User talk:Bretonbanquet

For previous episodes of Talk Page hilarity, see [[User:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive]] / [[User:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive 2|2]] / [[User:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive 3|3]] / [[User:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive 4|4]] / [[User:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive 5|5]] == Lolas & Lotuses et al == I thought it might be best to start a new thread!! Sorry if that's not to your liking... Yes the [[:lotus 64]] was a shambles. I left it as it was and when DH did some minor CE, I did some more and tidied it a bit. Yes..sigh of relief.. The draft has gone. I guarantee it will be back in a talk-page next weekend...if you don't get to it first that it is. The discussion I commented on is [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lola LC87 (2nd nomination)|here]]. I tagged the Lola LC88 for refs and I see you've had a do of it too. Tomorrow I'll use Small to add a source row to the table. Hopefully Andy won't carry on trying to get it deleted. He's lucky no-one reported him really; put the notice back three times I think. Thanks for looking at the Pilbeam, did you have any preference for image. Same car different camera 1 year apart. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC) :Oh FFS Andy has proposed the [[:Lola LC88]] at AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lola LC88|here]]. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 11:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC) ::Good idea :) I must archive this page at some point. Lotus 64 is an example of a car I wouldn't necessarily believe has inherent notability, but it's not my particular area of expertise (assuming I have one!) so I am looking forward to how that one turns out. I'll start on LC87 when I get back to Cornwall for Christmas (all my books are there...) and if LC88 hasn't been deleted (sigh) I'll do the same with that one. I don't think Andy will succeed in getting that deleted as he's already 3–1 down in stark "voting" terms and nobody's supported him yet. I'll admit I bristled somewhat at the suggestion that we wanted LC87 deleted as revenge for the IP annoying us. Shame Andy couldn't see just how much time we've had to put in clearing up that IP's crap. I think if Andy was aware of the whole picture, he'd be more sympathetic. Pilbeam - both pictures are decent (could use both?) but I prefer the top one. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 01:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC) :::Thanks, yes I think the 64 is probably not notable really, but when I go to look something up and it's a re-direct to a main-page I feel disappointed, cos I think 'it should be there'. But that's not the way of things... I've moved the Pilbeam to mainspace, thanks again for help. As a result of the Pilbeam article I started one on the BRM P201 he designed but in view of current grumbles I wonder about its notability in the long term. Never mind, I've got 2 footballers and 2 motorbikes in draft. Yes I agree Andy doesn't realise how much work the bloke makes for others. Really, I feel he didn't get his own way on the 87 and this AfD he started is a tad petulant. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 04:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC) ::::I'm pausing any intentions to create car articles until there's a bit more clarity on what is considered notable (or desirable) and what isn't. I'm not keen on creating things that people who don't write articles are going to bitch about and try to get deleted. That said, I am still aiming to do a Surtees article or two. I agree that the current AfD is a bit pointy; hopefully it'll get nowhere. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 23:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC) :::::I've had a (semi) wiki-break myself over the last few days. I often find editing quite difficult (and a little depressing) and some RL problems are starting to interfere too! I did notice IP return once or twice and see he's had a go at adding refs. Maybe he's beginning to get the idea? [[:Lotus 76]] needs looking at I think. On another point if you get a minute can you look at [[:Ford Mustang (fourth generation)]] where another editor seems confused about the meaning of RHD & LHD...seems to think America is RHD! (Just to make sure it's not me and I've not gone completely wiki-barking!!) I uploaded a Surtees TS11 (in F5000 form) pic to commons recently. It's not very good but there might be a use for it sometime. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 15:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC) :::::OK it's not me — woken up now! — Provided info for the other editor. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 16:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC) {{od}}Heads up, [[:Draft:Lola LC87]]. Here we go again. :P [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 21:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC) ::::::Oh, real life! I'd forgotten all about that ;) Ugh, so he's recreated the LC87 article; that's going to get short shrift once certain people see it. I don't hold out much hope that it'll be any better than his last attempt, and also it probably means he isn't going away. Ho hum... Lotus 76: I see he can actually add references then! I suspect he copied that from our references at [[:Lola T370]]. You're right, it still needs some work although you've improved it somewhat already. I see you schooled that other fellow about left- and right-hand drive. No wonder he blanked his talk page; I wouldn't want to look a complete tool on my talk page either! It's the kind of thing that might make you think you were going mad though, haha... I'm sure that Surtees pic will come in handy. I'm hoping to do a fair bit of work over Christmas. Famous last words! [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 22:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC) ::::::::Taki has gone a bit mad adding refs like he used to add images. Is there such a thing as over-referencing?! The new draft is almost as ungrammatical as the last one. You're right, Robert McL or SwisterTwister (or whoever) will like as not reject it again. IP won't understand why it's wrong and keep on re-submitting it till someone gets tired & tags it I 'spose. Yes, I think he's looked at the GH1 & T370 pages and the penny if not actually dropped is teetering on the edge a bit. He's gone back to some of the other pages too, adding refs. but has a new habit of removing refs tags without actually adding any... :::::::The lad with the RHD etc. was confusing steering position with side of the road, but even after I tried to explain in an edit summary, he still changed it back. Oh, Taki has created a talk page for [[:March 711]], currently a re-direct, so we know where he's going to spring up again soon I suppose. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 23:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC) ::::::::His referencing is at best hamfisted. It's like he doesn't understand what he's doing, so he's doing as much of it as he can in the hopes that some of it will turn out to be right. The fact that he removes referencing tags without adding references sort of confirms that, I think. March 711, well, I can't wait. There's no beginning to this guy's talents. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 22:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC) :::::::::Oh! Tidy-up! Well Taki hasn't reappeared as yet unless he's just not popped up on the watchlist recently. Tomorrow's Saturday usually one of his days for editing. You're right, his editing method is throw stuff, see what sticks. Some of the refs he's done have been OK — think it's right to say he's followed some of the other articles where they've had citations added later. The review of the second LC87 draft seems to be taking a while. My last one a couple of days ago was reviewed in minutes (in mainspace with review tag rather than AfC). Following a lot of BRM editing recently I looked at [[:Louis Stanley]] and was surprised to find it is only one line... quite an important bloke back in the day... if rather 'blimpish'. Therefore I have re-done it in a sandbox (again) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eagleash/sandbox/2 here]. Would you mind taking a look at it if you feel so inclined. Thanks...I know I'll have to remove the link to Amazon...it's only there for my own information. He has 6 pages worth of books he wrote listed there! [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 00:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC) {{outdent}} Thought it was about time! That LC87 draft has no chance as it stands. It really shouldn't be given a chance at all after the last debacle. I wonder what it will take to subdue Taki. Your draft of Louis Stanley is miles, miles better than the stub we have right now. I had no idea it was that skimpy. Stanley was, broadly speaking, a good egg. As you've outlined, he made some good strides in F1 safety and we should make a big deal of that in his article, I think. I swear I have a book either by or about him - let me pause for reflection for a second - quite possibly "Strictly Off the Record". I will try to dig it out over Christmas. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC) :Taki returned today [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.106.232.69 here] added lots of refs and some other bits and bobs...some of which have been cleaned up. But... then there's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Matra_Sports this]. Another talk-page template!! I was half tempted to CSD it but it could be useful (like the Surtees one) but I think the title's wrong (?) and did Stewie Jackpot actually drive for Matra? I thought it was the Tyrrell run cars only. Stanley had his detractors, after '62 BRM was a bit of a laughing stock really, but as you say, he kicked off the safety stuff. Also I kept away from the lurid allegations in the Bobbie Neale book (his step-daughter). Think Savile..... & her claims to have 'proved' the long-standing rumours that he was fathered by Asquith... I bought one of the Stanley authored year annuals (1968) off Amazon today (3 quid). Just for the hell of it really. Seasons greetings. Don't work ''too'' hard on those Lola & Surtees pages... [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 23:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC) ::Taki is a relentless Wiki force that refuses to be tamed. Ugh. He gets around, doesn't he? I agree that the Matra template could be useful (should be "Equipe Matra Sports", no?) I think Sir JYS had two seasons at Matra (68-69) while it was ''technically'' Matra (particulary '68), although Ken was running the show. Semantics, I guess. Yeah, Stanley was never able to achieve huge amounts with BRM, and the Stanley-BRM days are best forgotten. [[:BRM P207|P207]], anybody? Ooohh, lurid allegations. I guess Wikipedia isn't really in the business of repeating lurid allegations unless they have really amounted to something like a court case or something concrete. Probably best that way. I buy many motor racing books just for the hell of it - some have turned out to be incredibly useful! I'm heading back to Cornwall tomorrow for much merriment and festive alcoholism, but I shall be making time for constructive contributions here. I hope! Have a fine time yourself :) [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 21:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC) :::Cornwall....last time I was there, the aforementioned Jackpot won the title... As for Taki [[Draft:Iso-Marlboro FX3B|oh dear no!]]. That'll get short shrift too I think. I moved the Matra template (re-named) to mainspace and will eventually add it to the pages. I'm still keeping a note of all his IPs... not sure if it's necessary anymore. He's up to more than forty now and it sometimes changes twice a day. TBH his efforts are (I think) getting better... maybe he'll be useful one day!! We never did anything about the Amon AF101 page either... were going to merge... Happy yuletide editng! [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 16:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC) :::And [[Draft:Williams FW|this]]: I wish SanTaki wouldn't keep leaving presents [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 02:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC) ::::Oh God. I see he's made a few edits to driver articles renaming these cars - I'll revert those. He has no idea which names were which, or what to call these articles. That's before we get to deciding whether or not we even need them. The Williams FW could probably use an article, but the FX3? Hmm... I'll merge AF101 while I'm thinking of it. Hope you're having a decent festive period! [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 11:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC) ::::Merged the Amon articles; you might want to check it for repetition and other glaring errors! [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 12:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC) :::::The FX3 and FW articles have been accepted and tidied a bit. The FX3 page could just be merged with a Williams page I think... And yes according to DH's note on the FX3 page the first name for the car should be the page title. This means that after all the hours of research on the Hill GH1 / Lola T371, it possibly should have been merged to T371 not GH1, but to me it makes more sense to call it GH1. Oh someone on the motorsport project picked up on these drafts too. I'll check the Amon ASAP. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 13:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC) ::::::Totally with you on the FX3 article - it should just be merged to the Williams page. The FW probably deserves its own page. I also agree with you on the GH1. It was called the T371 for such a short time that it makes sense to go with GH1. I think we should exercise some discretion in these things. On a related note, how do you feel about merging [[Hill GH2]] with the team article? I struggle to see its stand-alone notability. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 14:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC) :::::::The Amon looks good to me! Yep FX3 merge... no-one will object (apart from Taki!). Ditto with the GH2. (and the Lotus 64 is a bit of a non-event too). I think at least some of the text on the FW has been copied from somewhere as Swister noted on review. Hadn't really noticed before then but it's a bit above Taki's usual efforts. I have little idea of how to go about checking these things. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 15:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC) ::::::::Cool. Taki has already reverted that merge once but I've changed it back. Clearly he doesn't like the idea! I will start to merge some of those, one by one, and let's hope he acquiesces. As for his copyvio on Williams FW, it looks like chunks of it were copied/pasted from other articles, for example [[1973 Canadian Grand Prix]]. Not ideal. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 15:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC) {{od}} Good! He is a pest! If he continues he cannot be far away from being blocked again. Re: FW, I thought I recognised some of the text...must have read other pages at sometime... The Lotus 64 just should be deleted really. There's no room for it on the Team page in my view and it's already in the list of cars produced. I see you've been busy on some other pages!! [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 18:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC) :I'll have a look at Lotus 64 at some point and see if I've got anything to add. It might well be best to delete it. Yes! I've had a go at the LC88, which you've seen; I hope that makes it a bit better. I might well have a similar go at LC89 etc as well, and no doubt the LC87 too. Taki's also renaming the Williams FW chassis everywhere so that it simply reads "FW" whereas I really think they were known individually as the FW01–03, and ''collectively'' as the FW. Taki's a pain in the proverbial. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 18:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC) ::The 64 was the Indy car that never raced, after Andretti stacked one in practice...Could just turn it back into a re-direct at the point where I was re-catting all the Lotus articles back in October? DH has started a discussion on the FX3 talk-page about the re-naming but I think it probably should be merged. The LC87 still hasn't been reviewed and some others have started tweaking it (as well as raising notability questions again). I changed one of the FW edits too (per Small). If you've got anywhere with your own version of the LC87, could publish that & tag the draft as 'already existing'. Or is that a bit too underhand (yes it is really). [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 20:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC) :::Hi guys. I think I may have messed up by claiming that our convention is to always use the car's original name - I had forgotten about cases like [[Hill GH1]]. I still think [[Politoys FX3]] is the better name for the [[Iso-Marlboro FX3B]] article, but I also think [[Williams FW]] is the best name for that article, even though the car started life as the [[Iso-Marlboro IR]]. Perhaps I should have said our convention is to use the car's [[WP:COMMONNAME]]? There's an interesting article about the convoluted naming of the early Williamses [http://8w.forix.com/williams.html here] in case you're interested. Having said all that, I'm cool with the idea of [[Iso-Marlboro FX3B]], [[Williams FW]] and [[Hill GH2]] being merged back into their parent articles. Regards. [[User:DH85868993|DH85868993]] ([[User talk:DH85868993|talk]]) 21:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC) ::::Taki is back [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.21.246.167 here] renaming things to FW. I looked Belso up in 'Small' where South Africa '74 is given as Iso-Williams FW01. Then he drove 2 races in 02 then back to 01. Aaargh head explode. Perhaps Forix can help & I should go back to football and motorbikes. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 22:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC) :::::Thanks, guys - I think we're starting to get somewhere on this, and Taki is just going to have to go along with it or take a hike. I'm not keen on him reverting us. Firstly, I'm fine with Lotus 64 being a redirect. It can be mentioned at the Lotus article if necessary. Secondly, the Lola LC87 – I can knock out a decent article on this one, à la the LC88, but I'm not keen on faffing about having it reviewed first. I'm an autoreviewer / autopatroller (whatever it's called these days) anyway so I don't know if it's underhand? Hmm, not sure now. I'll have a think about that. :::::Politoys FX3 is definitely the better name for that car, I think, rather than its current name. That said, I'd be OK with merging it to [[Frank Williams Racing Cars]]. It was a fairly awful car that didn't actually race much anyway. I could pad the article out to a fair size, but I'm not sure the car is really notable enough, so I'd go with a merge. I'd keep [[Williams FW]] but as it stands it's awful, and needs to be rewritten. I think there's too much info on that car (Iso-Marlboro IR, Iso-Marlboro FW and Williams FW) to merge comfortably. DH's 8W article sums it all up perfectly – it is all a bit complicated and no doubt Taki doesn't really understand it – but the Williams FW was three cars (FW01, FW02 and FW03) that were of the same type, rather than different types like most constructors. The article needs to explain that very clearly in the lead, along with its previous incarnations. Small and FORIX don't agree in some cases about which car was used where, which is awkward, but hopefully we can get it right along the way. Hill GH2 I think we agree can be merged. I'll have a go at that now. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 14:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC) ::::::OK good stuff...I've turned the 64 back into a re-direct. (Await Taki undoing it). Where small and Forix disagree I'll happily use up some of my Motor Sport archive articles so as to use Jenks as arbitrator (as he was pretty pedantic about chassis Nos.). Yes the FW followed the early Tyrrell system of giving each individual chassis it's own number. I think 'trumping' the LC87 draft would be a bit sneaky really. [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 14:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC) :::::::Cool, I hope Taki isn't going to be a pain over it. I know we're "messing" with his work, but hopefully he accepts that improvements are being made. I've rewritten the lead at Williams FW, and I do hope it makes sense. It's not easy wording such a complicated system. As for the rest of that article and the results, we'll use Jenks and every other half-decent source we can find, and try to cobble together "the truth". Point taken on LC87, I'll see how that draft goes. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 19:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC) ::::::::I suspect the Lola draft will be accepted, as the other two were and people have been tweaking it. If one of those who rejected it previously see it, there's a chance of it being rejected. Perhaps your wording can be ready to insert or publish as required? The FW makes sense in the lead (who started the 'lede' fad FFS?) & I've tidied up some more of the trademark caps, commas, grammar etc. but it still needs lots of work. I think that leaves the Politoys to move if we're happy about it? [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 21:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC) ::::::::Just remembered the [[Larrousse LH95]]... perhaps another candidate for a merge? [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 23:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC) :::::::::I've added my weight to the LC87 draft and reduced Taki's meanderings and bits copied and pasted from other articles. I knew my Murray Walker's Grand Prix Yearbooks would come in handy one day! I even received one as a prize at school. Really quite detailed in parts. Anyway, I hope that's enough for that draft; it really ought to be. Glad the FW lead is OK (please shoot me any time I type "lede") and I'll aim to crack on with the body of that one soon. My "stuff to merge" list so far includes the Politoys FX3 and yes, that Larrousse LH95 one can be merged too. Any others you've spotted? [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 17:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC) == Kemp == Perhaps you'd like to see such featured articles as [[David Bowie]], [[Laurence Olivier]], [[John Gielgud]], [[Ralph Richardson]] etc. All have passed feautured article status with the subjects introduced as English, not British, because people born and raised in [[England]] are [[English people]]. [[User:Rodericksilly|Rodericksilly]] ([[User talk:Rodericksilly|talk]]) 12:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC) : It's odd how this is never a matter of debate for people born and raised in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, only in England. Why is that? No one would even debate that a Wikipedia subject born and raised in Scotland would be introduced as Scottish. [[User:Rodericksilly|Rodericksilly]] ([[User talk:Rodericksilly|talk]]) 12:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC) :: I absolutely agree that birthplace isn't enough. That's why, for instance, I would agree that [[Mark Knopfler]] is British, not Scottish or English, because his background is more complicated. Same with [[Cliff Richard]] not being English because he was born in India, or [[Freddie Mercury]], because he was born and raised abroad, or [[Joe Strummer]]. They aren't English, completely agree with you there. For me, [[Noel Gallagher]] is a complicated one because he is now introduced as English (not my doing I hasten to add) yet he identifies very much with his Irish family background and states "I don't feel English at all". [[Lindsay Kemp]] has not said that to my knowledge, what we do know is that he was born in England and raised in England, there doesn't seem to be any evidence he isn't English. As for my taste in music, thanks for the compliment but I can assure you I like a lot of stuff that is widely considered crap. [[User:Rodericksilly|Rodericksilly]] ([[User talk:Rodericksilly|talk]]) 13:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC) ::: "It seems odd to me that the UK is the only country in the world where Wikipedia accepts alternatives to citizenship nationality in this way." That is probably a fair point but it would require every British citizen (including Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish) to accept they were British first, which is a bit of an ask, especially nowadays. I have no problem whatsoever with Scots considering themselves Scottish, Welsh considering themselves Welsh and Northern Irish considering themselves Irish. But if an English person isn't a person born and raised in England, I don't really know what one is. There's also a part of me that can't help feeling that if someone like Noel Gallagher considers himself Irish as opposed to English, why doesn't he just move there (he could probably afford to buy most of the country anyway with his riches) and make sure his kids are brought up there so that they are indisputably Irish and it continues the tradition of the Gallaghers being Irish. [[User:Rodericksilly|Rodericksilly]] ([[User talk:Rodericksilly|talk]]) 13:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC) :::: Interestingly, I wouldn't have said that Adele saying she was "proud to be British" ever meant that she wasn't English. I would have thought you can be English but still "proud to be British". There doesn't seem to be any inconsistency to me there. Incidentally, an inconsistency I have noticed on Wikipedia which I can't explain is why [[Queen (band)|Queen]] are a "British rock band" (presumably because Freddie Mercury wasn't English) yet [[The Police]] were an "English rock band" despite the fact that [[Stewart Copeland]] is American. That makes Queen 3/4 English and The Police 2/3 English. Both bands were formed in London. Shouldn't The Police be a British rock band or - better still - an English-American or British-American rock band? What's that all about? In my view Wikipedia is full of these inconsistencies. [[User:Rodericksilly|Rodericksilly]] ([[User talk:Rodericksilly|talk]]) 15:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC) == Possible merge and re-direct candidates == Sorry, tidying your talk-page again. How long before you have to return to the 'day-job'? Possible articles for consideration as above [[:Brabham BT51]], [[:Coloni C4]], [[:Coloni C4B]], [[:Dallara 3087]], [[:DAMS GD-01]], [[:Dome F105]], [[:lotus 86]], [[:Lotus 88]]?, [[:Lotus 112]], [[:McLaren MP4-18]], [[:Toyota TF101]] & [[:Toyota TF110|110]], and [[:Honda RA099]], [[:Honda RA270|RA270]] & [[Honda RC100|RC100]]. In addition, Taki split off the [[:BRM P67]] and [[:Ferguson P99]] articles from the F1 4WD article a while ago. I've kept off tidying the Lola draft, so as to let it stand or fall on its own merits. Obviously if you think some or all of those pages should be merged, I'll do what I can in my usual slow way!! Should point out that Taki is not responsible for many of those ( if any). [[User:Eagleash|Eagleash]] ([[User talk:Eagleash|talk]]) 21:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC) :Haha, someone has to tidy it! I've got roughly another week (the joys of self-employment), so hopefully I can get a few more things done. I've merged the Politoys / Iso-Marlboro FX3/FX3B article into the FWRC article, and the next obvious thing to do is to sort the FW page. I hope Taki can take the pain. Wow, there's a few there! I'm tempted to merge the very short articles, and one or two of the others, but some of those look lengthy and well-sourced, so they could probably stand, at least for the time being. The Brabham one needs to go, and the Honda RA270. The Lotus 86 should be merged to the Lotus 88, and some serious referencing done there if it's going to stay. Lotus 112 could be merged if it can't be properly referenced. I'd merge Toyota TF101 to Toyota TF102, and Toyota TF110 should be merged between the TF109 and the parent Toyota article. The other Hondas, DAMS and Dome articles look better. The Coloni C4 and C4B could be merged together (looks like the kind of fun I like to have, I love awful cars), and that leaves the Dallara one. Interesting car that, but I'm not sure where that info should go. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet#top|talk]]) 13:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)