Talk:Damon Hill

Selected Article

It has been suggested on Portal_talk:Formula One that this article be a 'selected article' on the F1 portal. A couple of things probably need clearing up to achieve this:

• References - most important! Someone must have a biography or have found a suitably authoritative webpage. Pretty well referenced now. 4u1e 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Lead length - need a slightly longer lead to use in the 'selected article' box on the portal page. You know the score, establish notability and pique the interest of the reader. Done 4u1e 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Probably a general spelling/grammar etc check. Done 4u1e 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Also things like Kingboyk's suggestion that year links should in general be to the F1 season summary for that year. Done 4u1e31 May 2006

On that basis I have put Damon Hill on the Formula One portal as of 9 June 2006. Cheers for all the hard work! 4u1e 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also have a few more pics and a little expansion of the 1992 part? --Skully Collins 09:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends what standard we're trying to get to. I'm still thinking about how all of this works, but it seems to me that F1 doesn't have enough really good (Good Article or higher) articles to rotate them as 'selected articles', so the standard will necessarily be lower (perhaps corresponding to B-class of the grading scheme. Selected articles could then be improved further to good and, who knows, eventually to featured article status. I think this article now meets the B-class criteria (and anyway I originally said I wanted to change articles by mid June, and this one goes rather well with the British GP this weekend!

Please do continue to improve it though! Perhaps we could consider getting to a GA standard? 4u1e 11:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No Problem ^_^...Can you just give me a few points or facts the article makes that would need sources then? --Skully Collins 12:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See below 4u1e 01:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

Although it's a book focused mostly on the Benetton efforts in the 1993 season (I think, I'll check tonight), it does have a considerable amount of the rivalry between Hill and Schumacher during that season and has a pretty large bit about the memorable race they had in Spa Francorchamps in that season, so I'll try and cover that season, reference wise... --Skully Collins 13:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Stuff! After some searching, I find I have got a book on Jordan's 1998 season - which should be OK for part of this as well. Anyone got anything covering Arrows, or Damon's pre-F1 career? 4u1e 6 June 2006

...Just one question: How do I refer to the book in the "notes" section? Do I put it as: [Book Name], [Aurthor]

or is there something else I need as well? --Skully Collins 06:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of working out how to do this myself. The only fairly thoroughly referenced F1 articles I can think of are Mark Webber, Fittipaldi (constructor) and Brabham Racing Organisation, but I think the Fittipaldi one is the only one that has book refs. What I've tried to do with the latter two is give general 'references' that cover the majority of the topic, and then use the 'notes' thing to pick off specific points that aren't covered in those or that seem to require extra justification - I've probably overdone it on the Fittipaldi article in its present form!

I'm assuming that your book is on 1994 not 1993? If so, I'd guess you'd be using notes to pick off specific points such as "Hill was able to cope with the pressure admirably" and "[Schumacher] collided with Hill in a clumsy defensive move". Much of the rest of the season is covered by the blanket 'All Formula One race and championship results are taken from...' bit at the bottom.

To answer your specific question, the format I've used for books is: [Author] [publication year] [book title] [page number, if appropriate] [publisher], the idea being to give a reader the best chance to find the reference themselves. I've also included a link to the books Amazon page and the ISBN where known.

There's more (much, much more) on this at WP:REF and I'm not claiming to have got it 100% right! Hope that helps. 4u1e 7 June 2006

OK - I've put a couple in for 1998. It's not perfect, but I think it will do for now, we're not shooting for FA quality just yet! 4u1e 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've ref'd the www.formula1.com 'hall of fame' article on Damon, which covers much of this, although still not the individual season details. It also contains some interesting additional info on Damon's early life, which it would be worth bringing into the article at some point. 4u1e 06:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Anyone mind if I put some sourced quotes at the end of each season? --Skully Collins 11:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

A little Off Subject - I was directed to a page displaying the Hammer and Cycle after clicking on the (more ) button, with the statement Wikipedia is communism. An obvious vandalism. I found it very difficult to report said actio. I went thru the bug search, file a bug, etc.

There needs to be a REPORT VANDALISM button to click on. It is way too tedious to wade thru page after page of stuff to do so. I lost count after 10 pages.

Is There a one stop and shop action one can do?

Quickest thing is to correct it yourself, although I appreciate it's not always easy to do! 4u1e 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow - you're right, it is hard to report it. On the front page, I wouldn't worry abou it. Someone will pick it up and correct it pretty quickly! 4u1e 06:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well this is the one thing I was worried about when Hill made the main page...knowing that vandals prefer the "Article of the Day" to vandalise. --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the problem with getting on the front page - it becomes a "come and get me" plea for people to vandalise! Still, it's only for today... and the article will always have the prestige of having been there (and having beaten Schumi there ;-) )! Seb Patrick 11:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your right Seb. But I'd like to see Wikipedia Semi-Protecthe "Article of the Day". It really saddens me that so many English speaking Wikipedians wish to vandalise one of the Idols of British motorpsort. --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, actually. I'm guessing the issue has been debated, but it seems strange that they wouldn't semi-protect the articles, at least for the day that they're on the front. Sure, you're going to get a handful of good-faith edits from anons, but for the sake of one day, surely it's better to avoid the vandalism... Seb Patrick 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure enough, it has been debated, and there are reasons for it. I can sort of understand - it's still irritating, though. Seb Patrick 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Did Anyone notice that Damons picture was replaced by a picture of bulbasaur for a few minutes?--Pokettrokett 09:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Stig

I've just removed the recently added sentence 'Damon Hill is rumoured to be The Stig' from the article.

If anyone feels really strongly about it, I suppose it could go back in, but I would argue against it on three counts:

• No reference given - and all I can find on Google are various forum discussions about Top Gear.
• Dubious notability - I think just about every UK F1 driver has been 'rumoured to be the Stig'. I found mentions of Mark Blundell,Johnny Herbert, Damon Hill and many others. Damon does not seem to be the most likely candidate according to the various forums. According to the Stig article on Wikipedia, there probably isn't even 'a Stig' any more, with the role being taken by various people as occasion demands.
• Even if referenced and notable in itself, is it significant compared to Damon's other achievements? Mention of the the Stig is relevant on Perry McCarthy's page, since (despite trying!) he never achieved very much in F1. Even if true, how much relevance would it have here?

I don't think it adds to the article, although I'm always interested to hear contrary views. 4u1e

I've added part of the interview with Hill on Top Gear where Clarkson makes a joke about him being the Stig...is that okay? --Skully Collins 12:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Weeeelll. I still don't think it should be in there, because of my second two points above, and it's still not actually referenced! :-) Consider whether it's the sort of thing you would expect to see in an encyclopaedia - I'll leave it alone for now and we'll see if a consensus develops. (Nice work on all the references, by the way. I think we could lose the 'No refs' tag at the top of the article, don't you?) 4u1e (Done 4u1e 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Comparison against GA standard

Out of interest, I'll try and compare the article in its current form to the GA and see what might need doing. (This might take a while to go through, so bear with me!) WP:GA says a good article is:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

Good. There are some rough edges in the prose, probably due to having been expanded quite quickly! Should be easy enough to smooth out. Not sure about the helmet section - the quote duplicates the first para - there're quite a lot of quotes already, so perhaps just write it as prose and use the quoted text as the reference. Not sure about the balaclava bit - wasn't that the same for everyone, and therefore non-notable? I'd drop it, I think. 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

Looks good to me 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;

Haven't checked this yet! 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

Most of it is sourced, but there are some elements that are not:

• Attendance at 'Haberdashers Askes School' (An Easy One :D Skully Collins 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC))
• 'Showing occasional flashes of speed...never winning a F3000 race' unless these are covered by note 5, but I assume they are not as the footnote comes before these statements. 'Flashes of speed' could be considered POV language, I suppose. (Removed possible POV, as well as re-phrasing it for the sake of the source Skully Collins 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC))
• Getting the Williams seat ahead of Brundle, I remember this, but it doesn't seem to be referenced.
• Benefitting from Prosts experience
• The pre-season betting was that Senna would coast to the title...' (Skully Collins 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC))
• 'A clumsy and desperate defensive move' - the current refs don't quite go to the heart of it, they establish that there was an incident and that many people felt it was unsporting, not that it actually was unsporting. It might be better, and more neutral, to leave out the 'clumsy and desperate' bit. Done 4u1e 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've exapanded further into that accident...any better? Skully Collins 09:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'For 1995 Hill was confident of title glory'
• 'In 1996 the williams was clearly the quickest car'
• '10p washer on the Arrows' (Done Skully Collins 14:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (Changed to Hydraulic Problem))
• 'Silenced the critics who said he could only win in the best car' I tried and failed to find one for this! I remember the incident though.... (Removed as I cannot find ANY sources...I'll keep it here on the discussion page as others might be able to source it Skully Collins)
• Most of 1999 (except race results)

• Referred to Formula One 1999 Book (See References)Skully Collins 09:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Notable Battles - I think you must have refs for these though, as you've given quotes. Some of them are covered in the www.formula1.com general ref at the bottom of the page.
• Still not convinced about the Stig thing! :-D 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;

sources are cited, and done so in-line (to the best of my understanding!) 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

Haven't checked this yet! 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

Seems fine 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

Generally very good. Minor points only:

• Could probably use more on his early life and family, this is an article on him, not just his racing.
• I know there's a list of clashes between Hill and Schumacher, but the prose in the career summary doesn't really mention the rivalry, it's a long time ago now but before Alonso and Hakkinen, Hill was Schumi's main rival and there were sparks between them in the press! 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

Good, I'd say. A few POVs creep in.

• 'After some bad luck' (in 1993 section) - POV really, what is bad luck? Should be easy enough to find some non-partisan words to describe it, like: 'After mechanical failures while leading three races, Hill finally won the...' (check the facts, that's from memory!) Done. 4u1e 12 June 2006
• 'clumsy and desperate move' (from Schumacher at Adelaide 94) - not really neutral Done. 4u1e 12 June 2006
• 1997 Hungary - 'astonishing win', 'amazing achievement', 'a fantastic result' - yes they were, but this can be presented by stating the facts, for example 'qualified third in a car which had not qualified higher than [X - presumably a high number!] place all season'. 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Done 4u1e 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

Seems OK to me 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On a more careful reading, the 'Notable battles' bit tends to the non NPOV, doesn't include a Schumacher-side view. Bit tricky without the references, of course! 4u1e 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

Obviously we'll have to wait and see how this one turns out! 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

Seems OK to me, current images have copyright tags and captions. Would be nice to have one of him in a Jordan - and that picture of him and Schumacher coming together in 1994 would be great if it is usable. 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

Hope that doesn't sound negative. I think it's a good article, I was just looking at what might be needed to make it a formally Good Article! Many of the references would be covered by adding a good biography under the general references, although someone would have to actually read the thing and confirm that the facts as reported are correct. 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem...I was really concerned about that Adelaide 94 bit...because to me it was a defensive move that wasn't nessesary, I mean he could see Hill in his wing mirror couldn't he? Oh, well...no use crying over spilt milk, eh? Errrmmm....Some of those I could source from that Murray Walker book...Sadly, that's the only book in my libruary (Spelt Wrong) that's past the 1997 season...Anyway, I'll have a good look around today...Once again sorry about the amount of POVs, that's the problem when you have me editing notable amounts of the article. Because thanks to my Asperger Syndrome, I can remember just about every fact about Hill, but sadly it means that a few (or a lot) of POVs like to sneack into the article...and a final point: At least we're not editing an article that's being vandalised :P (I'm gonna speak too soon aren't I?) --Skully Collins 06:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article as a whole is very NPOV, just a few specific examples, and I'm not sure if those are yours or if they came from other contributors. (If you want to see really partisan stuff go and hang around Fernando Alonso and 'the Amazing adventure of Kimi Raikonnen' for a while! And for vandalism, come to think of it). I can knock the POVs on the head easily enough if you want. Cheers 4u1e

Well, I've had a look at the "astonishing career" of Michael Schumacher and I just couldn't beleive the amounts of POVS in just one part of the article...AND it was a nominated for FA...no wonder it didn't make it, eh? --Skully Collins 12:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

Need to keep an eye on article length now - I know 32kb isn't a hard limit, but it's a good 'style' guideline. The current version is 41kb. Cheers. 4u1e

Comparing the article to one of my friend's (Ataricodfish) article on Phil Collins, both are around the same lengh...Scroll bar wise anyway...plus that article has more pictures then this one :-D... --Skully Collins 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I Think It's Time To Have This Beauty Peer Reviewed, Yes? --Skully Collins 09:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. I've been away from home for a few days. Yeah - go for it! 4u1e

Copyedited

Copyedited, albeit rather quickly, as per request on GA nomination page. 4u1e 20 June

So the copyedit is done then? --Skully Collins 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying it's perfect, but I couldn't see any errors remaining. Experience says that as soon as you press 'save' some more errors will miraculously appear, though. I've dropped a note on the page of the guy who put the 'hold' on the GA nomination to suggest it could be lifted now. 4u1e

Well....we've (along with a few others) have done it :-) Yeah! --Skully Collins 06:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup - nice work! 4u1e 06:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Date inconsistency

There's an inconsistency in the dates of Damon's motorcycle racing debut - it's 81 in the text and 83 in the lead. Could someone (that probably means you Mr Collins) check it out? It might also be an idea to check the dates of Damon's progression through F3 and F3000, I've reworded those bits to flow better, but I've probably made some assumptions about what happened in which year. Cheers. 4u1e 20 June

All checked...and for future conversations it's either "Phill" or "Skully". "Collins" is just the name of my favourite music artist ;) --Skully Collins 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted! Cheers. 4u1e

Father and Mother

Do we need to specify "Father Graham and mother Bette"? To a native english speaker this seems redundant, since both names are unambiguous in gender. I suppose this might not be the case for all readers, though. 4u1e 26 June 2006

Meh, you can get rid of it if you want, I just put it there because some wiki editors can be very piccy, can't they? --Skully Collins 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As can some contributors! (Looks guilty) I think given that Graham is reasonably well known and is wikilinked there's little chance of confusion and it does read better without, so I'll change it. 4u1e 20:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (P.S. It's hard to get anyone to comment on this stuff isn't it!)

Should these bits be here?

• Joshua's ski-ing. Notable enough? I removed this bit last night - broke the flow rather in that para. Cheers. 4u1e 27 June 2006
• Brigitte's career. Notable enough, given that the article is not about her?

well, the fact of the matter is that the article needs to cover the entire topic...and I thought that meant just a brief mention...I guess it is information overkill as it were...so I guess they can be removed... --Skully Collins 12:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of F3 wins

I've cut this from the 'GA standard' discussion above, as it's getting confusing having this long line of reasoning in the middle of an older discussion. 4u1e

• Damon's pre-F1 history as on the wikipedia page is different from that on another page listing his history.

http://www.caspoldermans.com/hill/damon-careerresults.html I don't know which is accurate. The wikipedia pages says that Hill won 10 F3 races, but the link given only shows four. There are also six race wins attributed to him in F3 on the Wikipedia page which are attributed to FF1600 on the link. Apologies if I have broken any Wikipedia social rules or conventions in adding this entry, but I thought it worth adding so that people more involved in the page can decide if any action is required.

Well the pre F1 results all come from here: [1]

Something's screwy - this link [2] says only three F3 wins. Perhaps non-championship races? Try [3] for another take on it. 4u1e 27 June 2006

I think the f1db figures are wrong. F3history.co.uk shows Damon with only 15 points for the 1986 season, so he can't have scored 6 wins, and he doesn't show up in the results for any of the other F3 championships listed for that year. 15 points also matches the results shown on the caspoldermans page for that year. Most likely the f1db site has accidentally copied the FFord win tally from the line above. There is also a discrepancy between the www.formula1.com Hall of Fame article (3 wins in three years) and the caspoldermans site (four wins in three years). 4u1e

Not having much luck yet, but as two of Damon's 1986 wins were at Zandvoort and Spa, it seems quite likely that one of those two races was not part of the UK championship - which would mean 3 UK championship wins, but four F3 wins in total. Just a theory at present, still looking for more data. 4u1e

The above is the best I can do at present - it seems certain at least that it is not 10 wins, so I'm plumping for four for now. Amending article accordingly. user:4u1e

Segrave Trophy

There's a category at the bottom for the Segrave Trophy, but this isn't mentioned (as far as I can tell) anywhere in the main body of the article. Should it be? TheGrappler 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Added. Cheerz. --Skully Collins 07:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Awards/Honours

IS there perhaps a need for an Awards/Honours section? To include OBE, Segrave Trophy, BBC Sports personality of the year and any others I may have missed. Just a thought. 4u1e

Well, all the awards are mentioned in the main body, but are not clearly stated If you know what I mean. But this means that the section could be small and list like... --Skully Collins 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - true - maybe it's best as it is. I suppose there's not really enough there for a full section, which I have seen done for other articles. Thanks for the catch on Spain 94, my sense of historical inevitability running away with me again! 4u1e 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's okay ;). Good thing we found it BEFORE the article appeared on the main page, eh? --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 09:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably for the best, yeah! Which doesn't mean that I won't be worrying about checking the rest of it. Again. <rolls eyes> 4u1e

Results table

I am adding a points coulmn and Championship standing column to the results table -aprithvi

Many thanks. 4u1e

Schumacher/Hill collision at Adelaide

At present we have two descriptions of this incident, one in the 1994 season summary and one under 'Notable battles'. After recent additions, both are now about the same length. They're actually pretty consistent, but there is no need for them both to be full descriptions.

Before I edit one of them down to a one line summary - which do we think should remain the more detailed version?

My inclination is to keep the more detailed version in the 1994 season summary - where it is a key point in the development of Hill's public image - and to edit down the one in 'Notable battles' to about the same length as the other incidents described there. Views? 4u1e 28 July 2006

Well, I guess your right, but let's not forget that there are people out there who think that Hill was in the wrong (although it was proven it he attempted to avoid the accident!)...so we got to try and watch our steps on the Adelaide incident --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll also keep it neutral - which I think the original version (in the 94 summary was). The new words (under notable battles) are less so, although there are a couple of details it may be worth transferring up to the 94 bit. 4u1e 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly neutral anymore is it? I mean, all we have for Schu is Murray Walker's quote, while we have the BBC "Unsporting Incident" and the Patrick Head quote against him...But to be honest, there is no way we can find anything for Schu...because, not many people actually try and justify what Schumacher did...so maybe we should put a note, saying something along the lines of what I've just said into the article itself... --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 14:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Skully, you've added quite a lot of links to the 98 season that already appear further up in the article. Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context suggests that wikilinks should normally only be made at the first appearance of a word, although I personally make an exception for the appearance of words in the lead and in the main article. Are you sure the extras are necessary? 4u1e 02:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

as far as I'm aware...all of those wiki links are for Grand Prix articles, ie "Hockenheim" will go to the "1998 German Grand Prix"... --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 08:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of duplicate Arrows and Heinz-Harald Frentzens, which I assume were not intended. Cheers. 4u1e 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, what happend to it, it's in another language.

Notable battles with Michael Schumacher

Spa 1995: Surely MS only recieved a suspended ban? He didn't miss any races in 1995 --Don Speekingleesh 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you must be right - wouldn't make any sense otherwise. Anyone got the references to hand?

Factually acurate?

The article reads: "The son of the late, two time Formula One world champion Graham Hill, he is the only son of a world champion to win the title himself."

However, I seem to remember that Gilles Villeneuve was a world champion, and his son Jacques Villeneuve won the title a few years back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.216.28 (talk • contribs)

You remember incorrectly. Gilles never won a world title. Seb Patrick 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The 1999 bit reads "Struggling with the new four-grooved tyres introduced that year," but grooved tyres were introduced for the 1998 season. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Racecraft (talk • contribs) 14:43, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Yes, but those were three grooved tyres in 1998 if I remember correctly. :-). --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep: In 1998 there were three grooves on the fronts and four on the rears. For 1999, it was changed to four grooves on both. DH85868993 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Adelaide '94: Schumacher's Car Damage

Main page: User:Skully Collins/Adelaide '94

Sorry, but if you keep reverting perfectly good edits to your edits which appear to say that the FIA did this report without even a reference then I'm afraid I can't accept that edit until I see hard evidence that Schumacher's car wasn't damaged, which is pretty hard itself because after his collision with Hill, his car was sent at least 5 feet into the air and landed on the two right wheels...the same wheels that hit the wall. So I seriously doubt that the FIA could even make a statement that the car was damaged on just video evidence, that's just unintelligent.

Also you've provided no reference to this report either, so all I can say is that your referring to a "Phantom Report", which is hardly appropriate. Also the report you referenced said that Schumacher knew his car was damaged. Look, why do so many F1 books and webistes (either British or Not) that have a report on the 1994 Australian Grand Prix always say that "Schumacher Damaged his car" or something along those lines prior to his collision with Hill?--Skully Collins 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's the other way around. Am I correct when I say that you want to see evidence that Schumacher's car was nót damaged? Is there any evidence that the car was damaged in the first place?

Well the best evidence is he steered into Hill's car ;) Loosmark (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism in the Michael_Schumacher talk page.

Someone mentioned on the Michael Schumacher talk page that "The entire article is nothing more than POV, fan-boyism, and complete fabrication of reality, only occcassional punctuated by a factual date or location." Why they've put this in the Michael Schumacher talk page I've no idea. They also seem very vulgar and uninterested in what people have to say in respones, so they might have been messing about. Buc 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

RollerCoaster Tycoon

Both Michael Schumacher and Damon Hill are "RollerCoaster Tycoon"-cheats. If you name visitors like either of them, they race hell of a lot faster in the Go-Karts game. Should this be added to a new "Trivia" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.82.249.111 (talk) 01:39:13, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

No, Trivia sections should generally be avoided in articles (if the fact is trivial, then it doesn't deserve to be in the article, if it's not trivial then it should be worked into the main body) AlexJ 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sky TV

Have I missed this but I recall excellent commentary by Damon (and others like Perry M) on Sky's coverage of F1 in 2002(?)? He was not a regular presenter but very welcome. Maybe there's some snippets on YT etc.

Also, what about Damon's Channel 5 television series called Wacky Races, which features races with objects such as armchairs?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/formula_1/391375.stm 81.86.144.210 08:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Royzee

Minardi Two Seater

Damon Hill was one of the guest drivers at the 'Thunder in the Park' Event at Donington Park in August 2002. He drove one of the two seater Minardi F1 cars, and also played guitar in the group 'The Conrods'. A reference should exist for this appearance. It was a significant event, being one of the few times he has raced a Formula One car to a paying audience following departure from Formula One. --Minotaur500 20:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1995 Superior Car

This article suggests that in 1995 Hill had the superior car and that he was critiscised for being unable to beat Schumacher in some races. You would think that such a subjective view would be supported by a quote from someone with a intimate knowledge of F1 and the Williams car, but it's not. It would seem then that there is just as much evidence to suggest that Schumacher's car was equally as good, i.e none at all.

But that's not the case. For there is evidence that Schumacher's car became just as capable if not more so, suggesting that his title win was no more remarkable than anyone before him. The main reason for the ostensible poor performance of the B195 was the switch from V8 to V10 between seasons which required more development. This came by the time of the Spanish Grand Prix when part of the set for Schumacher's car was borrowed from Herbert's. How else can this comment by Schumacher after the Spanish Grand Prix be explained?

"...the car went so smoothly today, so perfectly, that I want to pay a big compliment to the team. Over the last three races there has been a lot of hard work and a lot of long nights. They deserved this victory now."

I'm going to delete what is a essentially an unsupported jab at Hill's driving ability, despite the fact that with hindsight we know he won the subsequent Championship.

John Watson declared that the Williams was "the class of the field" after three races that year--MartinUK (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable battles with Michael Schumacher

i know this is nitpicking but why are some races in this section refered by the name of the circuit and some by country name? i suggest changing Japan to Suzuka, Hungary to Hungaroring and Canada to MontrealLoosmark (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking's what we're here to do! Agree with your suggestions. 4u1e (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see this part converted to a "rivalry with Michael Schumacher" section, similar to what he did with Alain Prost because the bullet points feels "listy" and "non-FA-ish", if you know what I mean. Anybody think this is a good idea? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and feel that the section has an inherent point of view. Why are these races in particular notable, especially when they're unreferenced? The more I look at this article, the more I see that this is becoming outdated for a featured article. For example, the general reference to the F1 website isn't enough for modern FAs, the existing in-lines need better formatting, and some sites appear to have reliability questions (ref 1 is a fan site, to name one). I'm considering nominating this for a featured article review, but would rather work with the leading editors here to bring this up to modern FA standards. If you'd like help, I would be happy to point you in the right direction. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Giants, if you'd like to give us a list of stuff you think needs fixing, I'd be happy to work on it. Phill may well be interested as well, and we could drop a note in at WP:F1. One thing I will say up front though, is that for race results I am very strongly of the view that a single note at the foot of the article is definitely all that is required. WP:V does not require that all facts are cited, only "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." No-one is going to have a serious argument over who actually won a particular race - it's just not going to happen. In fact, there is no requirement to footnote information, only to attribute it, which the current format does. If we try to reference all race results individually, we will fill the article with footnotes, much to the detriment of its readability. I'm very happy to defend that point of view at WP:FAR. Other than that, bring it on! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job converting the Schumacher part. I will say that if I do bring this to FAR, I think it will be delisted if race results aren't individually cited. Part of the problem with the seasons is the description used; one example is 1999. "appeared to lose motivation", "an inglorious crash at Montreal" and "a miserable Grand Prix" either really need references or are considered POV by today's FA standards (the last two). A lot has changed in two years. Oh, and the F1 link at the bottom no longer works. The references need title inside the link and publishing dates. I'll leave a sample edit to show you what I mean. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shall we agree to leave the race results issue for a possible future FAR (or maybe an RFC as an intermediate step?). In the meantime there's plenty of other stuff to fix just in the references alone. Thanks for the pointers. 4u1e (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference review

To kick things off, the following refs look to me as if they do not meet WP:RS

• The Hills 4 ever (used as refs 1, 3, 33, & 45)
• www.experiencelemans.com (used as ref 8)
• www.teamdan.com (used as ref 9)
• www.f1-grandprix.com (used as ref 11)
• www.samizdata.net (used as ref 39)

I'll have a stab at replacing them with something more fitting. 4u1e (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to check, is 8W [4] considered a good enough source for referencing FA's? I would think it is, as it's part of Forix, which in turn is part of Autosport, which is published by Haymarket Group, but just want confirmation before going ahead and replacing a ref or two with it.

8W, although very useful, can be borderline. Some of the articles contain readers' contributions, which I would suggest not using. I'd say the pieces by the regulars are fair game for referencing though. 4u1e (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and anyone know what "Michael Schumacher Interview by Martin Brundle on Jerez 97 Retrieved 6 October 2006" might be referring to? Is that the ITV telecast of the Jerez 97 race? Bit confusing because it's referencing a reaction to an event at the 1998 Canadian Grand Prix. AlexJ (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Er...no? Sorry. 4u1e (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's gone now anyway. 4u1e (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

More concerns

I see work on the references has begun. More is needed, but the ones that have been done look better. The references aren't all that needs improvement, however. Here are more concerns of mine.

• The lead is oddly balanced. Two short paragraphs, then two longer paragraphs (especially the fourth), then a one-sentence paragraph. Try to aim for more consistency. Four should be enough for the lead anyway.
• Stubby paragraphs can be found in several places. Two can be found in the 1993-1996 section.
• Writing could use a copy-edit to meet modern FA standards. A few examples: Hyphen needed for mid 1990s in the lead. Another in the lead for first ever. In the body, "a race in which his father had never tasted victory", from 1993-1996, seems somewhat unencyclopedic by today's standards.
• A lot of this mentions "domination" or criticisms. In-line citations are badly needed for these. What was considered great prose in 2006 is often considered POV now.

I think it may be best to bring this to FAR and get some input from the wider community, but if you want time to work on the article, let me know and I'll be happy to give it to you. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - I don't really disagree with anything you say, so a FAR would serve little purpose in terms of getting a wider view of what the article's problem's are. We could do with people spending more time on it, though. I'm limited by time, not by my ability to spot problems! Tell you what, I'll drop a note at WP:F1 to get some more hands to make work light. If that hasn't effected much improvement by say the 25th (i.e. just over a week) then let's take it to FAR. Fair? 4u1e (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

More than fair. If F1 editors do want to improve this, let me know and I'll help with things like MoS issues and citation formatting. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to lend a hand here. I'll start by going through and converting all the references I think are easily reliable to the modern {{cite web etc. forms. AlexJ (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How is progress going? I still see four cite tags, among other things. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We're getting there, I think. Most of the refs are fixed both in terms of format and of reliability. We've still got one (in the 'Helmet' section) that needs a more reliable replacement, so we've not yet converted that one. There are, as you say, still three (as of today, I think) cn tags. Hopefully I can lay those to rest some time today. There's been a general sweep for inappropriately peacock-y language, and the rivalry with Schumacher section is now prose rather than bullets. I think I'd rather take that material and put it back into the main career text though. What do you think? 4u1e (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a positive change, especially in terms of providing a compelling narrative. It's now the 26th, but if a couple more days are needed, FAR can wait. There's no deadline, after all. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that as well then - it would also remove some repetition. Regarding FAR, as I hope is obvious from the page history, progress is continuous but slow. As is often the case, the more we fix the more I can see that could be improved, however the potential for improvements doesn't necessarily imply that a FAR is required. It would help to focus efforts on the most urgent stuff if you could list what you think are the remaining key points that would require a visit to FAR. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"high profile errors"

"Hill made several high profile errors in 1995, most notably in Britain and Italy where he collided with Schumacher during attempted overtaking manoeuvres."

i think this sentence is a bit problematic: first it is unsourced, secondly what exactly is a high profile error? thirdly do we even know it was Hill's error in both cases? i'm not so sure about that and at least in Monza 1995 he was NOT attempting an overtaking manoeuvre but rather there was a missunderstading when they both were lapping somebody. and finaly other drivers made lots of worse errors in their careers but their articles don't mention it with such strong wording. Schumi crashing like a rookie after jumping on a curb (a no, no in the wet) Monaco 1996 or Hamilton comicaly beaching himself in the pitline China 2008 comes to mind. therefore i suggest rephrasing that into something more neutral like "Hill had two accidents with Schumacher at Britain and Italy. some people blamed him for the accidents" and a source of course. Loosmark (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's only the British GP one that I can remember, hence my re-wording of what was there. Tidying up your suggestion, how about: "Hill and Schumacher collided at the British and Italian Grands Prix. Hill was blamed by some commentators for the first incident (or for both, if that's what sources say)."? 4u1e (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

sounds much better however there is still the need for finding a reliable source which isn't so easy. Loosmark (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This, perhaps? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Equally, for the Monza crash, [5] and [6]. Seems to be that the cause had a lot to do with Taki Inoue living up to his name... I imagine his most high profile mistake of the year would be from the German Grand Prix. Readro (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Taki...how clould we ever forget him? Anyway, Uni work calls so I'll try and get some more refs, unless others have found them, later on tomorrow evening. :-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

just out of curiosity i went to dig the videos on youtube,

here is Silverstone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56sZRmNzyO0 and Monza http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6HYE9_k1lk Monza seems really weird either Schumi breaked where he wasn't supposed to or Hill completely forgot to break Loosmark (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Inoue swerved in the braking zone, causing Hill to miss his braking point. Readro (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Article:

Why do we have these Main Article: linking to the team articles at the start of each team sub-heading? I'd expect these to be used if there was an article that goes into more detail on the particular subject (e.g. an article on 'Damon Hill at Williams') not to an article on a related subject. The link to Williams can be done through a Wikilink in the opening sentence of the section. AlexJ (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion works for me Alex - anyone object? 4u1e (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

i support too. Loosmark (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. 4u1e (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1998–1999 Jordan

i don't like the change from "high speed duel" to "disputed second place" for the Canada 1998 race in the last edit because disputed doesn't really tell what happened. Loosmark (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, "high speed duel" would come under WP:NPOV so I guess if you wish for a more descriptive wording for that race in particular then perhaps a wording of ...and enjoyed a "high speed duel", as described by journalist/pundit/etc X. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 23:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"High-speed duel" is kind of tabloid-y. Neither that nor my more recent version say anything about how the "duel" unfolded. I've done a more detailed version. Views? 4u1e (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO now is much better. Loosmark (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. 4u1e (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What no Monaco 2010 Information?

I expected to see something about Monaco 2010 given that Hill was reported to have received death threats for his part in the Schumacher ruling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.31.104 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Nothing on the first page or two of google about it. I suppose we could do a brief (and neutral!) mention of his role in events; it was discussed a little in the specialist press. Anyone got views? 4u1e (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)what death threats

Damon Hill on Bahrain

Interesting point to add -- 'Former world champion Damon Hill has called on Formula One bosses to reconsider going ahead with the plan and warned the sport's image could suffer otherwise.'

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/04/20124615112157873.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Damon Hill William years segment split yearwise

Hi, Damon's William years segment seems long and really tiring . Hence I split them year wise. Hope that should be OK. Race27 (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of tinkering

I've made a few changes, firstly removing the first of two mentions of Hill's BTCC appearance, then a deeper rephrasing of the 1993 season section, where his Pole Position in France was repeated and I felt the whole thing didn't quite read right. I haven't checked the whole article so there may be other bits that need doing. Anyway, hope I'm not treading on anyone's toes and that the end result is better than it started. Spiderlounge (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Damon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725091350/http://f1rejects.com/drivers/amati/biography.html to http://www.f1rejects.com/drivers/amati/biography.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/3641633.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Damon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707192047/http://www.autocoursegpa.com/team_entries.asp?teamsroot_id=8174&type=win to http://www.autocoursegpa.com/team_entries.asp?teamsroot_id=8174&type=win
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tv.com/damon-hill/person/72476/appearances.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Damon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/images/stories/DSA-documents/annual_review_06-07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210070135/http://www.btcc.net/html/history_driver_detail.php?id=31&PHPSESSID=7a022d867dfed7e131167400c7c5fae1 to http://www.btcc.net/html/history_driver_detail.php?id=31&PHPSESSID=7a022d867dfed7e131167400c7c5fae1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214154523/http://northampton.ac.uk/news/release/?id=UON9397 to http://www.northampton.ac.uk/news/release/?id=UON9397
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=General&id=37021&PO=37021
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113192230/http://www.planet-f1.com/features/6160612/Hill-shaken-by-hate-mails to http://www.planet-f1.com/features/6160612/Hill-shaken-by-hate-mails
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://brmday.co.uk/BRMDay60412.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Damon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407064758/http://www1.skysports.com/news/19494/7438312/ to http://www1.skysports.com/news/19494/7438312/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Damon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712221109/http://www.joshhillracing.com/ to http://www.joshhillracing.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Damon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130123042508/http://en.espnf1.com/arrows/motorsport/driver/1155.htm to http://en.espnf1.com/arrows/motorsport/driver/1155.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Early life in Mill Hill

I am a little confused. Damon lived a few doors down from me when we were children (he is older than me by 2 months). That was in Parkside Mill Hill. The family were there from the early sixties till the early 70s. Two references: The article on his father, plus a photo of his christening in 1961 from the daily mail. https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20200822/283089891524521 Joss (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

Regarding this edit: there does not appear to be anything to support that claim. MOS:INFONAT indicates that nationality should be left out when it can be inferred from birthplace. It has no exclusions according to section, template type, etc. Indeed subsequent discussion confirmed that INFONAT applies to sporting biographies. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

While sports biographies were mentioned in that last discussion, it did not conclude with a prohibtion on a representative nationality for formal international competitions. The discussion only dealt with the personal infotmation sections of infoboxes. Moreover, a sporting nationality can not simple be derived from a birthplace. Lastly, this is a featured article, so please stop edit-warring.Tvx1 21:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

As noted, INFONAT does not specify particular sections of the infobox, nor does it distinguish different types of nationality. Similarly, the discussion concluded that "When a biographical subject's country of birth matches that of their nationality, the infobox parameter |nationality= should not be used", end of. And yes, this is a featured article, meaning it is expected to follow MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop removing this information, stop edit-warring. You clearly do not understand the meaning of this information in race drivers’ infoboxes. It’s exactly the same as the “representing” fields in the basketballers infoboxes, dealt with in the INFONAT discussions or the “country” parameters for instance in the articles of tennis players. Sporting nationality was never mentioned at all in the INFONAT discussions, so you cannot claim a consensus in favor of removal. You are unilatterally enforcing an incorrect personal interpretation that literally no-one agrees with. As this a Featured Article, promoted WITH the content, your actions are extremely disruptive. So stop itTvx1 20:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As already noted, there was a central discussion on how this MOS applies to sporting biographies, which came to the conclusion that |nationality= should not be used in cases like this one where it matches country of birth - the quote above is directly from that closure, not my personal interpretation. Neither that discussion nor INFONAT itself were limited to specific "types" of nationality. If you think that limitation ought to be there you're welcome to take that to the MOS talk page to try to seek consensus, but at the moment it simply doesn't exist. As such, continuing to revert the update to present-day MOS is not appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As have pointed out again and again. This usage was NOT dealt with in any way in the INFONAT discussion. No-one agrees with your stance. Your wrong, please accept that.Tvx1 02:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a very narrow and impractical interpretation and clearly the implications of the change were not thought out that far. Even if the wording of INFONAT at present precluded representative nationality, IAR applies here. Removing this information is counterproductive. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:IAUIAR. The "narrow and impractical interpretation" here is looking at "When a biographical subject's country of birth matches that of their nationality, the infobox parameter |nationality= should not be used" and concluding that "oh, that really means only for certain cases, even though neither the closure nor the corresponding MOS ever specifies that". If you think the implications of the change were not thought through, feel free to bring your concerns to the MOS talk page; if the claims above are correct, you should have no problem getting consensus there for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion that resulted in WP:INFONAT completely neglected to consider representative nationalities, so it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the consensus doesn't impact representative nationalities. And this view point isn't unique to Formula One, consider the infobox of Usain Bolt. SSSB (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. Your interpretation is narrow and impractical and does not result in encyclopaedic improvement. You are equivocating representative nationality with nationality as indicative of country. The closure never specified it because it was never considered. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The closure also didn't specify it applies to women, Fijians, or left-handed people named Tim - because it doesn't need to, and to suggest otherwise is simply impractical. General MOS provisions apply to all pages and cases, absent specific exclusions or limitations. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That's because "women, Fijians, or left-handed people named Tim" aren't special cases that should have been considered in the both the discussions and the closure, representative nationalities are. SSSB (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

In your opinion. But you're not able to declare the MOS discussions and their results invalid because you don't feel your point of view was adequately defended there. Especially given that the link on nationality here states that it is identical to passport nationality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You really should have read the whole section: Drivers with multiple citizenship choose their "official" nationality., and This rule, however, has not been in force since the beginning of the Formula One World Championship. In the past, the choice of the nationality was up to the driver. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I read it. Those are not relevant here and the MOS already accounts for cases where nationality doesn't match birthplace. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You are actually applying MOS to something that wasn’t discussed at all.Tvx1 14:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually applying MOS and the discussion closure as written, rather than trying to invent distinctions that aren't there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The distinction is there. You just haven't acknowledged yet (presumably because of a lack of knowledge of this subject). The fact that three editors who are involved in editing these articles all agree that there is a distinction, and the only person who doesn't think there is a distinction lacks knowledge of the subject area means that there very clearly is a distinction. SSSB (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems your shared narrower perspective has led to overlooking the broader context. INFONAT, as a general MOS page, does not have the defaults you assume, and includes no carveouts for treating different "types" of nationality differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS states that flags can be used in infoboxes in cases of sporting nationality, which by extension, means that it is approporiate to indicate sporting nationality in infoboxes. INFONAT may not contain the caveat (because of an oversight in the discusssion) but other areas of MOS do. You may also want to direct your attention to my reply at the bottom of this thread (at time of writing) which is equally relevant.

MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE makes clear that flagicons are supplemental to text, not the other way around - it does not support adding a parameter for the purpose of including a flagicon, and where inclusion is controversial flags are to be excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question. During the discussion you keep hiding behind, examples like Toms Leimanis came up. His infobox includes a section showing results "representing Latvia". No-one during the entire discussion complained abut that. Likewise, the average athlete's infobox has a "representing country xyz section" listing the person's results in world and continental championships and alike. So why is it so unacceptable for you to do the same in race drivers' infoboxes by listing a section with the world championship results with the sports country. Simply because we decided to name the relevant parameter differently?? Your continued opposition here shows very cleary that you just don't understand what your talking about here.Tvx1 12:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

If you think this page ought to use {{MedalSport}} you're welcome to propose that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so you do acknowledge that representative nationality is distinct from nationality of the sort in the discussion. I think that settles the issue quite decisively. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I don’t think {{MedalSport}} ought to used by this page, because F1 is not a medal sport. We chose a more suitable way of presenting similar information for this type of world championship. What really should happen here, is you stopping to apply a section of MOS to something it was never intended to deal with.Tvx1 14:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion referenced above specifically concluded that it is intended to deal with the use of |nationality= in sporting biographies. Again, if you feel a particular argument was not brought forward to your satisfaction, you think there ought to be exceptions for particular classes of articles, or you just don't like that MOS as written, by all means take that up at MOS talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

But not sporting nationality, which is the issue here. You seem (based on previous comments) to be perfectly happy for {{Medal sport}} to be used, which indicates that your opposition is based purely on what the parameter is called, and how it is presented, rather than the information is portrays. In other words, your opposition is based on stylistic choice, not content, which is explicitly contradictory to what is mentioned at WP:MOS: "Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable.". SSSB (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect. The provisions around stylistic choice are for instances where more than one approach is valid under MOS; that is not the case for this matter, and a central discussion has confirmed that the disputed parameter should be excluded in the circumstances present here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

So can you explain what the difference is between our nationality parameter and the use of {{MedalSport}} in other articles (beyond stylistic choices) becuase to me they convey exactly the same information, just in a different way (which is a stylistic choice). SSSB (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree they represent the same concept, but in the end it doesn't matter: as noted, the provision on more than one acceptable format does not apply here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That's like saying you don't agree that the world is round. It also looks like you're admiting you can't explain the difference. Because there is none. Your objection isn't the presense of the parameter (otherwise you'd be taking this fight to every page that contains {{MedalSport}}), but the fact that the parameter displays as "nationality". The result is you are starting to come across as pedantic by refusing to acknowledge that the nationality parameter in the infoboxes means something completely different to the nationality parameter described WP:INFONAT. SSSB (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not a tenable interpretation - see below. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the central discussion did not confirm the disputed parameter should be excluded in the circumstances present here. The circumstances present here were not discussed at all in that central discussion. I really don't know what it will take to get that through to you. No one agrees with your stance, so why is it so difficult for you to admit your wrong.Tvx1 10:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"When a biographical subject's country of birth matches that of their nationality, the infobox parameter |nationality= should not be used." That is precisely the circumstance present here. I recognize that you are frustrated the closure was not more limited, but that doesn't change what it was. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No it's not. The parameter in this article represents something completely different to the parameter mentioned in INFONAT. SSSB (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Basically the parameter used here is |sporting nationality= shortened for practical reasons. Such a parameter was not discussed at all during the linked discussions.Tvx1 16:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if you ignore the fact that the discussion was about sporting biographies, this argument is still not valid under MOS: you can't have |nationality= here mean something different from |nationality= in other biographies. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The disucssion isn't about sporting biographies, it just used sporting biographies as it's main example. This also still doesn't mean that the nationality there is the same as the nationality here. The discussion clearly refers to personal nationality, not sporting nationality which are different concepts.

That being said, I acknowledge your point about MOS:INFOBOXUSE and would be open to discussing how to rename that parameter. However, this is a discussion that ought to take place at Wikipedia talk:Motorsport and you will have to be patient pending a conclusion that discussion. SSSB (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose whatever changes you wish to the template. But given that the |nationality= used presently cannot validly be considered to have a different meaning than the |nationality= referenced in the discussion, it's clear that it should be excluded here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but, |nationality here does mean something different to the |nationality in the discussion (even if it isn't "valid"), so it should stay while we decide on what to rename the paramenter. SSSB (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

And why couldn’t it possibly have a different meaning here? We’ve explained to you countless of times how it does. Stop your attitude and finally accept that no-one agrees with your stance.Tvx1 10:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:INFOBOXUSE, as above. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)