Jump to content

Talk:Jenson Button/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

format etc

I've added the 2005 season to the table at the bottom, but this doesn't seem to match (m)any of the other drivers - should this be in this format? Happy to redo if necessary, someone let me know in here... NickF 22:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Continuation

Jenson and teammate Takuma Sato were DQ'd for underweight cars...

...at San Marino.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.95.102 (talk • contribs)

100th Race Start

Button will start his 100th race start in the 2005-China race. But according to wikipedia when doing the math by adding all Button race starts it would be his 101st race start in China as Button has been listed as Ret instead of DNS for this year 2005-USA race. Andreasu 03 October 2005 12:02

FHM Quotes

I haven't got the exact quotes, but Jenson said something about women drivers in F1 to FHM. Does anyone have the actual quotes, i can't remeber them, i don't read FHM and I got this of my motorsport info sources. Duke toaster 18:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC) yeah i remember this .,

it was to do with bernie eccolstones comments and jenson said women werent emotionally able to drive as what would happen when they had their period. i thought it was in F1 racing though not in FHM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnii93 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Count 50 & Start

In '02, JB became the youngest driver with 50 F1 starts (or so I heard...). Trekphiler 08:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In the garage?

I'm sorry, but if Jenson cannot talk about non-Honda cars that he owns then we can't say he owns them! I'm removing that and the part about him being good-looking as completely irrelevent. If anyone wants to discuss this I am quite happy to do so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne03 (talk • contribs)

Congratulations

I know Jenson doesn't read this (or maybe he does...anyway) a very big congratulations on winning in Hungary. It was long overdue and he fully deserved it after so many years of being probably the unluckiest driver in F1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.28.141 (talk • contribs)

Results table

I have removed the "EX" from the two races in 2005 that BAR were banned from entering. The team was excluded, not the drivers. Bretonbanquet 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Season 2006

Can someone please edit this part of the article to conform more to the previous formats? Thanks. Mogweist 23:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bristol City?

It says in the article that Jenson Button is a Britsol City fan, however, there is no reference for this. Secondly, according to this interview he is a big Arsenal fan. Now, I know that this is vaguely allowed in an article, but then again most people who follow F1 also follow Football (and I mean most, not all!) so it could be considered to be allowed into the article.

Comments? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 12:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Monaco

'Most' F1 drivers live in Monaco ? Evidence ?

Bigfatspider 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


he owns an apartment in Monaco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnii93 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Gents or Jense?

Shouldn't Jenson's nickname 'Gents' be 'Jense'? I've actually seen the latter in writing, but never the former. Lustigson (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

61.88.183.103 (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Corrected Rubbish Grammer.

Rephrasing needed?

"Button was engaged to English pop singer and actress Louise Griffiths for two years. Their relationship ended in April 2005, and his socialising with friend David Coulthard became tabloid fodder." Sounds a bit like Button had a sexual relationship with Coulthard. Perhaps some rephrasing is in order? — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 14:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't sound that way to me. Going to the pub with Coulthard sounds a lot less stressful than dating a pop singer/actress. Maproom (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.119.162 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any notability in the period between recording first and second wins?

Button took from November 2006 to March 2009 to record first and second F1 wins. Given that 1st wins are usually quickly followed by the 2nd, since the car is competitive or the driver at the top of their game, is it unusual to have a gap of two intervening seasons between wins? Is there any stats for this or other drivers to refer to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, it's not as uncommon as you might think. Of the 11 other drivers who have 2 F1 victories, 5 of them (de Angelis, Siffert, Rodriguez, Trintignant and Gonzalez) had more than two seasons between their two wins. And if we look at drivers with more than 2 wins, Regazzoni had 4 years between his first 2 wins; Andretti had 5 years, and doubtless there are other examples. DH85868993 (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Andretti? Mario, presumably (did Michael last 5 years?), which is something of a shock (as is Clay, for that matter). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Mario Andretti's first win was March '71, the second was in October '76... ! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
And we're still waiting for Michael's first win... -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Pay cut

Perhaps it could be mentioned that Jenson took a large pay cut from his Honda contract during the management buy-out that created Brawn? -137.222.114.243 (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Find us a reference and you could add it. Chubbennaitor 16:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
JENSON BUTTON £12M PAY CUT -That was price of keeping his drive with Brawn [[1]] 91.210.101.9 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Structural Changes

I've just gone through the article and cut out quite a lot of what I think is inappropriate structure. The article was tending towards the situation in which paragraphs were often only one or two sentences, and sections only one or two paragraphs. I think this really breaks up the text, making it hard to read as an article, although easy to pick out individual points, and does not match what some (not all) of our F1 Featured Articles look like (See Damon Hill and Brabham). Others do use a similar device, but not as actual headers (Alain Prost and Tom Pryce). Might be useful to discuss here if anyone feels strongly the other way. If you feel really, really strongly, put the headings back and then we can discuss it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazil 2009

I see the article is locked for editting, but to whoever can make changes: Jenson made up five places during lap 1, from 14th up to 9th, then after the safety car was quickly up to p7, before getting stuck for several laps behind Kobayashi - so more than the 'three positions in the opening laps' the article currently says. Cheers. 91.108.112.227 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

True, according to the lap chart. I've adjusted the sentence. Thanks :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Recentism

Added Recentism tag; Not enough info on early F1 career with Williams/Benetton/Renault years almost missing in action. Mattg82 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do people love tags? Why do we insist on slapping a huge tag at the top that the 1000 plus people will see every day, and none will try to fix? It's so obvious that the article is slanted toward recent events, but we don't need to signpost that to everyone, do we? Apterygial 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Everyone is encouraged to edit. That's why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.118.52 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems someone has removed the tag. But to reiterate what needs doing to this article, years 2000 to 2002 need expanding a little while 2009 needs condensing. Mattg82 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

2005 season

The first reason that "EX" is not applicable to the two races in 2005 that Button missed is that he was not personally banned from competing. His team, BAR, were banned, but the drivers were free to drive for other teams if they had wished to do so. This being a driver results table, "EX" is the incorrect term. Secondly, "EX" refers to exclusions from a GP meeting once it has already started, but before the race, e.g. for infringements during practice or qualifying. It is not common any more but it used to happen a lot. If a driver is banned from competing, he is not on the entry list, therefore there would be no entry at all for that race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:43, 19 November 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) 09:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The infobox which you are changing is a template maintained by WP:WikiProject Formula One. Consensus there - after extensive discussion - is that the rule of thumb is not applicable to Formula One, representative nationality being an intrinsic part. if you are set on changing them all, have a look at List of Formula One drivers - you'd better set aside a week or so for the task! -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Urban legend

Seen this changes I’m surprised to see the ole info about Jenson’s name back again… BTW, I know both, John Button as well as Dane Erling Jensen and, as a journalist specialised in Rallycross, trusted the info myself. But if his father’s and mother’s claims are different IMO the info about his name is completely useless for the Wikipedia. RX-Guru (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are a number of sources which say he was named after Jensen; an anonymous edit from someone claiming to be his mother does not change anything. Trebor (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A number of sources? Nope, eventually it all comes down to just one source – and a number of my colleagues who spread the info later on. I just wonder if the info about his name needs absolutely to be included as long as doubtful. Is it really so important? However, the anonymous editor seems too well informed to be ignored as just someone claiming something. RX-Guru (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It's obviously not hugely important, but it is interesting background for an unusual name. We have a direct quote from his father reported in a broadsheet newspaper, versus a comment from an anonymous editor on Wikipedia. The latter doesn't carry any weight; regardless of how well-informed the editor seems to be, we have no way of verifying it. Trebor (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ever so funny! A mag is a better source than his mother… RX-Guru (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No, a reliable quote from his father is a better source than an unsourced one shot contribution from an account using the same name as his mother. Britmax (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

ridiculous POV pushing

The continued attempts to insert a grossly incorrect and exaggerated claims about canada 2011 isn't going to be tolerated. Vettel lost over 60 seconds combined because of all the saftey cars, and they are the only reason Button was anywhere near vettel by the end of the race. Let's stop There is nothing wrong or incorrect with the version I wrote up, it was 100% exactly what happened that weekend, 100% divorced of bias.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why Vettel may or may not have won the race if this or that hadn't happened has no place at this article - put it in the race article. The only ridiculous POV pushing is yours. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
My edit said nothing about Vettel winnng the race. Vettel could have LAPPED button on raw race time. But I didn't write anything even remotely like that in the section aout the canada GP. Only thing I wrote was that button was "Advantaged by the many saftey cars.... as vettel lost his gap to the field after every restart"-- button was part "of the field". That is just a plain as day statement of fact. There is no attempt to say "vettel would of won", only that all the saftey cars did NOT hurt button, but HELPED button. You had no problem pushing the idea that a safety car was helpful to vettel at the end of the monaco GP, did you? This constant POV pushing is getting ridiculous Whatzinaname (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
That was the clear implication, and it is not fact at all, it's your interpretation. He could have lapped Button on raw speed? Got a source for that? Hahah... he spent most of the race no more than 10 seconds in front. You are trying to insert a clear implication that Button only won the race because of the safety cars - you're going to need a source that says that, because otherwise it's a BLP violation. The Monaco GP section doesn't say what you claim it says. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me get this straight -- "Button was advantaged by the many saftey cars, as after each restart vettel lost the previous gap he had built up" implies what exactly? Did enter any info about the monaco GP on the onaco results, button's page or vettel's page? Did you remove any info that likewise implied that vettel was helped by the safety car at the end? Let's get an honest answerWhatzinaname (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It implies that it's a fact that Button was advantaged by the safety cars - there is no source there that says that. Vettel did lose his gaps, but some of them were only a few seconds - big deal - all the drivers lost gaps, why single out Vettel? This article isn't about Vettel. I'd give you an honest answer to your first question if it made any sense, and the second one - no, I didn't, not on Vettel's article or the race article. Unless you can find me a diff. Was there any such implication? I can't remove what's not there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
All the drivers weren't LEADING THE RACE, hello? do you understand the difference. The race leader who crosses the finish line WINS the race. Everyone else lost their gap but GAINED massively on the guy ahead, but not the race leader. He only LOSES his gap. This is basic F! knowledge and you are feigning ignorance or do you really not know these simply facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Monaco_Grand_Prix&diff=prev&oldid=431640701 Look here you had no problem with the "button looked like he was going to win. You directly edited that sentence so don't tell me you didn't see it. Where was the cite that said button looked like he was going to win?Whatzinaname (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand the difference, but that difference isn't relevant here. I'm not going to waste my energy trying to explain why that is. You've been reverted by three different editors, move on. Your diff shows that it said Button was leading - are you suggesting that it's POV to say that the leader looked like he might win? I probably did see it, but I didn't have a huge problem with it. I certainly didn't write it. I would have left it in regardless of which driver it was referring to. On the other hand, I wouldn't have reinserted it if someone had taken it out. It doesn't seem to be there now, did I put in back in? Look, there's plenty of POV in Vettel's article I could remove if I wanted, but it's such a basketcase that I can't be bothered. You're clutching at straws if you want to try and prove I'm biased. Ignoring someone else's featherlight bias hardly makes me biased myself. Try harder. Better still, stop moaning and report me if you have a problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course you aren't going to explain your sickening bias and double standards. There is no explanation. Here again is something you directly edited, and I'm going to quote this "The red flag worked as a major advantage for Vettel, because he could switch to a fresh set of tyres without losing any time." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Monaco_Grand_Prix&diff=prev&oldid=431640701 This is a statement you directly edited, which EXACTLY parallels my edits to button's wiki that states he was advantaged by the many safety cars. But you had no problem with the assertation that vettel was advantaged by the safety car, even though the previous 20 laps neither alonso nor button even got close to passing vettel. Yet button gaining anywhere from 40 to 60 seconds over all the saftey car periods he got where he only made his pass AT THE VERY LAST LAP is somehow not fair to include? ROFLMAO Buttons "advantage" was 100 times more important for him to win the race than vettel's, when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest vettel was going to lose his lead of the race in monaco. It would be pure speculation, but button's nothing is speculation. it's pure fact. Again, it's your amazing double standards with english versus non english drivers. And let me guess "you don't even like Button". Whatzinaname (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That is all the crap I'm going to take from you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Bionic Button" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Bionic Button. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jenson_Button/Archive_1&oldid=1065953756"