Talk:LMDh

Requested move 22 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved by proposer (out of process but matches consensus) (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Le Mans Daytona h → LMDh – The ACO and IMSA have not defined the acronym LMDh to mean anything, even going so far as saying that they have yet to decide what the acronym means. The title of this article is therefore a presumption and incorrect. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support as the current title appears made up, and the term is not used anywhere. LMDH/LMDh is used universally. Not sure a formal RM discussion was needed for this. A7V2 (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support/Comment - "Le Mans Daytona h" is not a term I have heard used anywhere before this, and nothing about the name is particularly indicative of the articles contents. However, I think that "LMDh sports prototype" would be an even more appropriate name than just "LMDh" since it is more indicative of what the article is actually about. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME should leave the title as LMDh as that is the one universally used, and there is currently no need to disambiguate the term. We don't need to indicate in the page title what the article is about. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Car photos

This edit was reverted by The359 for not having the correct CC license. Per the Cadillac press site, they have a CC BY-NC 3.0 link at the bottom of the page. However, per Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Deprecated, the non-commercial clause makes the photo incompatible with Wikipedia usage. Hope this helps clarify for users (including Chasers23) what's necessary for inclusion. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I actually looked through the website and didn't see any license, therefore assumed it was not CC. I missed it buried at the bottom of the page. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a hassle to find, but in the end you made the right call as the -NC piece of the license was omitted, which was the part that made it unsuitable for our use. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)