|1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10|
- 1 Beretta Spanish GP 94
- 2 Nomination for deletion of Template:Vikramarkudu
- 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_German_Grand_Prix
- 4 Keith Andrews
- 5 Achieving a consensus
- 6 Tables
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for October 6
- 8 Valtteri Bottas
- 9 Re: 1990 United States Grand Prix
- 10 F1 2017 Toro Rosso Drivers
- 11 Replacing bgcolor
- 12 New Page Reviewing
- 13 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 14 Apology
- 15 Jon Anderson image
- 16 Template updates
- 17 Articles for Creation Reviewing
Beretta Spanish GP 94
- Thanks for the cite. I've started a discussion at WP:F1 so we can gain consensus regarding the correct result and update all the affected articles. DH85868993 (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Vikramarkudu
Template:Vikramarkudu has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_German_Grand_Prix Doornbos drove with the Monagasque license. http://dai.ly/x268v62?start=2330 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion at the Formula One WikiProject. DH85868993 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment when reverting my edit at Keith Andrews.
I know WP:DDD is only a summary, but I thought "Don't include entries without a blue link." was a bright-line rule ? ? - Arjayay (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness! You are quite correct, of course. I've reverted my edit - I couldn't think of a suitable blue link to add - List of South Africa national rugby union players or 1994 South Africa rugby union tour of New Zealand are probably the best candidates. Thanks for pointing out my error. DH85868993 (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Achieving a consensus
I noticed in your comments in the discussion at WT:F1 that you support my proposal on the condition that a consensus is achieved. This, of course, would be needed, but I am wondering what you think a consensus would actually look like. I have noticed that some conservative editors have developed the habit of dragging discussions out to prevent a consensus, denying that a consensus has been formed, or reverting edits because they were not part of the discussion after their initial contributions. This happened recently at 2017 World Rally Championship where editors formed a consensus, but someone in the minority opposed to the changes re-framed the discussion as an issue for WP:MOTOR and forced everyone to go through the discussion again.
I am concerned that the same thing is going to happen here—that a group of editors will form a consensus, but a minority opposed to the changes will deliberately drag the comversation out to prevent the changes from happening. I feel that's what happened the first time I proposed this—that I had people open to the change, but certain editors opposed to it shifted the discussion away from article titles to prevent the discussion going any further and the changes being accepted.
- Hi PM. Even though the revived discussion has only been going for about 4 days, I think we could probably already claim that there's consensus that the current naming scheme is unsuitable. Given that, the next stage is to determine the best way to change it. Your proposal of "one article per year from 1984 onwards / two articles per year before 1984" already has 3 editors in support with nobody expressing any objections, so I think we're close to being able to say there's consensus for that too. After which the next stage is to gain agreement on the exact titles for the articles. This will probably be the most difficult part, but hopefully people will be willing to compromise for "the greater good". "Objecting latecomers" are always a possibility, but I think they will need to provide good arguments to counter what has already been agreed (i.e. that the current names are unsuitable and the agreed way forward) - WP:IDONTLIKEIT won't be good enough. DH85868993 (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- In the interests of keeping the ball rolling, I've added a new subsection to the discussion. I've tried to structure it so that newcomers can jump in at any point whilst making it easier to follow the individual avenues of discussion. And it's nice to see that another user has gotten on-board. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
We need to start moving those articles today. Tvx1 has finally contributed to the discussion—I'm surprised it took him this long—and he's opposing it on the grounds of COMMONNAME. I anticipated this a while ago and have posted a counter-argument, but the longer it takes us to implement the changes, the more traction he will get and even with the consensus, he will try and stop the changes from happening. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say there's consensus for the articles from 1981 onwards to be moved, so I don't see any problems with that being done. I'm not sure there's consensus for 1950-1980 yet. DH85868993 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
You've probably noticed an editor adding tables for lesser formulae to some F1 driver articles? I seem to remember a brief discussion about tables needing sources (source rows) which came about as a result of a GA submission. (I think Zwerg was involved also). Do you recall this? It does not seem to be included in the conventions page(s). Also some slightly unusual linking... piping of "Shadow Racing Cars" to "Shadow Racing Team" for example... and some other changes at Arturo Merzario and Jacky Ickx. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Eagleash. I don't remember a discussion about tables needing source rows (but that doesn't mean there wasn't one - perhaps it was part of specific GA discussion?) Regarding the linking, sources are notoriously inconsistent regarding team/entrant names - presumably the editor has a source which gives the entrant name as "Shadow Racing Team". As for the other changes, e.g. changing "Cosworth V8" to "Ford Cosworth DFV 3.0 V8", it's not strictly in line with our standard table format, but there are already so many tables which don't conform to the standard that as long as the information is accurate, I don't tend to worry about it too much. DH85868993 (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Ward, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homicide (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Seems fi:Villähde is a part of the Nastola. I noticed some sources says he grew up there or in the interview he said his first home was in Villähde. Would be good to find source which says he was born there (good article in Finnish version says it only in top of te article and it is unsourced). Eurohunter (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: 1990 United States Grand Prix
Looking now in my computer browser, the edit appears to be fine. I checked with my phone, which I believe I was using when I noticed the broken template, and it now appears to be fine as well. I do remember checking all of Bluebird's individual edits to try and find the cause, and for some reason only the final one appeared to break the template even though the edit had nothing to do with the template. I also remember that the template loaded only down to about the Season_No parameter, so hopefully that helps. The359 (Talk) 08:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- I do remember attempting the page more than once to be sure, but I can't replicate it now so I have no problem with the edit that was made. The359 (Talk) 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
F1 2017 Toro Rosso Drivers
You were involved in the discussion about the order of the Toro Rosso drivers on the page: 2017_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship. Unfortunately we have been unable to resolve this issue and I have decided to take this to DRN. Given your involvement in this discussion, I have included yourself on the list of involved users. You can find the information of the dispute below. Thanks.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hi! This is a very old edit, so sorry to bother you about it, but what you did here didn't work. The reason is that those cells already had style tags, so the first one isn't recognized. I fixed it in this edit, but you might want to go over similar articles to see if the same error exists there. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes. I'll check similar articles. Thanks for letting me know. DH85868993 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewing
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Sorry, I was plowing through a block of vandalous edits, yours was caught in the middle and I only noticed after the fact that it was from a different user (yourself). You are correct, you were just making the TOC consistent. Real tlhingan (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Jon Anderson image
Hi, thanks for your inquiry about my image File:Jon anderson 1978.jpg which was indeed taken in August, 1977; my memory was flawed when I named it. You're very kind to offer to change the name to "File:Jon anderson 1977.jpg" and make any necessary link changes. I accept your offer. Thanks! RickDikeman (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I was hoping you might be able to help me out with something. You've updated templates for me before, and I'm afraid I haven't gotten any better at it. When I'm experimenting in sandboxes, I tend to break templates. Could you please take a look at Template:Infobox rally for me? I have a few parameters that I would like to add:
- A "Season_no" parameter, like in Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report so that the line "Round 1 of the 2018 FIA World Rally Championship" can read "Round 1 of 13 in the 2018 FIA World Rally Championship".
- A "transportkm" parameter, preferably between "stagekm" and "overallkm". Right now, it's not clear why there are 400km of stages, but 1700km in total; transport (or liaison) is the distance driving between stages.
- A "codriver1" parameter alongside "driver1" and "team1". Far too many rally articles emphasise the drivers without acknowledging the co-drivers. I've been using a line break, but I'd like to incorporate it properly.
- A "driver/codriver/team2" and "driver/codriver/team3" set of parameters so that we can list the full podium. I'd also like to be able to include the top three rally times if possible.
- A "powerstage1" parameter so that we can list the winning crew and team of the power stage, as it is worth additional points.
I know that's a pretty lengthy wishlist and I know you're probably very busy right now, but I would really appreciate it if you could lend a hand. Elevating WRC articles to the same level as F1 articles has been a long-term goal of mine and this is one thing on a long to-do list that I simply cannot do on my own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi PM. Sure. Happy to have a go. I'll let you know when (I think) I'm done. DH85868993 (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Prisonermonkeys: I've added the new fields to Template:Infobox rally/sandbox. I created three "powerstage" parameters (powerstage_driver1, powerstage_codriver1 and powerstage_team1) but can change it to a single parameter if that's preferable. You can see how the new fields appear in Template:Infobox rally/testcases. If you're happy with the appearance, I'll transfer the contents of the sandbox version of the template to the "live" version and update the template documentation. DH85868993 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I've been fiddling with the infobox at 2018 Monte Carlo Rally and it's all working as expected, but I get errors message that I haven't seen before in the preview window. They read "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox rally with unknown parameter "season_no" (this message is shown only in preview)." and "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox rally with unknown parameter "transportkm" (this message is shown only in preview)." Have I done something wrong? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Prisonermonkeys: Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been away from my computer for a few hours. My suggestion would be to just create the new template, based on Template:F1 race report but with all the F1-specific stuff removed. I'd be happy to have a go at it if you like. I'd suggest calling the template Template:Rally succession box (in hindsight, "F1 race report" probably wasn't the best name for the F1 one), with parameters "Year_of_rally", "Name_of_rally", "Previous_rally_in_season", "Next_rally_in_season", "Previous_year's_rally" and "Next_year's_rally". Sound good? DH85868993 (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- OK, so I got enthusiastic and created Template:Rally succession box, as described above - and then discovered the existing Template:WRC race report, which I think is pretty much what you're looking for, and is already in use. If the existing template does meet your needs, let me know and I'll get the new one deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, I made a few tweaks to Template:Infobox rally. I changed the podium places to the WRC-2 and WRC-3 winners, since it's multi-class racing and the WRC-2 and -3 are World Championship titles. Do you mind checking over my work to make sure I have done everything properly? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles for Creation Reviewing
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.