Talk:Lewis Hamilton/Archive 5

Pending reviews

Hi all

It seems to me that people are just trying to accept pending reviews in some vague attempt to "be the first"

THere have been four edits on the article which were accepted. (Diffs [1], [2], [3] and [4])

The second and third are fine but the first and fourth have allowed text containing weasel words and peacocking. As regular editors should people maybe have paid a bit more attention to the edit being accepted?

I appreciate that there is no need for a reviewer to be an "expert" but allowing peacocking and weasel words is surely not on.

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Reviewing process#Reviewing process, the flaws you name are not reasons to reject the edits. While I agree that the diffs you linked are not flawless, they weren't vandalism, BLP issues, legal threats, copyright violations, or related to the reason for page protection. It's the same as the choice between tagging a new page for speedy deletion or tagging it with a multiple issues template. -Sketchmoose (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe - but I am asking all reviewers to pay more attention to "fixing things" rather than just accepting a change and going off to do something less boring instead

The article is at GA status not Start, C or B but GA. MAybe it would be less of an impact to one of the other calsses but here the edits really did detract.

I spent a little time trying to rectify the matter and the results were extremely beneficial (IMHO lol). I realised fairly quickly the editor was new...

User_talk:Dman_F1 was met with the reply User_talk:Chaosdruid#F1_feedback

It seems to me that experienced editors, and lets face it you probably won't get reviewer rights unless experienced, should maybe spend a little more time on quality not quantity when it comes to reviewing.

Fine- as per guidelines accept, but then don't just run off leaving the mess behind. If a child drops it's ice cream on the grass one doesn't just pick it up and put it back in their hand one would pick off the bits of grass, twigs and ants before you let them eat it - well I hope ppl would anyway :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but I do disagree somewhat. This is a volunteer project, and editors can contribute to whatever extent and in whatever sort of tasks they choose.

I guess what I am saying is that I respect your viewpoint, but do not think that not adhering to it is an invalid method of contribution. I'm sorry if this method annoys you, but it's not wrong.

Also, I like the little nose character in that smiley face—does that come from alt+some number pad combination? -Sketchmoose (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope - the nose is the top left key on my keyboard the one with ` and ¦ (ctrl+alt) and ¬ (shift)

so can also use "and that makes me not very interested ¦¬[]" or "I find that offensive ¦¬(" - well I like them anyway lol
:) always reminds me of a pair of nostrils and makes me want to put the eyes in 8:)

I appreciate that this is a voluntary ethic but if a (voluntary) job is worth doing its worth doing well

I am not annoyed about it - I am more disheartened that so many articles that reach GA or FA end up being back to B, or sometimes even C class, fairly quickly. It is difficult to get to GA and FA standards and easy to allow them to fall down the scale. How many times do we see "A former Good Article" and wonder what went wrong - I just don't want that to happen

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I really like the "that makes me not very interested" and "I find that offensive" faces, as well as your commitment to good articles, which sentiments I will respectfully symbolize as ¦¬D. -Sketchmoose (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There's always Template:=) Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection?

I'm minded to raise the protection level to semi-protection, purely to keep newly registered racist vandals (probably just one person with lots of socks) from editing then article. It is regrettable that despite the clear notice that is displayed when editing the article we are still getting such racist vandalism to the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming refs

The use of "ref name=" is entirely in accordance with normal practice and allows the multiple use of the same reference within the article. The size of the article in kb is neither here nor there. If it is felt that the article should be reduced in size by splitting sections out, then by all means propose a split and gain consensus for it. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was remove the "ref name=" of single-mentioned references. I know it is probably a mistake, but I apologise for any harm done. In regards to a possible split, I don't feel that is necessary. A culling of race-by-race information is all I'm proposing in order for the article to not be too weighty in the future. Cs-wolves(talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No real harm was done. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The "ref name" tags that were removed by Cs-Wolves only occured once in the article, therefore removing them will not increase the length of the reflist in any way. I am well aware of the ref name system and how it works, but these ones in this article give unnecessary length to the article. Article size, however, is not the only issue; it confuses editors and makes them think that there is more than one point in the article that uses information from the source in question, when this is in fact not the case.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Those ref may only be used once at the moment, but should it be necessary to insert fresh info from a different source, having the refs named makes that process easier. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not when I was checking refs in the article earlier it wasn't. I spent a while checking for second refs to the same source when I was replacing unreliable sources; it took me a while to realise there was no other info referenced to the same reference. Also many of the ref name titles have strange names that are not obvious to someone new editing the article (like me). Some refs have got ref names and some haven't, which is also confusing for a new editor. For me it's just easier and less messy just to add them when needed. Cheers  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Flagicon in infobox

I saw my change removing the flagicons on the infoboxes had been reverted - but the guideline quoted to justify this was for use of a general flagicon use within the article (i.e. where someone represents a specific country at a sporting event), not for someone’s nationalities and not on their infobox – which has its own specific guidlines within the flags section;

"Avoid flag icons in infoboxes As a rule of thumb, flag icons should not be used infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (eg. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person) explicitly ban the use of flag icons."

If you feel a special case should be made for some individuals, please make the case on the WP:Flagicon talk page (there's been a discussion on there already for 'Flag in Infobox').

On a personal note I don’t disagree with the editor that flagicons are a nice visual aid - but I can understand why the general consensus has been to take them out for nationalities in infoboxes – so to try to ensure consistency across the encyclopaedia I've retaken them out.

Richardeast (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to ensure consistency across the encyclopedia, please remove them from the other 900 or so driver articles in the F1 wikiproject. Alternatively, leave them in. The guideline you quoted is a rule of thumb, not an explicit ban. The section you quoted specifically mentions certain infoboxes in which flagicons are banned, and sporting infoboxes are not among them. The F1 wikiproject consensus is to leave them in, and there is no guideline banning them. There is also no requirement that I can see to ask for special permission. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the general idea is to discuss things before making the changes that you want to make, not to make your change and then start a discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Have started the discussion in the WP:WikiProject Formula One - apologies Bretonbanquet if you feel it there wasn't a discussion, but wiki guidelines are written after extensive debate with large number of editors across the entire encyclopaedia. --Richardeast (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No apology necessary :) But the presence of these flagicons does not directly infringe any wiki ban on them, just a "rule of thumb", widely discussed at the wikiproject on a number of occasions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from James.wright.93, 12 June 2011

Lewis Hamilton retired from the Canadian GP 2011

James.wright.93 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. GaneshBhaktPublic (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Place of residence / taxes

Any mention of his move to Switzerland has been removed,, and any mention of his admission (on parkinson I think) that it was partially tax related, has been removed. I know it is typical of F1 drivers but if it was any other peoson it would be included somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.70.52 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

'Mixed Race'

Why was this even in the article? There is no need to point out that someone is black, white or mixed race in the article and it is surely enough to mention that his parents emmigrated. I've removed that section of the article as I don't think it contributes anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobsdad (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, of course, relevant when the subject is the first driver of mixed race heritage to compete in Formula One - it is of direct relevance to that aspect of his career and that element of his notability. I've restored that section - if consensus here emerges for its removal, then it can be removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it in a slightly different way - because his heritage was the subject of considerable discussion at the time he started his career in F1. Rightly or wrongly... 4u1e (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A very strange point of view and one demonstrating a complete lack of continuity within Wikipedia. Barack Obama is of ‘mixed race’ yet his Wikipedia article refers to him as ‘black’ i.e. America’s first black President. In addition, Lewis Hamilton himself refers to himself as being black. There are many people of mixed race in the world (i.e. American’s and Spanish, English and Irish) and it pointing out that Lewis is ‘mixed race’ here seems completely unnecessary as it would in the other examples. The least you could do is have the common decency to refer to him as he prefers. Jacobsdad (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We're all of mixed race. And we're all originally African and almost certainly black, if you go back far enough. Our guiding principle should be quite simple here: what appears in the usual references? (genuine question!). 4u1e (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make the blindest bit of difference what other articles say, or what Hamilton may or may not "prefer". Luckily, Wikipedia is not run according to what its subjects prefer. To answer 4u1e's question, there are references using both epithets, and this article also uses both epithets, all properly referenced. In fact it makes it completely clear, which what it is supposed to do in order to satisfy what people might want to know. We have to reflect the references, and at the moment, this article does that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't make the blindest bit of difference what other articles say" - of course it does, unless you are happy with a lack of continuity across Wikipedia. I'm afraid it's the so called "experts" like Bretonbanquet who continue to bring the quality of articles down here either due to ignorance or strange arrogance. Hell, the article even says that he is often referred to as the first black F1 driver and cites sources. Jacobsdad (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Continuity across a range of articles is of secondary importance to accuracy, particularly with regard to articles which have absolutely nothing in common with each other, like Barack Obama and this article. If you don't like that, then that's up to you. Another couple of things you may not like are WP:AGF and WP:NPA, which you've just violated. You don't get to disparage the intentions of other editors, and you'll find yourself blocked if you continue doing it. Not that insults like those will generally have any effect on your intended target anyway, of course. There are sources to say he's black, as we've said, and there are also sources to say he's mixed race. It's all in the article. You're asking to leave out the part that you don't like. You're a voice in the wilderness here, and the article stays as it is, unless you can raise some kind of consensus to change it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with me not liking the section and everything to do with a lack of continuity - I am not the only user to raise this issue. There's not chance of me being 'blocked' here just because you're upset that I disagree with you but I wish you the best of luck with that. Jacobsdad (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic but "played football with Ashley Young" should be Manchester United now not Aston Villa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.100.112 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is his parentage significant enough to go in the first paragraph? Is there something special about it that is not implied by being considered the first black F1 driver? Would it make a difference if his mother was black and his father was white? Do we know that his parents are not "mixed" or part Scottish or whatever? It seems to me that the important parts are: (a) he's a top notch driver, and (b) he's a bit of a pioneer. I guess my question is, ok, his dad's black & his mom's white: who cares? Does this enhance the reader's understanding of why Hamilton is significant? His parents are also covered later in the article, which seems to me to be where this information belongs. Jeffme (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's because it was a big deal at the time, as he is the first driver of mixed race heritage to compete in Formula One - it is of direct relevance to that aspect of his career and that element of his notability, which is not shared by any other top racing driver in any series. Yes, I think it does enhance the reader's understanding of why Hamilton is significant. "Mixed race" doesn't equal "black" for everyone. You are only the second person to question this in the six years he's been in F1, so we can assume that most people are happy with it. If a number of people also question it here, we can look at it more closely, but this part of the article is now very stable, which was not always the case. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I'm less focused on the "Mixed" part and more on the parentage. Shouldn't this introductory section also mention that he was the *youngest* F1 Driver's Champion at the time he won, in addition to being the first black F1 DC? Neither of these significant and pioneering accomplishments are mentioned, but his parents are. I believe discussing his parentage in the first paragraph is contrary to the Undue Weight policy, especially given that there is no other available summary of Hamilton (in any F1 coverage, ESPN profile, etc.) that considers this worthy of mention. Is there a significance - of his parentage - that I have missed? Jeffme (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've found this one pretty much straight away [5], and this [6] - don't forget this article should be aimed at people who aren't familiar with Formula One as well as those who are. I don't have a problem with adding that he was the youngest champion at the time, although some might say that this isn't as notable now that Vettel has taken that record. I suspect the fact that he's the first black champion is omitted because he's the only black champion, indeed the only black driver, so it's pretty much taken as read. It's not undue weight, because it was much talked about at the time, and as I say, a very big part of his (non-racing) profile in F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Breton - thanks for your patience in discussing this. I'm actually one of those people who isn't familiar with F1. I visited this page after watching Senna and digging into the F1 articles. This may be one of the reasons the references to his parents seemed so out of place to me. Using the references you've cited, one of them mentions his being the youngest champion ever at the time he won in the first paragraph. I'd suggest it is quite significant, given that that generated as much, if not more, coverage when he won the title than that he was black. Alonso's page mentions that he was the youngest when he won it quite prominently in its introductory section. And, if this page really is aimed at people who aren't familiar with Formula One, then the reader shouldn't be expected to know that he's still the only black driver. I didn't know that until you just mentioned it. So, I'd say that it's very significant that it mention that he *was* (not "is" as is referenced on the page) the 2008 F1 World Champion, that he was the first black WC ever, and also that he was the youngest at the time he did it. As to mentioning his parentage in the initial section, I would suggest that the 2 references you cited are primarily chronological in nature, are not ordered by significance, and shouldn't be used as justification for citing his parentage in the Wikipedia introduction. I'm only saying that there is undue weight of it being in the first paragraph. It seems very out of place there & no where near as significant as any other part of this introduction. Should I make the adds about being the youngest at the time and the first black F1 WC, or will you? Again, thanks for your humoring my questions with answers. Jeffme (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, that's what these talk pages are all about. I saw you made a good edit to the Senna article, well spotted. I think you could go ahead and add a mention of Hamilton being the youngest champion at the time of winning - good point about Alonso's page. Likewise adjusting the sentence to say he's still the only black driver. A common grammatical point though - he was the F1 World Champion, but he was, is and always will be the 2008 World Champion! We can disagree about the parentage issue being in the lead section, and see if anyone else chips in to this discussion. But in the meantime, yes, go ahead and add those other bits. Thanks for discussing it properly - not everybody does that ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jacobsdad and Jeffme, I think it does not deserve a paragraph in the lead section and is covered properly in the 'Personal life' section. Karpouzi (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't get a paragraph, it gets half a line. Or are you saying that the whole black driver thing should be in the personal section? It can't be split. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a paragraph in the lead section describing facts and aspects about his race. I think it should go. I think his background is covered properly in the 'Personal life' section. Karpouzi (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

His race is a huge part of his notability. If it's not massively significant that he's the first black driver in F1, then I don't know what is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Sepp1000, 23 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Most podiums in debut season: 12
• Most races led in debut season: 12
• Most front row starts in debut season: 12
• Fastest driver to reach 100 career points: 15 races
• Most consecutive points finishes from debut race: 9 - 2007 Australian GP - 2007 Brtitish GP
• Most consecutive number of races led from debut race: 7 - 2007 Australian GP - 2007 United States GP

Sorry I forgot it. Here is my reliable source.

http://www.f1hamilton.net/lewis-hamiltons-formula-1-record-breaking-rookie-season.html

Sorry

I absolutely agree with you in terms of the British records. But in my opinion the other records are totally correct and I think we have to put them in the article because these records are actually held by Hamilton. So we have to add them. Hope you agree.

Yeah, but when you look at Sebastian Vettel for example. One of the biggest, in my opinion the biggest reason that he became the youngest ever World Champion was his car, which was the best in the field. Or Micheal Schumacher: Would he be a seven-time-Worldchampion without his Ferrari? No. So, you see every driver who has any record, wouldn't had it without his car.

On the one hand we cannot say driver A's records we have to show because he is a so good driver and on the other hand driver B's records we don't have to show because his car is so good. That's not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepp1000 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Sepp1000 (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Spitfire19 ^T/_C 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the "Most points for a British driver in one season: 109" record is incorrect. He scored 240 points last season. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest not adding these, many of these stats are rather obscure. Most somethings achieved by a specific nationality type stats number in the thousands when Hamilton already has plenty of noteworthy statistics that are not dependant on nationality. --Falcadore (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Many of these records are still very obscure in their definition because they are reliant on the qualifier 'debut season'. The reason these records occur so rarely is not because of Hamilton's talent (which is undeniable) but because of the extroadinarily rare occasion that a rookie driver raced in a car capable of winning races. The most recent example of a driver being in such a position would be Jacques Villeneuve and prior to that you might have to go as far back as Mario Andretti. So these stats are completely dependant on a near twice in a generation happenstance. So essentially the notability of these statistics is more strongly associated with McLaren's decision to hire a rookie driver, than Hamilton's ability. So perhaps taking just one of these stats and adding it in sentence form to McLaren's article, or to the relevant Formula One season article would be more appropriate than further loading up Lewis Hamilton's article, and article already groaning with statistics.

Readability is more important than trivia. --Falcadore (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this link may help. --Falcadore (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:2011 China GP - Hamilton.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2011 China GP - Hamilton.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Struggling with less competitive cars.

Regarding about the last paragraph in the introduction: "Following his 2008 title Hamilton struggled with less competitive McLarens, in spite of taking quite a few Grand Prix wins he was not able to challenge for the 2009 championship, and finished a close fourth in 2010, being in mathematical contention until the final round." Is really necessary to point this out? I find it like a subjective justification to the bad seasons that he had after winning the 2008 WDC. For example I could say that Alonso or Vettel didn't win the 2008 WDC because their cars were uncompetitive too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganulu (talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Charity Work - Edit Request to add to Personal Life

I would like to add the below to Personal Life.

Hamilton is involved in charity work by way of The Lewis Hamilton Foundation (LHF). The Foundation is a non-profit making organisation focused on improving the lives and opportunities of children and young people who are living in ill health or poverty in the UK, Europe or developing countries.

Oogui (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

... biased; selective recall; omission --

... those encharged the task of editing this record do so, through rose colored glasses. Fallacy through omission, this record deliberately overlooks critical milestones. One, in particular: Lewis Hamilton is the most penalized driver, in Formula 1 history. By a significant margin. Biased herein, is painfully evident -- asj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.89.240 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Randomly passing by and slating an article is a sure way to get nothing done. Be more specific, and back yourself up with sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Two edit requests

I have two edit requests:

• The "Complete Formula One results" section is outdated. After his victory in the US, Lewis is in 4th place in the drivers standings with 190 points.
• There's a weird link to cyberoceanz.com (probably a personal blog of a fan) in the "External links" section.

83.80.170.157 (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the link, and I think someone else has addressed the results table issue. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Already done. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 00:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 November 2012

Under the "2010" section, the first line shouldn't have commas. Should read as: For the new season Hamilton would drive alongside Jenson Button after Heikki Kovalainen moved to Lotus Racing.[136]

In the first paragraph of the "2011" section, the word "penalty" is spelled incorrectly as "...20-second time penaltie post-race..."

As an aside, I would happily make an account here, but the policy of not allowing a name that is even similar to an existing username seems very silly indeed, so you just get my IP instead. 202.159.141.181 (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: - with this edit. I removed the comma which was obviously wrong, and corrected the typo, thanks for pointing that out. The other comma I left in - the second half of the sentence could be viewed as a parenthetical comment, which supports leaving it in, imo. Begoon ^talk 07:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2012

Lewis Hamilton will be car #10 according to 2013 FIA entry list. [7] 95.148.62.213 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. DH85868993 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)