wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

[Sam]

You have to have an open claim with them in order to view the current record.

[Starkey7]

Well that's stupid. Aren't they meant to be a directory of records? Aren't they meant to display every record that they've ever awarded?

[Soup Dragon]

You have to have an open claim with them in order to view the current record.

Sam is correct, this is the only way to find out on the Guinness website. They do list some records on their site but I guess they wouldn't want to list every record otherwise sales of the book might fall.

[Starkey7]

The book hardly contains all the records though!

Is it worth, then, submitting a completely false claim just to find out the current record? It is ridiculous that they won't even tell you a record if you ask for it.

[Sam]

Why not? I submitted for the New York record with no intention of actually doing it just to find out the time You don't have to submit a claim, just open a claim which you don't have to follow through!!

[Root]

It is ridiculous that they won't even tell you a record if you ask for it.

That is one of many things that are ridiculous about GWR... which makes me wonder if it would be a good idea to form a Guinness-approved committee of retired Tube Challengers to adjudicate the record (and if they need some more things to do with their time, all the unofficial challenges too).

We first discussed it way back in the day, when Guinness announced Shoreditch needed to be visited by replacement bus, a decision generally thought of as ludicrous by all on the forum. Nothing came of it.

[moley]

which makes me wonder if it would be a good idea to form a Guinness-approved committee of retired Tube Challengers to adjudicate the record (and if they need some more things to do with their time, all the unofficial challenges too).

Errr..... how about no! I would think that GWR would object to it point blank.

Also, all the unofficial challenges would devalue the main challenge.

[palkanetoijala31]

which makes me wonder if it would be a good idea to form a Guinness-approved committee of retired Tube Challengers to adjudicate the record (and if they need some more things to do with their time, all the unofficial challenges too).

Errr..... how about no! I would think that GWR would object to it point blank.

Also, all the unofficial challenges would devalue the main challenge.

Judging by the latest wikipedia entry it seems Tangy and Steeevooo u had ******** wiv u the whole day what does he look like.?

[jbom]

There have been some possibly controversial developments regarding the Wikipedia page, if you want to know more please look there.

[tubeguru]

I am particularly struck by this caveat at the very top of the page:

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view."

[Root]

From the Talk Page:

I've added this tag because the article seems to rely almost entirely on self-published sources, blogs as sources, vimeo videos as sources... etc. It's patently obvious that this article is a massive attempt at self-congratulation by the fellows at 'tubeforum.co.uk'. We should be relying on GWR as a source, and none of this forum nonsense.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite his stupid username, he's spot on. I'm not even sure that the Tube Challenge should exist as an article at all, under Wikipedia's rules.

[dudey]

While I agree with "Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry", the fact is Guinness don't offer an easy and accessible way of checking the current record, nor indeed the history of it.

The words fix, aint, dont, it, broke, come to mind....

[jamesthegill]

At least the new edit means I'm no longer known as "James Gill"...

[Sam]

Well I wouldn't exactly be self congratulating should the "you need to prove your record" crap not come up

[tubeguru]

I don't even think it should be a Wikipedia page either, but I'm staying well out of this one.