Talk:Bonneville Speedway

This should be in the article

According to NGC TV documentary at least seven people have been killed so far while racing at Boneville. The last fatality was in 2006.

Diesel record

Shouldn't the fastest ever diesel car be included in the table?

• JCB Dieselmax

86.17.211.191 20:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about correcting errors

The description of the speedway is many years out-of-date. The Utah highway dept no longer prepares the "track". Each event must prepare their own, (and usually they don't share). Only a few events still use the "black line", and those that do, use them as side lines because they wear out too quickly in the middle. Other groups use cones or flags to mark their courses. I know this because I've worked as an official at nearly every race held there for the last 10 years, but editing the page would make my information from a primary source. Unfortunatly, I haven't been able to find any published descriptions about modern track preparations. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jr9999 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Table -- added column

That table is essentially worthless without a column for 'Class' (added); however, somebody needs to fill in the missing data. ~Eric ^{[not me]} F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Also added 'Notes' column, since table is described as "notable examples" (no notes, however) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Land speed records

Note to self^{[Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)]} -- or anybody else! Info from here needs to be added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record

• Burkland 411 Streamliner, driven by Tom Burkland on the Bonneville Salt Flats, holds the current land speed record. In 2008 Tom Burkland broke the piston-engined, wheel-driven record for the flying mile, recording a speed of 415.896 mph (669.319 km/h). He drove the Burkland family streamliner
• Etc

Frivolous reversion

Why are you reverting facts already mentioned in the article. This non-stop display of reversion for minor reason has to stop. --Falcadore (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It was your edit here that started all this. I took time to fix your sloppy unsourced edit, now you want to add more sloppy unsourced edits. I would have thought you'd be thanking me. If you don't like the rules on Wikipedia, find another hobby. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. What an entitled response. I provide sources, you delete them. The article already states the strip needed is 12 miles long. 2 miles (sourced) is not long enough. How is that not a reduction? --Falcadore (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Where in either the article or the source you cited does it say anything about "10-12 mile courses traditionally used for Speed Week"? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Originally, two tracks were prepared; a 10 mile long straightaway for speed trials" - direct quote, second paragraph. I mean second paragraph, not exactly a challenge. I even told you where to look in the edit history.

By all means, state 10 miles isn't 10-12. All you then had to was delete three characters rather than delete the whole thing. --Falcadore (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Speed Week" is not "speed trials". Please find a source for your edits. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahhhhh. This is it huh? Speed Week is not speed trials? That's brilliant. That is a needlessly pedantic response. So the speed trial course is ten miles long but because Speed Week is the name of an event there is some doubt that the ten miles does not apply?

Speed Week is a speed trial. A speed trial describes the type of event. Sure the Indianapolis 500 is not a racetrack, but it is held on one. The lap distance of the Indianapolis 500 does not change from the racetrack it is held on. --Falcadore (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Speed Week is one of many events at Bonneville. The sources even say this. I know "speed trials" and "Speed Week" sound similar, but one is a proper noun, and they are not the same thing. The edit you wish to make is confusing and original research. You will need to provide a source. I'm sorry you find this so frustrating, but assistance citing sources is available on several help pages. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

One of many events collectively referred to as Speed Trials. I can't help it if you don't understand the topic. The article clearly states ten miles for speed trials. You now seem to be reverting out of some sense of wounded pride. --Falcadore (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

For me its just a question of pride and stubborness. Considering this 2 sources: They Just Cancelled Speed Week At Bonneville For The Second Year In A Row and Utah’s famous Bonneville Salt Flats are disappearing in the first article we can read that in July 2015 (when 2015 Speed Week was cancelled) only 2,5 miles of track were available, when in a Speed Week they need a 9 mile track "Speed Week, which is just three weeks away, poses a much bigger challenge. Eyers is part of the crew who helps set up and design the race courses. A typical speed week involves six: 9-mile courses for the fastest racers who want to push 400 to 500 mph, a slightly shorter course for those going 300 mph, two more 3-mile courses for 200 mph runs, and a "mini" 2-mile course for people who want to see just how fast they can go on, for example, a folding bike that fit in their suitcase." I don't see any ambiguous declaration. Its clearly stated. Thus, for me, what is missing in the WP article, in "Deteriorating track conditions" its the efects of mining in the reducing of either track lenght and salt thickness, and its being decreasing every year. This sould be the focus not a this Frivolous reversion and arguments "I'm a better wikipedian then you".Rpo.castro (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Bonneville Speedway and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." I have no idea whether speed trials and Speed Week are or are not the same thing, but I do know this: Wikipedia policy requires that any unsourced edit which is challenged for any reason must be supported with a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and the burden to do so is on the editor reinstating the material. Continuing to revert such material back in after it has been challenged is disruptive editing which can result in sanctions. There's nothing to talk about here until a reliable source is provided. Once a source has been provided, if there is still a dispute either of you may seek further dispute resolution from Third Opinion or from some other DR source.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 03:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So regardless of any other arguements, regardless of justification, it's my fault because a request for a source is sacrosant. I can understand that. Must say that had not occurred to me and I should have known better. Thank you for the fast response TransporterMan. Additionally, thanks to Rpo.castro for content assessment. --Falcadore (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Had not occurred to me" to add a source. In five edit summaries I explained it was because your work was unsourced. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow you just love to rubbish people don't you? You don't know the simplest things about the subject and you grab the best possible interpretation of peoples words as a justification for your actions.

That is NOT what I said and what's more you damn well know it. Stop being so self-involved. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative.

But then maybe you had not noticed one of sources Rpo.castro used is one of the sources I had previously used that you had deleted because you thought it was "sloppy". You know, because I don't add sources? Is this WP:OWN or WP:LASTWORD? --Falcadore (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bonneville Speedway. 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/20100413112454/http://www.scta-bni.org/whats_new.html to http://scta-bni.org/whats_new.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080223125342/http://www.scta-bni.org/SCTA-NewWeb/Bonneville_Main_Page.html to http://www.scta-bni.org/SCTA-NewWeb/Bonneville_Main_Page.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) 08:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)