Talk:Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:45, 9 September 2015

Formula One C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.

View the task list
Discuss the project
Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technical specifications

Do we need that ugly table there? I don't think so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so either. There are similar tables in Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid and Caterham CT03. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Full_Technical_Specification_tables. DH85868993 (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture removed

Zwerg Nase, why did you remove the picture of the car? Is something wrong with it? Tvx1 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was identified as a copyright violation - see File:Mercedes_w06.jpg. DH85868993 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I was a little too over confident in people tagging their pictures with the right licence on flickr... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Podiums

Is there a consensus yet over the question if a double-podium counts as 2 or 1 podiums? If not, we should not list it in the infobox. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A more general discussion was started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Podiums_in_F1_car_infoboxes, but I don't believe a consensus has been reached. DH85868993 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OPED

This article has a serious case of it. I might not get everything, so please bear with me. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 02:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio

I don't believe that the current infobox picture is actually properly licenced on Commons. Could someone with mere expertise than me look into that? What led me to this most is the fact that the watermark in the original Facebook post is cut out in the uploaded version. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 This article has a serious case of it. I might not get everything, so please bear with me. [[User:Twirlypen|<font color="#FF8000">Twirly</font> <font color="#FFBF00">Pen</font>]] ([[User Talk:Twirlypen|<font color="#B22222">Speak</font> <font color="40E0D0"><sup>up</sup></font>]]) 02:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
+== Possible copyvio ==
+I don't believe that the current infobox picture is actually properly licenced on Commons. Could someone with mere expertise than me look into that? What led me to this most is the fact that the watermark in the original Facebook post is cut out in the uploaded version. [[User:Zwerg Nase|Zwerg Nase]] ([[User talk:Zwerg Nase|talk]]) 09:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)