If you leave a message here on my talkpage I'll respond here unless you ask me to do something different. If you are here to respond to something I've posted on your talk page, feel free to reply there as I will have watchlisted your page. Click here to post a new message.
Hi DH85868993 I saw you removed my addition of tyre suppliers to the race results for the 2005 Australian Grand Prix but please can you restore my edit as it is inline with other Wikipedia F1 race results. Tyre supplier data is included on official TV coverage results from the period and we have reached consensus that tyre data can be added for Grands Prix which have more than one tyre supplier (IE Bridgestone and Michelin) but not for races that only have one, where it is viewed as redundant (IE just Goodyear or just Bridgestone or Pirelli). This is reflected in official TV coverage or timing data. I am intending to add more for the 2005 season and others. Finally, though, I'd like to add I appreciate your efforts to keep the F1 race data clean as this is important! :) Theoutside29 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theoutside29: No worries. Thanks for adding the tyre data to those other 2005 race reports. Just a reminder that because you've added an extra column into the table, the footer row one needs to be one column wider, and if you change the number of sources from one to more than one, the word "Source" should be changed to "Sources". (I've made these corrections to the articles you updated in the past 24 hours). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Toro Rosso engine results
Hi, it seems that you forgot to remove the points from Renault, when you did this. I've made the change at {{F1estat}}, but thought I'd let you know in case I'm wrong and they were already not included, or something. SSSB (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks, yes, those races are identified as the Richmond Trophy race in contemporary Motor Sport articles. I'll go ahead and update them accordingly. Halmyre (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DH85868993. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zoran Stefanović (businessman), 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.
In this edit you reverted an edit I made alterring an edit location directing the a car called a Lola, but not built by Lola or Lola staff to Haas Lola. The THL1 and THL2 cars whilst called Lolas were actually designed and built by FORCE, a part of the then Haas Lola organisation. They were called Lola because Carl Haas had a financial interest in Lola, effectively making Lola a sponsor. Whilst convention it is nonetheless inaccurate. Several Brabham race cars were called Repco Brabhams but generally they are called Brabhams as Repco was a sponsor and in most cases did not even provide engines as most were powered by Coventry Climax, Ford, Honda or even Alfa Romeo engines. -- Falcadore (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your preference is against accuracy and to prefer the status quo? I just want you to realise that is what you are saying before I start a discussion. The history of the the two designs is very well known and documented so it's not like it can be disputed. I mean are you really saying you prefer the convention because that's where it is now and you don't care as to accuracy? --Falcadore (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Falcadore: I've done some more reading/research, and I now find myself supporting the view that the Haas "Lolas" should be considered as distinct from the Lola Cars "Lolas". So I think (for the Haas Lolas) we should link "Lola" to Haas Lola and remove the THL1 and THL2 from {{Lola}}, Category:Lola Formula One cars and the results table in Lola Cars. FWIW, my previous position was influenced by a mistaken belief that Lola Cars had more of a connection with the Haas Lola cars than they did, including statements like the one in Lola Cars that "Broadley had some involvement with the car", which I now believe to be false. DH85868993 (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
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.
Your recent restoration at Cisitalia, I mean. It may be standard in roughly similar sections, but with one result, no pole positions and no fastest laps, it's also nonsensical to use the word "results" or speak of specially formatted text that doesn't exist in this section. Anyway, if you're sure, you're sure and that's cool; just making sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: Thanks for your enquiry. Yes, I'm sure I want to use the standard formatting for Cisitalia's F1 results section. You may note that I didn't restore the pole position and fastest lap text, because it's not applicable in this case. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Sorry for overlooking that "key" part. If I didn't already know what DNQ meant, I'd want to; good job! So we're clear, though, Cistalia did not qualify once and only once. I'll just leave "Only F1 World Championship result" on your desk as I go and you can consider it a viable and sensible alternative or not. No pressure, and enjoy your weekend. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
greetings
Thanks for your edit summary about the item at the Trans Australian airlines - I would strongly suggest against Abe books, when there is the Trove reference for good referencing to clarify edits...
Gunn, John (1999), Contested skies : Trans-Australian Airlines Australian Airlines 1946-1992, University of Queensland Press, ISBN978-0-7022-3073-8
Hey there @DH85868993! I've seen your name come up a lot with editing the F1 records page. You seem to know what you're doing, so I respect you. I'd like to make some bigger changes to the page, but I'd like to talk about it with someone else first. Could you let me know what you think? The reason why I want to make these changes, is because the page has become quite big and the loading time is quite long as well, especially on phone devices. Hence why I think some unneeded tables and references should be deleted. To only have the useful tables listed also makes the page clearer.
The tables I think don't say too much and should go, are:
- Most consecutive wins at the same Grand Prix;
- Most consecutive pole positions at the same Grand Prix;
- Most consecutive podium finishes from first race of season;
- Youngest double World Drivers' Championship winners;
- Youngest triple World Drivers' Championship winners.
Of course the record with the recordholder can be added to the 'Other records'.
(I know I'm talking about lowering the data but I do like to add the table 'Total started races not finished', or shorter: 'Total career DNFs', because I think it's a fun record and because there are only 2 tables for the topic 'Races finished', and they can use a 3rd. And perhaps a new topic with tables about Sprints.)
Furthermore I think the notes at 'Multiple achievements at the same race', can be shortened by only mentioning the number one recordholder (and for example 'The other seven drivers to have achieved a hat-trick in two consecutive races' can be removed).
At the 'Other records', there are quite some records with multiple achievers. For example 'Most championship leader changes in a season' and 'Most podium finishers in a season'. These drivers are listed under each other. To make the page shorter, the drivers can be listed beside each other.
Then about the references. I've already written a topic at the talk page. Could you look at it? For example the references with numbers 26 and 57 I often come across, which I think are often unneeded to add. But they're definitely not the only ones.
@Wiki4David: Thank you for the kind words. It's always difficult to decide which information to include in that article (and in which format) - what some people think is interesting/important information, other people don't. I'm generally an inclusioninst, so as long as the information is accurate, I'm usually happy for it to stay. You might face some resistance to deleting the "Most consecutive wins/poles at the same Grand Prix" tables - they've been in the article a long time and survived several culls. I guess there are two ways you can go regarding your proposed changes: you can either start a discussion on the article talk page, or you can boldly make the changes, see if they get reverted and then start a discussion (if required). I'll have a look at that references topic. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I have made some changes to the page. I hope they're all okay! I like to say I'm an inclusionist as well, as some records could be very interesting (as long as it's accurate and complete of course). So I actually added more than I deleted ;) I just was a bit concerned about the bigness and loading time. But if it becomes a real problem, we can always make then some changes as well. I still think there are too many references, but that can also be changed later. Lovely talking to you! Wiki4David (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49: The term "Grand Prix" derives from French, where adjectives typically also take 's' to indicate a plural, like nouns do in English. See:
Adjectives don't take plurals in English, regardless of what they may get up to in French. All the quotes appear to be from Wikipedia so cannnot be used a s a reliable source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English borrowed the term "Grand Prix" from French, and as part of the process, it borrowed the plural as well. Other dictionaries confirming "Grands Prix" as the plural of "Grand Prix" in English include: