it may have been more reliable historically."

So, the exceptions where the use of the Daily Mail is of the "established acceptable" kind are clearly outlined. And – again – none of those apply here. Please address this objection or accept the removal of the DM reference in this article. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)