User talk:Pyrope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is a member of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks or consult the project page for further information.

Welcome!

Hello, Pyrope, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Hello, you obviously know your way around, but I thought I'd give you a welcome anyway ;-) - Politepunk 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for that. Useful links in any case. Pyrope 19:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of Words

There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists of Words over the interpretation of policy regarding lists of words. As a fairly recent contributor to [List of British words not widely used in the United States], you might wish to add to the debate, as it affects several AfDs going on, and a current Deletion Review. Thanks. WLD 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject British Motorsport - Collaboration of the month

The British Motorsport Wikiproject which you are a listed as a member of has started a collaboration of the month. You can nominate and vote for articles related to Motorsport in the UK with a view to working to improve one article each month to Good Article status. Please take a moment to have a look at the project page here. Thanks! Alexj2002 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the Stilton

I noticed that I'd omitted my signature on the talk page immediately (it was a slip of the finger) but found I couldn't add it in editing. I added a rather trivial anecdote, but thought it was amusing.Saxophobia 10:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brabham

Hi - I've noticed you're making some knowledgeable looking additions to the racing articles from the 50s and 60s. Hope you're enjoying Wikipedia.

I've been working on the Brabham Racing Organisation article for a while now. It's currently a Good Article, but I think I'm working my way towards reaching Featured Article status.

As is the way with these things, I'm probably too close to the article to see its flaws. I be grateful if you could find the time to look it over and leave any comments you have on its talk page.

Keep up the good work. Cheers. 4u1e 13:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff - many thanks, both for the edits and the thoughts on the talk page. I hope you don't mind, but I've reversed the appearances of 'Jack' because use of first names upsets some people in an encyclopaedia. Bit of a tricky one in this case, though, where the driver, owner, team and car all share a name! Regarding image size, see this conversation on my talk page, which I found quite informative. Cheers. 4u1e 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

HI nice work but ALWAYS remebmer to categorize Eric Broadley I have done it for you. Keep up the new work Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrrell 006

Thanks - I have created quite a few F1 car articles, so I didn't want to see one getting deleted! Julius Sahara has already deleted the tags, so no further threat of deletion. Keep up the good work!--Diniz 11:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries mate. Understandable considering the amount of typing! I try to concentrate on motorcycle Grand Prix and was just trying to finish the article. I was wondering why the Surtees article had seemed to be bypassed by the Formula 1 crowd. I also notice the Mike Hailwood article is lacking in the F1 department.Orsoni 12:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Surtees

Sorry, didn't know that Surtees' page was an example. I came across that article in the process of making the 1968 season summary box and thought it was an old version, so I made the change. I reverted Surtees' box to the one you made. Sorry for causing troubles. Asendoh 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinction between teams/entrants and constructors in WikiProject:Formula One

Hi Pyrope. I've recently joined WikiProject:Formula One. From looking at some of the contributions you have made to the Project, it appears as though you are keen (as I am) to make the distinction between Formula One teams/entrants and Formula One constructors. I think that many of the table columns which are currently labelled Team should actually be labelled Constructor. (In fact, ideally I'd like to see the tables contain two columns: Team and Constructor). Do you think I should just "be bold" and start making changes, or should I try to get endorsement/agreement from other members of the Project first? (And if so, how should I do that? I've raised several issues on the Project discussion page, but to date there's been no response [or is that because everyone is on Christmas holidays?]). Sorry for all the questions, but I didn't want to go ahead and make a lot of changes only for them to be reversed later. Thanks. DH85868993 11:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I also prefer '"entrant" to "team". FYI, I've just created a new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions, where I have also raised the team/entrant/constructor issue. Feel free to remove it from there if you think there is a better plan of attack. DH85868993 12:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template:former F1 constructor

Hi Pyrope. I noticed your creation template:former F1 constructor. Are you happy for me to start converting all the former constructors which currently use template:F1 team to use template:former F1 constructor instead, and promote the usage of template:former F1 constructor on WP:F1? DH85868993 11:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Alta in Category:Formula One entrants

Hi Pyrope. Yes, Alta was one of those constructors I wasn't sure whether or not to include in the Entrants category. I'd appreciate it if you could cast your eye over the other articles in the category and remove any that shouldn't be there. Thanks. DH85868993 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Alta, do you think it's worth changing all the links which currently point to Alta auto racing team (which is a redirect to Alta Car and Engineering Company) to point directly to Alta Car and Engineering Company, so that the redirect can be deleted, to reinforce the fact that Alta were never an entrant/team? DH85868993 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F1 car

We've done it again! See template:Racing car. (Racing car not F1 car because I think it can be a common template for any racing car, the info's essentially the same). It's already been used on a number, but by no means all, of the F1 car articles: Brabham BT46, Brabham BT55, unsurprisingly! Some others have, I think gotten confused about templates and copied the code of the template (and then modified it) rather than using it correctly (Sauber C20 for example). This one I think we probably do only need one template for - my suggestion would be that you edit template:Racing car to make any necessary change, but what do you think? 4u1e 08:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but I feel vaguely guilty because although I went to great lengths to publicise it on the talk pages of every racing car article I could find (at the time) I didn't add it (or the team one) to the WP:F1 page. Hangs head in shame. 4u1e 10:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Blimey - fast work! Sorry about the confusion. 4u1e 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Driver career summary tables

Hi Pyrope. I'm looking to update some driver career summary tables to "John Surtees format" soon. I believe you've done several (many?) in the past. In the interests of minimising my effort, is there some easy way to get the right colour in each square? Or is it just a matter of copying and pasting the right colour string from the key template each time? (Or do you remember them?) And how do you construct the list of races for each year in the table? Do you construct them by hand each time? Or do you find another table which has the same year and copy and paste? Or do you have a list of them somewhere? Thanks DH85868993 10:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've updated Michele Alboreto's summary table to "John Surtees format". Can you confirm that the following features of John Surtees' table (which I have copied into Alboreto's) are deliberate?:

the contents of the Entrant, Chassis and Engine columns are bold
the contents of the Year column are not bold
the contents of the WDC and Points columns are not bold, except when the driver finished 1st or 2nd (or presumably 3rd) in the WDC.

Thanks. DH85868993 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of using the entrant name as registered on the start list (i.e. "Benetton Team Tyrrell" in your example). What do you use as your source for entrant names? I have found that entrant names can vary widely between sources! DH85868993 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the key to unlock www.gpracing.net192.com. I was aware of the site's existence but could never work out how to get useful data out of it. Some trivia I noticed while looking at Alboreto's results: In the middle of 1992, he finished 7th (i.e. one place outside the points) in 6 races out of 8, including 4 in a row. That's heartbreaking! DH85868993 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pages on Wainwrights- Green Crag

Firstly, my apologies for reverting without leaving a comment, not intentional, just ham-fisted

I note your interest in Birker Fell, but please observe that we are attempting to apply a standard treatment to all 214 of Wainwrights Fells, and that they are 'fells' regardless of height or name. To simply state that we cannot call Green Crag a fell would be inconsistent. If you want to propose changes to such a large number of articles then perhaps you should initiate a discussion on the WP:BIHILLS talk page.

I'd suggest we leave 'Green Crag' as a Wainwright page and 'Birker Fell' as a page on the upland area as a whole. They are linked to one another and serve different purposes, fitting different templates. What do you think? Bobble Hat 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borough/Town

You deleted the whole thing because I got Borough and Town mixed up (Re: Wandsworth article)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankmoon (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC). (sorry, was unaware about the whole signing thing)

Re: Wandsworth

Thanks for the message! Much appreciated. I'll get my source for it, and if i can't find the original source, i'll get business listings as evidence. Much appreciated again! ~~ Frank moon

[edit] Thanks!!!

Thanks a lot for the template - it looks much better to understand. I wouldn't mind if you could update some from the mid 1990's - early 2000's - that would be helpful.

Again, many thanks Davnel03 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I;ve put the template on the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix race that I have previously edited - can you quickly check to see if nothings wrong.

Many thanks - the template has helped me a lot!!! Davnel03 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pages That Are Blank

Sorry about creating so many pages at blank, but at least I know for future only to create them one at a time. Anyway, I've put the warning at the top of each individual page so no one that doesn't know much about F1 doesn't go editing it. However, I do not mind people like yourselfs or other people from the Wikipedia F1 project editing it. I would be very happy if people did that. Thanks for co-operating with me. Davnel03 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Monaco Grand Prix

Good work. Only mistake was adding in mutiple links in the same table. Overwise it was fine. Buc 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a basic Wikipedia guidelines really that there shouldn't be link to the same article really close together. Buc 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How's that not a reason? Buc 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I read somewhere that mutiple links to an article that are fairly close together should be removed. If you you can put me right your welcome to rv my changes. Buc 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but I've that before. Nothing about links to the same article in there. I have left a querry in the help desk to try a resolve this issue. Buc 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok so after further enquerry this seems to be a bit of a gray area. Some feel it's ok unless the entries are all right next to each other. But someone eles said though linking at only the first occurrence can make it clearer and easier to read. So my conclusion would that it doesn't really matter. Change it back if you want. Buc 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can do anything eles to improve Monaco Grand Prix please do. You may or may not be aware that it's currently a FAC. Buc 11:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrrell 019

Thanks for fixing that, Pyrope. DH85868993 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle Mk1 article

Congratulations on the Eagle Mk1 article. It's beautiful. If only all F1 car articles were like that... One tiny query - would it be appropriate to link "American National Championship" to United States Automobile Club? I think it would, but I didn't want to defile the article by adding an incorrect link. DH85868993 04:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

Taken from the assessment page, top rating means "Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field." I'd say all F1 champions have achieved international notability, so they must all have "top" importance. High is for articles that do not have international notability, so this is clearly not high enough for F1 champions. I get your point, but I assessed the articles according to the definitions laid out on the assessment page. There might be an argument for changing the assessment page however, as it is a bit ambiguous at the moment. Readro 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding Surtees, I'd argue that as the only man to win world championships on 2 and 4 wheels he is most certainly of top importance. Readro 20:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Regazzoni

Another editor made the comment on peer review that you can't collide head on from the rear. Doesn't a head on collision mean both parties collide from the front? :S 4u1e 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - looks like I don't understand the English language as well as I think I do. Most references give something like; "with or involving the front of a vehicle", although much more rarely a definition is given like "a head-on collision direct, front-to-front" (both from various OED publications). I still think that using 'head on into the rear of a lorry' is likely to cause confusion, though as it has for me and at least one other editor. I'll re-write to try and make it clearer, based on what the sources said - which I think was just 'head on' with no mention of 'from the rear'. Cheers. 4u1e, 6 March 2007 09:46

[edit] Your note re 'tense'

Hi Pyrope, there was some discussion about this issue on the main Talk page (search for 'tense'), and on the dedicated guideline's Talk page. I am not saying that the 'debate' was very intensive or exhaustive - it was mostly the point that we needed to standardize (as we have both past and present tenses), and my own opinion that in the unfolding chronology of aviation events, having the present tense gives a dynamic news-like effect, which I believe makes it a more engaging and interesting style for a reader, and creates a more flowing structure, as opposed to a more disjointed list. Again, I don't think this was debated at any depth, but it was included in the guideline, which was accepted as a whole by consensus, and is the current standard for the list format. If you strongly feel this tense is unacceptable, then by all means present your case and try to create a consensus for change. I think the proper venue is the guideline's Talk page, where format related issues should be discussed, followed (if consensus is reached) by changes to the guideline. Thanks, Crum375 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maserati 4CL(T)

I like it! I appreciate how difficult it is to track down info for these earlier cars, but you've managed to get quite a lot of info together. I'm by no means an expert on the era - in fact it's more of a keen interest - so as far as facts go, I don't really know enough to be able to judge. Reagrding images, I've had a look but I can't find anything free-use. My "stash" is actually more of a list of free-use pictures I've found. You can see the current stash here. I know how difficult these images are to find, so I thought it might be better to keep a record of them so that I have them ready to use when the time comes. Readro 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck with the article - it's looking good so far. And it'd be nice if we got paid for this - I'd probably enjoy working a lot more! Readro 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Walker Racing Team

Thanks for pointing out, I had almost forgotten it was there. Blame the procrastinator in me, I guess :-) . Anyway, I've written the two final paragraphs and added everything to the page. I think it still needs some clean-up, lots of details, and most important of all, references. I took most of it from the websites I've listed at the end of the article, and even then it's mostly a textual representation of results tables. But I feel I've created enough of a skeleton that can easily evolve into a GA. --Pc13 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] County Palatine of Lancaster

Well, I originally addded that paragraph to highlight that there are two quite different areas described in two different sources!

The Duchy's website [1] says: "Nowadays the County Palatine comprises the modern administrative counties of Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Furness in Cumbria." Not parts of modern Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside but all of them, which is a very different area to the pre-1974 county cited in 1992, and includes bits of what was Cheshire and Yorkshire.

As those were the only two sources I could find, and as they don't agree with each other I believe "however" points out that they don't agree.

They can't both be right of course, but in the absence of anything else they will have to do until we can find a definitive source. Lozleader 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/y/r/User_talk%7EPyrope_45f0.html"