User talk:DH85868993/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Season still in progress

Hi, I have a (probably pointless) question: which is the most correct format for the asterisk in the 'Season still in progress' tag? I remember that in the past, the tag's code was usually added as <nowiki>*</nowiki> Season still in progress., while I have used (in motorcycle racing biographies only)  * Season still in progress. and lately tried {{asterisk}} Season still in progress. in order not to trigger the 'nowiki added' edit tag unnecessarily. Now it seems that the format has shifted to <sup>*</sup> Season still in progress. but I don't know if there was any discussion on the matter. I think that the symbol put within the sup markup (^*) becomes smaller and less recognisable as an asterisk, but maybe it's only my opinion. Best regards, –Gpmat (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gpmat, I think the most widely used format for the 'Season still in progress' tag is <nowiki>*</nowiki> Season still in progress. I have noticed some of them being changed recently to <sup>*</sup> Season still in progress., but agree with you that it makes the asterisk smaller and less recognisable. I have seen some of those changes reverted by other editors with an edit summary that "an asterisk doesn't need {{sup}} because it's already a superscript character." I quite like the idea of using {{asterisk}} Season still in progress. in order not to trigger the 'nowiki added' edit tag unnecessarily. There was a discussion back in 2016 about the wording of the tag, but I'm not aware of any discussion about the formatting of the asterisk. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Meanwhile I have given up replacing sup tags with alternative code as motorcycle (and, to a lesser extent, car) racing articles have been targeted for several months by an Indonesian write-only dynamic IP user (currently 180.244.x.x) who has apparently 'decided' that sup is the right way and would anyway re-add those tags at the earliest opportunity. Best regards, --Gpmat (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox racing driver

Hi DH, when a driver currently competes in more than one series, do ou know if there's a way of adapting the 'current series' param to show this. The template doc doesn't seem to indicate the possibilty and some experimentation hasn't been succesful. It can't be that rare an occurrence, I wouldn't have thought. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I think the easiest way is probably to embed another copy of Infobox racing driver as a module - see my sandbox for an example. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was afraid of that. I'm trying to help out a new editor and apparently, this particular driver is involved in five different series currently. I might try it in a s/bx but it would probably result in excessive markup and look a bit unwieldy. I'm not sure any of them pass NMOTORSPORT but still... Thanks though. Eagleash (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ATS

Re [1], it looks like this was more complex than I thought. We seem to have Auto Technisches Spezialzubehör (Q784953) and ATS F1 (Q172162), as well as Category:ATS Wheels Formula One drivers (Q7943229). Can you match the correct dewp article against the article here, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mike Peel, German Wikipedia is a bit unusual in that it has separate articles for the wheel manufacturer and racing team, whereas most other Wikipedias just have one article covering both topics. Since the English Wikipedia article is mostly about the Formula One team, I think it's correct that both the English Wikipedia article (ATS Wheels) and the German Wikipedia article about the racing team link to ATS F1 (Q172162). I guess there's a question of whether we need both Auto Technisches Spezialzubehör (Q784953) and ATS F1 (Q172162), or whether both German Wikipedia articles could link to ATS F1 (Q172162) (can multiple articles from the same Wikipedia link to a single Wikidata item?) and we could get rid of Auto Technisches Spezialzubehör (Q784953). I hope this helps. DH85868993 (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the background! I've ended up moving the sitelink here to Auto Technisches Spezialzubehör (Q784953) (and I've proposed that it is split into separate articles on the company and the F1 team), and updating ATS F1 (Q172162) with a new category at Commons:Category:ATS (F1). Hopefully everything looks OK now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Excuse me sir/madamn, would it not make sense to also include the World Championship driver stats? Or perhaps that is on a different page?

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.217.126 (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi 12.153.217.126. Some readers may find that information useful, however the Formula One WikiProject's standard format for constructor results only includes the constructor's points and position in the constructors' championship. You are welcome to start a discussion at the Formula One WikiProject's discussion page. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

adn

en la parte blanco adn dice todavia no llego, esa info esta desactualizada, el resultado es positivo. fuente web diario local art. gps de caseros . saludos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.166.193.89 (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi 181.166.193.89. Unfortunately I don't speak Portuguese, so I couldn't exactly understand the text you added to the template (or your message above) - I got a rough idea from Google Translate, but it wasn't 100% clear. Regardless, this is the English Wikipedia, so all the text in the template should be in English, so I have removed the text you added. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chico Landi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gerino Gerini.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoops. Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXFLAG F1 exemption

Gooday. Many years ago I was informed of a local consensus that decided F1 drivers would be exempt, and flags could be displayed; I don't think it was ever pointed to, or whom informed me. Would you (or any tps) be able to assist in locating the archived discussion? Ongoing problems with IPs and new users have prompted this, with one complaining that F1 drivers setting fastest laps at circuit-articles should be allowed. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rocknrollmancer. I don't recall any discussions which specifically mentioned the use of flags for drivers setting fastest laps in circuit articles (I think that convention just sort of "happened"). However:

• here is a WT:F1 discussion from June 2009 regarding the use of flags for drivers in classification tables, and
• here is one from December 2010 which seems to resolve in favour of (the existing convention of) using flags in F1 driver infoboxes.

I'm happy to do some more searching if this isn't what you need, noting that searching for "flags" in the WT:F1 archive turns up dozens of discussions, but many/most of these are related to which flags to use next to race names (e.g. which flag to use for the San Marino Grand Prix) as opposed to using flags next to driver names. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts - I'll digest it further in due course, and look for the first instance when I was likely informed, starting with 2014. I sort-of surmised a more-formal discussion, such as RfC. Part of the problem is that I removed some flags but left Lewis Hamilton's union flag as I was unsure, where a new editor has been adding fastest laps and layouts to circuits. Someone then removed the union flag, with the new editor re-adding it, thinking I was right in the first place whereas I was erring on the side of caution. Also trying to add absolute lap record from outside of a race.

Flags are regularly added in motorcycle racing articles, often from far-eastern IPs. The guidelines state that text should accompany flags outside of infoboxes as people can't know them, and I don't see why the far-easterners should assume everyone would recognise the colours and designs. I get these two mixed up   , but I know this . I know the saltire , but not . I know and but not . Maybe half a dozen, that's about it. b rgds.

--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've now confirmed it was Bretonbanquet who first informed me of the F1 local consensus; I've now located the F1 poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 14#Formula 1 where you contributed - only glanced at it as yet, being extensive, but I'll look at it further whenever I can. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons has recent similar concerns. Many thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hall (constructor)

The article Hall (constructor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Turner (constructor)

The article Turner (constructor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Schroeder (constructor)

The article Schroeder (constructor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phillips (constructor)

The article Phillips (constructor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sherman (constructor)

The article Sherman (constructor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. Royalbroil 05:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! DH85868993 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Schroeder (constructor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Schroeder (constructor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schroeder (constructor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Al (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aldo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Whoops. Fixed. Thanks, DPL bot. Keep up the good work! DH85868993 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Near-Mars objects has been nominated for deletion

Category:Near-Mars objects has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

According to the link you sent me, Lewis Hamilton Won 22 GPs for McLaren and 77 for Mercedes.

According to this link you showed me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Lewis_Hamilton , it corroborates that Hamilton won 22 races for McLaren and 77 for Mercedes. Exactly as I thought. I don't want to edit war but I would appreciate if you would just undo your revision is all. Emandudeguyperson (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Emandudeguyperson: By my reading of the table, Hamilton's 21st win was the 2012 United States Grand Prix, for McLaren and his 22nd win was the 2013 Hungarian Grand Prix, for Mercedes, thereby giving 21 wins for McLaren and the rest (78) for Mercedes. What do you see? DH85868993 (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@DH85868993 Ahh, for some reason I believed that Lewis joined Mercedes in 2014, not 2013. My apologies. Emandudeguyperson (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Emandudeguyperson: No worries. We all make mistakes sometimes. Thanks for coming here to discuss the matter instead of edit warring. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Response To Aston Martin Page

Hi,

I understand your response to my suggestion that Aston Martin needs its own page and I completely agree with you. However, the Aston Martin page is usually preceded by racing point in search engines which is not the same for other teams ( eg. 'Mercedes Benz in Formula One' is the first wiki article for Mercedes F1, not 'Brawn in F1' as the former team). Therefore I was wondering if there is a way to have this changed?

@Seanmc 2002: Hmm. I'll have a think. Feel free to raise the issue at WT:F1 as well, in case anyone else has some ideas. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. When you leave a comment on a user's talk page or an article's talk page, please sign it by adding "~~~~" (without the quotes) at the end - the software automatically translates that into a signature when you press "Publish changes". Then we can see who left the comment. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Seanmc 2002: - I've sent "feedback" (basically a complaint) to Google regarding this.
SSSB (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright guys cheers. Thanks for the help. Seanmc 2002 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ron Dennis

Hello, I recognise you as a long time contributor to Formula 1 article on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the Ron Dennis entry. I have removed a section on Ronspeak, it has been there for at least ten years, every time I read the entry on Ron Dennis I am surprised that the section is still there so recently I decided to see what I could do to get it removed. I won't be removing it again since I do not want to get into an edit war. I have added some of my thoughts on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I don't really have strong feelings either way about whether the section remains in the article. As noted by Mark83 in his edit summary, the section is not wholly uncomplimentary, and it is sourced. DH85868993 (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I think the source is weak, one source (which I can not find) for an entire section seems wrong to me. But it seems that I'm in the minority so I will give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk • contribs)

• (talk page stalker) FWIW, the anon. editor has escalated this to the BLP noticeboard. Eagleash (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Hand shogi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hand shogi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand shogi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:F1R2021

Hello. I guess this is second time I've noticed an edit summary of yours that I've felt the need to comment on.

I feel a little silly now. It was only at the end of this series of edits that I noticed the 'preview page with template' feature below the regular preview button. Then I see your recent edit summary at Template:F1R2021, which is even better maybe. I will certainly use one or both in the future if needed. I can't believe I was trying to fix things blind!

On a related note: I somehow got the impression everyone was in agreement that the British Grand Prix result at Max Verstappen's page should not get the ^P superscript, because GBR is already bolded, but for Template:F1 Constructors Standings it should have the ^P superscript for the British GP in light of sprint/pole situation last weekend. In response the this edit, I left a note at Tvx1's talk page while under this assumption. I'm not sure about that now. I'm just trying help get things right. DB1729 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: No need to feel silly. I always forget about the 'preview page with template' button too :-) With regard to the ^P superscript for the British GP, I agree that there should be one in Template:F1 Constructors Standings (and in the car and constructor results tables) - the other day I had need to count the number of poles scored by Red Bull-Honda and I missed the British GP because it didn't have the "P". I've been meaning to start a discussion at WT:F1 but haven't got around to it yet. (Feel free to start the discussion yourself). DH85868993 (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I've caught myself miscounting poles because of the same thing. If you don't mind, I would rather it not be me who starts that discussion. For some reason I struggle explaining things like this. DB1729 (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: No worries. I should get to it within the next 24 hours. DH85868993 (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Hall (constructor)

Hello, DH85868993. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hall (constructor), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realise it had been that long. I'll get back onto it. Thanks, FireflyBot! (to anyone reading this, don't worry, I realise Fireflybot is a bot and won't actually read this). DH85868993 (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Ferrari SF90

Hi, thanks, yes, I was a bit hasty. Perhaps 'advantage Ferrari' should have been in quotes. - Neils51 (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Neils51: No worries. It took me a couple of reads to work out what they meant! DH85868993 (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Turner (constructor)

Hello, DH85868993. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Turner (constructor), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Brabham Featured article review

I have nominated Brabham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DH85868993!

Happy New Year!

DH85868993,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
SSSB (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

SSSB (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SSSB. Same to you! DH85868993 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Formula One Esports Series

Hi DH, i'm Niccocesa, in the section of the personal records of f1 esport driver some names are written in bold but it is an error, i can't find the reason why they are written in that way. That's why, good evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niccocesa (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Niccocesa: Thanks for the information and for updating the article. DH85868993 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello, I'm VickKiang. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Celia Pacquola, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note that the source you added, Daily Mail, is a deprecated source (see RSP at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail) VickKiang (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you added another likely unreliable ref? IMO it does not have editorial policies, the article has a sensationalist tone citing Tweets, and the author seems to have no credentials. Apologies for my previous warning, I might be mistaken on the reliability of the ref because you are an exceptional long-term contributor with autopatrolled right and having considerable experience, therefore could you explain? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: I had no reason to believe the source was unreliable (although I acknowledge I didn't research it too deeply). It wasn't listed at WP:RSPSS, like "Daily Mail" was. I won't bother looking for another source; I'm really not that fussed whether the article contains the info or not (even though I'm fairly confident it's correct). DH85868993 (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and apologies for my previous wording, I was a bit confused that you added another source again, but thanks for the clarification. Everyone makes mistakes and sorry for the warning. VickKiang (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: All good. Have a good day! DH85868993 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

McLaren MP4-18

G'day, I've given the article a bit of a shakedown, and another bloke said it needed a copy-edit. So, I did, and seeing as you have an avid interest in Formula 1 I'd just like you to have a wee look/read at the article to see if it's all good. I'm submitting it for a good article nomination too (my first one), so fingers crossed. Cheers X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 00:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@X750: I'll have a look when I get a chance. DH85868993 (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review 1994 San Marino Grand Prix

I have nominated 1994 San Marino Grand Prix for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Lotus 21

Hi, I was contemplating what to do with the IP editor addition of a table to Lotus 21 when you edited the table title. You probably realize the results described on the table do not add up to the numbers on 'Points' and 'WCC' columns, because Lotus 18, 24, 25 and 33 contributed points to the total. In my mind, the list of results should always add up to the Points and WCC columns, and if a number includes those earned by other cars than Lotus 21, the number should be excluded from the Lotus 21 article, or the numbers should be reduced to reflect only Lotus 21 results. Is my view weird? Is using the confusing/deceiving numbers in line with what F1 Project handles other articles? If not, what is the proper way to handle it, i.e. exclusion or reduction? Yiba (talk | contribs) 12:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Yiba. For cases where the specific model did not score all the championship points, WP:F1 standard practice is to list the constructor's full points total in the "Points" column and add explanatory footnotes (see Tyrrell 005 as an example). I've added footnotes to the Lotus 21 results table; thanks for prompting me. DH85868993 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I'm heading off to bed now, so if you happen to add to this conversation sometime soon, but then I don't reply for 8 hours, it's not because I'm ignoring you. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your attention. Appreciate the explanation, which makes sense, although "All points were scored using other Lotus models" sounds, err... idiotic on Lotus 21 article. Yiba (talk | contribs) 22:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Yiba: I agree it's less than ideal. I should probably invest the effort to check exactly which models did score the points and explicitly list those (which is what we normally do; I was a bit lazy yesterday). When we first encountered this issue years ago, we used to only list the points scored by the specific model, but then there were mismatches between the "Points" and "WCC" columns, e.g. "Points = 3, WCC = 1st", which looked crazy. And there was also the issue of what to do if the model finished a race in a points-scoring position, but those points didn't end up contributing to the constructor's points total (i.e. another model finished higher up back when only the constructor's best result in each race counted towards the championship). So in the end we decided it was simpler/less confusing to just list the constructor's actual points total and WCC position and just add footnotes explaining that not all those points were scored by the specific model. DH85868993 (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the diligent response. I feel comfortable in leaving this issue with you. If it is up to me, I'd reduce the Points column numbers, and eliminate the WCC column, as it now appears as if Lawson Organisation finished the 1963 season in 1st place. Yiba (talk | contribs) 08:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• A 'Taki' article used as an example; whatever next!? :) Eagleash (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

LOL. DH85868993 (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"NHRA (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect NHRA (disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 20#NHRA (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Race Categories

Thaks for cleaning up all those categories, I'll pay more attention in future! Halmyre (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Halmyre: No worries. I only created Category:1952 Formula Two races about an hour ago. Thanks for all the great work you're doing creating the articles to put in the categories! DH85868993 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

March 761

Hi, this was one of 'Taki's' back in the day; it was re-directed as non-notable and / or unreferenced and advice left at the re-direct in respect of re-creation. This new version is possibly of a lower standard; a 'sea of blue', ill-placed citations, no infobox or results table(s) and image issues. The original content can still be seen in the page history now that a histmerge has been undertaken and I think I still have the original content in a sandbox. BB was also intending to try to do something with it, as I recall. I think if an F1 proj. member had been involved at AFC or NPP it would have been declined or returned to draft respectively. I am thinking that the re-direct should be restored until it can be properly developed. Cheers, Eagleash (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC). Courtesy ping @Davism0703:

@Eagleash: Thanks for the info. I've restored the infobox and results table from the 'Taki' version into the article. I'll have a look at expanding/improving the text within the next 24 hours. Personally, I'm happy for the article to stay in mainspace in its current state, but I also wouldn't object to be it being draftified if that's the consensus. DH85868993 (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The links on Valtteri Bottas

Hey DH, regarding this edit here, just wanted to let you know you were right and the removals were indeed accidental. The script is great at formatting the dates, but sadly it sometimes seems to mistake links containing years as links to the years themselves, rather than in that case a season of GP3. I'll keep an eye on it if I deploy it again on another motorsport article, and thanks for restoring the links. Have a good weekend! TylerBurden (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: No worries. You have a good weekend too. DH85868993 (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

George

in reply to your edit text: I can agree with the idea of George in Goes Forth as a sidekick character like Percy, but the The Third one seems more like third in the series between Richard IV, Queenie and General Melchett. Significantly in Chains, Hugh plays a German Prince Ludwig who kills Queenie and goes on to be German Prince in the Third series - then in Dual and Duality Stephen Fry plays a General (the Duke of W) who kills Prince George and then he goes on to be the General in the Forth series, so clearly there was the beginning of a tradition there. If only Miranda Richardson had been in The Black Seal and been responsible for the mass poisoning at the end, this would all be perfect! But I've always seen The Prince Regent as the new Queenie rather than the new Percy. The Third of the Mad Monarchs. Romomusicfan (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

RAM 02

This was another page that was 'anti-Taki' mined back in the day. Are we happy for these pages to be re-created (while ignoring the hidden advice) by an editor who appears to be of the same mind as Taki; I.e. create an article for all sorts of lowly cars. This is not the only example; it would probably have trouble passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Eagleash (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I didn't notice the hidden note. Personally, I'm a bit of an inclusionist, so I don't mind stubby articles existing, but if you want to change it back to a redirect (due to the fact that they ignored the note), I wouldn't revert, or if you want to nominate it for deletion, I wouldn't argue for its retention. DH85868993 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Safety car

If safety and pace cars are interchangeable, please rewrite the lead to clarify. Thanks, Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) She/Her. 14:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dialmayo: What I meant was that different contexts use the two different terms, e.g. in modern-day Formula One it's called a "safety car"; at Indianapolis, it's called a "pace car". I've added an additional edit summary to this effect. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

They wrote that they are NOT interchangeable. Please read edit summaries more carefully. Tvx1 11:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

F1 portal’s next grand prix boxes.

I’m a bit confused why you still “updated” the boxes of already completed races to the 2022 edition. That’s pretty useless. It would’ve been better to update them for 2023. Tvx1 11:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1:. In retrospect, I agree. When I first looked at Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix, I noticed that the "number of rounds in the season" was (retrospectively) wrong for most of the subpages (23 instead of 22). It was annoying me, so I thought "I'll fix that; it won't take long". Then I noticed some more things that were wrong, so I thought "Well, I may as well fix them too". Then I noticed some more things that were wrong and thought "Well, I've already fixed lots of stuff, I may as well fix the rest". If I'd realised at the start how much I was going to end up changing, I probably would have just left them how they were. I didn't update them for 2023 because I'm always wary of updating the subpages too far in advance due to the likelihood of the calendar changing. DH85868993 (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)