Talk:Legends of Motorsport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Episode Listings?

I can produce episode listings, gleaned from notes made while watching, if appropriate.

Both for the current 30 or so episodes, and also for about 178 of the old ones. --SportWagon approx. 21 October 2005

[edit] Murray Walker's father

http://www.dukevideo.com/products/1068.htm is among web results which indicate that Murray Walker's father was named Graham and did do motor racing commentary. I believe the Legends Episodes he did were the BRSCC ones, but I could be mistaken and/or he could have done others. --SportWagon approx. 21 October 2005

[edit] Needs to be made a disambiguation page...

I knew I should have created something like Legends of Motorsport (TV Series) from the outset.

Legends of Motorsport is also a band. http://www.mushroommusic.com.au/artist/artist.asp?id=69

But now... http://www.legendsofmotorsport.com.au/
  • History, e.g. above page, indicates the band started in 2000 while the TV series dates back to 1996.--SportWagon 20:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theme music?

I believe the music on the newest episodes has changed. I never hear the older one anymore. But does anyone know what the theme music for the original was? I so wished to at least have saved it untitled, if not find out the title/artist, but didn't get a chance as they do not air it anymore. Peoplesunionpro 04:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did perhaps a year or two ago. I just searched the forum again, and someone else asked the same thing. But no clear answer. Peoplesunionpro 02:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The problems with this article

In addition to the style problems, this article also seems to not be exactly NPOV. Even where NPOV seems to be fine, it's still hard to understand. (I probably should have tagged for rewriting, but oh well.) Someone should go and fix these issues, as this will not be easy enough for me to handle. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I just turned it into a nomination to check neutrality, which seems to be more appropriate than the dispute version I somehow put on. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, so "charming" was perhaps something analogous to flame-bait...--SportWagon 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So, is it easier to understand (by whom?) after the re-arranging? (by Matthead) --SportWagon 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You realize, of course, your complaint is very non-explicit (arguably "non-constructive")--SportWagon 20:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Mandating "XXXX is YYYY" creates problems of tense; an extreme problem occurs when discussing products no longer made. e.g. "The Jaguar XK120 is a car made by Jaguar". I can't find examples right now because something about wikipedia appears broken! "Legends of Motorsport" WAS a series produced by Speedvision, but it still IS a series aired by SPEED TV. In some cases one should recognize that the term IS the name of something. E.g. "Jaguar XK120 is the name of a model of car produced by Jaguar". But the clash of tense by mindlessly mandating "XXXX is YYYY" is horrifying at times.--SportWagon 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (wikipedia working again) Jaguar E-type currently illustrates the tense clash I am talking about, although someone has undertaken to use "was" in most other Jaguar model articles. I claim "was" is awkward too, because instances of such cars generally do exist. Which is why an implicit equivalence, such as my original introduction to this article, should be considered as acceptable.--SportWagon 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone please settle the NPOV thing? The subject of this article is so benign that POV barely applies. It's not religious or political. Okay, so MAYBE it seems like the author likes the show? Now you've removed "charming", isn't it now neutral? Please either remove the NPOV tag, or be specific about the problems.--SportWagon 23:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I see "Sadly, " was removed around the same time. Alright, so is it POV clean now???--SportWagon 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthead left the following after editing

"And the last member of the team was an up-and-coming newcomer who went on to have a brilliant racing career, eventually becoming a Speedvision commentator - now who might that be?"

Specifically, he changed "commentator. Now" to "commentator - now".--SportWagon 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. is space hyphen space acceptable style for emdash?--SportWagon 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. No, actually,David Hobbs had a long pause between the two sentences. I would find even a correct emdash debatable, and the period preferable.--SportWagon 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

Actually, I see no discussion here of what points the nominator was disputing.

I had to think about it to realize that my overall bias was a liking of the old Speedvision channel, and some dislike for the new FOX-owned SPEED channel. That probably creates a subtle bias, masked by my writing style which tends to use qualification to moderate impact. ("Not exactly NPOV") While rewriting to fix other points with regard to Speedvision/SPEED history, I will try to bear that in mind.

I may add a couple of sentences that will cause a lot of readers to think my opinionated "Sadly". Essentially LoM was a rare opportunity for television viewers to do first-hand historical research. Its cutting back by FOX/SPEED reduces that opportunity.

After much thought, I did manage to find concrete reasons why the article is diffult-to-understand for many readers

  1. a primary cause of confusion in the article is that I assume the reader knows the history of Speedvision and SPEED Channel fairly well. That assumption is unwarranted even though I give a link to SPEED Channel, because I cannot expect all readers to follow and digest that link before they continue with my article.
  2. My writing style is usually wordy and overqualified. Although I like LoM, I did not think it warranted an overly-long article. Therefore, I made lots of apparently minor sub-ordinate clauses and other apparent asides from which the reader must actually infer a lot of information.

--SportWagon 17:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops. My Strength is My Weakness

--SportWagon

I here describe the process by which I decided to write this article. The narration here, therefore, describes things beginning in October, 2005.

So, I noticed the article on SPEED Channel had an unsatisfied link to Legends of Motorsport.

So I thought, "Well, I know a little about Legends of Motorsport, so I ought to be able to write the article.".

And so I tried.

Now, it turns out, over the years, I had been conducting, essentially, casual original research into the Legends of Motorsport series, by watching taped copies, allowing me to review parts in detail, and helping me to compile the episode lists I mentioned. So I do personally know a lot about Legends of Motorsport, and feel I can speak about it, although as an outside observer, with some level of authority.

But when I write an article about it, one can argue I am publishing original research.

Currently, we have available on the web the citation I give, and the transient listings of episodes coming in the next five weeks.

Based on that, it seems difficult, at any arbitrary moment in time, to verify all of what I say.

When reading the guidelines, I think I might have misinterpreted the meaning of "research" to mean "generation of truly new information", whereas it seems it is regarded here as any first-order gathering of information.

That it might be inappropriate for me to embellish my article with any further information seems unfortunate. Surely I am not the first would-be contributor to fall in to this situation? I am I now interpreting the Wikipedia No Original Research (NOR) policy too harshly? Or merely correctly? Rereading it, the focus of that page does appear to mostly discuss theories, not history. (The question came up, actually, in a discussion on trying to pin down the etymology of "suicide door"; see Talk:Suicide_door, in particular the section with "Erroneous?" in its title).

Ultimately, one could contact SPEED Channel in Charlotte, and ask them to confirm or deny the truth of what I say, although I don't know enough about how television station records and archives work to know whether they would be able to.

I will attempt to go and look at other television show entries, and see if I can figure anything out that way.

But perhaps compare my article with

Is the biography of those individuals considered research?

It would seem there is much information there without immediately cited sources. In fact, Alain de Cadenet has no external citations.

--SportWagon 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Disapproved for Captioning?

With a web search I just found www.nad.org which lists Legends of Motorsport as

Disapproved TV Programs for U.S. Department of Education Captioning Support

Oh. Apparently that was in 2003. I believe the NAD (National Association of the Deaf) is merely reporting the news. I.e. it was not they who did the disapproving.--SportWagon 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/g/Talk%7ELegends_of_Motorsport_7499.html"