User talk:Philby NZ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

I noticed that you made a number of nice expantions to German World War II fighter pilots. It is good practice to include inline references and maybe you could also add a Wiki link here and there. Keep up the nice work. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I think the first thing to learn here is to cite your work. Become familiar with this fast, in theory uncited information is subject for removal. Have a look at the Werner Mölders or Helmut Lent article. I basically wrote both and they reflect good practice as far as I understand it. I have my doubts that adding the victory table is sustainable in the long run. I had done this myself once (see Hans-Joachim Marseille). The feedback was of mixed nature. Enjoy MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi once more. Please allow me to give you some ideas what you want to consider moving forward. Due note that this is only a suggestion, I want to share with you what has helped me here on Wiki.

  1. Have a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment page. It explains how an article can progress through the various quality phases from a mere stub to a featured article (or featured list). Have a look at the various criteria here, it helps to get a notion of where you may want to improve your articles.
  2. A peer review is probably the best way to get structured feedback on your article from an experienced Wikipedian. This is how I learned a lot.
  3. You may want to follow the A-class review of Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot). This is an article in the domain of you interest and you may learn how other editors feel about the content of the article. The talk page of the article gives insight into the various quality classes and reviews the article has progressed through.

I hope this helps a little. Keep it up MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scheel and Schieß[edit]

I looked over your additions to the articles. I noticed the following which you should look out for.

  1. "Aces of the Luftwaffe website" be careful not to copy info 1:1. That would be considered a copy right vio and can lead to deletion. In extreme instances I have seen the article being removed.
  2. First use of a German term such as Jagdgeschwader 53 in an article. It is good practice to present it to the reader as Jagdgeschwader 53 (JG 53—53rd Fighter Wing). In some instances like Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross refrain from using Ritterkreuz. It is okay to present the German name once.
  3. Use of abbreviated terms such as JG 53 or Bf 109. Note that there is a blank. It is not JG53 or Bf109 not even JG-53 nor Bf-109.
  4. Date format: On military articles it is DD MM YYYY.

I hope you don't mind me pointing these things out to you. These are just things I had learned or found out to be working well here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Seiler[edit]

Nice additions! I broke up the text into sections for ease of reading. You may want to add a few more citations and have it assessed againt our B-class citeria here. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the beer[edit]

I just noticed your edit pop up at Listen to Wikipedia. Since it was such a large edit I clicked it to see what it was, and seeing it was full of valuable and well sourced information I just pressed the "thank" button next to the edit in the page history. No big deal. When it comes to D&D articles I haven't been particularily active since around the time 4th edition was released. Maybe when Next has its official release I will contribute more again.--Ifrit (Talk) 02:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I liked 4th quite a bit. What I meant was since information from 4th was edited into various articles I haven't found much to do. I know a fair bit about Next, mostly from listening to podcasts/ watching live games, like the ones the Penny Arcade/PVP guys, Wil Wheaton and Patrick Rothfuss were in. I recommend them quite a bit and can give you links if you so want them. --Ifrit (Talk) 04:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2015 USC[edit]

I reverted because I was concerned that there was going to be a format drift, when detailing the rounds in the column. Initially, it looks like it was going to a tooltip setup, with 3 rounds listed as such, with the rounds detailed when hovered across. However, when you had input rounds for Sebring, it had became 2, 3 with the tooltips still listed. I'm not concerned with which method is listed, but I am concerned as to having two different methods on the one page. Hope that helps! Craig(talk) 06:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jano engined V12s[edit]

Hi, thank You for pointing that out. Reason to change was that I just finished researching and writing Ferrari Jano engines, and so had to update related articles. Engine in 335 S rated at 390 PS (not 390 hp as italians use instead of PS) was later uprated for 412 MI at 447 PS and late downrated to 432 PS in 412 S sports car. All of them were tipo 141 but with different carbs and compression. Same data on barchetta.cc. YBSOne (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair'nuf. Tho I would recommend adding a conversion factor from PS to bhp, as I do for km to miles / kph to mph, for the American audience here Philby NZ (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Montier[edit]

Hi. I'm working on a draft article about Charles Montier. It should be finished soon (and I hope you'll like it!). Whilst working on the article I have been reading all mentions of him on Wikipedia in an endeavour to find sources I can cite in my article. During my visits, I have linked to the planned article so that I don't have to go back through each page and do it all again. This is not only allowed but encouraged by WP:REDLINK.

Of course, one shouldn't add red links to disambiguation pages and so on, but I haven't been doing that.

I'd be grateful if you refrain from undoing my edits as it will just cause me more work putting the links back when the article is ready. Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingboyk: hi Steve, thanks for getting in touch and thanks for your explanation. I'm happy to work with you here, and it will great to have a page about the Montier family. Sorry for the counter-editing, but I've had a few aimless/disruptive edits to pages I've worked on in the past spreading inaccuracies. But I look forward to reading about Charles and if you need more info, please drop me a line. Philby NZ (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phil, Thanks and good to meet to you. The article about Charles is published already if you'd like to check it out. I've nominated it for "Did you know?" on the front page as it's quite an interesting story really (at least, I think so).
Charles came to my attention when I was working through requested deletions last year and came across a stub about the steam car he built. That had to go, but looking into it and him I thought "the car may not be notable, but the guy has to be, and worth writing about!"
I'll be monitoring the article and it's talk page for a while if you have any issues or feedback, at least until the DYK submission has been accepted or declined. (I don't use the watchlist any more)
Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about early Le Mans articles[edit]

Hi Philby. Great job expanding these articles! I do have a few questions though:

  • For the Triennale and Biennale cups (eg edit: specifically on 1925 24 Hours of Le Mans) why have you determined the winner based on the total number of laps they exceeded the target for each year as opposed to just the final year? This goes against Spurring's book (at least my 2015 edition) which suggests it was only the amount they exceeded their target in the final year. Is this from a different source?
  • For 1925 you have that the #50 Chenard-Walcker exceeded its target by just 14 laps but wasn't this the #49? - Edit:this is just a typo, I'll shortly fix the article.
  • For the years where there was officially no classes, do you think we should remove this column? I'd take this to the Sportscar racing wikiproject but I've had very little luck there in the past!

Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ I was wondering about the class column too, when adding a results table to Charles Montier, as I read somewhere there were no official classes in the early years yet there are frequent mentions of class in the articles. I was advised to base "my" tables on this so I've included the class. If you decide they should go can you remove from the Montier article too please, or ping me? --kingboyk (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2:@Kingboyk: hi guys, thanks for dropping me a line. Yes, this had always been a bit confusing for me - it got clearer as I read later race histories in Spurring's books that it was, in fact, only the final races that awarded the multi-year trophies. As you say, the previous races in effect only provided the "golden ticket" to get entry to that decisive race. A peculiar format I have not seen repeated by other race events. So I have gone through and corrected the 1925 page accordingly.
As regards, the class categories, you are totally correct - there were no official distinctions of entrants, including any by engine-size until the 1930s. However, I chose to put in the nearest equivalent of engine-class from when that did come into effect to at least provide a bit of context to the individual results. I've now added notes to that effect by way of explanation. Will that help do you think? Philby NZ (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me mate. --kingboyk (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep all good. I suppose keeping the classes with a note is fine. It's a bit weird really that they are prevalent in modern sources though. A7V2 (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Seriously thank you for working on this section of history in motorsports. Smokey Whitetail (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also give you sincere thanks for improving these pages; it's no easy task and I'm incredibly glad you've done it for this community. I was wondering, are you thinking of continuing to work on the years of motor racing between 1925 and 1939? Johannes275 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes275: thanks guys, nice to know its appreciated. It is quite rewarding reading the bundle of books and then assimilating all the detail into one coherent article. Yes, most certainly, the ultimate aim is to go all the way through up to around 2000 (when the books generally cut out!) and add as and where required. As well as individual GP races, as I did with the 1914 French GP. Obviously a huge pile - made bigger since Hans Etzrodt's awesome website kicks in as of 1925 too. But its good to have a goal haha - Philby NZ (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks[edit]

Hi Philby,

Good work on your truly enormous edits to the Grand Prix season articles! One thing I'll mention though is there's no need to remove all the redlinks. From Wikipedia:Red link, redlinks are fine as even if it's unlikely an article will ever be made, at least if the article IS made then there's already going to be links to it (I'm referring in particular to the "report" column of the season articles but from what I can tell you don't ever put in any red links). Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A7V2: hi there, yes, a very good point. I was just thinking of that myself looking at the page. Thanks for going through and reverting those. I have updated my template for future pages accordingly Philby NZ (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1920s Grand Prix pages -- one small addition I'd like to suggest[edit]

Hello, Philby. Hope you're doing well! I would again like to extend thanks to you for your contribution to the Grand Prix pages of before and after World War I. Though in reading of the early 1920s pages, I was thinking of something that could potentially be an interesting add-on, but I want to run it by you.

Do you think it would be possible to add the drivers that drove for each manufacturer across each season? It could be messy, but I believe it would be interesting to, like the modern Formula 1 pages, have a proper account of who is driving for which manufacturer in the year. I was thinking it could be possible to implement this table in conjunction with the technical specifications table, where all of the main manufacturers of the year are already listed.

What do you think of this? It's totally fine if you don't want to implement this idea, and if you have a better implementation, please feel free to let me know. Cheers! Johannes275 (talk) (18:57 UTC)

@Johannes275: thanks again. This work-from-home deal has really benefited my Wikipedia writing, as I only have to commute from the bedroom to the lounge now!
Like your idea about driver-lists. There are a couple of issues related to that: Most drivers were privateers at this time and there were few works-teams, or even independent teams. Then there is the matter of what races should be included. We could certainly tabulate the drivers entered by the works teams in the Manufacturers Championship in the late20s-30s. Possibly also include a list of drivers by team at other, non-championship races if there was an official works entry presence. Its information I have already compiled on my year-by-year tabs on my homemade racing spreadsheets :Otherwise, I think we may need to fall back on Wiki-pages of individual races to list all drivers, not just works-teams, and the cars they entered. It was really only with the demise of non-Championship races in the '70s that the F1 scene got codified enough to lock in drivers with given teams, up till then it was very fluid, but certainly not undocumentable. What do you think?
Meanwhile, I can certainly start including this in the pages as I put them together - I'm currently working through the 1926 season.
ps have really appeciated your WeatherTech Championship write-ups - they are go-to pages for me to get updates and information, as I have a great interest in the excellent racing there and a local-pride watching the progress of Earl Bamber and Scott Dixon, and other sporadic kiwis in the series. Philby NZ (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philby NZ: I really like that idea! And yes, I was only thinking of manufacturer-contracted drivers; listing *every* driver would be far too much of a mess. And thanks for the shoutout on the IMSA articles! I've dedicated lots of time to them, and I hope to get started again soon once there is fresh news to speak of for the series! Johannes275 (talk) 11 May 2020, 16:08 UTC

1927 Grand Prix Season: Two interesting questions[edit]

Hello! Hope you're doing well Philby! I again want to reach out to you and thank you for all of the hard work that you've done on the early days of motorsport, especially in the Grand Prix and Le Mans sects.

I was reaching out because I wanted to ask two things, in regards to the most recent page, the 1927 one.

First of all, I noticed that you had mentioned the Type 37A variant of the Type 35 series under all the major manufacturers' race cars, instead of the Type 39A variant, which the Bugatti factory team used in the World Championship. I was wondering if you wanted to highlight a new variant Bugatti had brought out in 1927, which is indeed the case with the 37A variant, or if there was another special reason behind choosing the 37A over the 39A?

Second, I also noticed you highlighted the Grand Prix of Rome as a major event in the non-championship section of races. I know that Leif Snellman's awesome website has mentioned this as an important race as well, and you are presumably following what your sources are saying here, which is fine. However, on closer inspection (and this may be worth longer discussion) I was wondering if that really is major enough of a race given the context of the year? I know it is a milestone win for a future masterclass driver in Nuvolari, but aside from that the race's entries don't seem major enough to warrant being highlighted for me.

So those are the two minor nitpicks/questions I wanted to write to you about. Again, thanks very much for your incredible contribution, and thank you for adopting my suggestion of a table for the important entries at the major races; I think that adds a lot to the overall read of the articles.

Cheers! Johannes275 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes275: hi there, thanks again for the positive feedback. Been awhile as I got distracted with other projects, but I'm back in the zone again and now working on 1928. In answer to your two questions, the first is the easier - I did give the details of the Type 39A in the 1926 season, and the Type 37A in 1927. Though I try not to repeat the information, when the car model is regularly carried over into the next season I can see it makes sense to repeat the data. At the least it gives context and comparison for progressive advancement.
As regards the Rome GP, you are right, that I do follow Snellman's tables. There wasn't any works involvement, which is another key decider I use. The other one is the presence of the main racing protagonists of the season, and where they chose to race in the increasingly crowded race-schedule. So you are right that it is getting quite borderline. I had also just been wondering why I had left out the Milan GP with Fiat's epic win when it had very similar criteria. The final point I try to show is to have around about a dozen Races of Significance, as a minimum, for a season if possible (without scratching around for any contest in lean years like 1920, or compared to the crowded (bloated?) seasons we have now in F1) What do you think, I value your input on this? Philby NZ (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that there is quite a divide apparent between where the Italian drivers and the French/British drivers raced (let alone the American ones!). Not just in racing-cars, but also sports-cars (e.g. Le Mans). Their races only rarely intersected outside of the Championship or international Grands Prix, so when they did it tended to be significant (like the Targa Florio). The German drivers tended to float between the two groups. But another factor I try to bear in mind is not to weight the list of Major Races heavily to either favour "just" Italian races, or "just" French races Philby NZ (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philby NZ: I personally think that having a core audience of 12 races is a very good target number to have. It just depends on how many races have the main protagonists, even tangentially related to the race. Its not that you should favor a certain country in deciding the major non-championship events, more that you should acknowledge where the most competitive scenes were for the time. And indeed, there was quite a lack of intersection of racing in the coming years after this one! I personally attribute this to a lack of interest from big-money, mainstream manufacturers in Grand Prix racing at the end of 1927, followed by the rules that were decided on, while not being the worst ones in the world (in 1928's case, anyway, we don't talk about 1929!), weren't enticing enough for organizations within countries to run races internationally. Again, thanks for the clarification! Johannes275 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1929 Grand Prix Season: Several small tidbits for feedback[edit]

Hello Philby! It's Johannes again, and I want to thank you again for your work on the most recent Grand Prix years, 1928 looks absolutely stellar and 1929 has gotten off to a really good start! Though, as an avid racing historian/buff of these times, I do have some small pieces of feedback for your first edit.

Firstly: You introduce the page by saying Louis Chiron was one of the dominant drivers of the year alongside William Grover-Williams. I am fine with your description of the latter, however I am not sure why you included Louis Chiron as one of the two drivers in that example. For one thing, he only really participated in two races during the 1929 season: The Indianapolis 500 and the Spanish Grand Prix. Granted, he did do pretty decently in both of those events, especially winning the latter, however I'm not sure if he is an appropriate choice over the likes of someone like Achille Varzi or Gastone Brilli-Peri, drivers who, despite doing well mostly in their home country, had so much more high-profile success during 1929.

Second: The technical regulations of 1929 mandating minimum weight of 500 kilograms. This is a bit odd, because from what I've seen in the Leif Snellman/Hans Etzrodt report of 1929, they specify a minimum weight of 900 kilograms. What source said 500 kilograms? Just a curious question.

This is just some constructive criticism, and any clarification would be great! Cheers! -Johannes275

@Johannes275:Hi there, thanks for dropping me a line.I do get a bit impatient with getting the information compiled and set up. So have started putting up the tables first before the narrative is completed. Your comments about Chiron are totally valid and this intro is what I inherited from the original article. I haven't updated that yet (and usually do it last once I know the whole shape of the rest of the article). Didn';t get as much done over the Le Mans weekend as I thought I would haha.
And yes, I had spotted that discrepancy of 500 vs 900kg and am looking into it. It comes from a book source, but as a throwaway line, and I too am more inclined to go with Snellman & Etzrodt's greater depth of research. I'm looking for another corroborating reference. Cheers mate Philby NZ (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1930 Grand Prix Season -- feedback[edit]

Hello Philby, I hope you are doing well at the moment! Just finished reading up on your work on 1930, and I would just like to reiterate my sentiment that you're always doing an amazing job with this stuff, and I hope you keep it up!

That said, I have one thing to ask you. How long are you planning to cover the Indianapolis 500 for? Because, by the time 1930 rolls around, it's become pretty separate from the Grand Prix racing scene in Europe, so I'm just curious to see what you'll do about it.

Looking forward to 1931, because that is a huge year to cover, and again, if you need any help with research feel free to drop a message by me.

Cheers! 

- Johannes 275
@Johannes275:Hi there, once again thanks very much for your positive words. I've started doodling on 1931 while watching the Sebring 12-hour on IMSA YouTube replay - a very good race with a good heft of controversy thrown in! the Grands Prix have almost caught up with my Le Mans reports (1933) so i can integrate the reading for both events at once. You are quite right with your comment about the Indy 500 and I have thought exactly the same. Although Snellman/Etzrodt say the AIACR still rated the race as a Grande Epreuve in 1931, henceforth I was not going to give an extensive race review in the commentary. Instead, I'll just give it a mention in the races/winners list at the start of each article. The change in AAA regulations in 1930 effectively removed the last connection with Grand Prix racing. I kept that race in the 1930 article to show the "handover" from old to new.
As always, you're absolutely welcome to add/refine the detials from your good source material. More information is good information!! Looks like the 2021 Weathertech Championship is a big year of change - and I'm looking forward to reading about it in your article!
cheers Philby NZ (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1931 & 1932 Grand Prix season -- feedback & suggestions[edit]

Hello Philby, good to see you're keeping up with the research so far! I just want to say I'm thrilled with how the 1931 article came out, and I am looking forward to see what you have in store for 1932, as that one is equally as much of a spicy season to cover with the Alfa Romeo domination!

I have a bit of a suggestion for the 1932 season, though. Have you considered discussing intra-team politics at this point? We are coming quite close to the Silver Arrows period of Grand Prix racing, where some of the most interesting story-lines come from the team management and driver prioritization. I'd recommend taking a deeper look at Alfa Romeo's Aldo Giovannini, for example. From what I've been able to gather he was an incredible racing director, especially as the 1932 season's Alfa Romeo domination shows. He was a very good role model for the aspiring Enzo Ferrari at the time, so it would be great if you could shed some light on the man which hasn't been shed by main internet sources, as well as what decisions he made in the 1932 season because they are very interesting and worth noting. It's entirely up to you, though, and I enjoy reading what you have prepared.

Cheers! Johannes275 (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC) P.S, I hope you've been following along with the 2021 24 Hours of Daytona so far! I'm trying my best to keep Wikipedia up to date with this race because I'm personally very excited to watch it.[reply]

@Johannes275:Hi John, thanks for the positive review!  :) Glad you found it informative - it was my longest article so far, yet still this period only gets 5% of the views of current seasons haha but that's never the point of doing these seasons! Yes, I have started work on 1932. I hadn't really considered going into the non-driver personalities and haven't read much about Giovannini as yet. I'll see what I can bring into the article, but you should add in better detail to improve the article. After all, my point has always been to provide context beyond bare numbers and race detail.
Good man for updating the 2021 series, yes I am also looking forward to Daytona, Hindy and Rooftop Ray. Lucky we have a holiday weekend here in Auckland so I hope to see most of the race from afternoon into the night and back again. Philby NZ (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive[edit]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Results tables prior to Formula 1[edit]

Hello Philby, glad you have been able to finish the 1932 season!

Re: The possibility of major race information as a separate table -- yes, I think that could be an excellent idea! I do think the only solution that prevents massive, unnecessary clutter is to have previously-labelled major races to count towards a non-championship results table. It would also be easier to read if it were a table underneath the championship table, rather than to the right of it.

Indeed, we wouldn't need to differentiate points, but I believe I have an alternative solution: order by number of (1st place finishes + all podiums), then (2nd place finishes + all podiums), then (3rd place finishes), then (all finished races). That should allow for the naturally better drivers of the season to remain on top in an informative fashion.

I can definitely get started on working on the results table, while including a bit more information besides the finishing position (such as fastest lap and fastest practice time to give a better picture of who did well during the races). Overall, a very good idea that I can see working well. However, I do have one suggestion in return. I've noticed that, if you aren't reading the race report section all in one sitting, the paragraphs get long-winded and it can be hard to pick up from where you left off. Perhaps a good solution to this would be to add:

A subsection of this size[edit]

At the start of each paragraph that determines a new race, to differentiate each race and make the season-long report easier to follow? Just a suggestion that I hope you'll consider.

Anyways, thanks for your work on the 1932 season, it is very good as always, and I'm really enjoying the small inclusion of the influence of team managers on the season outcome. There's plenty more on that front for 1933, especially with the Ferrari vs. Nuvolari saga, and even the 1933 Tripoli Grand Prix. Also I hope you appreciate the small header I gave for the 1933 season!

Cheers! -- Johannes275

Results tables: substitute for pole position?[edit]

Hey Philby! I hope this message finds you well. I really like the results tables, I believe they are conveyed in a concise manner, and show the guys with the best results on top. The only thing I'd provide for feedback is try and show more people with multiple races near the top, so that it looks less like a staircase of one-off results (maybe still sorted by best result, but prioritize the main characters, so to speak, across a whole season?).

I am also suggesting something of my own addition, which I would like to run by you first: Perhaps we can add a bold alongside the fastest lap italic that you've already added? I know that, traditionally, racing results tables indicate the person starting on pole position in bold, however it is clear that in the early days of motor racing most, if not all, races had their starting grids drawn randomly with no regard to the performance of the actual cars. So I thought it would be a clever substitute for pole position to highlight the driver that was in the lead at the very start of the race, since that's the closest thing we can get back then to a natural full performance evaluation that a qualifying/practice session gives. This is partly because nearly every starter finishes the first lap, so the true pace makes itself known, and it isn't necessarily clouded in reliability like the rest of the race is. And like I said, I thought this would be a neat little addition.

I'm just wondering if you like this idea or not? I understand that it's a grey area and not every race mentioned, such as the Indianapolis 500, had random grid draws. I just personally feel the table wouldn't be complete without indicating opening advantage in some way like pole position does. Other than that, I have a couple of important questions:

Why do you consider the Grand Prix de la Marne as an important race in 1928? A lot of the entrants were amateurs, it was nowhere near an international-calibre race aside from Louis Chiron being there. Same is true of the Junior Car Club of 1927. I can only really see Malcolm Campbell as a world class driver there. Just my opinion of course, and it should not affect your placement.

Cheers! Johannes275 (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannes275: Hi John, Thanks for dropping me a line. An interesting discussion on your talkpage about the pole position/opening lap option. Its good to have several points of view from interested participants. As regards the 1927 & 1928 seasons, i was mindful that there was a very heavy focus on the Italian races, almost to the exclusion of all other countries. So it was a bit subjective that I chose the Marne GP just to add some further awareness of other major motoring countries and that not everything revolved around the Italian Championship (just most things did!). Otherwise, with the cancelled French GP there would be no Gallic representation on the chart. It did include Chiron and his dominant Bugatti and was to become a significant race in the future. Perhaps another option could have been the Antibes GP which had Chiron & Williams' Bugattis as well as works entries from the voiteurette teams of Salmson, Amilcar and BNC. And with only 10 race columns, I didn't think it was getting too cumbersome - certainly 13-15 races is really starting to push race-data overload (let alone 20+ in the bloated modern F1 series !!) And it is a similar reason for 1927, the 2nd British race was a subjective choice to allow two entries for several (under-represented) British drivers, and was a race where again there was voiteurette works interest. These were possibly the last few years of the significance of voiteurette racing, which had been a staple of motorposrt in the early 1920s as GP racing struggled to hold anyone's attention, and would soon fade with the explosion of interst with the 750kg formula of the 30s. Hope that makes sense, though I am prepared to be convinced otherwise, haha. Meanwhile, certainly enjoying the Kiwis' impact at the start of the Indycar season! Philby NZ (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay[edit]

Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philby_NZ&oldid=1219852266"