Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Which flag for the Pacific Grand Prix?

An editor has changed the flagicon associated with the Pacific Grand Prix from the Pacific Community flag (File:Flag of the Pacific Community.svg) to the Japanese flag () in Pacific Grand Prix, 1994 Pacific Grand Prix, 1995 Pacific Grand Prix and List of Formula One Grands Prix. Do we think this is a good change? If so, then we should make the same change in 1994 Formula One season and 1995 Formula One season, for consistency. DH85868993 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I know my comment might be slightly deviating from current concern of this thread, but how about we get rid of all the flags (including the once listed above and numerous others) where flags are being used in violation of a well accepted guideline. MOS:FLAG discourages use of flags in cases where there is no nationalistic importance attached to the entity in question. e.g. A Grand Prix that is staged in a nation is actually held or organized by a private company/consortium of companies that are in most cases not representatives of nationalistic pride or the sovereign government. This logic is even more obvious to Formula One teams which really are private companies and do not represent the respective nations they are located in, as they are presented when prefixed by respective national flags. ^LeaveSleaves 02:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a well-accepted guideline why hasn't an editor associated with MOS:FLAG written a 'bot' to run through all corporate/commercial sports articles and wiped them all clean of flags then? If the question is that simple, then the answer is that simple.

Unless it is not simple. And unless the well-accepted guideline is not well-accepted and has been rejected by the majority of sports-focussed articles.

Choose. --Falcadore (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that a bot isn't written to implement that guideline does not mean that it's not well accepted. Also, could you give me a case or a consensus where a sport-related community (read Wikiproject) has actually rejected this guideline? On a second thought, forget it. What happens on other Wikiprojects is of no concern here. ^LeaveSleaves 03:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We had a discussion a while back about changing the flags for such things as the Las Vegas Grand Prix and stuff to the country, rather than the city or region. Add to that the fact that the "Pacific Community" flag is a poor choice, as Japan isn't even a member of the Pacific Community! ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a flag, it should be the Japanese. The Pacific Community flag doesn't really suit the context. Readro (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Readro. Though I am not in favour of a flag in this context. I think for the teams it serves some purpose, as they do race under a flag that may not be obvious (Red Bull being Austrian etc). For the venues? I don't need a flag to tell me that the race in Japan is in Japan. Or that the British Grand Prix that is in Britain is British. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But it's PACIFIC not the same case as Britain is Britain. It's the Pacific Grand Prix but because hat isn't a country it has a host country. The Six Nations of Rugby has a host for each test. It doesn't change the 6Nations logo. Chubbennaitor 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that Laguna Seca staged the Pacific Grand Prix in the 1960s. A Japanese flag is almost sweeping this under the carpet. Readro (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I say, if we give it one, a Japanese flag is the only one we should consider because it is the only flag that /adds/ any information not included in the name. The same with the Europe one, god knows why we are using the EU flag (Which is pretty dense of us, the EU flag is not the flag of Europe. Switzerland et al do exist). Personally I'd prefer less flags, but if we are going to have them, at least make them useful not decorative. Were we to have no flags, I am as well informed as if there were no flags on all those (if the pacific community one was there, hell, I'd even say misled on the San Marino) --Narson ~ Talk • 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We use the European Union flag because FOM uses it as well. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We use them and they aren't decorative. The simpler the pages the more user friendly. Chubbennaitor 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

The EU flag is decorative. It provides zero information not covered by 'European Grand Prix'. A flag of the nation the race is held in might provide more information. (Though then you do run into that San Marino problem). If it is just going to be a flag that represents the name of the event, the flag is certainly decorative. To sum up: I'd rather not have the flag, but if we are, it should reflect where the race is held so at least there is some attempt to be informative. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It is not decorative as it's the 'EUROPEAN GRAND PRIX so a EUROPEAN FLAG is necessary. Two German or Spanish flags are confusing. It's in Europe but it isn't a certain country which makes it confusing over time. It tells us that it's the European GP not the second Spanish Grand Prix which is wrong in its own sense. All the media use what we've been using for so long. Chubbennaitor 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So if there is no European flag you don't know that the European Grand Prix is in Europe? What information is being conveyed by so many flags next to names that convey the same meaning as the flag? --Narson ~ Talk • 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

the fact of the matter is that it's the European not the Second Spanish GP! How can you not see that? Putting a flag that's different from the text is just confusing from someone who is new to the sport. Chubbennaitor 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I havn't asserted that a flag is necessary there at all Chubbennaitor. I'm asking you why you think a flag /at all/ is useful in that situation, in the British Grand Prix situation? If we are simply putting a flag next to a country or entity represented by that flag every time, then what purpose does it serve? Where is the informational gain? Is it not simply decorative? --Narson ~ Talk • 21:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If we take a closer look at various cases of flag usage the bottom line comes out that the flags are in fact decorative and are being used at own discretion (either sole or group) of editors. As we are discussing various cases of flag usage such as Pacific and European, let me put in another example that created minor debate at 2009 F1 article: whether to use UAE flag or Abu Dhabi flag for Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Now in this case nothing would be the correct answer because the venture of hold this Grand Prix lies on neither of the entities that represent that flag. Ergo, there should be no flag there. Any flag usage would be purely decorative. Also, I'd like to ask The359 where does FOM use the flags for Grand Prix. ^LeaveSleaves 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The F1.com website does not appear to have one now, but I'm fairly certain that the European Union flag has been displayed on their website before. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

By way of summary, neither the Pacific Community or European Union flags are really appropriate because Pacific and European Grands Prix have been held in nations not belonging to the Pacific Community (Iida, Japan) or the European Union (Bremgarten, Switzerland). Several other Grands Prix has nebulous even false names, like Swiss Grands Prix held in France, San Marino Grands Prix held in Italy, several different names for Spanish races, European Grand Prix tags used to conveniently give access at various times for Spain, Germany, Italy and Britain to hold second Grands Prix for commercial reasons, and in almost all cases the usage is mostly decorative as the flag will sit next to a description which then states the name of the nation in the flag, making the flag itself superflous information. The only cases where the flag could be used are those misnamed grand prix were general the wrong flags are then used, correct?

I'd almost rather propose to have the name of the soccer article changed again. Let's make a decision and stick with it instead of wringing our hands over the issue every two months. --Falcadore (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

They aren't decorative. They are slightly decorative but they make the article interesting and slightly more informative for the younger generation. Chubbennaitor 07:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If think you've just defined decorative with that statement. --Falcadore (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? It makes the page look boring and uninteresting without colour. Flags add colour and people watching. Can we just leave it as it is because otherwise we are in danger of ignoring all media and I think the Official site. Christmas trees have decoration to make them look good. Who wants a boring tree in their house? No-one will want it and it won't be christmas. A boring house s not a nice place to live is it? Chubbennaitor 08:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

An article is not Christmas and flags and not Christmas trees. A flag is a symbol and representation of certain entity and like logo of a a company, it should not be used unless the flag's purpose truly and completely fits the need of its usage. If you wish to "decorate" an article to make it "interesting" try other stuff such as tables, charts or images. ^LeaveSleaves 12:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, we are not a pop up book for 12 year olds. We are an encyclopedia. As has been pointed out several times in the thread, MOS:FLAG deprecate the use of decorative flags, they clutter the page, they often take away from the text (in my opinion), they can be misleading (As is the case with some of the ones used in the list of F1 races) and they make the Encyclopedia look less academic and serious (Again, that one is my opinion. Try to hand in an undergraduate essay with unnecessary images, you'll get reamed.) --Narson ~ Talk • 12:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (ec)

Excuse me? We don't want more tables. What do you hate about flags being there? W aim it at everyone. I can't see anyone understanding that page who's under 13! There's such a thing as too much text some times and a flag means that you know that it's going to be a certain thing. If I see a Spanish flag in an F1 article I know that it's going to be about Spain or a Spanish GP. We are also supposed to be interesting not a plain boring piece of text that only people who are interested in will read. If you want us to be boring then get rid of the flags and the tables and the images and the boxes. If one of them go the page loses the interest by 20% immediately. The old GP articles without info boxes I've never read because they look boring. The articles are not essays because if they are then look above. Simple WP is useless because most people who need have no awareness of it. Chubbennaitor 13:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? The spannish flag tells you that it is about the Spanish Grand Prix on the List of F1 Grand Prix article? The fact next to the spanish flag we have written out Spanish Grand Prix doesn't do that? I have no problem with the flags in some locales, next to a driver name a nationality flag isn't necessarily a bad idea. To avoid repeating something over and over again in info boxes or grids. I'm sure there are some great uses for flags, but that article? Not so much. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

so Spanish flag next to European GP makes sense to someone who's new or in fact hasn't read that much into it? Chubbennaitor 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Any race named after an entity on a higher level than a country or on a non-geographic basis shouldn't have a flag at all. Readro (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Again Chubb, I prefer /no/ flag on the tables on that page, as they are being used in violation of the MOS. They are just decorative. My point about the spanish flag was that it would be the only way a flag could be used to convey information not covered by the name of the GP on that page. Just ditch the flags. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of reducing the proliferation of flags across the articles. In this case, neither the Pacific Community flag nor the Japanese flag are accurate, and in the absence of an accurate flag, there should be no flag. Likewise for the European Grand Prix. It's not the European Union Grand Prix, so the EU flag is not the correct flag to use, regardless of who else uses it for this purpose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And? I'm sorry but why can't flags be used. As soon as you all realise something isn't a tiny it wrong it is all wrong and nothing should be used. A flag isn't decorative. It's worked since they were first used. Without the flags it all looks boring. Why can't you understand that without any type of colour a table is pretty much just boring and no-one will be interested. the closest flag we have to europe is the EU flag. we actually have a Pacific flag and therefor is 100% true and not misleading. spain last time I checked was in the EU. every European GP has been in a EU country. so not untrue at all. why are flags so bad? They haven't mislead anyone and they aren't ow. If it is an 'area' GP then we use that area's flag not the host countries flag. a flag is the only thing that makes the race links look any where near interesting. there are a few drivers that have two flags for obvious reasons, are you also sayng that they shouldn't have a flag? Chubbennaitor 18:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you want, a decorative border? Cherubs in each corner? Wikipedia isn't about making articles look pretty. If people find the pages boring, then they're likely to be people who don't have the concentration span to read past the first paragraph anyway. Regarding your other points - yes, we have a Pacific Community flag, but that's an organisation of which Japan is not part, so it's not appropriate. That's the whole reason we're having this discussion. Not every European GP has been in an EU country - it's been held in Monaco and Switzerland in the past. There is no European flag, only the EU flag, which is a political organisation not representative of the sport in any way. With regard to flags for drivers, I think there are also too many per page, but that's not the issue at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. People won't read past the first paragraph unless they really want learn; that means the majority of english speakers will only read the tables glance at a few sentences and images and read the title becase most don't have the time or the necessity to learn. By making the areas most will read slightly more interesting. In which case there is no point in removing the flags as the written work is only for the minority. I've already said that the closest thing we have is the EU or Pacific flag. But why remove the whole of the flags. You've narrowed it back down to the original 'rebels' again. If they're the problem then put the host country down. Don't go stupid and destroy flags altogether. Why do we have to ignore what the FIA and media are doing; putting flags in. I want to follow the majority then we can't be blamed for being wrong. (Don't patronise me ever again). Chubbennaitor 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this conversation is getting ridiculous. Written work is for the minority? Then why are we creating FAs, for self gratification? People won't read because if a flag is removed from top of the page? Be serious. And just so you know, FIA or any related organizations do not use flags except to denote driver's nationality. ^LeaveSleaves 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The written work is only for the minority? Why bother at all then? Why don't we just make a picture book? The EU flag represents the European Union, a political organisation which is not the same as Europe the geographical entity. Indeed there are several countries that are a member of one but not the other. The Pacific Community is a political organisation to represent the views of islands in the Pacific Ocean. This, again, is not equivalent to the geographical entity. Japan isn't a member. So that rules out those flags. For the races, such as 1995 Pacific Grand Prix, I don't see why we couldn't use the Japanese flag, but for the main article, Pacific Grand Prix, using the Japanese flag is a no-go because it hasn't solely been held in Japan. Likewise with European Grand Prix. For those two articles it would be best to remove the flags. Readro (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Chubbenaitor, you've made the same point several times now and I just don't agree with you at all. If the written work is only for the minority, then we might as well all go and do something else - that's about the most bizarre comment I've ever read here. Most of us aren't here to try and help people who aren't interested in the articles, especially at the expense of accuracy. I have no idea what you mean by 'original rebels', and I have never suggested removing all the flags. (Don't leave threatening little comments in your posts). Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the Pacific and European GPs. If you aren't suggesting removing all the race flags then go ahead with what you want to do. Just don't get rid of race flags. Which threats? Technically this isn't a edit conflict. Chubbennaitor 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So was I. I am referring to the race flags for the European and Pacific races, and the debate is which flag to use. For the race articles, I suggest using the flag of the country the race is held in, not the Pacific / EU flags. For the generic European Grand Prix and Pacific Grand Prix articles, I suggest no flags. Lastly I was referring to your comment in brackets at the end of your previous post, which could be construed as a threat. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I'll start changing after two more agreements. Well you shouldn't patronise me then. Chubbennaitor 20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't patronising you. If you have a specific issue with something I've said, address it constructively rather than making jabs or threats, if that's what it was. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't a threat it was a reminder. Do you agree so I can go round changing everything to what we've agreed on above. Chubbennaitor 21:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit late perhaps, but after reading all of these comments I would also support removing the flags from the general suprnational Grand Prix articles, and changing to the flag of the country where the race took place for individual Grands Prix that are affected by this discussion.--Diniz(talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me started again. Flags are productive and I will argue to my death to keep them. I'll get started changing the flags to the host country then. Chubbennaitor 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, rather than commit seppuku, you could just brush up on MOS:FLAG and engage in a policy based debate. Though yes, removing the flags from the supernational grand prixs et al would be a good idea. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have changed the flags to just as wrong as they were before. ^LeaveSleaves 21:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Did we agree to this? I mean, I suggested it, but I was thinking of the race articles - specifically the flag in the race article infobox. I wasn't thinking of every reference to the European Grand Prix everywhere. This needs a lot more of a consensus before any action is taken. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I got consensus by enough people to carry out the task. I did hat I was under the impression we were doing. This is why I said it was a bad idea. Revert them if they are bad but I started a job I thought had enough consensus to carry through. I haven't done the Pacific GPs yet. started at the season articles because they ere quick and easy to do. If you wan them reverted I'll do it myself. Chubbennaitor 22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You consider two editors agreeing as consensus? In fact, it is not even two if you read Bretonbanquet's last comment. Seemed like you were acting at your own discretion without even waiting for others' response to your question as to whether you should start changing the flags. ^LeaveSleaves 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had more. I'm human and I'm aloud to make mistakes. Are we keeping the edits or not? Chubbennaitor 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus having just read this discussion. And you're argument "Flags are productive and I will argue to my death to keep them", is a rather invalid argument... people are here to read articles, not to look at flags. D.M.N. (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they were the main part of the article and stop telling me off for what I thought was good nature before I loose the will to live. Chubbennaitor 18:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Chubb, the references to the whole 'Wikipedia is my life' stuff combined with the 'loose the will to live' and 'Fight to the death' is getting somewhat troubling. I'd suggest tweaking it down a bit, someone could take it the wrong way and think you are serious. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's good to take a step back - this Wikipedia business is best not taken too seriously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well. Try and see why I'm saying it; it's the only way you'll actually listen. Now, are we carrying on with the flags or not? I will revert all of those edits if it's seen as a bad idea. I take the last few issues very seriously but I don't really see this place as a full commitment but you need to have some though. Chubbennaitor 20:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See, the "only way you'll actually listen" stuff is pretty insulting. I can't speak for everyone but I understand your point, I just don't agree with it. I think we all have plenty of commitment. The flag issue needs further discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? We reached an agreement, we can say where though and I'm sure I'll agree with you. But am I reverting my edits or not? Chubbennaitor 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Skimming through the discussion, I don't see any agreement forming here. I suggest disengaging for 24 hours or so, and revisting this in a day or two, because this discussion is starting to get heated. D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If the country where the race took place could be put near the header for the infobox maybe you could have the flag next to that? Britmax (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely that would be pointless, as they would usually be the same country, and if it was not the same, it would make it confusing, defeating the concept of infoboxes? DeMoN2009 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I've been lurking on this discussion and thought to finally put in my two-cents. The problem boils down to the issue that flags being placed next to the name of some races (notably the European Grand Prix and the Pacific Grand Prix) can be erroneous, misleading, and/or confusing since those races have been held in different countries over the years. MOS:FLAG does have a "Use historical flags in contexts where the difference matters" clause. Meaning if we are talking about the European Grand Prix held in 19xx the appropriate flag to use would be for the country 'hosting' the race in 19xx. If we are talking about the European Grand Prix in a more general context, no one flag would be appropriate. This would suggest to me that a flag, if used at all, should be used for an individual race based on the country 'hosting' that race, but a flag should not be used for discussion of the Gran Prix in wider context. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, that's the way I'm thinking too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean what I did was right? I also looked at the official site and for Europe they used the spanish flag. Chubbennaitor 21:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, yes but we needed more people to gain a decent consensus - hopefully now a few more people can chime in with their thoughts on the specific action as outlined by TreyGeek. Secondly, and I fear this is where Chubb and I part company, I don't think there should be any flags in the table of races in the season articles - it's enough to say "GP of France" or whatever, without the need for a French flag. Chubb disagrees but I just don't think they're necessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think we overuse flags and would support a reduction. To be honest, I'm not sure why the drivers need them next to their names all the time - they're not officially representing a national team, just themselves and their contracted team. Readro (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that - in race articles, the drivers have a flag in the qualifying table, another one in the results table, then another one if they're in the leading drivers' table. I think it's overkill and maybe one flag per driver per article is enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do they even need one flag? The flags do tend to emphasise nationality and I'm not sure there's really justification for it. Readro (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is something that WP:MOSFLAG is a bit vague about. The drivers don't represent a national team, so does their nationality actually matter? On the other hand, some people might consider nationality important enough to include. Maybe people can share their thoughts here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that the flag should be there to give additional information on the driver, i.e. their nationality, but this is already stated in the infobox so therefore the flag becomes redundant. Schumi555 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to drivers, the use of flags does serve some purpose of indicating the nationality of the individual. Equally significant is the fact that FIA and FOM use flags for drivers and do not use them for races or teams as some are wrongly stating above. The flag overkill and misuse is particularly in this area. As Readro stated, flags are used to indicate the representation of the nation and it is grossly wrong to suggest the teams or the races are actually officially supported or founded by the nation they are held in. ^LeaveSleaves 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Acctually, and I am sure you have grasped I am not a flag fan in general, we could do with a flag on the team infobox or a section on the infobox, as they do nominate a country to represent (Which decides the national anthem played, see Red Bull switching to Austrian the other year). Though as I say, it could be done with a line in the info box. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Does having the flag next to a driver's name in the race report article really add anything to it? Would anything relevant to the article be lost by removing them? Readro (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the flags really don't serve significant purpose anywhere in Formula One since since the entire sport privatised and there is no national representation involved. But I won't stringently oppose use of flags for drivers for reasons me and Narson stated above viz. that FIA and FOM honor nationality while publishing classification or other such instances and the national anthem played during closing ceremony. But elsewhere, they should simply be removed. ^LeaveSleaves 13:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So, this means we remove the flags we don't need, and if we do keep any, make them the flag of the host country (so for the European Grand Prix, use Spain instead of Europe). DeMoN2009 16:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want me to leave again? The flags aren't overused they just help the younger readers to understand what race and nationality that race or driver is. They are needed as all media use them but I can understand the removal of flags from the article itself. Chubbennaitor 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If people agree I'll change the flags and carry on with what I was doing before I left with a few tweaks? Chubbennaitor 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't care about divas or Spider-Mans. ^LeaveSleaves 18:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough of the drama. Grow up. Readro (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And I need to be patronised? Answer my question please. I'm not the one to grow up. I came back. I asked a question civilised so I could go and do something for the Project, you're divas for doing so. Chubbennaitor 18:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is nowhere near any consensus or agreement on any topic and do not jump the gun making mass edits like you did last time. ^LeaveSleaves 18:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Civilised? You threatened to leave again! If it quacks like a duck... Readro (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chubbennaitor, reading this thread it is very clear that this project has not come to any consensus on what to do with the flags. There are lots of ideas and suggestions, but until there is a final agreement, there is no consensus. And honestly, I doubt there will be a consensus anytime soon. As I've seen in other sporting projects, flags are a very contentious issue and rarely can a majority of people come to an agreement on what to do with them. Perhaps if the discussion goes around too many more circles someone could draw up a proposal of what seems to be the best solution(s) here on what do to and ask for the project to vote on it. I wish ya'll luck on it. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. This is bizarre. Look for what it's worth I shall put my opinion that the name Pacific GP is merely a name of convenience because Japanese GP is already taken. It represents no nation other than where it is placed so if any flag it MUST be the Japanese. No flag is good too.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The only appropriate flag is the Japanese in the case of the Pacific Grand Prix - but we need to be consistent and referring to the  San Marino Grand Prix and the  Luxembourg Grand Prix is more likely to confuse than to inform. The best option seems to me to be simply not to use any flag for any of them. Drivers and teams are different because they have to have countries registered for podium ceremonies - but for races I think the best idea is simply to avoid them. If a flag is really necessary, put it by the track name, not the race name. Pfainuk talk 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we leave it as it is? We've had several proposals I've agreed with and I obviously did those mass edits correctly because they haven't been reverted. The flags are fine as they were and no-one was complaining. Of course I was 'threatening to leave' but as a joke. I don't know how wanting to leave is to be a diva as I've never felt I'm higher than anyone. Chubbennaitor 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This IS getting bizarre. Look at the length of this section... Shall we try and break this up into individual questions that we can try to get a consensus on?

1. Firstly, removal of the flags from the European Grand Prix / Pacific Grand Prix articles. Without checking, this actually might already have been done.

2. For the race article infobox, e.g. 1994 Pacific Grand Prix, 2008 European Grand Prix, do we agree to use the flag of the host nation?

3. In each season article, there is the table of races for that season. Currently there are flags in those tables. Do we want to keep the flags in those tables? If we do keep the flags in those tables, will they be the flags of the host nation, wherever that may be? This then opens up the aforementioned San Marino / Italy and the Luxembourg / Germany problem and more pressingly the UAE / Abu Dhabi problem. We would need to be consistent.

Let's leave driver flags until we sort these issues out first. Otherwise this will just become some horrible nightmare that people just walk away from. Let's not leave it as it is, because clearly lots of people are unhappy with things as they are. Chubb, you'll forgive people, I guess, if they thought you were serious about leaving, since a few days ago you sent everyone a message saying you'd left. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree

2. Agree

3. Agree with changes. Maybe not San Marino though as no media has ever used it as Italy. Chubbennaitor 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree

2. Agree

3. Agree

Easy. DeMoN2009 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree to counting the European GP the same. For one I am a citizen of a place called Europe. Nobody's a citizen of a place called the Pacific now are they? Second I believe you will find, can't point you to proof just now, that at European GPs since the existence of the EU the EU flag has been flown. That's quite a difference. Name of convenience they both share, but Europe actually exists as a place with a flag. The Pacific does not. Hell the race would have to be under water, in the Pacific Ocean, in any case to really be the Pacific GP. Then at the end, what does the FIA do - do they assign any flag to the race?--Amedeo Felix (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pacific region obviously does exist as a place, and has an organisation called the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, the flag of which we were using until recently. This is similar to the EU. Europe and the EU are not interchangable, as there are several European countries not members of the EU. The race is the European GP, not the EU GP. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I agree on point 1. Point 2, I would suggest that the flag is probably better placed by the name of the venue if we're using the flag of the country it was held in. That would not require a change on all the articles, only a change in the infobox code and changes articles on European, Pacific, Luxembourg and San Marino Grands Prix (the first two are probably already done). I think consistency between articles is important and it doesn't make sense to use a British, German or Spanish flag for the European Grands Prix but then to use a San Marino or Luxembourg flag for the San Marino and Luxembourg Grands Prix - but use Italian and German flags and you get the problem I highlighted earlier. On the third point, I think removing them all is the best option - but failing that, move the flags to the names of the venues and then use the flag of the country they're in (and that would be the UAE in the case of Abu Dhabi). I'm not quite sure what people are agreeing to above on point 3.

FWIW the European flag was the flag of the Council of Europe before it was the flag of the European Union - and the CoE's membership at the moment includes every country with territory in Europe except Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Vatican. A clever person (or committee) in the EU early on decided to adopt the same flag as a completely unrelated organisation on the same continent. Because that was never going to cause confusion, was it? </sarcasm> Pfainuk talk 00:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for information, there used to be a genuine Luxembourg Grand Prix, held at Findel, so I'm in favour of the flag staying in the article. Readro (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have conditionally supported use of flags based simply on location of the Grand Prix based assuming that this flag would be limited to single use in infobox on the main Grand Prix and individual articles. But, I don't see the need of to use the flags in infoboxes either. The flags are intended as representation of sovereign nations and despite the fact that these resepective Grand Prix are staged in those nations, the government does not play an active role in their organization. The infobox clearly describes the location of the Grand Prix, as does the lead of the article. Unless someone else supports the hypothesis that people don't read the articles but just look at pictures, I don't see the point to add a flag except for decoration. ^LeaveSleaves 01:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree

2. Agree

3. Agree in the instance of host nation. Otherwise no flags. While that may create San Marino-Luxembourg-1980s Switzerland confusion using their flags implies that San Marino etal actually have motor racing facilities, which is a falsehood of its own. Call it a preference for no flags actually.

If there is a belief that articles need more colour then the obvious response to me should be add more images rather than substitute flags for the purpose.

On the subject of drivers, for decades now the flag of a drivers nationality has been near universally painted onto the race car next to the drivers name. --Falcadore (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Only because the teams have actively decided to put them there - there's no rule that says they have to. They are not representing their country - only themselves and their teams. Readro (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

They're supposed to show where the drivers come from not who they represent. Chubbennaitor 15:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See that's where your whole understanding of flags is flawed. The flag usage should not be handled on origin/location of the person, team or race. Flags are symbols that indicate affiliation to and representation of the country. ^LeaveSleaves 17:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely late but I want to give my 2c (I'm sorry if this has already been brought up but I tried to read the wall of text and I can't even get to the half without headached). I personally feel that whatever change is discussed here, one of the most important goals is mantaining uniformity. I could agree with changing the flag in the seasons' articles to the flag of the country in which the GP was held instead of the GP "title" flag, as that would solve the problem of supranational entities like Europe and Pacific. But then there's the already mentioned problem of the San Marino and Luxembourg GP and also, for example, the lone case of the 1982 Swiss GP held in Dijon, France. Changing all those flags would cause lots of uniformity issues. So I think there are 3 options: cancel the flags, which I don't support because I think flags are quite useful when used correctly; stick to to what the FIA/FOM/any governing body says it's the right flag; we had a similar issue some time ago at the GP motorcycle racing project with the right flag for Indianapolis GP, and we simply stuck with the flag displayed on the MotoGP site; or display the flag that's associated with the "title" of the GP, so Europe for European, Pacific Community for Pacific, Switzerland for Swiss and so on, which is the option I'd prefer. Asendoh (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, we have two options - remove all the flags or remove flags for the European and Pacific Grand Prix articles. Europe, as an entity, does not have a flag. A collection of some countries, not all, form a political entity with a flag and do not represent the whole continent of Europe. As for the Pacific Community, that is much the same and Japan aren't even in the Pacific Community! However, for races named after a country, we do have flags to represent the countries. We'll have some oddballs (Luxembourg, San Marino, Swiss), but what else can you logically have as a representative flag? Luxembourg GP has had races in both Luxembourg and Germany, Swiss GP has had races in both Switzerland and France. My opinion would be that if we are keeping flags, we do not use any for races not associated with a country, and for those named after a country, use said country's flag. The race itself is fundamentally different to the location. The British bobsleigh championships were held in Turin, Italy. You wouldn't use an Italian flag though! Readro (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we all please vote ad agree/disagree on the three points further above. Chubbennaitor 16:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't formed by voting. Readro (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It can be formed that way however. Ya'll have had a big, very long, discussion over this topic. Reading through it all to determine what the status of the situation is can be difficult. It is not unprecedented for there to be a vote following such a discussion to settle the matter one way or another. (Just an semi-outsider's POV) --TreyGeek (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should use the Pacific Comunity flag and the European Union flag for Pacific GP and European GP. We are using two sets of standards if for these GPs we use the countries flags and not for Luxembourg and San Marino. We must remember that there have been GPs in Luxembourg, thus it would make sense to use the German flag for those that happened in Germany, which would cause some confusion. So for the Abu Dhabi GP, we shouldn't use UAE's flag. So, in that case:

1. Disagree

2. Disagree

3. We keep the flags relatively to the GP name. Fsarmony (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Change	Agree	Disagree
Removal of flags from controversial articles	III	I
Race info box keep country flags	III	I
Change all different types of flags to be consistent	III	I

Just so we can keep track. The Proposals are:

"1. Firstly, removal of the flags from the European Grand Prix / Pacific Grand Prix articles. Without checking, this actually might already have been done.

2. For the race article infobox, e.g. 1994 Pacific Grand Prix, 2008 European Grand Prix, do we agree to use the flag of the host nation?

3. In each season article, there is the table of races for that season. Currently there are flags in those tables. Do we want to keep the flags in those tables? If we do keep the flags in those tables, will they be the flags of the host nation, wherever that may be? This then opens up the aforementioned San Marino / Italy and the Luxembourg / Germany problem and more pressingly the UAE / Abu Dhabi problem. We would need to be consistent."

Place an 'I' in the box above. Chubbennaitor 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems a very weird way of doing things - there's no way to keep track of who's opinion is behind each of those votes, and no easy way of checking that someone hasn't added multiple I's. Makes it a worthless IMO. AlexJ (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It has to be more transparent.

My proposal is that we adopt the following.

• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is above the level of a country, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Pacific Grand Prix has no flag in the main article and the Japanese flag is used in 1995 Pacific Grand Prix.
• If a race is named after a country, then said country's flag will be used in the main article and elsewhere, even if the race takes place in a different country. If a flag is required to denote the location of an individual race, the flag of the genuine host country shall be used. Example: The Luxembourg Grand Prix article uses the Luxembourg flag. Individual races use the Luxembourg flag, although if the Nurburgring circuit requires a flag, the flag of Germany shall be used.
• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is below the level of a country, the flag of the country containing said entity shall be used in both the main article and elsewhere. Example: The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix uses the United Arab Emirates flag, because Abu Dhabi is below the level of country.
• If a race is named after something else, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Glover Trophy shall have no flag in the main article but the flag of the United Kingdom shall be used for individual races.

Would this have support? Readro (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would fully support all that. To clarify, the 1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix article will show the Luxembourg flag - and no flag of Germany in that article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Readro (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - sounds good to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, I would support this proposal.--Diniz(talk) 17:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support but he's repeated what the table's for. Chubbennaitor 17:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I felt that it was a little ambiguous and so worded it a little more formally. Readro (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my original "third point" was more a point to be discussed rather than something to be agreed with or disagreed with. This is now a much clearer and more concise "yay or nay" question, given that we've probably discussed this enough ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, support. D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. DeMoN2009 19:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support here too. Cs-wolves(talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet more support from here- if it means the european gp in the 2009 season page will get a european flag rather than the spanish because that's just a bit daft. Petera93 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you've seen the discussion you've just agreed against what you've said. Chubbennaitor 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Disagree
Cybervoron (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You going to explain your reasoning? --Falcadore (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because, the european flag is really used [1]Cybervoron (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the crux of the matter. There is no European flag. There is a European Union flag, but that is not by any means the same thing. The European Union is only some of Europe. If it was the European Union Grand Prix or the Some of Europe Grand Prix, you would have a case for usage of that flag. The European Union is an economic and political entity with not ties to professional sport as such. Europe is a word used on maps and as such is not an organised entity at all. Part of its border, through Russia, is even largely imaginary. --Falcadore (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we put this as an archived discussion so we can keep this as reference and for people coming the FIA use the spanish flag. Chubbennaitor 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all: the FIA website uses the European flag (http://fialive.fiacommunications.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/europe/Pages/Circuit.aspx); second: you can find the European flag also on the race tickets & hotel page of the Official Formula 1 Website (http://www.formula1.com/services/tickets_and_travel.html); third: last year the FOM broadcaster used the European flag inside the perimeter of the track for the circuit graphics transmitted after the official Formula 1 events intro; fourth: the European flag is not only the European Union flag adopted for the first time in 1985. In fact, it is also the flag of the Council of Europe and was adopted for the first time in 1955. Moreover, nearly all European nations have acceded to the Council of Europe with the exception of Belarus (dictatorship), Kazakhstan (dictatorship), Kosovo (partly unrecognised), Abkhazia (recognised only by two countries), South Ossetia (recognised only by two countries), Northern Cyprus (recognised only by one country), Nagorno-Karabakh (unrecognised), Pridnestrovie (unrecognised) and the Holy See (unique status). So, for these reasons, the European flag has to be used. Mattomatteo27 (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the above? All the arguments above are virtually unbeatable as by FIA I mean the Official cite which actually updates itself. I was on the side of keepinglike it is but everything had a counter argument with something I had nothing back against. Chubbennaitor 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, the FIA also use the flag of Abu Dhabi rather than the UAE. AlexJ (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And on the marshal uniform there was the European flag and not the national flag of the country hosting the circuit. Mattomatteo27 (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that Abu Dhabi isn't really a country. Chubbennaitor 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that flags have to be informative, not decorative. An EU flag next to some words saying 'European Grand Prix' isn't useful. It can be argued that a flag telling you where a race took place is. I mean, personally I'd rather go without, but Chubb et al argued their corner and at the very least this way there is a claim of being informative, even if you don't necessarily agree with it. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can Cybervoron and Mattomatteo27 stop changing the flags otherwise it will be treated as either an edit war or vandalism (depending on what the people here agree with). Chubbennaitor 15:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Imagine what would be with flags in this article, if the European Grand Prix will take place not only in Britain, Germany and Spain... Cybervoron (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Use the current one. Chubbennaitor 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

May as well bring this up again, but User:Lucy-marie is reverting all the instances of the European Grand Prix back to the from the location. I've reverted it once, and given the link to here to discuss her changes, but she has re-reverted. Cs-wolves(talk) 15:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Must be mad to change from he Europe flag, the standard convention is the use of the flag all across Europe even in countryies that are no part of the EU such as Georgia and Turkey. The standard is the use of the flag of the name of the race not its location. To continue with that logic would result is three German races in 1999, highly confusing and misleading. The use of the Europe flag provides clarity that the race was European Grand Prix and not a second Spanish or German grand Prix. What next we have the Spanish flag for the Moto GP of Catlunya, that is what this logic has as its conclusion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have come to the project first before undoing everything that had been agreed upon? Just as a common courtesy? We had achieved a consensus on this issue, there was no need to change it. The use of the European Union flag is inappropriate. Readro (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I personally think that the consensus was well-challenged by the references and arguments that Mattomatteo27 provided, and you have to ask what the flag is for. The flags are primarily there as a visual shorthand and an aid to readers when orientating themselves. I personally feel that having a German flag atop an article about a European Grand Prix is far more misleading than having the EU flag. Ok, so the EU didn't organise the race, but the EU flag is certainly used by the organisers and the vast majority of media who report on the race, and the EU flag has become symbolic of Europe over and above its strictly political origins. The arguments also hold true for the Pacific races, but there we have a problem in that there is no globally accepted visual shorthand for "the Pacific", but were there I would use it. Pyrope 16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To run it up the flagpole again, why do we need the flag in the first place? So we know the European Grand Prix took place in Europe? To know the German Grand Prix was German? British Grand Prix was British? If it isn't reflecting where the race was held but simply the name of the grand prix then it provides no extra information and should just be junked like so much glittery sparkly cruft. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the flags provide an orientation and identification shorthand, a "feel" for want of a more accurate term, that helps the reader by providing visual distiction between articles. Used properly they provide a depth to textual information and a page identity that goes deeper than simply available through text. This is also why they lose their purpose when too many are used. The problem, as with so many things that rely on judgement, is how do you draw the line between "enough" and "too many". Pyrope 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From a visual point of view it is easier to distinguish the Grand Prix apart and locate the main article which is being looked for when dealing with a list of Grand Prix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I find that on this article for example it provides very little, and the sheer volume of flags acctually takes away from the words while providing nothing by way of information. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So take it up on the individual article. I'd actually agree about that article being complete overkill with regard to flags. They are jumbled and confusing and break the wikitable formatting in many places. But to take a dog's breakfast like that (I'm actually sceptical about that whole page's existence) and argue "down with all flagicons" isn't reasonable. Pyrope 17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite 'down with all' pyrope, just down with all that have zero added value in terms of information. I have never found a flag next to the word the flag is meant to be substituting useful. In place of, or next to, things like EUR or GB I can see the argument for the value, it is far more convenient compared to a legend --Narson ~ Talk • 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Flags are useful in many different ways. I always find flags informative and I thought we had closed this discussion. Chubbennaitor 06:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I say do away with these flags altogther. Only the most challenged of readers actually need them and they're clearly not something we're going to decide upon. In the spirit of the recent arbitrary mass changing of flags, I've changed them again, mainly annoyed with other people's edits being described as "madness" and "lunacy" without either word being spelled correctly. There are proper ways to write edit summaries, and improper, impolite, irritating ways. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie has begun edit-warring again. I've opted to take this to the Incidents Noticeboard, see here. D.M.N. (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Stating that this is an edit war is a misrepresentation. A simple reading of the discussions so far have concluded that the removal of the EU flag was originally against consensus and the user of I have reverted was also edit warring by this definition. The user whom was reverted by myself was advocating the complete removal of all flags and not the use of national flags over the EU flag.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that you haven't suggested a compromise all you are doing is undoing people's revisions - you are not helping the situation at all by creating a revert/edit war. D.M.N. (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless consensus is changed what was there originally is stuck with, Consensus was not reached to change from the EU flag in the first place and it has been discussed and concluded not to use national flags over the EU flag. In this case we stick with the original, no compromise middle ground can be found it is a simple either or not both situation. I would also like to know why the other user was not pulled up on 22 May?--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We have agreed to use the flag of the host country last I checked and that was discussed and passed. People fail to see that. Chubbennaitor 15:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No we have not agreed concensus changed, after reading the discussion previously, it was pointed out that they did not change the original consensus and descended into voting and were opposed by a number of people as has been shown by the later discussions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I do like the idea of no flag. I have always thought we use flag icons too liberally in the sports articles. David D. (Talk) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IP changing 2009 entry numbers

An IP has changed some 2009 entry numbers without explanation. However, anyone seeking to revert the changes would be advised to refer to this [2] before so doing. Regards Britmax (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The FIA is just a catalogue of fuckups already this season, isn't it? I wonder what is next. They will realise actually all the cars should be motorbikes. Narson'sPetFerret (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is Force India cares more about its merchandise than its cars. Apterygial 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The FIA have run a good ship until they tried to change the rules. Chubbennaitor 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Incivility/swearing

Chubb? Don't edit my comments to the talk page. It has the potential to piss me off. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe in no swearing. I don't like it, so instead of changing the whole edit I put stars there that only older members understand. I'm not changing your comment just censoring as this is a public encyclopedia. I'll put stars in for this edit. Chubbennaitor 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Chubb, what you believe in does not translate into things you are allowed to do. Bear in mind that wikipedia isn't censored. It was not a hideous swearing tirade, it was the use of a vernacular once. Quit it. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(See WP:CENSOR, although that doesn't directly refer to talk pages. 4u1e (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, it is quite interesting. The best you will find really is the talk page guidelines which tell you when you can edit someone else's comments in some way. Appears that WP:CENSOR has shifted over the years. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So, taking offense doesn't apply on talk pages. Chubbennaitor 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally on talk pages the main reasons for editing a comment would be a personal attack or BLP concerns, I believe. It is all in the talk page guidelines. If I was swearing /at/ you, then yes, you might be perhaps justified. If we simply allowed editing of others comments to remove what people didn't like...well, I'm not too fond of American spelling so I might go around changing your 'offense' to 'offence'. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If we were allowed to edit any comments that we take offence at, then I'd be busy all day! :D Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of American spelling, my computer's in American, but the thing is people take offence by a swear word just said randomly. I'm talking about swear words which on nearly every public site are blcked out. Chubbennaitor 16:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

People take offence at a great many things. If we stopped doing them we'd have to blank out large sections of the encyclopedia. It is just not OK to go around editing other peoples talk page contribs except in clear situations as outlined in the talk page guidelines. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm very sorry for not wanting incivility on talk pages. Chubbennaitor 16:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing another users comments is uncivil, Chub. Two 'wrongs' (using the term loosely) don't make a right. If you don't like it, just skim over it, but it's not up to you to decide what language is acceptable on this page. 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then who is? Chubbennaitor 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit silly. To answer your question, Chubb, no-one gets to decide what other people can or can't say on talk pages, unless they are attacking another user. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry to bring this up again, but, because of the swearword in this discussion, I am unable to access this page whilst I am at school (which is where I normally do quite a bit of WP work) as the school blocking filter always blocks pages with swearwords on them - this is why I haven't really commented much on here recently. I would, for one, be extremely grateful if we could &*^% it out. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Chubbennaitor 16:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah - now a practical reason for avoiding the words in question is different. Although I wouldn't want to see anyone policing language: it's still a matter of personal choice, although we should be aware that it causes problems for others (Btw, shouldn't you be working at school ;-)). My two cents etc. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we block them up then. Chubbennaitor 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "block them up"? Do you mean "replace any existing swearwords on this page with "***" or "!@#$" or something like that" (so that Cdhaptomos' school blocking filter will let it through)? If that's what you mean, I don't have any objection. DH85868993 (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss this guys. Take it elsewhere. ^LeaveSleaves 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Where else are we supposed to discuss it? I think here is as good as any place.

Is anyone against replacing the swearword with asterisks? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The best place to do this is on the editor's own talkpage, not the project talk page. There you can explain your difficulties with the language used and ask them to refactor their own comment. This talk page is for discussion of WP:F1 and it's aims, not common courtesy. Pyrope 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If users have issues with other editors, take it to their own userpage. With the Cdhaptomos situation, if users swear we don't **** it out (WP:CENSOR, its just one of those things, you won't be able to use Wiki in school then. D.M.N. (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this. Are we going to block the swear words (Yes I meant it that way) or not for practical and offensive reasons? People can swear but remove one of the letters or replace that letter with a '*' so we know they're swearing but children don't understand it (this is public) and for other practical reasons (page blockers at school). (I don't see at any time the wp:censor says swearing is allowed or disallowed which is why the above should resolve it especcially as it started over something as silly as what Narson was 'angry' about)Chubbennaitor 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While I personally don't believe in censorship, the applicable rule is WP:CIVIL, in which case says not to swear. On that note: fack, shoot, dang, gosh, flippin, Tina come eat your ham! But seriously, refer to WP:CIVIL -- Guroadrunner (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Children understand it, trust me. ExamRevision 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst there is WP:CIVIL to abide by, there are certain times when the use of a swear word will not infringe those rules. As a WikiProject we do not have the authority to instate rules over and above those of Wikipedia itself. We do not own these pages and refactoring talk page comments is not allowed. On a less serious note, the best profanity is clearly Semprini. Readro (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in CIVIL that I violated. To quote from CIVIL: Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor. It was directed at no-one. If Chubb had a problem he could have come to me rather than deciding to edit my comments. He didn't, he chose instead to edit my comments. Hopefully he has learned from this. My apologies for the delayed reaction, I have been somewhat budy off wiki. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So, for no reason at all we're going to allow incivility and I didn't come to you narson because you would shout back in my face. You all make me sick because you all believe that we all have to follow the rules as one person wants us to. Toyota etc. have (gotten) away with it and because you all don't have the decency to remain civil in your words you have all pushed over my limit of being able to cope with life. Why can't we just allow the intention but not the word. That makes sense and the only children who will know it is because their parents have allowed them. Chubbennaitor 18:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets just f*cking leave this alone and "drama queen"? I thought you'd realise that's not the best thing to say. Chubbennaitor 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I took your message to the admin noticeboard because I read it as a suicide threat. Saying that we've "pushed you over your limit to cope with life" is a serious statement to make and it rings many alarm bells. Using the phrase "drama queen" was for the benefit of the administrators. It refers to your numerous threats to quit without actually doing so, in order to get your own way. Instead of being arsey that I called you a drama queen, be glad that I cared enough to worry. Readro (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also note /again/ that my undirected language was not uncivil and it gets tiring to have you repeat ad nauseum your mistaken reading of our policies. I'd suggest just checking the list of word we maintain articles on, just put in a swear word or a fetish and you will find we have it. Go to commons and you can have your pick of images of male genetalia (And fewer of female ones for some reason). We are not censored and, like all things on the internet, adults should check out a site thoroughly and make an informed decision about their children coming here. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Portal

Our Portal is now Featured! Thanks to everyone who gave me a hand putting it together (Chubbennaitor, Cdhaptomos and Diniz among them). It doesn't end there though, I'm always looking for more DYKs and pictures at Portal:Formula One/Did you know and Portal talk:Formula One/Selected picture. Apterygial 01:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done everyone. Sorry haven't been helping out recently. Chubbennaitor 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Well done everyone! Does that mean we can implement my idea now, Apterygial? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not hugely keen on it, but if you reckon it'll be better for the portal I have no grounds to oppose it. Apterygial 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Which idea is this and shall we bring this back to the Portal's talk page. Chubbennaitor 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it in later tonight. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion...

...I, formerly Diniz, have had my username changed to Midgrid. Just so you all know!--Midgrid(talk) 22:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Chubbennaitor 07:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should quote from his userpage:

Eventually I became dissatisfied with this name, and on May 9, 2009, my username was changed to Midgrid, in accordance with my standard username on several other websites.

That would explain it. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Constructors in tables

In the various Grands Prix articles, I notice the convention is to refer to the winning cars as Constructor-Engine rather than the name of the car. Is there a good reason why this should not be ammneded so that say McLaren-Honda might become McLaren MP4/4 Honda? --Falcadore (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The column is called "constructors" not "car model". Darth Newdar (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically it follows an FIA convention based upon their rules. For the purposes of the World Constructors Championship, each entry is taken as a Constructor-Engine combination. Thus, as Ferrari did a few years back, a team can run a completely different model of car in one race to the another in the same season with all results counting towards the same WCC total. However if a team switched engine suppliers mid-season, they would get two entries in the WCC (say for example Williams-Toyota would be listed seperately to Williams-Mercedes). The 1983 season shows quite a few examples of this. AlexJ (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Darth: that's the semantic version of a response. Why can't it be the car name? --Falcadore (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AlexJ: That convention only applies to the World Drivers' Championship yes (1950-2009, or the first year constructors were recognised: 1958-2009)? Most of the Grands Prix have a history that is not completely inclusive of the World Championship, Argetine (I think), Australian, Belgian, British, Caesars Palace, Detriot, European (I think), French, German, Hong Kong, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean (if you included the Super Prix), Long Beach, Macau, Malaysian, Morrocan, New Zeland, Phoenix, Singapore, Spanish, United States, essentially it is forcing the constructors nomenclature onto some races which either did not recognise or pre-dated the concept. Also, this is pertaining to results of individual races, not season points totals, surely then supposing the Ferrari F92AT won its one-off race, which it did not, but if it did then that is worthy of recognition in the race article concerned - like the Brabham 'fan car' did at Anderstorp in 1978(?). In some races more than one model of the same FIA convention (Ferrari, Cooper-Climax, Tyrrell-Cosworth etc) appeared in the smae race, making it additionally worthy of clarification. --Falcadore (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking it to extremes, should it be McLaren MP4-24 - Mercedes-Benz FO 108W? The challenge is getting the balance right when it comes to level of detail. We are a general interest encyclopedia, not a dedicated F1 stats site. Most mainstream media will make reference to team-names and sometimes team-engine names (especially in results tables). However, rarely will you see an article in a broadsheet newspaper naming the particular model of car driven. For one-race models, of course the car deserves a mention in the prose of the article. Indeed the other cases where one driver drove one model and another a different model can also be covered in the prose if it's deemed important enough. However the results table should be as uncluttered as possible, and having the car model in there dilutes the (most) important data (in my opinion). AlexJ (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Falcadore: just to clarify: are you proposing the addition of car model info to the race results tables in the individual race report articles (e.g. 2009 Australian Grand Prix), or to the "list of winners" tables in the "<country> Grand Prix" articles, e.g. Australian Grand Prix? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"<country> Grand Prix" was my original request. Part of my recent crusade at promoting non-World Championship events that contribute to a Grands Prix history. --Falcadore (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not support this unless you are suggesting an extra column; if you are, that's okay, but if you're suggesting changing the "constructor" column, then it's a strong oppose from me. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you define constructor? --Falcadore (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Have we considered just seperating the tables for pre-F1 days? If this is already the case, I don't see the problem. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not be a fan of that as the World Championship should be viewed as part of the whole and not the entire reason for the article. --Falcadore (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What are we all on about. We use the name of the constructors name, (this means engine (and chassis) as well. This means that Prodrive would be Prodrive-McLaren-Mercedes). Brawn-Mercedes makes sense and so does Force India Mercedes, Scuderia Toro Rosso Ferrari etc. Chubbennaitor 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The constructor is "Brawn-Mercedes" or "Red Bull-Renault" etc. Darth Newdar (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What I said. Chubbennaitor 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Using historical precedent a Prodrive team utilising a 100% customer version of McLaren would still be McLaren-Mercedes (no Prodrive at all). Pop back into the 70's and 60's when cars were referred to as March-Cosworth or Cooper-Climax, Brabham-Repco or Ferrari, regardless of the team name. Additionally, a Prodrive team running a McLaren-Mercedes would contribute to McLaren's points tally rather than their own. Team names are a quite separate issue, but there is no Prodrive team, so its a bit moot. --Falcadore (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither particularly in favour of, nor opposed to the proposal. However, here are some points to consider:

• Adding car model info to the winners tables in the "<country> Grand Prix" articles might encourage editors to want to add the same info to the race results tables in the individual race reports, which would be a lot of work. (Or, perhaps, more typically, they would add them to the current season race report articles [since they're the only ones they personally care about], thereby making the current season race report articles inconsistent with those of the preceding 59 seasons).
• We would need to decide a consistent format, i.e. is it "McLaren-Honda MP4/4" or "McLaren MP4/4-Honda" or "McLaren MP4/4 Honda" (no dash), etc [not a huge issue]
• As a general principle, we use/claim www.formula1.com (which only lists constructor-engine) as the reference for all our race results. So if we want to add car model info, we'd possibly/probably need to identify a reference for the info. I'm aware that there are various sites such as ChicaneF1 which contain car model info, so that could be one solution.
• There tends to be more discrepancy between various sources when it comes to car model names than, say, constructor names, e.g. what one source calls a "Ferrari 312/66", another source will just call a "Ferrari 312". Probably not a huge issue, especially if we're only talking about cars which have won races.

DH85868993 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I really hate this! Virtually nobody wants to know the car model; the constructor is much more important. The only thing I think you could have is an extra column called "car model", on the season reports, but I object to it on the Grand Prix articles. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

DN: How do you get past that the constructor term is not accurate for several races? I want to know why and what I get from you is you hate it and you don't care about the inaccuracy. A lot of Grand Prix articles are incredibly WDC and in this instance WCC-centric. Right now I want to know why not make the corrections, not 'can you green-light me to start making the corrections'. --Falcadore (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have plenty of print reference with the correct models. --Falcadore (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For the races where constructor is not relevant, couldn't something like Entrant be used instead? AlexJ (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, I think putting the information of the car model would be okay in the season articles (where more information is okay) but I don't think you need it in the grand prix articles. Saying that Jenson Button was racing for Brawn-Mercedes is much more worthwhile than saying he was racing in a BGP 001, isn't it? I suppose you could add an extra column if you wish, something like "car model", but replacing the constructor with the car model makes no sense to me at all, even if the constructor information is inaccurate. Darth Newdar (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, missing my point. For example the 1984 Australian Grand Prix, a Formula Mondiale race, or the 2009 New Zealand Grand Prix, the 1993 Indonesian Grand Prix, a Formula Holden race, those early 1950s Monaco Grand Prix sports car races, exactly which 'season' article do you mean? This is what I mean by WDC-centric, its the non-WDC races in particular where the constructor term is if not wrong, then certainly misleading. Entrant is more confusing, not less. For example from the 1950's Indy races, what is a 'Leader Card'? Or for that matter Rob Walker's F1 team often had a mix of Lotus and Coopers models, how would you know what Stirling Moss may have been driving when it says 'Rob Walker Racing Team'? --Falcadore (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, I think that for non-WDC races the car model is fine. I'm saying that WDC races should be the constructor (not the car model). Darth Newdar (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Alerts

I set up the Article Alerts for us a few days ago, and the results appear on our project page. All the same, you may want to watchlist this page just in case there's any prods or AFDs. Apterygial 08:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2010 season

There's a discussion going on (only between two of us, admittedly) about how to deal with the driver/team list for next season. If anyone would like to take part, it's here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

1963 non-championship F1 races

Does anyone have details of the non-championship F1 races run in 1963? That's the only pre-1982 season which doesn't have the non-championship races listed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Added. --Sporti (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A. J. Foyt

User:Erika39 has controversially moved the article to Anthony Joseph Foyt. I have decided to dispute the move per WP:COMMONNAME. Please comment with your opinion about the name for his article at Talk:Anthony Joseph Foyt. Royalbroil 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Budget cap row... need for an article?

Considering we've got several major teams saying they'll pull out next year, and the FIA refusing to back down, anyone think we need an article on the whole matter? D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Not unless 2010 Formula One season fills up enough that a split is needed. That article currently contains speculations and crystal-ballery. A request was made above to comment on the issue being discussed and I believe if the issue is solved logically, the article perfect place to start on the budget row and related issues. ^LeaveSleaves 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

'd suggest an article on the main inquires etc. of 2009 as we've had a lot. (this also doesn't make it sound like the FIA isn't doing a good job and, yes, I know that we have to stay Objective not emotive but it might just catch someone's attention.) Chubbennaitor 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Would this article be of any help? Britmax (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We are not a news source. We should not be collecting opinions and complaints made by F1 personalities and publishing them. When there is a policy shift we should write about what the policy shift is. Be enclopedic. Describe the events, not the posturing. --Falcadore (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an article (It's my name for a page) on the controversy during 2009 is encyclopedic as people could understand what happened in full detail. The double-diffuser, budget cap, the sudden rule changes before Melbourne etc. Chubbennaitor 21:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree wth Falcadore on this. Until there is some major effect, it doesn't require major coverage. We are not a news source to report at length on /potential/ impacts. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is what the season summary article is for - to report the stuff that happens during the season that doesn't properly belong in the race reports or team articles? Agree with Leavesleaves, Falcadore and Narson, in other words. Also bear in mind that there's a long way to run on this one; as an encyclopedia we need to keep our eyes on the long term and not get bogged down in the details of what's happening this week. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I was merely saying that this is fairly big and the season summary isn't big enough. Chubbennaitor 16:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The season summary is plenty big enough, providing the race-by-race stuff is kept brief, and doesn't start delving into unnecessary details about the battle for 16th place or whatever. AlexJ (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If it gets too big then write more concisely. --Falcadore (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But there is a lot even if written as brief as possible. Chubbennaitor 06:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What has actually happened? Is there still a lot if you limit it to events that have occurred and not mention anything that is rumoured or threatened? Remember we are not a news source so we don't have to write anythign of about speculations. --Falcadore (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review notification

Just letting you guys know, I've put 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix up for Peer Review here. Thanks to Midgrid for helping me with referencing and adding content to the article. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox flag icons

All of the team infoboxes have been changed so that their is now a flagicon for the location of the team's base and no flagicons for team executives. What is the point of this? Is it a widely approved change? It seems far less useful than the previous setup. Please reply quickly because otherwise I'm just changing them all back. Eightball (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you spoken to the responsible editor, I believe User:THEunique on the subject? --Falcadore (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I see any reason for the team execs to have flags. On the issue of team flags..have we got a source for some of them? Only the Red Bull win got the British National Anthem not the Austrian. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This source indicated the wrong anthem was played. Apterygial 11:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, tis what I figured. Just thought we had better have sources available just incase. I do think a flag for the team is a good idea, specifying what flag they fly under. A flag for where their base is? Not so important. I mean, we all know Milton Keynes is in the United Kingdom. The execs...well...one could argue either way, can't see why their nationality is important, but hey, it is information not otherise conveyed. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you said, executives are different to teams or drivers, as the latter two operate under national sporting federation licences, while executives do not. If the info needs conveying, then their individual pages (if they have them) can convey that. Can't really see why it would need to be in team infoboxes. Apterygial 12:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the above. Where nationality is significant then flags are great, but where it isn't then they are a distraction. Drivers and team registrations: yes; executives/designers and team locations: no. Pyrope 16:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My view fwiw: flags for teams, races and drivers and nothing else. Apart from anything else, it's actually quite hard to prove someone's formal nationality in most cases. 4u1e (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So would no one is opposed to me removing the infobox flags beside team locations? There seems to be a consensus to that effect. Personally I liked having the flags beside team principals/technical directors, but the question of proving nationality is a valid concern. However, would it possible to acquire this information from the FIA/F1.com? For example, the caption of every photograph on F1.com includes displays nationality in parentheses next to any notable person in the picture. Eightball (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you spoken to the responsible editor, I believe User:THEunique on the subject? --Falcadore (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 French Grand Prix references

I posted this at WP:MII, but as I got no response I'll post it here instead:

On the 2008 French Grand Prix, please could somebody with the Autocourse book reference both the championship standings after the race, and the background section's section (that looks odd) on the championship standings going into the race. Darth Newdar (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari F1 car article renames

Four Ferrari F1 car articles have recently been renamed as follows:

• Ferrari F1 640-->Ferrari 640
• Ferrari F1 641-->Ferrari 641
• Ferrari F1 642-->Ferrari 642
• Ferrari F1 643-->Ferrari 643

Is everyone happy with these changes? I am, but I thought I'd check there's consensus before going and changing all the references to these cars in other articles. DH85868993 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the official car names include the "F1" term, similar to Ferrari 248 F1? If not, the move is fine. D.M.N. (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

...and that depends on what you mean by "official" name. If you mean what the Ferrari website uses then I'm not entirely keen that we treat that as "official". Many of those names are revisionist terms that they use to avoid confusion where they have reused names. Pyrope 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the renaming is correct. Just checked my copy of the Grand Prix Data Book and F1 is not part of the name. link Ferrari seem to calling them F1-90, etc, which I'm pretty sure is revisionism - they were called 641, etc. Spute (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW yes, that's what they were called in the press at the time. And since Ferrari have built very few non-F1 racing cars in the last 30 years or so (A1GP and 333SP notwithstanding), I think there's little need to specify that they're F1 cars. 4u1e (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. In which case good move. :) D.M.N. (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, consensus seems pretty clear. I'll start updating references to these cars in other articles within the next couple of days. DH85868993 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

USF1

Ructions going on here regarding the name of this team. Argument revolves around the fairly acute point that the USF1 name is not permitted to be used until the team's entry is accepted. I am maintaining that Wikipedia should follow that line, and others, mainly one other editor, disagree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken Anderson made it very clear: "it is Team USF1." Furthermore, both Anderson and Windsor have reflected that USGPE was simply an alternate domain name they used until their entry was filed. USGPE was never going to be the team name. So we have two biggest guys in the team saying, "USGPE was never the team name" and "the team name is Team USF1." There is no argument. Eightball (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an argument, and it's at the 2010 discussion page, not here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I should be clearer: there shouldn't be an argument. Why you persist with one is beyond me. Eightball (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, why I persist with the argument is beyond you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind seeing a lock placed on the article until an official calendar is announced. It's 2010 season folks - the 2009 season article needs a lot of work - priorities please, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a new service remember. --Falcadore (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a teams table unless it's of the current teams of 2009. Chubbennaitor 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 Brazilian Grand Prix on main page

Looks like 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix will be on the main page on June 12. Might be a good idea to watchlist it (particularly with those Glock conspiracy nuts about). Apterygial 09:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to change this on the actual article but the following sentence: "Coulthard will continue to work for Red Bull Racing in 2009 as a testing and development consultant", is now incorrect as it is now 2009. Darth Newdar (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Apterygial 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I added two bits of information, but it's up to someone other to put links if needed. One was about Coulthard's helmet camera and one about Force India's tyres (at least this may be found if you google "tyre strategies brazilian gp".BleuDXXXIV (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

McLaren page move

Someone's moved the McLaren page to McLaren (racing), which is not only a rather rubbish name for the article, but it has created a zillion redirection problems. Should we move it back or do something else? The guy didn't discuss it with anyone... Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be an idea to decide on a course of action pretty soon, before bots start redirecting things. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I have always wondered why McLaren article did not have a disambiguation in the title. But since it was convenient from my point of view (I know, not very considerate of me), I never bothered to bring it up. I'm not clear as to what the problem is in this move. ^LeaveSleaves 15:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the racing team is pretty blatantly the primary meaning. Someone switch it back. Controversial, needs a revert and discussion from the previous position. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would revert it back, but only admins can do that.... someone will need to list it at WP:RM. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a Primary Topic, no question about it. The problem is fairly clear - the huge number of redirects that have arisen, from a move which shouldn't have been made anyway. Plus "(racing)" is a hopeless suffix for an article name anyway. I'm for moving it back. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Then follow D.M.N.'s advice and file a request at WP:RM. ^LeaveSleaves 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo (talk · contribs), who made the move, has also made a request at WP:RM to move McLaren (disambiguation) to McLaren, which I think should be commented upon there before any counter-request is made.--Midgrid(talk) 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Move request to revert has been created. Please all add your comments to both move requests. --Falcadore (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't it been moved! It needs to be the other way. McLaren is the obvious meaning and the only one in the list that is just McLaren. The disambiguation page needed to stay! why is it still the same. Chubbennaitor 20:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does an admin need to move it? I can move it buy clicking on move. What's the problem. Chubbennaitor 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact RM is running a week behind, you might want to have a read of Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Are move discussions popularity contests? --Falcadore (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would actually like to know as I don't know why we need an admin. Chubbennaitor 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

question

is there an article on wiki about the double diffusor? Loosmark (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of; I think this and individual car articles are the closest we have.--Midgrid(talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO an article specificaly about the DD in F1 is very necessary. Loosmark (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why. It can easily be explained on 2009 Formula One season. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A so called "double diffuser" isn't conceptually different to a "diffuser", it's just a diffuser which has a larger effective size. It's not as if anyone has invented something new - it's just a case of different teams interpreting rules slightly differntly. For a few months this year the "double diffuser" was important (and should be covered in 2009 Formula One season), but I see no need at all for an article. There's enough other things to do. Spute (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Since there was so much talk about it, many people are interested in what way are these DD different from the normal diffusers and an encyclopedia should provide them an answer. Loosmark (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All diffusers are different. What exactly is a "normal" diffuser? You're simply comparing this new diffuser to older diffuser designs in F1. This is hardly a new invention. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the principle of every diffuser is obviously the same but the DD is a more complex design than what they had in last years, the hole to feed the top side and all that. But anyway my point is when an occasional F1 fan hears all these talks about the DD and doesn't know what is that and decides to type "double diffuser" in wikipedia i think he should get something rather nothing. Loosmark (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The double diffuser is not a more complex design, it's a rule exploit that's not the first use of this sort of concept. I'm fairly certain Wikipedia's search engine will find "double diffuser" in 2009 Formula One season and get relevant information. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh, not a more complex design!? Everybody says it's more complex, see for example http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73700 The car also appears to exit hot air under the gearbox fairing and rear crash structure, as part of a complex diffuser solution. Loosmark (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We spoke about this earlier. Last I saw we decided against the article as 2009 article covered it enough. Chubbennaitor 20:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As with any suggested article on Wikipedia, if you want to write one then write one. Make it interesting, informative, relevant and substantial, with plenty of references to show NOR and notability, and it will probably survive even a fairly determined AfD/merger challenge. However, if you make stubby and thin then it will get blown away with the rest of the chaff. If you want an article on this then you write one, the others here don't seem massively keen but if it yanks your chain then do it, just take on board their comments. Pyrope 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. And don't get upset if others start poking hole in the article. ^LeaveSleaves 18:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Flags

Lets have a clean break and start again.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You might need to clarify what you mean, Lucy, it's not really clear from what you've said so far. 4u1e (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So you thought you'd change everything to how you wanted it and then discuss it? That's not how it works. We had a discussion on the use of flags some time ago. That discussion ended and a decision was taken. Everyone accepted it at the time. If you want to discuss the use of flags again, we can do so. What we will not do is change everything to suit you and start all over again. Please outline your problem with the use of flags. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a fresh discussion as to the use of flas in general in F1 articles and if they should be used how they should be used. This is not the place for edit warring and incivility and the discussions should focus as such.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this is a fresh discussion, so we'll start with how consensus (9:3) was established after the last discussion. The only person edit-warring is you, and I see that despite a complaint being made against you for doing (which you closed yourself! Wow...) you are still doing it. It would be advisable to confine your edits on the subect to this page, starting by (for the second time) outlining your problem with the use of flags. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your first line is not starting fresh your are using an old discussion to further your own POV that is hardly a fresh start now is it. this is descending into you just being blatantly in-civil to push your own POV either be big boy and discuss this will end in an in-civilty block.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because you are now reverting to versions of articles as if the first discussion never took place. If you want to accuse me of "blatant incivility", I would like you to report me and see what happens. I have not been incivil anywhere, as is plainly obvious. Furthermore, I have already asked you twice to state your problem with the flags, yet all you can do is accuse me of not discussing the subject, edit-warring and POV, none of which assume good faith, do they?. You're not making any sense. Looking forward to the incivility block. If you can eventually start discussing the flags, that would be nice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is content fee and an attack section only so a new section below has been initiated.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the last time I'm going to accept you accusing me of attacking you. If you have an incivility issue, I insist that you take it to the appropriate place and cease making accusations against me here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, what's all this then??

Okay, so do we need a discussion on flags, and Lucy-Marie, you haven't taken a position one way or the other with what you want changed from the current format. Until that is explained, then there's no need for a discussion (because there's no showing of discontent for the current system) -- Guroadrunner (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) /// nm, I didn't scroll down to read the discussion. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of Flag in F1 articles

This section is for discussion as to the general inclusion of Flags in F1 articles and if thy should be included how they should be included.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still happy with Readro's proposal above. If you have your own proposal, then I suggest that you make it rather than just effectively stating that "there is going to be a discussion".--Midgrid(talk) 19:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are there now two sections for this? If you have an issue with the flags, what is it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the name of the race should dictate the flag used and where that is not possible use no flag a all.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Others, myself included, prefer that the flag should reflect the country in which the race is held. This arose when another editor rightly brought it to our attention that the Pacific Community flag is not appropriate for the Pacific GP, because the race was held in Japan. Japan is not a member of the Pacific Community. Likewise, not all countries in which the European GP has been held are members of the EU. Using a flag for some races and not others is not a workable policy, in my view. Maybe others will disagree. Theoretically, a race can be named after anything, including entities which do not have flags. Therefore, most of us in the last discussion felt it better to use the flag of the home nation. If enough people raise an argument against that here, it will of course change. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Germany, Great Britain and Spain were all members of the EU when they hosted the European Grand Prix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland was not, and is not. Apart from that, the European Grand Prix predates the European Union - we can't use a flag to refer to a race given that, at the time the race took place, both that flag and the organisation it represents did not exist. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Before the use of the title European Grand Prix races were simply designated as the European Grand Prix and the country name was still retained in the race title as opposed to the race being solely called the European Grand Prix. There has never been a European Grand Prix held in Switzerland that was only called the European Grand Prix the Swiss Grand Prix was simply designated as the European Grand Prix for that season.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that makes any difference. They were still called the European Grand Prix, designated as such and listed in the EGP article. Whether they had other names or not is utterly irrelevant. Besides, this is only a small part of why the European flag is not appropriate in this case, as is outlined by others in this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The races were still called the British Grand Prix or the Monaco Grand Prix, The designation as the European Grand Prix was purely honorary and irrelevant to these discussions as the European flag is not being mooted for use within those articles. It is only being mooted for use in articles where the race was known exclusively as the European Grand Prix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point, but I disagree. The title as used now is only a title of convenience because the FIA do not allow two races of the same title in one season. So it's really the same thing. The EU has no motorsports federation so it cannot, and does not, "hold a race". Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the principle, and I agree that it's unworkable to have flags for some races and not others. I would also add that using flags to reflect the name of the race (and thus not carrying any new encyclopædic information) violates the MOS.

My own preference is to ditch the flags beside the names of races completely, and instead - if anywhere - put them beside track names. This would have the advantage of making it clear which country the race was held in, and thus would carry encyclopædic information. This would also carry over to races held outside the countries that they were named after (so the San Marino Grand Prix would not have a San Marino flag, but would have an Italian flag next to Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari or Imola). Pfainuk talk 20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't mind ditching the race flags for the season articles - I don't think they add a lot, and there are too many flags generally. For the individual race articles, e.g. 2009 European Grand Prix, I think Pfainuk's suggestion would work very well if the template could be adjusted to show the flag in the right place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pfain beat me to the MOS point (And I duly hate him for it! Coming in here stealing my points. Not like I have enough to share!). Anywhere the name of the grand prix is spelled out in full, lets ditch the darn flag. For things like tables where we are using a flag or EUR and then a flag for space saving? I'm more ok with that. Pfain's idea about the track I'm iffy on if only because with the track bit in the info box, it seems we could just put 'Imola, Italy' or 'Silverstone, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom'. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ditching flags for all GP names in infoboxes. I can see the logic in having a Brazilian flag next to say Ayrton Senna, as this conveys the extra bit of information about his nationality, with a clear distinction between the graphical nationality info. and the textual name info. Having the same flag next to Brazilian Grand Prix however is pointless as it adds no extra information, it's graphical nationality followed by textual nationality. With regard to the space saving usage, I prefer using country codes to flags, as they can be easily wikilinked to the relevant article. AlexJ (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I also support the idea of getting rid of flags. They don't add any information.Spute (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, we used the the same layout that general media use. If we go and start to change it, people will come and it will be from the norm and people won't be happy. I think the flags are good and help add the tiniest bit of colour stopping it looking dull. I like the current layout or the one we had before the Pacific GP discussion. Flags are used in the media as hey are at the moment. I have done research and the general view is that flags are useful and as they are used in the media make sense on Wikipedia. The only controversial result is the type of flag which I haven't gotten any evidence for. Chubbennaitor 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, what the rest of the media use is not relevant here. Wikipedia has rules and guidelines which we are supposed to follow. The MOS for flags says that a flag has to add information not otherwise provided. In the case of flags for races, that is generally not the case, as AlexJ explained very clearly. The MOS also says flags are not to be used for decoration. I think the idea of country codes that can be wikilinked is a good one. Furthermore, with regard to the problem of people coming in and adding flags where consensus decides there shouldn't be any, we can easily keep the lid on that, and I'm sure it won't be a prolonged issue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I think I said above somewhere, I'd use them (sparingly) for drivers and teams, who officially represent a nation. Individual GPs don't need them, as it's given in their title. Breton correctly quotes the MOS on not using flags for decorative purposes. 4u1e (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that we are not a newspaper or a TV channel. We don't report, we document. For reporting, check out Wikinews. You will notice a more media style in the sourcing, writing et al. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We are also an encyclopedia. We give information and document it. If you look at most encyclopedias that use similar layouts to ours they follow what the media. If we are supposed to inform people we have to give them the norm, so they don't get confused. We are supposed to document this for the public and we effectively have to give them what they want. I have done research as I strongly want the flags and if the research went against my argument I would step down and let it go ahead. It will also look detrimental to the loom of the page. We are the media (listen to that) and we want people to read the page, boring grey tables don't help that. When the flags are there I look down and use the colour's of the flags to go directly to the correct one. For the brazil GP I see a bright green colour and it leads me towards it. Chubbennaitor 11:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Britannica [3] and Encarta [4]. No flags there. And we are not a media outlet. AlexJ (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Woah, let's stop here. AlexJ is right - we are not the media. We also do not follow the media or reflect it. We also do not have to give the public what they want. We just follow the guidelines as set out by those Wikipedians who do that kind of thing. Chubb, read WP:ICONDECORATION and please drop the idea that we are obliged to make pages look pretty. Flags that don't add information should be dropped. How about for the Brazilian GP, we just look down the table for the word "Brazilian"? More people will look for that than will recognise the flag anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

With the same point above we are also not Encarta or Britannica just the same as wictionary is not Webters or Collins.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Another guideline as stipulated in the MOS for flags is the following, which I believe is applicable here, regardless of how many other websites use the EU flag for the European Grand Prix:

"Do not repurpose icons beyond their legitimate scope -

Icons can represent a specific entity and should not be repurposed to represent something else, e.g. because an actually appropriate flag is not available. For example, do not abuse the flag of the United Nations to represent the entire world, as this is not an accurate application of the official flag of that international organization."

I believe this can be interpreted very simply in this case, in that the flag of the EU does not represent the European Grand Prix. It is not the European Union Grand Prix, therefore the EU flag is not appropriate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We may not be direct media but we are technically media. Media-A means of mass communication. We are a mass communication. I like the spanish or EU flag but not having no flags. The FIA represent the races with flags, the race hosts represent themselves with flags, why should we be different. People won't like it and numerous amounts of people will reboot their arguments against wikipedia (do we want that?) sometimes rules don't make sense in cases and there is always a exception. Why do we do this but nobody else make these rules. Why are you all against good looking pages, informative pages? These flags help inform the reader; they may not add much but they don't deprive. Chubbennaitor 13:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, what other sites do is not relevant. But to address the decorative issue, not only is there a clear guideline against decorative flags (which does make sense), but not everyone agrees with you that they add colour and improve the page. I for one think they're a pain in the cheeks. They clutter the pages up and it irritates me that there are so many on the season pages and race article pages. I think the articles would be clearer without so many flags. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes some pages into unreadable messes (like List of Formula One Grands Prix) where the flags are so numerous they just become noise. Really, I'm not seeing any policy based argument for their inclusion (Just 'I like them') or arguments that fly in the face of policy ('They are decorative'). We do have some flags that convey information (like driver's nationality and team nationality, that stuff) which should remain, they conform to policy from my understanding. Where a flag is being used decorativly, where it is being used to represent something other than the organisation of that flag, we need to holdoff and conform to the MOS. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grands Prix was not an article I was familiar with - if ever there was an article rendered ridiculous by the repeated use of flags, this is it. It looks awful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the races nationality? On the season article I think they make sense. Maybe not the other articles. I am willing to have them removed from all articles except the season articles. Chubbennaitor 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A race's nationality tends to be given away by the name of the race. You don't need flag help to establish the nationality of the German Grand Prix. Driver or team nationality is not so obvious hence the flag is okay. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A general guideline is that if the flag is representing a word already there, it is not providing any information. German flag next to German Grand Prix is just replicating the German part. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We get back to the European flag subject. What is the nationality that year. As far as I can see we all agree on removing the race flags on all articles accept the season articles, so we can start on that. On the season articles it makes sense for European GP to have a flag of it's host country but it looks wrong and messy if it's the only flag. Chubbennaitor 19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would favour no flags for races in season articles. The need for flags for the majority of races is nil, and the need for a flag for the European race is negligible, in my opinion. The host nation is still fairly easy to determine, even for those unfamiliar with the track location. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone was looking for the host country of a European GP, a simple click on the link to that years race article would immediately tell you the exact location of the race, so I feel the flag again is unnecessary. Schumi555 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It will look wrong. Many people don't want to look at more than one page. The flags give immediate information over a shirt period of time. I zoom down and I see the European GP and I see a spanish flag - I immediately know that it is in Spain. The season articles are the only pages that really need the different flags. Chubbennaitor 16:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That analogy is lunacy, I see a Spanish flag I immediately think Spanish grand Prix. I see the EU flag and I immediately think European Grand Prix. I do not think Spanish flag its the European Grand Prix held at a race course in Spain.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? I see the spanish flag and I think 'Spain'. Really, these flags are unnecessary, can we just chop them to bring ourselves more in line with the MOS? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the whole analogy. Chubbennaitor 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could resolve this because it's been going on forever, and now we even have the FA mob chipping in with flag issues. We obviously have too many flags and I don't see more than one or two people disagreeing. Can we organise some plan of action, hopefully as in line with the MOS as we can get it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Main page

It's AWESOME to see a racing article on the main page as today's featured article. Kudos to everyone who spent time getting it there! Royalbroil 00:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Well done all those involved! Pyrope 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Turkish Grand Prix photos

A large number of freely-licensed photographs from the 2009 Turkish Grand Prix has become available here. I have already uploaded a number of them, and will continue to do so in the future, but if anyone else wants to upload any, please feel free to do so!--Midgrid(talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lap leads

An editor is adding lap leaders to Grand Prix articles (example). I thought this was considered trivia and not truly an encyclopedic information (with or without the decoration), but felt I should get a confirmation here before revert the additions. ^LeaveSleaves 15:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

revert; a) its trivia; b) should be noted in prose. D.M.N. (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I throught that it would be helpful if it was included, as some people like that sort of information. User:F1season] 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Whose in the lead" can easily be put into text in the race summary, even if it's someone leading for one lap. We don't need more charts. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivial point that can be covered in text if important. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We need to be careful of adding too many stats and tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for the comments. ^LeaveSleaves 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we still have the laps lead list in the 'notes' area though? Chubbennaitor 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Lap leads lists in general are trivia and should not be added simply as lists. However, the same information can be covered well enough in the prose section wherever significant. ^LeaveSleaves 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any information of this type could and should be in the prose. Lap leaders are important enough to be featured in the race report, apart from guys who lead for a lap or two during a round of pitstops. These leads are trivial anyway and do not need to be mentioned, in my view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New 2010 Teams in Template:Formula One constructors

Is there any way we could incorporate the three new F1 teams, Team US F1, Campos Grand Prix and Manor Grand Prix into the constructors template? It is currently rather annoying trying to move between the three when adding new details, particularly if there are more to come. Could we add an extra small section? What do we think? Petera93 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and added another group. I really can't see any reason why those three can't be in the template. Apterygial 11:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that- I was tempted to do it myself, I was just slightly worried about doing it all wrong and messing it up. I'll add the template to the articles in a second. Petera93 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)