Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Nationality again

Just drawing everyone's attention to a discussion at Talk:Marc Gené#Origin concerning the nationality of Marc Gené and Pedro de la Rosa. It bears strong similarities to the long debate about nationality of British drivers, so maybe people would like to have a say on this too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll put my comment here since I do not intend to follow the discussion over at Marc Gene. The sporting nationality i.e. the nationality displayed by the sporting authority, is the player's nationality/flag used in infobox and the lead. As for other nationality affiliation (in terms of origin, dual nationalities, etc.), these things can be detailed in the article body. See Andy Murray as an example. ^LeaveSleaves 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Romain Grosjean nationality question - with this young driver more than likely to be replacing Nelson Piquet Jr in the Renault for the rest of the season I thought I would bring up this question/matter. He is evidently Swiss as he was born in Geneva but his flag/nationality is down as being French as he has a French drivers licence(?). Surely he should be identified as being from Switzerland. Perhaps it would be beneficial to wait until he enters a race to see which nationality is given by the tv coverage before changing anything though. Alistair 84 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly has the birthplace to do with nationality? He races with the French licence so we should stuck with that. Loosmark (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He's French. Birthplace often has nothing to do with one's nationality. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He is French, he always has been, even though he was born in Switzerland. mspete93 [talk] 15:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed his nationality according to his passport, as I thought that article was about a man and man's nationality is defined by his passport. Now I checked this discussion and I have to say that if you define nationality as a "sporting nationality" then it would be reasonable to name the entry accordingly so that people don't get confused to what a word means. Few read these rules and the encyclopedia should give accurate information without using esoteric language. Excentrifuge (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardly esoteric - nationality for sportspeople always refers to their sporting nationality because that's the only nationality people are likely to be interested in. If Grosjean was listed as French-Swiss or some clumsy mix like that, readers would wonder why he isn't shown as French-Swiss on TV. Any nuances of nationality can be explained fully in the text, like for Nico Rosberg for example. When he becomes an F1 driver, Grosjean's infobox will be changed to one in which the nationality field links to the article on the FIA Superlicence, which explains how nationality works in F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean, article/infobox is written primarily about a sportsmen, a profession, opposite to a man, a person. If this was a sports article then that would be alright (same goes for TV coverage), however this is encyclopedia and in encyclopedia sportsman's nationality cant mean something differently to a nationality of let say scientist. This can be confusing, because I can assure you that people certainly would be interested in man's nationality. In fact, I was confused, after seeing this article I wrongly argued that he was French. If we can do something to improve clarity and reduce misinformation perhaps we should do it. Excentrifuge (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Er, he is French. He's also Swiss as it happens, but the impression you got that he was French isn't actually wrong) 4u1e (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Now hear's a slightly original thought. Instead of strange hard and fast complicated rulesets... why don't we just go with what Grosjean syas he is? He's not like Gachot where he's saying he's a citizen of the universe or anything silly right? --Falcadore (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Breton has this ~~won~~ one sewn up: the article should of course go into all the complexities, just as those of, for example Nico Rosberg and Eddie Irvine. Irvine's page even has a section on it. The infobox is for summarising information about the topic, and the particular infobox in Grosjean's article summarises him as a race driver - he officially competes under a nationality and that is the one given. I see nothing complicated here, unless people want to start bringing their own agendas about what nationality a driver should be using. 4u1e (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with 4u1e. It's amazing some people want to make an issue where there is basically none. Loosmark (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Its amazing you are amazed my friend. The fact that someone doesn't understand the issue doesn't mean there is none. Excentrifuge (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Loosmark understands it pretty well. The fact is that it's a racing infobox which deals with Grosjean's racing career, including the nationality he races under. His life in general is dealt with in the text, and any quirks of nationality outside racing are addressed there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it seems from the Grosjean article that there's no evidence as to whether he actually holds Swiss nationality or not. According to our article on Swiss nationality law (not definitive!), just being born or living there doesn't lead to citizenship. This sort of illustrates why we take the approach that we do. It is verifiable (and verified) that he races under French nationality, so we use this as a definite fact. He may also have Swiss nationality, or may consider himself Swiss, but this is generally harder to provide solid refs for: definitive information on which passports are held is often not public, and many individuals publicly label themselves with different nationalities according to circumstance. 4u1e (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Poked around a bit more and it seems he does hold dual nationality(see here). I don't know why he chooses to race under a French license, but chosen he has - despite the fact there's no motor sport in Switzerland, they do have a national sporting authority to issue racing licenses and many other Swiss nationals have competed as such. Since he's chosen to compete under his French identity, it seems only logical that that's what we reflect here. I'll amend the article to reflect the Le Matin page I linked above for the dual nationality. 4u1e (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Breakaway

Well, this is an interesting situation. WikiProject FOTA anyone? ;)

This is going to make things a whole lot more complicated. Readro (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that. It's too soon to call now, but in the long run articles relating to any FOTA series should form a taskforce of this project, as the similarities would be clear and the history common. Aptery gial 08:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Task force is a good idea. If the situation arose. ^LeaveSleaves 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If there will be two series what will happen to Project Formula One? a split in two, a new Project, only covering the "formula FOTA"? Loosmark (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We need a Budget cap row page now for sure I think. FIA taking it to legal proceedings. D.M.N. (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But it's not just about the budget cap. It's also to do with governance and economics. We already have FISA-FOCA war, why not FIA-FOTA war? Readro (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FIA-FOTA war is a much better title. Only that such an article will have to incorporate past misunderstandings as well.^LeaveSleaves 17:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not FIA/FOM - FOTA war ? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw, crap. The war's back on again. [1] Readro (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI --> FIA–FOTA dispute. D.M.N. (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Flags again

This is fun isn't it? I've got a comment at the FAC of 2008 Monaco Grand Prix about the use of flags in the classification sections (next to the drivers) breaching multiple MoS guidelines. It is incredibly tempting to just dump the flags, as they have been nothing but trouble, but I don't really want to do this without doing that to all our other race reports. Is there a consensus to keep them despite the MoS, or should we just get rid of them (and all other flags, forgetting this whole thing ever happened)? Do our own guidelines at WP:F1 overrule the MoS? I haven't really been following the flag debate... Aptery gial 08:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no consensus within the wikiproject for any rules (there are probably more people saying they want a reduction of flags, but I don't believe those who want flag in are willing to step aside and say they want them but can live without them) so I think we default to the wider consensus of the MOS. Toss them overboard like so much expired herring. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So... how about, umm, the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix? It has flags and it's still a featured article. Really, that comment has little sense, if taken literally thousands of other articles should be changed, not just F1 ones. For the sake of common sense, just leave it as it is. Asendoh (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

... and 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix and 2008 Japanese Grand Prix, both passed for FA within the past six months. But although we can recognise that our FAs are among our best work, we should not ask them to be perfect. If we decide to get rid of flags in classification tables we should do so because of policy which is higher than that this project can formulate alone. Even given that, the rationale for having flags in F1 articles is thin at best; although there have been teams or organisations in the past for which their country of origin has been important (BRM springs to mind, as does USF1 for next year), very few can be described as being a national team in the way of, say, rugby or cricket (or, at a stretch, A1GP). Even Ferrari, the embodiment (supposedly) of Italy, has rarely fielded Italian drivers since the 60s. I think, as a project, we need to divorce ourselves from the idea that nationality is important enough in F1 to have a wopping great flag next to every driver's name. I see few F1 sources that give flags next to drivers' names: Autosport doesn't, the TV feed doesn't, Autocourse doesn't, we do. Why? (please no arguments that flags look pretty or anything. It's an encyclopedia). Aptery gial 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The best reason I've heard for use of flags (or for that matter nationality) is because FIA and FOM use it. I'd however support removal of flags if it hinders promotion of article to FA. As Narson said above, MOS is definitely superior to our debate here and should be respected if invoked. However, I'd suggest not to apply this to other articles (FA or otherwise) unless requested. Simply for the sake of avoiding the drama. ^LeaveSleaves 13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd contend that the use next to drivers names is acctually within the MOS. But I wouldn't want things kept from FA because of it. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can vote ourselves out of the MoS, although we can possibly argue that the use of flags in this case is the best way to convery information. 4u1e (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that in the case of drivers, it's the only logical way to convey their nationality, which is relevant. Furthermore, as far as I can see, it is within the MOS. I am a bit perplexed as to why suddenly there's a problem here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, just to clarify: the guidelines pointed out in the FAC asks for flags to have the country names next to them on first mention. They are not asking for wholesale removal of the icons (unless totally inappropriate). Basically for lists, it would be better to use {{flag}} instead of {{flagicon}} on the first mention of a country. Jappalang (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But I hope you understand that adding country names in the table will screw up the formatting pretty bad. And even though it is not required in the guideline, in order to maintain proper appearance, the country name would have to be displayed throughout the table. e.g. For the article in question, 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, in the first classification table, the Finnish flag is first used for Kimi Raikkonen where the country name should be used, but will have to be repeated for Heikki Kovalainen, otherwise the appearance of the table would be distorted. ^LeaveSleaves 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's something I found in the guideline which might apply to our situation: If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. ^LeaveSleaves 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as you have stated: "it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." Note that "However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics (example) are easier to read if {{flag}} is used throughout." The whole point of having named flags is for clarity (where we do not make users jump through hoops simply to address the nagging question of "I am sure I have seen that flag somewhere, do I have to go to another article just to find out?" Remember that someone might be reading a printed version of the article). The arguments of the MOS is that we should not be sacrificing clarity for the readers just to make the article look pretty. Jappalang (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The edittors working on Portal:Current events/Sports‎ have developed a flagless alternative to the nationality question. --Falcadore (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Something like this you mean? Aptery gial 05:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To my eyes thats a whole heap MORE confusing than the flags. Harder to read and much slower to understand. Pyrop e 16:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not supposed to be less confusing, it is supposed to satisfy the requirement to only use flags for national teams. While you could claim that you need to <script type="text/javascript" src="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>know what the three letter initials mean, flags require familiarity too, and three letters can at least be in most cases an abbreviation of the spelling, and I'm fairly sure the spelling on countries is more well known that their flags. --Falcadore (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It solves the problem with the flags, but some might object that readers won't know what the abbreviations stand for. I hope you understand that I'm not trying to find loopholes, but simply considering a situation. You are presenting this at FAC as well, right? ^LeaveSleaves 06:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love a solution that we'd have no problem applying to a whole heap of articles. I'll wait until we decide on something here before I take it back to the FAC; it's not going to fail as it is. Aptery gial 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, I'd love to see this FAC go through and see what the result is! That will help drive home the point why there are editors trying to argue that the flags should not be used and eventually help apply this to other articles. ^LeaveSleaves 06:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the argument is not brought to the FAC, concensus would not be built there. Right now, discussion here is mostly limited to the F1 project (I am here because I feel the responsibility for bringing the issue up in the first place). Jappalang (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Answer me this question - why does everybody else use flags, the FIA use flags. Where do we have the right to say, we aren't using flags even though every source uses them. We use sources and use them to as great effect as possible. Chubbennaitor 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not everybody else uses flags; the TV doesn't, most news outlets don't. We have the 'right' to do want is right, and that includes adhering to the MoS. Does anyone mind if I remove the flags from 2008 Monaco Grand Prix pending resolution of this flags issue, so the article can pass, and once we work out here how to reconcile what we want and what the MoS dictates we can apply it to the article? Aptery gial 07:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Per my several comments above, I support removal of flags if that is necessary to pass FAC. ^LeaveSleaves 08:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Monaco Grand Prix/archive1 to continue discussion

There is an example given on the MOS page which points us to List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions. This example appears to use them in the style similar to the F1 tables. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nine-ball is using what the MOS states: name the country next to the flag (although it is using it throughout instead of the first list). This F1 article is simply printing the flags without naming the country. Jappalang (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not by my reading. It uses flag locations in the location table but with no regard to if that is the first use of the flag and not all flags present in the table are present in the location column (Canadian for example, which appears only as a flag icon). I'm one of the first to say that F1 articles overuse flags but when conveying a drivers nationality in a succint fashion in tables it can be useful. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point and made further investigations. Nine-ball was put it into MOSFLAG by SMcCandlish at 13:42, 14 September 2007, [2] when the article looked like this. Basically, nobody checked later to see if the article has changed (and deviated from the MOSFLAG). Regardless, the F1 list here does not have multiple instances of flags spread across columns to spur such issues, does it? One flag per row in each table; only the first table would need {{flag}}, the second could do with {{flagicon}}. Jappalang (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see it working. They are driving under a British or German flag, but not for Germany. If that follows? '

UK Jenson Button' seems odd. Would a legend be appropiate somewhere in the table section? Though all this does seem unnecessary in that we appear to be assuming that our readers are unaware of common flags (They can acctually look up those flags on the wiki if they want!), all a debate for MOS:FLAGS however. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"They can acctually look up those flags on the wiki if they want!" is not going to help readers (let us not disturb their reading experience by making them go plowing through the Wiki). We are to serve the readers and make it less confusing for them. That is what the MOS is advocating—clarity for the readers. The claim is that the flag is to serve nationality and not international representation, but is that clear? Would someone not familiar with F1 simply see the flags as representing international competition? Template:Flag states that you can use {{flag|UK|name=British}} to show nationality, thus

British. The first table can either do that or include a Nationality column to help readers understand it is nationality that the flag represents (and of what nationality in text). The whole point of including text on first showing of the flags is to avoid ambiguity and confusion. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this (a nationality column with flags and country names)? Or even this this (same as before but with shortened country names)? Aptery gial 05:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more in line with this. Jappalang (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue with all three revisions above is that they seem to put somewhat emphasis on nationalities of these drivers and that somehow the winner's nation has some significance. As far as I can tell, this is not that significant from that nation's point of view. Except that supporters from that nation will rejoice and national anthem will be played at closing ceremony. These drivers are simply registered under respective national motor sporting authorities and do not actually represent those nations. With flags, it was okay to show some additional information about the driver. But I feel this is pushing too much just to meet the guideline. ^LeaveSleaves 09:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But I think by simply having the flags there at any level we are in some way saying that they are important to know. Yes, those examples show more emphasis than we currently do, but they still offer nationality as a detail next to the driver just as the current model does. I think if we say that having an extra column is too much detail we might as well get rid of flags altogether. Aptery gial 09:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"With flags, it was okay to show some additional information about the driver." What sort of additional information? Per above, this should be made clear to the reader. If not, getting rid of the flags is the better option. Jappalang (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang's is probably the best if we keep them. We need to decide if it is relevent if it is going to take up that much space. As for 'not making our users plow through the wiki', we use technical terms (diffusers, slick tyres, barge board, vanes) and names that will require peopl to go off to check what they are (Federation Internationale d'Automobile, for example. Or Formula One Teams Association). If they need to check what the flags are for, then they are probably all over the wiki anyway. I loathe dumbing down to the lowest common denominator, but again, something more for MOS:FLAGS than here. We need to either go with something like Jappalang's or drop the flags. If there is controversy, I'd rather remove them and sort out the dispute after. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"With flags, it was okay to show some additional information about the driver.": The flag served for informing readers (who of course know which country's flag it is) which country the driver belongs to; the same information you are now writing so as to inform every reader in general. But giving this a separate column puts in undue weight on something that doesn't deserve it. ^LeaveSleaves 11:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Putting a flag in alone can cause confusion as stated above. Is "which country the driver belongs to" not Nationality as well? Are you suggesting to remove the column, but not going against the principle of naming the flags on first use? Jappalang (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be better to remove the flags altogether. If a reader doesn't know what country these basic flags represent, then frankly they aren't going to know what "UK" and "Germany" mean either. Maybe someone will suggest a further column with a map in it, depicting where these countries are, with a further note explaining what a country is. The FA process dumbs articles down to a moronic level, perfect for four year olds to read and to hell with everyone else. With full respect to the members of the F1 Wikiproject that work so hard to get articles to FA standard, I don't kow why they bother. It would be better to work hard on the articles in the same way, without involving the FA process itself, thus avoiding these ridiculous hoops they are then required to jump through. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(To Jappalang's comment) I'm all for removal of flags. Like Narson, I'm one of the early birds supporting removal of flags. But I can't support extension of their usage as you have suggested. That's unnecessarily glorifying things. ^LeaveSleaves 12:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand; in fact, I just found Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Do not emphasize nationality without good reason, which would back your opinion. F1 racers are not associated with their countries (representation), so it would be inappropriate to draw attention to that. Team associations are the norm. Occasionally, a leading racer's nationality is reported when the next race is a home race, but that is all. The removal of flags and nationalities would be a good move, avoiding possible misconceptions reader might get when seeing flags or nationalities in a table. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's factually incorrect. In F1 drivers do officially represent a country - the rules for this are in the International Sporting Regulations, but observe for example the use of flags (!) and national anthems on the podium after the race. You're downgrading the importance of nationality in this case too much. 4u1e (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but we need to make a choice. We either remove the flags, or we adhere to the MoS and put country names next to them. Those are our two choices, from those we have to decide which best represents the emphasis we want to place on nationality. Not following the MoS is not an option; WP:F1 is part of Wikipedia and we must follow the rules it sets out, regardless of how inconvenient they might be. Aptery gial 12:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong on that. Rule #1: Break all the rules. The Manual is only a series of guidelines, they are not hard-and-fast rules. Blindly adhering to a set of "rules" without putting your brain in gear to see whether they apply in a particular circumstance is a very bad way to produce anything of worth. I am with 4ule on this. Nationality is an intrinsic, historical, and important aspect of international motorsport at all levels (A1GP!!) and flags are the most simple and most elegant solution in those circumstances where nationality needs to be highlighted. To add a country abbreviation would make the text confusing and less readable, and anyone who doesn't know what a flag represents can simply click that flagicon to find out. Leave them be. Pyrop e 13:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

International Sporting Code (ISC) does not put any significance on nationality. The nationality of the driver is discussed only in terms of which national motor sporting authority issued the driver's license. In fact, this can be irrespective with player's actual nationality. So, if Lewis Hamilton registers under French motor sporting authority, his name will display French flag during the races even if he is British. ^LeaveSleaves 12:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Pyrope on this. We're tying ourselves up in knots to obey the rules when it seems to me that by far the most elegant solution is to leave the linked flags in. They convey a small, but relevant degree of information and the flags are probably the best way to get that info across without it taking over the tables altogether. Leavesleaves comment about nationality being optional is true for all motorsport other than FIA world championships but does not apply to F1, which is the topic we are talking about here. In FIA world championships drivers must use their passport nationality. Hamilton can only compete under a French flag if he gets himself a French passport. See para 112 of the ISC, which is actually quite specific about nationality. 4u1e (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC) (re-edited 4u1e (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

I back 4u and Pyrope but think we may want to look at getting consensus on MOS:FLAGS to add sporting nationality in non-national but nationality valid sports as a valid use of flag icons. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to think we could just ignore the MoS here - I think MOS:FLAG is completely ridiculous and wildly out of touch with what is feasible or wanted. But by ignoring it we sacrifice the option to get our articles recognised as GAs or FAs (now they're on to us). We're kidding ourselves if we think we can go off on our own and do what we want simply because we don't agree with the rules (this sounds familiar). And let's face it, it's really not the most important thing on the page; we could get away with a few readers thinking the abbreviations look crap if they like what they read in the prose. Though we could, as Narson said, overhaul the MoS. Aptery gial 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to point out, regardless of whatever motives this Wikiproject wants the flags for, MOS allows flags under certain guidelines. The Wikiproject can either:

remove all flags, or
if the racers are representing their countries, on the first mention of a flag in a list or table, name the flag or nationality, e.g. Canada or Canadian.

That is it. Two options. No abbreviations (which no one has been arguing for in the last few arguments since its example). No "being forced to take out nice pictures of flags", etc. Just compliance with the MOS to help readers be clear on what those icons are for. Anything further, please take it up at MOS:FLAG as Narson has stated. Jappalang (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, again wrong. We have had a perfectly workable and efficient system within WP:F1 (and WP:Motorsport as a whole) for years now. Many of our articles are already FA and GA. The MoS is just a guide; if some editors choose to interpret it as rules then they are the ones in the wrong. If getting FA status means more than producing the best work we are capable of then I seriously challenge your motivation for being part of this project. This is not a competition, this is not a challenge. The race to see who can create the most FA pages is asinine and juvenile, especially if it means incorporating aspects of the MoS that, as may people are pointing out above, are wholly inappropriate for the subject on which we focus. We CAN just keep doing what we are doing if it the best way to handle the subject matter. If some MoS fundamentalist wants to challenge what we do then I suggest we argue the case with them directly and demand that they back up their position with an argument that is far better than simply "oooh, but the MoS says...". I am thoroughly fed up with many of the attitudes displayed above. Stop worrying about flipping flags in tables and infoboxes and get back out there and write prose. Pyrop e 13:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing that distinguish us from bots is that, while bots strictly obey a finite set of rules, humans can judge - and this is one of the cases in which is really needed to judge. The MoS is not the Law of Wikipedia, it's just a guideline, and as such it can be overriden in some cases: this is one of them. Flags vehiculate an important information such as the nationality of the drivers, and it's not important because we decide so, but because F1 itself tells us so... otherwise they would fools to raise the drivers' flag and play the winner's nathional anthem at the end of the race for no reason. And following the reasoning behind the MoS and part of this discussion: not anyone may know the country represented by a flag, and that's fine. But how about the term "pole position", what if someone don't know what it means? Should we remove it from the article because of it? And it could go on endlessly, applying the same rules. That's what bots would do, that's what humans don't do. And since Wikipedia is intended for humans, we should use the law of common sense. Since many F1 race report articles are already FA and have flags, common sense tell me this discussion is quite meaningless and that flags should stand. Asendoh (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to say what I think because Pyrope and Asendoh have just said it. Spot on. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say the attitude of lowest common denominator does feel very Simple Wiki rather than English Wiki. I do think we should try to look at MOS and taking a discussion there. It is possible we can both have our cake (the flags) and eat it (complying with MoS). Obviously any such discussion would have to take place there and be open, it isn't the place here. But we can certainly say that we reject that part of the MoS and if they cast down our articles from FA because of it, then so be it. The FA/GA system needs article editors. We don't need them. I value edits to a stub as much as I do the ones to a FA. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. We can keep the flags as they are. I apologise for thinking that this issue was minor enough that it wouldn't matter if we made a small concession; if prose is so important then why is there so much vitriol over what a table looks like? I'm disappointed, however, that Pyrope seems to think that those supporting the MoS here are doing so because of some "asinine and juvenile" race for the most FAs. I write FAs because I like the challenge, I like writing articles that other people on Wikipedia read and improve, and maybe might get featured on the main page. The challenge is writing good articles that are as informative as possible to the most number of people; there are plenty of other places where the hardcore fan can get their info. I certainly don't write FAs because I want to be the guy with the most bronze stars at the end of the day. There isn't a choice between an article being the best it can be and being FA, it's sad that so many in this project think there is. Aptery gial 01:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Apterygial, your position is undermined by the very fact that you use the word "concession". If removing flags reduces the quality of the page then why do it? Ok, so your page may end up as an A-class page and not FA, does it matter? You point about there being no choice simply isn't true; sometimes the two just aren't compatible. Just see Jappalang's comments about language below... Pyrop e 14:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really not where we're coming from, Apterygial. We're not criticising the articles or you. We all appreciate the huge amount of effort that you're putting into this. What we're saying (or trying to) is that we have a simple system that works and we would like to avoid the enormous amount of work in making changes that are individually trivial across the whole project and would (in our opinion) make the articles worse not better. In my case, I also can't let it go when people (not you) are justifying these proposed changes based on false information. 4u1e (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what "false information" there is but to make things clearer for readers or where the arguments for MOS-compliance is simply just "oooh, but the MoS says..." (please read the whole thread). I brought the MOS concerns up at the FAC because I agree with what it says about the possibilty of confusion for icons-only representation; people might not recognise certain flags and the color-blind might have difficulties too. It is a simple change to make and a help to everyone. Again, if the F1 project feels strongly against the MOS guidelines on flag use, then please move to change them. The concept of Wikipedia is that most of its policies and guidelines are not set in stone. Jappalang (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(The false information was the statement by yourself that " F1 racers are not associated with their countries (representation)" and by Leavesleaves that "The nationality of the driver is discussed only in terms of which national motor sporting authority issued the driver's license. In fact, this can be irrespective with player's actual nationality". Both are factually incorrect and were used in support of your arguments, which needed pointing out. 4u1e (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, although I do wonder why mention it if it has no part to play? And I should perhaps have said 'incorrect information' rather than 'false information' - no implication of wrongdoing on your part intended. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, should we remove the term "pole position" because there's someone who doesn't know its meaning? What if, for absurd, one does not know the meaning of every word in the article, should we blank it entirely? You'd say, there's a link on "pole position" for that purpose, and I say, flags are linked to their respective countries for a reason too. Like it's been said, lowering to the common denominator it's Simple Wiki, not Wikipedia. I feel really sorry for the small minorance of people who don't know what countries are or are colorblind, but in my opnion it's worse to change the current valid system for a really small group of people than to keep it. Asendoh (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the terminology (especially jargon) is obscure, then efforts should be made to reword them in a clearer manner or to establish a definition at the start, e.g. "Racer obtained the pole position, which is the lead position at the start of the race." or some other sentences to that effect. "Spoil" in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chelsea Bridge/archive1 was changed to "rocks and earth", music, science, video game and other articles get rephrased to eliminate jargon and make things as simple as possible for readers (a most difficult and probably impossible task for certain articles; F1, however, is not rocket science). Regardless, the issue here with flags-alone is with accessibility for readers. The media has commonly shown the failure of most people to know where certain countries are, showing it is not the minority of people who lack such knowledge. Jappalang (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And you can fit "the lead position at the start of the race" comfortably into a table, can you? And why should perfectly reasonable terminology be sacrificed on an altar of ignorance. The example you choose leaves me incredulous. Spoil? Spoil, really? Spoil is hardly technical jargon. Spoil has a sense and meaning far beyond "rocks and earth" and has been in common English usage since the Norman invasion! I know a lot of school kids edit here, but we really don't need to reduce this encyclopedia to the same vocabulary range as your average 14 year old. We already have the Simple English Wikipedia, we don't need to duplicate it here. You make very sweeping statements about "the media" and I would be very keen to see these deep, scientific studies carried out by hacks with three column inches to fill on a dull Tuesday morning. If you are scanning a list of drivers looking for where the ones from your country finished then a little flag icon is by far and away the easiest way to spot them. You can see patterns in finishing position much better with icons as well, so where three drivers from the same country finish together it is blindingly obvious, while if it were just text this information would be much harder to display in an instantly accessible manner. You still keep talking about changing the MoS as though we are all bound by it and it applies across the board. We aren't, and it doesn't. Pyrop e 14:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jappalang's last comment - you say that the media has shown that it is not the minority of readers who don't know where certain countries are, so why should putting their names next to the flags make any difference? Those people still won't know where they are. Will we be providing maps in the tables as well? Your reference to "making things as simple as possible" is the absolute definition of "dumbing down". This seems to be about making articles appeal to people who struggle like hell with simple, basic concepts, let alone the ability to click on something to find out what it means. As such there is potentially no end to the simplifications we should be making. Are you sure everyone can understand the term "lead position"? Of course not. I'm sure there's someone out there who will be utterly stumped by that, so better change it to something a bit simpler, starting by explaining what a "position" is. As many people have pointed out, the Simple Wiki exists for a reason. FAs should be about quality of information and delivery, not about making sure pre-school children can understand what we're trying to say. Beyond that, Wikipedia ceases to become the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It's just not that easy to write in terms that are as basic as you're trying to make it, and it's certainly also a depressing task. If these challenged individuals can find the article in the first place, then they can just as easily find out what the damn flag means. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is planning to reduce the literacy level of this project to pre-school levels. The point is to make things clear and easy for others to read, thus eliminating jargon or defining them on first mention is a good practice. While high-level academic and scientific subjects might dictate a higher level of language, high-school level English could be written for more mundane topics.

One might not know the locations, flags, or existence of certain countries, but stating the name would give them a word that they would more readily identify with than an uncertain flag—

Congolese Racer B. In such a situation, they (ignoring accessibility factors) would be more of "Congolese... must be some nationality, perhaps, Congo? Okay." rather than "What the heck is this flag? Why do I have to click on the thing just to find out?!" The naming is only for the first list/table with flags.

On a final note, you can choose to follow the MOS or not, but a Featured Article is expected to "[follow] the style guidelines" (WP:WIAFA#2). An article at FAC could face scrutiny for compliance to various policies/guidelines, which is why I advise to bring any internal project styles that conflict with the "global" MOS to the latter for discussion and exception. Of course, you can choose not to nominate articles for FAC, but that is your choice; others might want to gain greater recognition for F1 articles or to test their level of writing, bringing F1 articles for evaluation at FAC, and that is their choice. Jappalang (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the last time I'll speak here and as I have semi-retired I thought my argument would be destroyed as I thought I stood alone. We need to make things as simple as possible without being silly. Flags aren't silly and, yes, the TV does use the flags. Chubbennaitor 21:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We also don't need to emphasise the nationality. The flag does it subtly enough. It doesn't get in the way and what we have in effect promotes MOS. Click on the link to understand my point. I have carefully read MOS and I can't see any point it says that what we have is wrong. I thought we'd agreed drivers flags are fine as we are. We were more worried about the race flags than anything else. I know we decided that drivers need flags but I was trying to keep everything as it is as it works, makes everything clear and isn't in silly use. Asendoh and Pyrope stated what we should do perfectly. Leave everything as it is as we've had one complaint. This is like my planning permission. We sent in an application like everyone elses on our street and one person saw it differently, just like the 2008 Monaco GP article. Thy were following a guideline too harshly and denied us planning permission. Next time we submitted it was passed with minimal movement from the drawings. The people who passed it asked why we'd submitted twice. Chubbennaitor 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cubbennaitor, the MOS you point to states,

When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size.

The original issue is not over the removal of flags but their placement next to their countries' name on first mention (effectively the first list/table). 2008 Monaco GP was going on a "no-name-on-first-mention" format before this ruckus,[3] so your above statements seem contrary to what you are linking. Could you clarify your stance? Jappalang (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the removal of flags. I want things to stay as they are and I thought you wanted that. The way we use them works and isn't silly. Your suggestions look silly and overused. We all agreed on driver flags making sense but when I left it was over race flags etc. I backed down to season articles on race flags. Season articles in my view need flags for the races and drivers etc. so do race articles. Jappalong why don't you state your position as I think there are now three different parties in different frames of mind here? Chubbennaitor 13:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My position as stated at the FAC is: if flags are used in a table or list, on their first mention, they should be placed next to the name of the country/nationality they are representing per the MOS. Jappalang (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous how much time we spend on this isn't it? For my part, I'd say that spelling out the country as well adds a minor degree of clarity, but ironically means that nationality takes up an amount of space that is out of proportion to its importance. Using the country codes is no clearer than putting the flags. If you don't recognise the Spanish flag, chances are you'll have no idea which country ESP represents. WP:IAR? gives us a clear mandate to ignore the rules if following them would damage the encyclopedia. I honestly think this is such a case, since the flags, on this particular occasion, convey information in an extremely compact way that is accessible to all readers (through links) and easily accessible to many readers (those who know the flags). Making it easily accessible to absolutely everyone takes up more space that I feel we can justify using. To quote IAR?: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." 4u1e (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not ask for country codes to be used, did I? Spelling the names does not damage the encyclopaedia but improves it by adding that bit of clarity. Neither do they take up lots of space and it is only for the first table/list. Jappalang (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the country codes thing was a general comment, not aimed at you in particular. I just disagree about the names - it adds the equivalent of another column to the table for a minimal gain in clarity. Whether others agree with my view or yours probably depends on whether they feel the additions would be too much or not. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still talking about this. We agreed to keep the current system in spite of the MoS, and Jappalang has advised that we raise our objections to the MoS at the appropriate venue, not here. No new ground has been covered here for at least the last 2000 words. Aptery gial 01:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if I've been dragging it out unnecessarily. Hope the FA goes well. 4u1e (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It passed a minute before your comment. :) Aptery gial 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done :) I don't see it going for too long before someone puts flags on it though... Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't, not just after an FAC. Aptery gial 00:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Discrepencies

With half a dozen FAC's over the past year, we've now got dozens of discreprencies in race report articles:

2008 Monaco Grand Prix without flags in table; the other 600+ have flags
Some 1995 race reports I've worked on have no boldness in table; the other 580+ do have boldness

Obviously as a project we should be consistent really. The table itself in the Monaco article looks horrible and in itself raises a lot of questions. Although flags maybe seen as decoration, in tables it can be informative whereas words cannot describe it - i.e. the first four drivers may all be German or something; words wouldn't describe it without the user getting confusing. For instance, I can quickly see here that there are three British drivers in the top five whereas it'd be hard and possibly trivial to put a fact like that in prose unless put in a quote. It's simplistic to have it like that. No harm. There's the saying "Don't fix something which isn't broke" - so I find it totally unnecessary to remove flags altogether from the table. There's also the argument "too many words conveyed into such short space" I guess.

On a side note, this is horribly out of date and should be tagged as historical. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just on the 2008 Monaco Grand Prix point, there are no flags for drivers in the result tables, but there are flags for the pole position, fastest lap and top 3 drivers in the infobox at the top of the article. Was this brought up at all at FAC? I don't seem to be able to find it if it has. Regards, Schumi555 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was brought up at FAC, see the bottom of the FAC. D.M.N. (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be against removing driver flags from the other articles - it would take forever and if we don't need to do it, I don't see why we should. Nobody here at the WikiProject seems to object to driver flags. The Monaco Flag Incident was a one-off where we sacrificed ourselves at the altar of the FA process. We don't need to repeat the mistake. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So, from now on 650+ articles will have flags and one will always be the "odd one out". I don't see why we had to "bow down to that user" - if 3/4 users made a comment on that FAC talking about flags I would understand, but only 1 user brought it up. This has never been an issue in any of the 1995 FAC's, so I'm not sure why it is an issue now. D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the race report, can't we just replace it with a more up-to-date one? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace it with a FA race report unlikely to be edited a lot? I would say the one of the two 1995 ones as the '08 articles may see a few more edits attracted to them. D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that the comments at the FAC were for adding the names of the country/nationality the flags were supposed to represent on the first mention (see the whole thread here as well). There is no issue with having named flags in the first table and unnamed flags in the second table. Jappalang (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

....which would in turn be inconsistent.... D.M.N. (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

new series

The article Grand Prix World Championship has been revised alot lately. As I haven't seen a name attached to the new GP championship for next season, is it actually correct to dump information about the break into this article? I think that's verging on OR, unless someone can cite an RS to say that GPWC is the new name. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all hypothetical so far. Leave it for Wikinews... Pyrop e 16:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that people are editting the article and adding information on to it. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is covered almost immediately above here. Please don't start topics mulitple times within the same month at least. --Falcadore (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Test driver / third driver

I see that Third driver has been merged into Test driver (specifically into Test driver#Formula One). However, I'm not sure that the merged article now covers the full scope of F1 test driver activities. What do others think? DH85868993 (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good merger call. I see that majority of the article, if not every word of it, has been incorporated in the merger. If there is more information that can added, it can be done in Test driver. ^LeaveSleaves 10:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good merger there. D.M.N. (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

With the third drivers no longer actually participating in the race weekends, good call. It kind of killed Ant Davidson's career, though, didn't it? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I've noticed a habit among some chaps in the project, especially in relation to the Brawn article, to just add in quick summaries of races with no citation. All information that gets added in, especially analysis of that information (so what makes a car fast/slow) needs citing to a reliable source like autosport or the BBC or what have you. While I'm not terribly active at the moment, it is rather sad to see what was well sourced articles get to the stage of having three or four races summarised with no inline citation. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure about discouraging summaries. Right across the breadth of Wikipedia's motorsport articles there is a lack of summaries. A very negative trend of substituting tables for prose content occurs right across the Project, this is a trend that very seriously needs addressing. There needs to be a careful balance struck or soon articles will consist only of tables. --Falcadore (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Narson is saying there shouldn't be summaries, just that they should be cited when added, as that is the easiest time to do it. Aptery gial 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to say that as well. It is just a theme of mine at the moment from a few talk pages, call me an agenda pusher if you will, but to paraphrase from another talkpage - specifically Talk:2009 IndyCar Series season...

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make an piece of prose as objective as possible, but there is a trend I have observed here that right across the Motorsport Project we appear to be frightened of subjectivity, so much so that we substitute it with tables and data. I believe this to be immesely wrong. We should write how we feel, while holding to be objective within ourselves, and be prepared to defend our writing from this who believe us to be subjective, and compromise where we find out failings. We will never, ever be perfect, and we should never allow the pursuit of perfection, to make us frightened to express any view.

regards --Falcadore (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything that is added to a BLP should be sourced immediately, especially if the information is contentious. D.M.N. (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. These arn't on BLP artices but still are about people (how drivers did in races) and it is easiest for people to source it when they put he info in. Someone puts info in on a sunday afternoon while reading autosport. Oter people see info in and don't put anything in. Then come two months later, we see the problem and then we have to dig through articles to find the article that the person originally used and if we find the summary from a different site then we will likely have to modify the prose. The alternaive to all tat is the chap who first puts the prose in just copy+pastes the URL into the <Ref></ref> tags. Even that is great. It is a cite, it can be made pretty by bots or by other chaps, but much easier than having to schlep around for the summary article. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

F1 2010 (video game) protection and contradiction in sources

I'd thought I would let you know that F1 2010 (video game) has been protected for three days from editing. The problem is that source three and source four state different seasons the game will be based on. I have been persistently reverting anonymous users changing "2009" to "2010", thinking that ref four was just a forum post. On a second look, however, it looks more official than I thought; although the bottom note which says "The views expressed in this message are in no way the official views of Codemasters and are of a personal nature" seems to dispell that. Ref three is hardly official though, is it? So, my question is, which one do we believe? Darth Newdar (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say the folks at WT:VG would be able to help a little more than this project could. Aptery gial 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have raised the same question there, as well. Darth Newdar (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

2008 French Grand Prix peer review

2008 French Grand Prix is now up for peer review, here. Fire away! Darth Newdar (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

1971 South African Grand Prix

Quick question, why on earth in the results table for this grand prix is ford replaced with cosworth? I just came across it today and just wanted confirmation that it is meant to be written as ford and not cosworth. Ste900R (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem as the use of Ford / Cosworth is not uniform across the range of articles. I believe that use of "Ford" in these cases is incorrect, as the engines were badged as Cosworths. In all other cases, we link to the name on the engine, such as Asiatech (Peugeot), Acer (Ferrari), European (Cosworth) etc, so this needs to be maintained with Ford / Cosworth. Some engines were badged as Fords, and we need to make the distinction. Bretonbanquet (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

F1.com lists them all as Fords. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So what should we put it as? The rest of the season is put as Ford, and the list of constructors for the season at 1971 Formula One season#1971 Constructors Championship final standings is also Ford. Ste900R (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

F1.com is well known for being wrong on occasions. GP.com lists them all as Cosworths. The question is, what were they badged as? They were certainly built by Cosworth, the only input from Ford into the DFV was financial. Also there's my other point - how do we differentiate Cosworths from Ford engines that weren't built by Cosworth? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll check later what Motorsport magazine listed them as at the time. Readro (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In 2003, Jordan used Ford engines while Jaguar and Minardi used Cosworths - does anyone suggest calling them all Fords? We need to be consistent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference: [4], [5]. Here's a Cosworth in the back of Fabrizio Barbazza's F3000 Leyton House [6]. Although on the other hand we also have [7] and [8], and Clark is seen here with a Ford [9]. Forix use the term "Ford Cosworth", so maybe we can do something like that. It just seems daft to link to Ford Motor Company when we have better suited articles like Cosworth or Cosworth DFV for DFV cases. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The engines should be Ford in the vast majority of F1 cases. Ford provided the cash and so Ford get the credit, else Playlife engines should all be referred to as Renault and Petronas engines as Ferrari, for just two examples. And if this were not the case Lotus's proud "Powered by Ford" boast on the front of their cars would have looked a bit hollow. Problems with the above arguments are that you are mixing apples with oranges. The confusion arises as outside F1 Ford didn't want to be associated. The two pictures showing a DFX (USAC-spec.) and F3000 DFV are two such cases. These can't be used as exemplars for F1 practice. The other Cossie-badged engine pic is a bit cryptic from where I sit. What series is it for? The car behind looks a lot like an Indycar to me. You also can't really use post-DFV practice (with abundant sponsorship changes year in year out) to define the use of Ford vs. Cosworth when running DFV engines. Certainly throughout the 1970s results refer to McLaren-Ford, Lotus-Ford, Tyrrell-Ford and Williams-Ford, among many. Can't see too many instances of XXX-Cosworth. I know that Cosworth has widespread colloquial usage, but it was never the DFV's official manufacturer, even if it did make them in actuality. Taking myself back to my Playlife example, if we were to use the actual manufacturer as the name of the engine then the vast majority of 1990s Renault and Playlife engines should actually be termed "Mechacrome". Pyrop e 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Which leads me to suggest that Ford Motor Company is a thoroughly inappropriate link to use, given that in all other engine cases, we link to F1 team articles, not road-car manufacturers. Anyone clicking on the "Ford" in the engine link is led to an unsuitable article about Ford, whereas the relevant article Cosworth is not linked. Regardless of anything else, the relevant info for this link is at Cosworth. Should we use the Ford name and link to Cosworth - as in Ford? Also, given your assertation that Ford was used throughout the 70s / DFV era (and I have no reason to argue with you on that), when did "Ford" become "Cosworth" in terms of the name used in F1? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the engine photos - apart from the F3000 engine, all the captions just said "DFV" and I'm not enough of an engine expert to tell which series they're from... I bow to your superior knowledge on that front ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, not really true. Although the FoMoCo link isn't perfect, Cosworth also breaks convention. Ford in motorsport or Ford in Formula One would be the appropriate link. As far as when Ford became Cosworth, it has been colloquially so since the start, but in marketing and official documents the engines were always Ford in F1. Fans (like us, I guess, although I'm not quite that old) knew Messers Duckworth and Costin and magazines like Motor Sport and so on would happily use the two interchangeably. Pyrop e 16:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but neither of those two articles exist, and the relevant info about the engines that we're originally wikilinking from is at Cosworth so maybe we need to duplicate the relevant parts and create a new article. It still seems utterly bizarre that we have the article Cosworth DFV and we're not linking to it when it is exactly relevant. As for the other point, in 2003 both names were in use, Jordan using Ford-badged engines and Jaguar & Minardi using Cosworths, and next year we have the three new teams all using Cosworths, so there is a distinction to be made somewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is, but in the cases you mention none of them are using a DFV. And as I said, post-DFV practice is no indicator of how DFV machines were named. In the DFV case the correct manufacturer is Ford, but to then link that to "Cosworth DFV" would be very confusing for a non-specialist reader. Nevertheless I fully agree that having a good article go unlinked is daft, the trouble is how to arrange that without having to invent engine names. I think the best way to link it would be to link the "V8" section in the older driver articles. Or else move to a system similar to the modern driver articles where not only the manufacturer but also the type of engine is listed: something along the lines of Ford Cosworth DFV V8. Of course then you would have to start dredging up and adding type numbers for the other manufacturers (and indeed other Ford engines, like the HB), but then a bit of hard work never put us off before! Pyrop e 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the DFV naming situation is different from what came after, and it might be worth treating them separately. I think for driver articles either of the methods you mention would work, and engine type numbers could be found for other engines - I think FORIX has them listed. How about for race articles, such as the one in the title of this section? We currently have, for instance, Tyrrell-Ford or Tyrrell-Cosworth, neither of which we're very happy with, so any suggestions? Would Tyrrell-Ford be enough? Or Tyrrell-Ford Cosworth? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As the contemporary reports list them just as XXX-Ford it is beyond out purview to alter that; Tyrrell-Ford was the FIA-registered "constructor". Personally, I'm not that concerned about linking directly to FoMoCo, after all, that's what we used to do for other manufacturers before the Alfa Romeo in Formula One, Mercedes-Benz in motorsport, Porsche in motorsport, BMW in motorsport, and similar pages were created. Indeed, we still do for smaller manufacturers like Maserati and Yamaha. Ford has such a huge competition record that it surely can't be too long before they have some sort of motorsport page set up and we can change them then (or a bot can, probably?). Of course, if you think that a Ford in motorsport or F1 page is likely to emerge soon then temporary redlinks would be fine, but if they remain for too long people will start "correcting" them to the FMC page. ChicaneF1 also lists engine types, and that doesn't require a subscription. Pyrop e 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. As far as treating DFV family and non-DFV engines "separately" goes, I think we might be in danger of looking at previous eras through modern lenses. If you watch Nine Days in Summer (superb, btw, if you haven't seen it you need a copy, even the short clip on YouTube is spectacular) it is very clear that Ford didn't consider the DFV to be a sponsorship or badge-engineering exercise. That was a Ford engine, with development input from Ford engineers, and proudly marketed as a Ford product. JYS is always very careful to refer to his Championship-winning cars as Matra- and Tyrrell-Ford machines, and he is usually my watchword as far as nit-picking pedantry, sorry, attention to detail goes. Pyrop e 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll say that something like Ford in Formula One or Ford in motorsport is really necessary; I'm afraid I differ with you on the FoMoCo page, to me it just sticks out horribly as an irrelevant link. There's almost nothing there that is relevant to F1. We can see what anyone else here has to say on it, then if there's enough interest I might set an article up myself. It is a bit surprising that we don't have one already. I don't mind changing the links unless a bot can do it - not that I know the first thing about bots... I'd say we should separate Maserati into two as well at some point, with Maserati in Formula One being potentially a very worthwhile article.

For sure JYS's word is a very good indicator, even if he is a bit of a corporate Ford man ;) I'd be willing to bet that, without Cosworth, Ford would have produced nothing like the DFV at any stage though. Just as sure as Cosworth couldn't have done it without Ford's money and backing. With non-DFV engines, I can see we'll need to be careful about naming them - maybe we can discuss those as and when they arise? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read his autobiography too... I'd agree about the DFV being a product of very successful alloy between Chapman, Hayes and Duckworth. Without any of those three the DFV would never have been built. Pyrop e 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Another engine to consider. Coloni's brief Subaru powerplant was in fact a Motori Moderni. There is almost nothing about the F1 effort on Subaru's page, but to me it's the correct page to link to. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bertrand Gachot's nationality

This has been briefly discussed on this page before, but it would seem to me that the current situation of representing it could be improved upon. Looking at the old Autocourse annuals, it appears to be the case that Gachot's registered Super License nationality in Formula One was Belgian from 1989 to 1991, and then French in 1992 and 1994 to 1995. In the current season articles and race reports, his flag is always Belgian. I would favour changing it to the French flag in the 1992, 1994 and 1995 articles, in addition to mentioning the issue in Gachot's own article (and tweaking relevant categories etc.). However, this does have the potential to be confusing, so I thought I should raise the issue here first (especially after the recent flag debates!).

Here's what Gachot himself thinks, from a 1991 interview:

“

Although he has always raced under a Belgian licence, Bertrand carries a French passport. His helmet carries the flag of the European community - he believes for a good reason.

'I am not really one nationality,' he says. 'I feel very much a European, but today I have to accept that a united Europe is not yet a reality. Certainly from a legal point of view." [10]

”

--Midgrid (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Trust Gachot to make life difficult. I still blame him for unleashing Schumacher on us :( If he did change his nationality though, I agree about changing the flags and explaining it all where necessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We already have Luigi Chinetti as an example. This shouldn't be too much of an issue. Pyrop e 21:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about him!--Midgrid (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All done! I'm not sure how to integrate this change into List of Formula One drivers, however, which occurred to me whilst I was making the changes.--Midgrid (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe go with how Alejandro de Tomaso is illustrated on the list, showing both flags separated by a '/'. Schumi555 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Two flags looks very clumsy. Just the flag he finished his racing career with. If folks want to look up more information on the topic, they can go to Gachot's article page. --Falcadore (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1951 Belgian Grand Prix (Offical names of races)

Another question for everyone; why in the latter half of the 1951 Formula One season are all the official names of the races in capital letters and are different from what it says on chicanef1? Take for example the 1951 Belgian Grand Prix, in the article it says the official name is "XIII GROTE PRIJS VAN BELGIE", but yet on chicanef1 it is listed as "XIII Grand Prix de Belgique". I don't know about you guys, but I'm inclined to change it to what chicanef1 says. Ste900R (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Guinness Guide to International Motor Racing also calls that event the "Grand Prix de Belgique", so I would support changing it. Of course, Belgium is a special case due to the fact that both French and Flemish are widely spoken.--Midgrid (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There doesn't seem to any special reason for that to be in capitals. Darth Newdar (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Caps suggests to me a cut and paste job from some stats site? Pyrop e 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that the race had two official names, one in Flemish and one in French. Belgium does have two official languages, so maybe it's worth putting both in. No idea why it's in capitals though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What do we do for Canada, another bilingual race in that respect? --Falcadore (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Or Swiss GP - in 4 langs? --Sporti (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Formula One Car Articles

There are many Formula One car stub articles that do not seem to meet general notability guidelines, Like this one. I propose merging those articles into Formula_One_car, but I am not sure if this is the best approach. Your thoughts? --John Kronenwetter (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like your idea too much. The article will probably be expanded in the future. Loosmark (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First: how? The articles are about a specific car model, the article you propose to merge to is about a type of vehicle. Are you going to have a section that says "Here are some Formula One cars..."? That would seem pointless and arbitrary. Secondly: their notability hasn't been established, but I'm sure it probably could be given enough time. Your assertion that they are "unlikely to be expanded" is wrong. They will be expanded, just not that soon. This is a problem that we come across fairly often. New editors create cruddy little stubs and then walk away. There is merit in the single article, but it requires the work of a dedicated editor to go round and destub these things, and that takes time. Pyrop e 20:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the article in question or those like it could be expanded sufficiently to justify standing on their own. We already have a Formula one car article. In addition, we could create a list article of all formula one cars. Those cars which do not meet notability guidelines can be included in the list, but do not need their own article. I think the question is less about expanding existing stubs and more about consolidating information in a way that is accessible to the reader. Also consider that the article I mentioned is an orphan. John Kronenwetter (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, that aricle just needs to be deleted, check this: Ferrari F1/86. Loosmark (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's that solved. I have to say I find the idea of merging articles on individual F1 cars into Formula One car rather amusing. Maybe we can merge articles on road cars into car, and football clubs into Association Football while we're at it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Pyrop e 13:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A "gem"

Be on the lookout for any possible pictures, the Life L190, with an actual Life F35 W12 engine, was at this year's Goodwood Festival of Speed. It'd be great to find some CC or PD photos of it. Oh, and there was also some other F1 stuff... ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

there is now picture on Life article --Typ932 ^T·C 06:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Formula One racing driver v racing (or race car) driver

Looking at the article for Sebastien Bourdais I realised that some of our articles describe the subject driver as "a Formula One driver". I don't feel that this description is accurate or allows for flexibility of description and means we will have to change the intro to every driver when they change series. Some of the articles read ...is a racing driver who currently drives in (their current formula). I think this is better. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The latter is probably better. (Mind you, the former is possibly a good description of Kimi Raikkonen who has driven in 149 F1 races and only 23 races in all other car racing series.) 4u1e (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It depends on the driver. A driver who drove in a lot of F1 races, a handful of F2 / GP2 and a few F3 races is probably best described as an F1 driver. If it's someone who drove in sports cars, Le Mans, Indycar etc etc, then "racing driver" is probably better. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 F1 Season drivers

I can't figure out how to remove Alguersuqari from the table of drivers without messing up the table. It has not been officially announced that he will drive for Toro Rosso yet, although there is plenty of speculation that he will. I did ask on the talk page for the info not to be added until it was official. Can someone sort this please? Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I got it. It took some editing of the row lengths and stuff. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To do list - HIGH IMPORTANCE

Who could help for doing the constructor championship ranking for all of the suitable articles? Thanks. Raymond Giggs 15:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Pyrop e 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for writing too rough. Since 1958, Formula One World Constructors' Championship was introduced to determine the champions by term of constructors. For all of the season, the Formula One World Drivers' Championship ranking table is listed into the articles. However, the Constructors' Championship ranking table is absent until 2005 in the articles. In my opinion, we should add the tables back. Raymond Giggs 07:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You want to add more tables to articles, that are already excessively statistic heavy? I fail to see how that rates any importance at all. This is supposed to be encyclopedia, these articles need increased readability. More words, less numbers. In my opinion, that is of high importance. Of considerably greater importance is how drivers won races, important incidents in races, and certainly not the race position of the third March-Cosworth customer team on the left. --Falcadore (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I see now. But I also see WCC tables in all season summary articles as well. Ok, so only recent races have the full driver-by-driver breakdown, but the constructor positions are recorded. I therefore can't see how this is HIGH IMPORTANCE. Arguably, prior to 1980 the applicability of the detailed table falls away rapidly, so that by the mid-1960s a table that recorded every result for every constructor by driver would be horribly complicated, with drivers commonly switching both chassis and engine manufacturers multiple times a season. They also didn't run with consistent race numbers, so quite how you'd enumerate the table is beyond me. I can understand the attraction of working on tabulated information is your English isn't so good - I certainly wouldn't want to try and write a 2000 word article in Cantonese - but to suggest that this is high importance for WP:F1 is seriously undermining your credibility. Pyrop e 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Brabham BT46 GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Brabham BT46 for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this, if you like. Sorry I've been a bit inactive recently, but I'm hoping to get back into editing. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that 4u1e has jumped in before me! Oh well... Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Campos Drivers

Are we all happy with the reliability of the sources avalible for de la Rosa and Bruno Senna as Campos drivers in 2010 Formula One season, particularly the Senna reference (which isn't English)? Potentially misleading if this is not actually true. The usual ultra-reliable sources like autosport.com have yet to mention it. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be in English. It'd be helpful to know what it says before deleting it. The Italian website cites the same Spanish newspaper which claims de la Rosa has signed for Campos. However the rough translation I have says nothing about what Sergio Perez is doing, merely that he has Telmex money to offer. There's no mention of test driving or anything. I'd assume based on the similarity of the SpeedTV report, that this Spanish newspaper merely mentioned that Senna and Perez were possible candidates, but the Italian website seems to have taken it as fact. Hence, I'd remove the both of them, we need more sources to verify this. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 23:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those sources claims that Perez is a test driver. The claim that Senna has signed is pretty woolly with no basis at all of who has announced it or anything - it's just a newspaper claim. The de la Rosa story is slightly more authoritative, but none is official, so they should all go, especially as none of the usual reliable sources has even mentioned it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Same would go for the Gachnang source, but I can't read that one :( I find it improbable that any self-respecting F1 team would sign a driver as ropey as that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My rather poor german skill combined with a google translation would seem to confirm the Gachnang claim (though it would be better if someone who properly speaks german could confirm this). However, an article on a normally very reliable Finnish website (yes, admittedly as unreadable as the german to most of you) stated that Gachnang will have a test drive for Campos (in the same manner that test drives are provided to other young drivers in junior Formulas), not that she will be the actual test driver for Campos. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove Gachnang, as there has been no official announcement. Just because she's going to have a test doesn't mean she's a test driver. - MotorsportPete93 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you all being so picky? Drivers have been included in the table which have references saying exactly what the table would require them to say: that they have been confirmed as drivers, there's not even any "expected" or "rumoured" in the reference source. As far as I can see if it's not ambiguous and an official newspaper (from whatever country) states it as fact, that it's reliable enough to place it in the table. If you want a translation for any sources, there are plenty of translation websites across the internet which will give you a pretty solid English version of the source. It certainly can tell the difference between "rumoured" and "confirmed". I also believe that if several sources are all saying the same thing that you have to accept them because otherwise what can you believe? Autosport doesn't always get the news first and even then I've seen it give news incorrectly (e.g. some Superleague Formula and Euro Formula 3000 'facts'). I suggest that de la Rosa and Senna are put back on the table, along with others, with a note below that was there before saying that they will be officially confirmed at the 2009 European GP at Valenica. Officially Mr X (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If they're going to be officially confirmed at the European Grand Prix, then they're not confirmed yet. These sources are not brand new by any means - I think Autosport would have caught on by now if the claims were reliable. I disagree that newspaper claims are reliable - in fact they often turn out to be total rubbish. I suggest putting them all in the rumours section. There must be a very good reason why Autosport, GP.com etc etc haven't published this stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the more reputable media out there would have mentioned it by now. They have probably seen these claims, and got onto it to check it out to see whether or not to post it on their websites. This is why I didn't delete them as soon as they were added - to give them a chance. They have clearly decided against this, and therefore we should be equally careful. Let me just say though that I would be very surprised not to see de la Rosa announced as a Campos driver next month, but until its confirmed by more reputable sources than one Spanish newspaper then we should leave them out. -MotorsportPete93 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these are presumably the same Spanish newspapers that were 100%, absolutely, completely positive that Alonso would be driving a Ferrari this year... Pyrop e 17:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the latest site to report on Pedro de la Rosa: Paddock Report. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They still only say 'reportedly', quoting that very same Spanish newspaper. They haven't got the story first hand, probably seen it on here and then followed the reference that was there. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Results legends / keys

Does anyone else think that the one we use for F1 results is getting too long? I think Template:F1 driver results legend 2 could do with a bit of pruning. Falcadore objected to the addition of a "SUS" code for suspended drivers and teams, and although I added it, I'm happy to remove it again if people will just leave the boxes blank instead. We also discussed the removal of the non-result "Inj" - this has nothing to do with a results table, and it can always be replaced by another, more accurate code. I also removed the "cancelled event" code because there has never been a cancelled F1 race that shows on these tables. Another user re-added it saying it was important. If other series need codes that F1 doesn't need, I suggest those other series use Template:F1 driver results legend, with F1 sticking to the #2 legend. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The "cancelled" option is there because the same template is used as a key for GP2 Asia Series drivers' results tables, and there was a race cancelled during the 2008-09 GP2 Asia Series season. I suppose this raises the question of whether or not different templates should be created for other racing formulae, as the current GP2 Series, GP2 Asia Series and International Formula 3000 results tables that exist on driver articles all use Template:F1 driver results legend 2, and many of the season articles for these and other formulae use the earlier template, Template:F1 driver results legend.--Midgrid (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to tailor and/or rename Template:F1 driver results legend to fit some of the other series, and create others if necessary, leaving Template:F1 driver results legend 2 for the hundreds of F1 articles. That way we can have the relevant codes in each legend, rather than have redundant codes clogging things up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's sounds like a sensible thing to do, although it will create quite a big workload to change all of the transclusions. I also forgot to mention before that a "SUS" code is definitely redundant - Renault's punishment is virtually identical to BAR in 2005, or Schumacher in 1994, so "EX" should suffice for this new case as it has done for those.--Midgrid (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the exact reason I created "SUS", because people keep adding "EX" erroneously. "EX" is for drivers excluded during practice or qualifying. It is never used by other sources to describe suspensions. Ideally, the boxes should be blank. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've altered Schumacher and Irvine's articles already. I should have checked them before bringing them up as examples. :) --Midgrid (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yes, that was my way of inciting discussion! I thought people might see it and object, and we could go through it. The "SUS" code I added is very undoable once we decide what to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so long as you remember to change the Benetton Formula, Benetton B194, Jordan Grand Prix and Jordan 194 articles as well, if this does indeed become a permanent addition. ;) --Midgrid (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't in the race meeting at all, through suspension or illness, there is nothing to put in the box. If you show up, but don't race and you weren't disqualified which I'm sure we can agree is a different case, then its covered by DNS. The tables shouldn't look like a mobile phone txt conversation. For decades the motor racing industry have been fine with DNF, DNS, DSQ without a plethora of other codes (over at Indycar there's a code for Castroneves tax evasion trial!).

Keep it simple, and keep it to what the majority of the industry actually use, and have used for years. --Falcadore (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to pare things back that much: apart from the "cancelled" code, which can be removed if a separate template is created for other motorsport formulae, it's nice to have the distinction. Blank squares may be more uniform, but I imagine they would be frustrating to those who know that Karl Wendlinger (1994 Spanish Grand Prix), Jenson Button (2005 Monaco Grand Prix) and Ricardo Londoño (1981 Brazilian Grand Prix) all missed races for completely different reasons (to take just three examples). In addition, as the key to the results tables is always an identically sized transclusion, having a longer list of options is not a disadvantage in my opinion.

While we're at it, I've noticed that some of the tables out there have more than one option per cell, e.g. the Jordan one I linked to earlier under Fisichella's result at the 2002 French Grand Prix. This is needlessly confusing and doesn't match up with the existing key. I think it may have been discussed here before - was consensus reached then?--Midgrid (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Even though there are different reasons for drivers missing races, there are in fact dozens of reasons why drivers miss races. We can't have codes for all eventualities. I remember Berger missing a race because his father died - we can't have a code for it. The "Inj" code is poorly applied, inconsistent and hard to verify. How injured was Heidfeld during the end of his term at Williams? We don't know. In the 50s and 60s, drivers missed races for untold reasons, some very hard to fathom. These are results tables, and "Inj" is not a result. None of the other results sources (FORIX, F1.com etc) use it. Furthermore, I've lost count already of the number of times I've had to revert Massa's DNS after someone changed it to "Inj". It's ridiculous. I'm with Falcadore in that a non-appearance on the entry list should mean a blank box. If the reason needs to be explained, it can be done in the text. Regarding your other point, the whole key is shown on the season articles, and it looks rather clumsy being so long.

The Fisichella case needs to be changed. I'd actually remove "WD" from the key as well - "DNA", "DNQ", or "DNS" covers all withdrawals. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

but I imagine they would be frustrating to those who know that Karl Wendlinger (1994 Spanish Grand Prix), Jenson Button (2005 Monaco Grand Prix) and Ricardo Londoño (1981 Brazilian Grand Prix) - I have to ask why it would be frustrating as those three instances come from completely separate seasons and will never be looked at together. If someone is confused, or is after more information, and I hate to put it this way, but read the accompanying text! We are trying far to hard to put everything into tables and writing far too little text. A table is meant to accompany text, an aid to better under standing the text, an appendix, not a complete substitution. We have learnt to write in sentences, please do so. --Falcadore (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally for fewer abbreviations in the tables. In additon to all the points made above, particularly by Falcadore, I also want to limit the potential for abbreviation creep. At the moment if a driver starts the race but fails to finish they simply get "Ret". Whether the car breaks or there is an accident, we don't distinguish but leave the detailed explanation to be found in the particular race article or, if it is a significant reason (say, the driver died...) in the text of the article. I'm in two minds about the "WD" abbreviation. In some cases it is being wrongly applied (see JYS's last race, where although Ken Tyrrell withdrew from the event, he didn't do so officially so Stewart and Amon's grid slots were empty; this race should be DNS for both drivers). However, there are times when a driver's entry is formally withdrawn and in these cases a "WD" is the proper annotation (such as when two drivers are entered by a team, but they only have one car, the decision being taken after first practice), but this is a very specific result and shouldn't just be slapped on where a driver pulled out for no other reason. Pyrop e 14:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I've misunderstood the point of an encyclopedia, but isn't Wikipedia here to give people information? Therefore I feel it is important that we state the reason that Renault isn't at Valencia. What exactly is the problem with having more codes, until of course we get absolutely loads, but then I don't think that will happen. There must be a limit to the amount of general reasons why drivers don't get to a Grand Prix. mspete93 [talk] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the danger is that we can make the tables and keys look ridiculous with a large number of different codes, some of which would be hardly used. We will state why Renault won't be at Valencia - in the text. The results tables are purely designed to show results, and some of these codes do not show results, they just show reasons why someone didn't turn up. And yes, there are an enormous number of reasons why someone can miss a race - suspensions, boycotts, driver strikes, family bereavement, injury, sickness, going to prison, racing elsewhere, being sacked, retirement mid-season, changing teams and sitting out the rest of the season, car transporters catching fire on the way to the circuit, you name it, the list is practically endless, and all of those things have actually happened to various drivers. None of it is really within the scope of a results table. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair point I suppose. Sorry that I couldn't think of all of those reasons off the top of my head. mspete93 [talk] 16:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Why would you be able to? You have to be as sad as me to know all those ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, driving to the wrong circuit (Norisring instead of Nurburgring). Readro (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(Starting to go off topic) Who did that??? mspete93 [talk] 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to confuse things a little further, I've just come across the case of Rick Mears, who was apparently entered to drive a third Brabham at the 1980 United States Grand Prix West, but refused by FISA as the entry had not been made two months in advance, as required by new regulations on the subject of supplementary entries introduced that year. Is a refused entry even covered by the current codes?--Midgrid (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I never knew about that! We don't have a code for refused entry, ask Karl Oppitzhauser who is making do with a "DNP" for now. I think he was on a preliminary list, then got chucked off it when someone realised how inexperienced he was. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A refused entry is a blank box. If your entry was never accepted, you were never part of the meeting no matter what the driver personally believed. --Falcadore (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I've misunderstood the point of an encyclopedia, but isn't Wikipedia here to give people information? When we have a detailed article on each and every race, that sort of detail can be covered by text in the race article. It's not about non conveying the information, its doing so practically. A table is suppsed tgo be an appendix, a visual aid, not a substitute for the written word. --Falcadore (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Examples

Since we're talking about multiple codes here, it might be helpful if we could indicate by means of a table which codes we think should be kept and which should go. (N.B. does white (#FFFFFF) actually produce a different colour to leaving the cell blank, or are my eyes playing tricks on me?) --Midgrid (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What would you like us to do, put our names in the table and say which codes we want to keep and which we want to reject? And yes, the white is definitely different to the blank cell. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my intention - kind of ironic given how the discussion has turned into another "tables vs. text" debate. (I know that's an over-simplification. ;) )--Midgrid (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Current system	DNS	C	PO	TD	DNP	Inj	EX	SUS	DNA	WD
What we can probably all agree on	DNS		PO	TD	DNP	Inj	EX	SUS	DNA	WD	The "cancelled" code is unnecessary for an F1-specific key.

PO? What? I have no idea what PO is supposed to be. Pissed off? TD? No Inj. --Falcadore (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

PO is "Practice only", which I don't quite get. Surely DNS or DNQ covers that. TD is for the Friday test drivers that we had until recently. I'd be in favour of junking C, Inj and PO. I'm not too bothered about SUS, and WD needs to used very sparingly. Happy with the others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They way I understand it is that PO is used for drivers who did not take part in qualifying at all, whilst drivers marked with DNQ or DNS have. I think it could easily be merged with TD, provided that the explanation in the key is tweaked slightly.--Midgrid (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very good point. The problem comes when someone was sidelined in practice so didn't make quallie, but they were entered as a front-line driver. Pyrop e 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand PO now, for drivers who never made it to qualifying but did actually practice. TD is slightly different though, since it describes Friday drivers who were never intended to go beyond Friday practice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My viewpoint on all of these codes (with regards for a more "universal" sport rather than just F1):

DNS means they qualified, by either setting a good enough time in qualifying, or being "locked in"
C should indicate a race that was cancelled while the teams and drivers were there, like the GP2 Asia example used earlier, or the Firestone Firehawk 600. However, it should not use black cells in the table, and it bears too much similarity to DSQ.
PO and TD should be merged to indicate drivers who only took part in practice sessions and nothing else.
DNP should not be used. If you didn't participate in the weekend at all, then it should remain blank. Most other scenarios I can think of are covered by other codes.
Inj is too ambiguous to use. If you were injured, you can't take part, and thus you're blank.
EX is a maybe. I remember Schumi was excluded from the 97 driver's championship, but I'm not sure if I remember a scenario where a team/driver has been excluded from a race. From what I can tell, it basically means you were disqualified so harshly that you no longer appear in the official results. Therefore it should be used rather than a blank cell, since you originally had participated in the weekend before being unceremoniously kicked out.
SUS shouldn't be used, rather a note be attached to the table somewhere to signify why the driver/team didn't participate if not immediately obvious, or
DNA - huh? I presume you mean examples where a team/driver was entered, but never showed up (kinda like some entries in the Indy 500). Didn't arrive, therefore blank.
WD should be used when a driver/team withdraws from the event after entering and showing up for safety reasons. I remember Sauber withdrew from an event before after they had massive rear-wing failures before, therefore that should go down as WD, rather than DNS or blank.

Again, just my two cents in the ideas. Some of the decisions here are likely to affect the codes used for the other series as well, if anything for a case of uniformity. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Solely with regard to F1, DNP is important to describe a driver who was entered but did not practice. This is clearly different from a driver who was not entered. Likewise DNA - drivers who were entered for a race must have something in the box. A fairly large number of drivers have been excluded during practice or qualifying, for missing weight checks etc, so EX is an absolute must. Disqualification of a driver once the race has started is a DSQ, not an EX. Withdrawals during practice or qualifying result in DNS or DNQ - these are the actual results for withdrawn drivers. WD is a cop-out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the reason for the withdrawal. As I said above, I'm only in favour of WD where it represents a formal withdrawal of a driver's entry. Simply not competing because you wrecked your car or injured yourself would certainly not come under this heading. Pyrop e 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely it depends on what other sources are saying? If FORIX and the others are saying DNS, we shouldn't be putting WD for any reason. Do you think Stewart's DNS at Watkins Glen in '73 should be a WD? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Other way round. Many places say that Stewart and Amon were WD, but they weren't, they just DNS which is why their grid slots were empty and the field didn't move up to fill them. They withdrew, but they weren't Withdrawn. However, finding a source that is correct (verifiable vs. true bites us on the ass again) is hard. F1.com is, as ever, wrong; GEL is wrong; AllF1.info is very unhelpful; Grandprix.com and ChicaneF1.com are correct, but equivocal; and StatsF1 is correct, but I don't know what they mean by "np". Another hang over from the original semi-automated race results creation period using f***ing F1.com as a source. Pyrop e 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To return to this, Template:F1 driver results legend has been moved to Template:Motorsport driver results legend by someone or other, which I think is a good move. It's more descriptive and makes the template more suitable for adaptation which would enable it to cover as many series and formulae as possible. If the other Template:F1 driver results legend 2 is to be used solely for F1, perhaps we can start to decide what to do with it. Maybe we can start with the aspects we've so far agreed on, like ditching the godforsaken "Inj".

Finding sources that are verifiable regarding situations like the one Pyrope has described is going to be difficult. We could find sources to verify either WD or DNS in this case, not least that damnable F1.com. FORIX says "not started", and FORIX is what I usually rely on. Maybe we should just start to go through all the incidences and verify them as we see fit, leaving the way for others to raise objections if they wish? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

DNP and DNA could easily be folded together. Re-reading the description above I'm struggling to find a difference.

I agree wholeheartedly with all of what TheChrisD said... typed. Perfect, that's what it should be. --Falcadore (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also - let's actually start by removing the Inj now. Sometimes beginning action helps fire up discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Great about "Inj" - we can start removing it from tables. Re: DNP/DNA - there is a difference, which mainly applies to older races - DNP (which does not mean "did not participate") is for people who turned up but didn't practice, and DNA is a nominal code for drivers who were entered but did not arrive. They are both used widely in other sources, and we should probably stay close to our sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we go ahead and remove "SUS" as well? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, it's part of the DSQ/EX/SUS continuum. A driver was entered for a race but was prevented from competing due to official suspension; would that be covered by another abbreviation? As an aside, not having a FORIX subscription I can't check for myself, but what do they say about Satoru Nakajima at the 1990 Portuguese Grand Prix? Pyrop e 13:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For myself, I see clear distinctions between the three, based on the way Autosport / FORIX use them. DSQ for drivers disqualified once the race has started; EX for drivers disqualified during practice or qualifying, and nothing for drivers who are suspended. Their entry has been effectively removed, so they have no entry, therefore no result / code at all. Nakajima at Portugal 1990 - FORIX have him as a DNS. His Friday time was quick enough to get him on the grid, but he was sick on Saturday and even though he drove briefly during Sunday a.m. warm-up, he was wayward and it was decided that he wouldn't race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I've read. However, I'm wondering if this isn't the first instance where a driver wasn't officially withdrawn but his grid slot was reassigned. The Stewart/Amon circumstance outlined resulted in empty grid slots, while Nakajima's withdrawal didn't. Pyrop e 18:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are numerous instances of the grid closing up when a driver fails to take his grid slot, and equally numerous instances of there being gaps. I think this might be beyond what we can verify or even find out about anecodtally - who knows what went on in the 50s and 60s when someone DNSed. If a driver is ruled out a few hours before the start, it's more likely that the grid would close up, whereas if he fails to appear at the last minute, a gap would be left. It might have also depended on local organisers, meaning there were never any hard and fast rules on it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The template uses green for 4th or lower points finishes and blue for non-points finishes. However, some pages on North American series (1, 2) use green for 4th and 5th, light blue for 6th to 10th and blue for 11th or lower finishes. The latter pages don't use any template, so we could add an option to the template to switch to American standard.

It was me who moved the template to Template:Motorsport driver results legend, since it's used in several non-F1 pages. Therefore, I believe that the main discussion should be carried on here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does the template appear to have grown in size. It looks wrong next to the championship tables which have smaller text.mspete93 [talk] 12:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible constructor icons

What do people think of the possibility of using these templates I've created to display icons representing the Formula One teams, for instance in race standings etc.?

{{f1car-bmw}} {{f1car-brawn}} {{f1car-ferrari}} {{f1car-forceindia}} {{f1car-mclaren}} {{f1car-redbull}} {{f1car-renault}} {{f1car-tororosso}} {{f1car-toyota}} {{f1car-williams}}

Feel free to tell me if you think they're lame, I'm thick skinned! AJCham2097 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there's going to be much chance of anyone wanting them. I tried to use the colours of the teams in the drivers table at the start of the season and everyone dismissed it. Well done anyway, it must have taken some time and effort. How come they look a bit squashed though?

Hang on, I've just thought of a use for them! If you look at football team articles (like this one) they have their kits done a bit like that. It's a possibility. mspete93 [talk] 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When shrunken to 48px like those above, a 1:1 scale icon is barely discernible (F1 cars are not that tall) so I deliberately squashed them a bit. As for the football kits, those were in fact the inspiration behind these icons. I enjoyed doing them, and I think I might find a use for them, even if it just means creating some "This Wikipedian is a fan of Toro Rosso"-style infoboxes for people's userpages. AJCham2097 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't really need them because we have tons of pictures of every car in the field anyway. People can figure out what the cars look like. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about userboxes. That Williams looks like the livery they ran pre-season rather than the current look. It needs a lighter blue and some white if you can. Otherwise they look good. mspete93 [talk] 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One point to note is that in each template, the "[[Category:F1 team icon templates]]" should be enclosed within a <noinclude></noinclude> clause, so that the templates go into the category, but pages which transclude the templates (like this one) don't. DH85868993 (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I like these. I don't think there would be any need for the car articles because, as pointed out above, most cars have plenty of photos, but for the team articles I could easily see a "Current livery" parameter added to the infobox just as football teams have. They are fun, informative, emblematic and, yes, decorative. However (big caveat) they would need updating every season at least. If they aren't then they will die fairly rapidly. Pyrop e 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and created some userboxes. They're at User:AJCham/ubx, if anyone wants to use them on their userpage. AJCham₂₀₉₇ ^(talk) 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding the idea of a current livery parameter in the infobox, I've created a test version of the Renault F1 page, demonstrating this: User:AJCham/Renault F1. I don't see annual updates being a problem, it is only a handful of images after all. --AJCham₂₀₉₇ ^(talk) 17:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just what I had in mind. I prefer it at 60px, however, rather than the full 96 as it tends to overwhelm most other things in the box if it is too big, but I think its a nice touch. Pyrop e 17:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a point for them, I also fear we may hit OR concerns and risk being inaccurate (isn't the advertising an important part of the liveries?). Fully support their use in userboxes, don't see the use outside of them. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no OR concerns. If you went to an early season test day and noted the new livery colours yourself then it would be OR. As there are literally hundreds of published photos out there to refer to then the research has been done for us. As far including all the sponsor information goes you have to bear in mind that there are simplified icons, not miniature true-to-life representations of the cars. Shirt sponsors aren't included in football kit icons. Pyrop e 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If they arn't true to life, they are no use, surely? It seems we would be better served with an image of the cars in the articles. We would need to cite the livery colours anyway if we put the icons in as part of the articls. Great little icons, but I don't see the need outside of userboxes. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they could be used in Formula One sponsorship liveries? John Anderson (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to F1 team infobox template

Some of you may have noticed the F1 team infobox template has recently been updated to use the "Infobox" template, resulting in the background shading disappearing from behind the "2009 Formula One season" and "Formula One World Championship Career" headings. (I can't immediately spot any other visible changes.) If you have any views about the changes, feel free to express them here. DH85868993 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed category for wet races

There's a discussion about a proposed category for wet races at Talk:Formula_One#Wet_races. Please contribute. DH85868993 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we do this once before? I seem to recall a proposal for something like this, and the overwhelming thought was that there's no way to classify what a "wet" race is. It also seems to be trivial in my mind. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We had a discussion back in August last year about an article called List of rain affected Formula One Grands Prix, but the conclusion was that it was a little too subjective. (see the AFD). Aptery gial 07:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So, why do we always have the discussion about wet races during the UK summer? :) 4u1e (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's always raining in the UK. ;) Aptery gial 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rounds/Races columns

What do people think of the addition of Races/Rounds columns to the "Teams and drivers" tables in the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 season summary articles? Noting that the information is visible in the "Results and standings / Drivers" table. DH85868993 (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Stat creep. As you say, the same information is available in another table further down, so I suggest it's unnecessary repetition and clutter. 4u1e (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It can be useful if a driver changes teams mid-season, which isn't shown in the drivers' table.--Midgrid (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. DH85868993 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's not a very convenient way of getting at the information - you have to know what round 15 (for example) is. I'll withdraw my comment above though, in the absence of a better suggestion. 4u1e (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I too think that it's a but much, that chart is busy enough as it is. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way about F1 but I would like to keep it for other series. mspete93 [talk] 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont really like it, as its looks awful and dosent show us any more info then there charts below and the bullets of mid season changes. MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a general freeze of new stats in articles? There are more than enough. --Falcadore (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there actually any more stats we could put in? - mspete93 [talk] 11:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread seems to indicate we're finding new ways of duplicating them. --Falcadore (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just backing up a moment... It can be useful if a driver changes teams mid-season - isn't that covered though by the section titled Mid-Season Changes? Duplicating the data quite a bit. --Falcadore (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indy 500 DNQs

Should failures to qualify at the Indy 500 from 1950-1960 count as WDC race entries? (Why not?) Because if they do, then the number of entries for many (most?) of the "Indy 500" drivers in List of Formula One drivers (LOFOD hereafter) are wrong. A couple of examples:

LOFOD shows George Amick as having 1 WDC entry (the 1958 Indianapolis 500). But his article and this webpage indicate that he also failed to qualify for the 1957 race, which means he actually has two WDC entries.
Bill Vukovich: LOFOD says 5 WDC entries (the 1951-1955 Indy 500s). But this webpage indicates that he also failed to qualify for the 1950 Indy 500. Which would give him a total of six entries.

But does it really matter? Well, apart from LOFOD being slightly inaccurate, it has a serious affect on the "Highest average points per race entered" table in List of Formula One driver records. For example, the table currently shows Amick on top with 6 points from 1 entry giving him an average of 6.00 points per race. But if he now has two entries, then his average points per entry is 6 / 2 = 3.00 which drops him out of the table. Likewise, if Vukovich has 6 entries, his average drops to 19 / 6 = 3.17, which threatens to drop him out of the table as well. One problem is that most F1 stats sites that I'm aware of (including FORIX) only provide information on the number of starts for the Indy 500 drivers, so if we start calculating our own WDC race entry totals for these drivers, would that count as original research? DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they should count, because if we accept that the Indy 500 was a part of the F1 season, and we accept DNQs from other F1 races as notable, then it follows that Indy 500 DNQs are also notable, and those drivers should be on all the lists etc. Slight problem is that, besides situations like those you mention where certain drivers DNQ one year but started the race in other years, there are a large number (I think about 80) guys who DNQ and never started the race during 1950-60. We would have to deal with all these. I have a good list and it's all verifiable so it shouldn't be OR, but do we want to take it on? Some might already have articles if they were notable in other categories, but I'm betting there'd be a lot of redlinks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, if you have the data in softcopy format and can upload it somewhere, I'm happy to do the work to update List of Formula One drivers and the affected tables in List of Formula One driver records. As for the redlink drivers, I think it's OK for us to have redlinks in List of Formula One drivers; in the fullness of time we can examine them all and either create articles if they have sufficient notability, or just leave them as redlinks if they don't. DH85868993 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I don't, and I'm an utter dunce when it comes to stuff like that, but I'll put it all in a sandbox page and give you the link, then we can put the info wherever it needs to go at our leisure :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If DNQs count for F1 they should count for Indy. But... as far as the List of Formula One driver records are concerned, where are these from? This list reeks of OR. Where is there an equivalent set of stats? Deriving information from published lists of starts and points scored is definitely OR. We need to find another source that provides the stats as presented. Pyrop e 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We can probably find sources for most of the "Number of" tables (e.g. "Number of wins/poles/fastest laps/points/etc per driver") - I'll have a bit of a hunt around and see what I can find. Finding sources for the "Consecutive" or "Average" tables might be more of a challenge. DH85868993 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any as detailed as the list hosted here. Pyrop e 16:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Still working on the list of DNQs - there are a lot. It's a really fuzzy area for some of the drivers who never managed to start an Indy 500 - were they entered or weren't they, did they turn up, did they take to the track, what were they driving etc etc. Some drivers are incredibly obscure, making people like Karl Oppitzhauser look like Riccardo Patrese. Of the drivers who actually started at Indy, many also DNQ in other years. They're much easier to sort out, thankfully, and that info should be easy to integrate into what we already have. Interesting to know that one or two F1 drivers also DNQ at Indy, such as Jorge Daponte, Giuseppe Farina and John Fitch, so their stats will need to be updated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Race reports

I was just checking out the page on the 2009 European Grand Prix, and I think the recount of the practice and qualifying sessions is simply far too long. There's like 3000 words on the subject, when a short paragraph on each practice session and qualifying phase should be enough. Save the meat of it for the race report. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen. The problem is that people get conned into believing that practice times actually matter. So very very dull. Pyrop e 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Starting grid/race order graphics

I've just noticed that Odor has created these graphic representations of the starting grid and finishing order of the 2009 European Grand Prix. Might these have any use in the project?--Midgrid (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. The finishing order one looks a little odd with the retirees alongside the finishers in a seemingly random fashion. Do we need more graphics? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

About the retirees: if someone retires in the first lap of a GP he will appear on the very left of the run-off area, if he retires after finishing 50% of the race he will be put exactly in the middle of the picture etc.

Final results of 2009 Belgian Grand Prix

ʘᴅoɾ (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they're redundant to the tables, but they do look good and I thought that someone else might be able to think of a good use for them. The same user has also made some charts for the drivers' championships from 2002 to 2008, if anyone's interested.--Midgrid (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are they going to be a one or two-off? Will this be done for previous seasons? --Falcadore (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure; you would need to contact the user directly to ascertain that.--Midgrid (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they're necessary. They don't add anything that the tables don't already do, and the only people who are really going to be going to the articles are people who follow the sport. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that this has appeared once again on the 2009 Belgian Grand Prix. I have to agree that I don't think they're necessary, not only because they are redundant but because they are almost impossible to read in terms of telling specific drivers apart. Knowing a Force India is on pole isn't as helpful as knowing Fisichella is on pole, which our chart does. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My archive goes back to 2002. I just tried uploading all qualifying results for season 2007, using a multiple-upload tool. ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Odor/gallery ) But still - uploading all my graphics would be very time consuming. At this point I'm not sure whether I'll do it or not. I've seen that my graphics are used at least in Spanish wikipedia... ʘᴅoɾ (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And yes - I have to agree that my graphics are probably a nice thingy for experts, who know the helmet design of each driver, but not very useful for normal users. ʘᴅoɾ (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks neat, even if it is more for fun than anything else. We can have it or lose it, either way is OK for me. But I think early retired cars should be to the right, not to the left, since the cars seems to have been driving from right to left. John Anderson (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article renames

I propose to rename the following articles:

List of Formula One records --> "List of Formula One World Championship records"
List of Formula One driver records --> "List of Formula One World Championship driver records"

as suggested here, to reinforce that the records actually refer to WDC races (thereby including some non-F1 races), rather than "all (and only) Formula One races". Any objections? DH85868993 (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the List of Formula One drivers article too? Schumi555 11:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. That too. DH85868993 (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

M. Schumacher number of starts

We currently have some inconsistency over the number of starts for Michael Schumacher. Schumacher's article says 249, whereas List of Formula One drivers and List of Formula One driver records both say 248, as does FORIX (which is a subscription site, so you'll have to take my word for that). On the assumption that the "race of difference" is the 1999 British GP, I thought it might be worth revisiting that issue. Schumacher's article and 1999 British Grand Prix list his result in that race as "Ret", as does ChicaneF1. On the other hand, www.formula1.com and FORIX both list the result as "DNS". So, what do we want to go with:

Result = "Ret" --> Starts = 249, or
Result = "DNS" --> Starts = 248?

DH85868993 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the "Mike Thackwell Question" all over again. I tend to take the line that if they took a start at that race then it counts. Pedants don't, however, but in the words of Niki Lauda "Didn't start the race? If I didn't start the race then what the fuck happened to my ear?" Poor old Riccardo Paletti doesn't even get to make witty quips but some people still contend that he didn't start the race that killed him (although I note we have him as "Ret" in that instance). This has been debated all across the media with no clear consensus, so I think we would be justified in taking either line as long as the discrepancy is noted. But this should be consistent across the whole WP. A couple of years ago Doug Nye wrote quite a good article arguing that they should count. Where DN goes I tend to follow. Pyrop e 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Schumacher DNS/Ret situation for the 1999 British GP similar to the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, where the race was red-flagged after the first start, and several drivers were unable to make the second start? For the 1998 Belgian GP, the drivers which did not make the second start are listed as 'DNS'. Personally I feel that Schumacher should be the same for the 1999 British GP as he did not actually start the race - the first start was red-flagged so therefore did not count. Whichever we decide on though, it needs to be consistent for other races. Schumi555 15:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If a driver takes a start, it should count. Readro (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, www.formula1.com appears to have had a change of heart on this issue; according to what I have recorded on this page, it looks as though www.formula1.com used to have Schumacher's result as "Ret" back in 2007, but they now have it as "DNS". DH85868993 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

MS didn't attend the start that counted for the race results, so DNS + maybe with a note about the restart or sometning like DNRS (did not restart)? --Sporti (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd steer clear of inventing terms (a restart usually refers to the resuming of a red-flagged or safety car race, not a fresh start), I share the view of Readro and Pyrope but think a footnote is also needed to clarify the situation. AlexJ (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over future driver tables

Okay guys, I'm putting this one to the winder WikiProject because we can't seem to come to a resolution ourselves.

Here's the deal: a user, Falcadore, has raised concerns over the ordering of the drivers' table on the 2010 season page. He claims that the table undergoes frequent and unnecessary edits on the basis of current championship standings and should be changed to either be an alphabetical listing with the new teams for 2010 at th bottom of the table, or styled after the 2009 numberings. Falcadore believes that the current system borders on a crysal ball because it is speculation and original research.

I am opposed to this change. My reasoning is that 2010 numberings will be based on the final standings of 2009. If the championship were to end today for whatever reason, the ordering of the 2010 table would be exact. Changing the 2010 table to reflect teams and driver standings on the basis of 2008 results also seems a little redundant because this is 2009, not 2010 or 2008. The informationin the drivers' table is not speculative because it does not list numberings or assume championship positions. It simply reflects the current standings, and will only require a relatively minor edit in the future compared to if the table was arranged according to 2008 standings or alphabetically. As best I can tell, this system was used on the 2009 page last year, and on the 2008 page the year before. It is a system that works, and even if it broders on being a crystal ball, it is not actually a crystal ball.

I have added an infobox marking the page as relating to a future season and that the information may be of a speulative nature and may be subject to change, the same as any other futue sporting event like the 2012 Olympics (the page I borrowed the coding from). This, I feel, is about as drastic a change as is needed. However, because of the debate, I'm putting the information here for everyone to settle on an appropriate course of action. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the 2009 numbering system does NOT theoretically reflect the position of the teams last season (see Brawn's numbers), and the fact that the #1 team would be based solely on who is the Drivers Champion, then assuming that the teams are in the correct order is useless. If the numbers are not assigned yet, then it is crystal balling. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Further, although you are not including the numbers in the table, the intent seems pretty clear to me that the not included numbers are in fact that determining factor. Which of course is further useless with the fate of BMW Sauber and the three new teams. Make the entire thing alphabetical order until we get a more precise and verifiable system to order them. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The nature of my gripe is that the order of the 2010 teams on 2010 Formula One season changes after each 2009 race, to reflect an assumed numbering order of how the 2010 teams might receive their numbers. It was my contention that rather than reshuffle the 2010 order after each 2009 race that one order should be picked now, and then left untouched until the FIA issue the numbers they will actually use or at the very least until the season ends, and I presented a couple of options. Alphbetical order appeared to be forming a consensus until User:Prisonermonkeys decided WPF1 should be canvassed rather than the thread on Talk:2010 Formula One season. So here we are.

I merely wish to stop these incrimental changes, which are based entirely on unsourced assumptions. It feels to me as though that is speculative behavior and pointless in nature, as no other information changes with these edits, just the order in the table. It is all very well adding the Future event infobox, but the statement information may be of a speculative nature and may be subject to change should not, in my humble opinion, be used to insulate edittors from making these sort of assumptions. The future event infobox is not a 'get out of jail free card' allowing us to significantly alter our editting behavior. --Falcadore (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Until the official numbers are released, this ordering/re-ordering of the table is rather pointless. We should leave the table in a fixed order, (i.e. alphabetically), and only rearrange them when the FIA releases the numbers. Just my two cents. - oahiyeel ^talk 05:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Go with alphabetical order until the official entry list is released. See WP:CRYSTAL for the official reasons. For an unofficial reason, consider the sheer amount of wasted effort in continually reorganising the table. There's an awful lot of more important, and more interesting, stuff to do. 4u1e (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Falcadore, I only brought the discussion here beause there is only a handful of users who routinely edit the 2010 page, and I thought it might be wiser to expand the discussions. And my interpretation of your initial message was that you wanted the 2010 table to be based on the 2008 final standings in the middle of 2009, which seemed uttrly redundant and confusing to my mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read maybe the whole thread. I presented a number of alternative options and expressed no preference initially, other than to place the new teams at the end, but was quite fine to include them alphabetically in the edittors thought so, which the consensus appeared to be forming in favour of. There had been 3 or 4 users within a few hours of the thread beginning, so that wasn't as though it was being ignored. --Falcadore (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We've had a fair few users pop in and all bar one are in favour of alphabetical and locking. I think we can call that a consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really much point in having them in current championship order, regardless of crystal balling, without the numbers. A fully alphabetical list is the way to go. Take football leagues for an example. They always line up in alphabetical order before the season starts, not the order they finished the last season. I don't see much point either in having the three new teams at the bottom. They are as much a part of 2010 as the other 9 or 10 teams. This looks like a concensus. Go ahead and make the change. - mspete93 [talk] 22:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor aiming to delete F1 results table template

There is a discussion here, in which an editor has stated his intent to delete this template, and somehow incorporate the information therein into every single article which uses the template, i.e. all the F1 results tables. Personally, I think it's a dreadful, pointless idea, but others may differ, so here's the heads up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is really an accessibility debate rather than something which requires knowledge of the article subject matter. That said, advice of possible solutions is always welcome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I brought this here solely because those people most likely to be interested in this situation are not otherwise going to know about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Fisichella rumours

I have today, in this diff, [11], removed information statiing that Fisichella will take over the Ferrari seat at thae next GP. I have read the sources given and in my opinion they do not support such an assertion but I would like more opinions on the matter particularly as I think the information has been put into other articles (ie Ferrari and possibly Fischella's own article) but have no time to check immediately. Would a member of the project have a look and tell me if I'm wrong please? (Wouldn't be the first time if so, I'll get over it!) Britmax (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this [12] is the reference they were after. Britmax (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Fisichella has been confirmed, but the sources weren't updated. I'll sort that out now.--Midgrid (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! Britmax (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Singapore Investigation

He everyone,

Just curious here: if the Nelson Piquet/Renault investigation relating to Singapore last year continues to deteriorate, should it be worth creating an extra page? We did it for the FIA-FOTA war, and the 2008 epsionage controversy got its own page. Granted, it's not as large in scale as either incident, but today it was announced that Renault are taking police action against Piquet for blackmail, while Mosley commented that race-fixing is worse than cheating. Since this could result in Renault being banned from competition or excluded from the 2008 or 2009 standings, I think that it may be worth a page in its own right. We should wait until the utcome of the WMSC hearing on the 21st before doing anything, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Belongs on the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix page if anything. --Falcadore (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's not jump the gun. It's a subsection of the GP page at the moment. If the story develops legs and runs for a few weeks then maybe, but right now, no. Pyrop e 13:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I had already thought about this, but for now it should be a detailed section of the GP page, possibly with a suitable redirect. If this section becomes too large - i.e. larger than the rest of the page - then it could be its own article. - mspete93 [talk] 16:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion a separate page about this case is needed, this is becoming just too big to describe it in the specific GP page. Loosmark (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To big? It's three sentences long. In no way does that justify a separate article. --Falcadore (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Free practice times

An editor has added tables of free practice times to 2009 Belgian Grand Prix - is this something we want? DH85868993 (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They have no bearing on the race. No. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete. More text, less stats. Let that be a mantra. Probably just mine, but I'll try it anyway. --Falcadore (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Teams can run cars in whatever trim they choose, using whatever strategy they want. All it represents is whatever the TV stations want to spin into it. Aptery gial 10:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, on the grounds that they're not relevant to anything and they take up way too much space. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted them. DH85868993 (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Italian Grand Prix too I notice. --Falcadore (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added the tables of the 2009 Belgian Grand Prix and the 2009 Italian Grand Prix. Can you forgive me for this? To me i think that it is important (To me)

Vettel543 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Without meaning to sound harsh, they are bordering on trivial importance. They have no bearing on the outcome of the meeting. Wikipedia is not a statistics website and there are times where being concise is more important than adding in every minutiae possible. --Falcadore (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Did I miss something? Motor Turbo Racing? Anyone familiar with the speedy delete process? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. (I meant to watch the page, by the way, not mark as a minor edit). Aptery gial 10:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And I've done Ford Racing F1, "contributed" by the same editor. DH85868993 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Major edit infoboxes

Last night I was in the process of adding qualifying data for Monza. I made a point of including the in-use template, but when I went to finish my edit, I found someone had already added the data, and that it was plagued with errors. I don't think it was anybody here who did it, but if you are, please observe the infoboxes. It's just common courtesy, even if it's not an iron-clad rule of Wikipedia. If someone is in the process of adding data, don't go ahead and do it yourself. It's not a race; getting everything right is more important. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no real way to know who is editing what and when. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a case of knowing who is editing what and when: it's about courtesy. If you see an infobox saying that the section or the page is undergoing an edit, leave it be. Someone is already in the process of doing it. It doesn't matter who, only that it is being done.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not going to make a difference. Chances are high it was an unregistered editor, and even if it was, chances they read this page are minimal. Maybe it might be better to copy the material to notepad, make the changes, then jump in and edit. We all have to deal with it and you won't cure it by having a whinge here.

Part of the cost of doing business. --Falcadore (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:McLaren

There's a discussion in progress at Template_talk:McLaren#Ron Dennis over whether Ron Dennis should be listed in the template as "current" or "former" personnel. Please add your thoughts there. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said there, if the template refers to the McLaren group, Ron Dennis should not be listed as "former personnel", whereas if it relates solely to the Formula 1 racing team, it should not appear on the MP4-12C page, and should also, in my opinion, indicate that it refers solely to the racing team. Perfectly straightforward, I would have thought. Sbz5809 (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lotus F1 Team

First, expect a ton of edits to the following articles: Lotus Cars, Team Lotus, 1Malaysia F1, 1Malaysia F1 Team, and 2010 Formula One season. People are going to be doing one of two things: Editing the articles to state that the team is 1Malaysia F1, which it is not, or changing the flag of the team from Malaysian to British or vice-versa.

Second, I wonder if we should be linking to Team Lotus. Do we consider this the same team? I'm sure the statistics from the FIA would likely say so, but would it make more sense to put this current version under a different title since it is such a different entity? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lotus that will enter F1 as the 13th team in 2010 is not the same as Team Lotus. Lotus the car manufacturer and Team Lotus split in the early 90s. The original Team Lotus is still owned by David Hunt. This new team is part of the car manufacturer, which is owned by Proton. Much in the same way that we have articles for Williams Grand Prix and Frank Williams Racing Cars, there should be a new article for the new team. Referring to the new Lotus as Team Lotus is incorrect. Readro (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is still owned by Dvid Hunt. I think he sold the name on, and it was THAT name which was used in the original application for an F1 slot this year. That failed and then a new one was put together. Now know not if that also uses the same "rights" to the name, but it uncannily has the same man at the helm. They've said nothing on this score, and so we shall be up in the air on this matter until and unless they do.--Amedeofelix (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For now I'm linking to Team Lotus, but if they are indeed separate entities than I agree on a separate article. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The new Lotus is just Litespeed with backing from Proton and Malaysia. Readro (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should use the Litespeed article though, the F1 team is not owned by the same consortium. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if you disregard that, Team Lotus is still incorrect. By the way, the Malaysian consortium do not own the team, they are just backing it. The team itself is technically Litespeed, with technical input from Mike Gascoyne's company. However, that makes no difference. There should be a separate article for the new Lotus. Readro (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. What was "Team Lotus" is owned by David Hunt, who allowed it to be used by Litespeed, and that Team Lotus is no longer part of Lotus Cars. But you say the new team is technically Litespeed. Yet it's owned and backed by the consortium that owns Lotus Cars. So...how are they not the same? This Autosport article clearly states that Lotus Cars wanted nothing to do with the Litespeed entry, so how can the Malaysian entry be involved with Litespeed?

The FIA lists the owning company as "1Malaysia F1", I'd assume that is the Malaysian consortium. It even lists the team's director as part of the investment group. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that I got confused with all the Lotus and Malaysia talk. According to the BBC, this is Team Litespeed, who bought the rights to the name from David Hunt. The company "1Malaysia F1 Team" is probably only something that exists on paper. The company running the team is Litespeed. Regardless, the team shouldn't use the same article as Team Lotus because they only bought the name, not the rest of the company. Readro (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well they did buy the name, but is there even a company to buy anymore? From my understanding there is no more team that Hunt runs. Would this at all be similar to Honda and Renault? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If they have indeed bought the name, then for all practical purposes they are to be considered the continuation of the Lotus team. Loosmark (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Honda and Renault are different. In those cases, the original company were in control. In this case, we have a new company with the same name. Readro (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

do you think that the McLaren of today controled in good part by Mercedes is the same company as the original Bruce McLaren Motor Racing run by Bruce Mclaren? Loosmark (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You can trace it all the way back to the original team. Readro (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly do you mean with "trace it". Could you please elaborate a bit? Loosmark (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There should be a new article for the new team. Even Gascoyne has said they're "not pretending to be the old Team Lotus, but the new Lotus F1". [13] Suggest Lotus F1 as an article title. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean that the same company has existed since Bruce McLaren founded the team. The Minardi that was owned by Gabriele Rumi and Flavio Briatore was the same Minardi that Giancarlo Minardi founded. As was the Minardi that Paul Stoddart owned. With the new Lotus, they have not bought the company, only the name. Readro (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on Minardi however for example the modern Renault team has basicaly nothing to do with the historial Renault, they just bought what was the Benetton team, or well Toleman if we want to trace it that back, with all the facilities at Enstone, same people (Briatore, Symonds, most of the engineers etc) and badged it as "Renault". If we accept this Renault is the continuation of the Renault from the 70s and early 80s then i don't understand why same logic can't be applied to the new Lotus. Loosmark (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But the original Renault owns the new Renault team. The original Lotus has nothing to do with this team. Readro (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: if for example Chapman would still be alive and decided to buy the Torro Rosso and badge it as Lotus, would you consider it as the continuation of the historical Lotus? Loosmark (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If the historical Lotus was no longer in business then I'd say there'd be a fairly good chance I'd regard it as the same Lotus. But the new Lotus has no connection to the historical Lotus. Readro (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the problem with your reasoning is that it is hard to determine what kind of historical connection is enough to consider a team as the same. But anyway to be honest I'm not really interested in editing those pages so any solution is fine with me. Loosmark (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find out more about the team. It seems that I was right initially in that Litespeed are no longer involved. The new Lotus has come about as a result of Mike Gascoyne rejigging the original plans after the initial entry was turned down. The Lotus connection is now through Proton rather than David Hunt, so it is definitely a different team. Readro (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We need a new article. This official F1 news story states the team as Lotus F1 Team. Therefore that is where we need a new article. This has very little to do with Litespeed. They failed with their entry, with which Gascoyne was involved. Gascoyne then, according to this autosport story 'revived the Lotus plans with the support of the Malaysian government' It has very little to do with both Litespeed and the old Lotus team. - mspete93 [talk] 15:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page created at Lotus F1 Team. - mspete93 [talk] 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If the whole David Hunt Team Lotus thing is no longer involved then yes, I can agree that it is a new team and deserves a new article. How will we mark this on the constructor template and such? Team Lotus vs Lotus F1? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with this solution (i.e. a separate article) for the time being. Of course, we may need to re-evaluate if reliable sources (formula1.com, FORIX, etc) start combining the results of "new Lotus" with those of "old Lotus" (assuming, of course, that they ever make it to the grid - anyone remember Prodrive F1?) DH85868993 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder if this might be Haas Lola, a Lola team in name only, which is usually grouped amongst Lola's statistics. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When was Lotus Cars divided from Team Lotus? Just how separate do we considere those two entities historically as opposed to now? I say this since the new team represents Lotus Cars not Team Lotus. --Falcadore (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

They split in 1954, although both companies were still owned by the Lotus Group. In 1986, Lotus Cars was bought by General Motors and since then it has changed hands a couple of times, and is now owned by Proton. Readro (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to say that I have no problem if the two are merged based on future information, although as per Renault F1 and Honda Racing F1 the section on the old Lotus will need to be reduced so that the main emphasis of the article is about the (soon to be) current team. We can afford to be patient for the time being, until further info comes out. It is a difficult one seeing as both are referred to as just 'lotus' in short form - mspete93 [talk] 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That I do have a problem with, as it's going to be a very long time, if ever, that the new team is as notable as the old Team Lotus. They won several championships over a long period. The new team are likely to be backmarkers for the foreseeable future, and may not win anything for years. Reducing the original article, while dragging on about how the new Lotus came 16th and 21st in the latest GP is a no-no.

There is no similarity between the teams anyway, other than the name itself. The original team was simply owned by the British Lotus Group and run alongside Lotus Cars, whereas the new team is basically Malaysian Proton, acquiring a long-defunct F1 brand to badge a Formula One effort. When Proton bought Lotus Cars, they didn't buy the right to use the Lotus name in F1 because it was entirely separate. We have separate articles for the same team with different names (Toleman, Benetton etc) so it would be pretty odd to have two entirely different teams in the same article just because they share a name. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, that's exactly what I think as well. It's just that I had one user trying to argue against me on the respective talk pages last evening and I told him to raise it here so that we could keep the discussion in one place, although it seems that he hasn't bothered yet. I wasn't suggesting we merge them, just what we need to do if were to merge them. But mergeing them is a silly idea as you've highlighted. - mspete93 [talk] 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Bretonbanquet makes some very pertinent points there. I'm in favour of a new page, especially in view of Mike Gascoyne's comments. Pyrop e 16:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that this is a new and separate entity. Reports indicate this is "Lotus F1", a team associated with Lotus Cars and Proton, and not David Hunt's "Team Lotus". While I very much hope to see a Lotus Cars-backed Team Lotus some time soon we don't seem to be there yet. --kingboyk (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My inclination is to compare this not with teams like Renault, but with names like MV Agusta and Bugatti which were bought in name only but have been accepted as a continuation of the original here all the same - in terms of having one page for the whole history.--Amedeofelix (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

But it seems that this is not a simple matter of buying a name. Mike Hunt's Team Lotus name does not appear to have been involved in the creation of this new team. It was originally offered as part of Litespeed's initial proposal to the FIA, which was rejected. But this second proposal is entirely different and doesn't include anything from the original Team Lotus. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the entities are as different as Bretonbanquet, MotorsportPete93, Kingboyk and others think. It is probably not possible to have two different Lotus names, even if one is for street cars and one for formula racers. There got to be one entity who ultimately owns the Lotus name, leasing it to all other uses. Just as with many other company names which has been split up in the past, as Volvo (cars owned by Ford, trucks independent, name since then owned by a third company whose sole purpose is to lease the name to them both) for instance. So I think it should be considered a continuation, even if it is in name only. John Anderson (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case. For decades, the various companies who owned Lotus Cars were not permitted to use that name for Formula One. Only now has the name been reconciled with a group of people connected with Lotus Cars, who wish to use it for F1 and have the ability to do so. The racing team and the road car company have been legally separate entities for a long time. They still are separate, as Proton do not own the Lotus F1 brand, rather it is owned by the Malaysian group of companies, of which Proton is one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Were they forbidden to use it or had they agreed not to use it? That's a fairly important difference. Anyway, they started out together and now they are back together. Proton does own the new F1 brand, or at least a stake in it, I don't think they would have called it Lotus if Proton hadn't been one of the companies forming that Malaysian group of companies. John Anderson (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

They weren't in a legal position to use it as they didn't own it. It belonged to the David Hunt Team Lotus outfit, which was the direct descendant of the original Team Lotus. Hunt had bought the entire team in 1994. Hunt sold the name to Litespeed for their failed attempt to enter F1. The Malaysian government and the accompanying consortium now own the name, which they bought from Litespeed. Neither Litespeed nor the Malaysians purchased the team, which makes the Malaysian effort a different team from the David Hunt Team Lotus. Furthermore, Proton does not directly own the Lotus F1 name, and never has done, so the link between Lotus Cars and the Lotus F1 brand is fairly tenuous. In fact, Proton hasn't even involved Lotus Cars in the consortium yet, naming the Proton company itself as the partner. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I haven't researched all the purchases of the Lotus name/F1 team/car marque as much as you seem to have done. Do you mean the old Lotus team lived on (albeit with a different name) after Hunt sold its name to Litespeed (and which Litespeed in turn sold it to the present consortium)? If so, you are right, and the new team should not be considered a restart of the old team. But if the old team is not around anymore, in any form, the present owner of the team's name can of course restart the team and this new incarnation can be seen as the same team as the old one was. John Anderson (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hunt sold the name pretty recently, so I don't know if he has a racing team or not at the moment. But that's basically a moot point. The Malaysian group bought no team - either there is a team of sorts that Hunt runs that can be seen as a continuation of Team Lotus without the Lotus name, or Team Lotus became utterly defunct. In that case, as you say, it would be a restart - a new team. Via Proton, the Malaysian government owns Lotus Cars, and of course they can legitimately use the Lotus name in F1 now that they have bought the rights to use it. But that's all they bought. Neither the Malaysian government, Proton, nor Lotus Cars ran the F1 Team Lotus before, so they cannot restart something they weren't previously running. It's a whole new thing entirely. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if the link might seem weak, there still is a link of succession from the old Lotus to the new Lotus. It's not that the new team takes up a name which trademarkwise is free to use. It's not like ATS and ATS, which were two totally different teams, even if they bore the same name (or rather the same acronym, but that's beside the point). John Anderson (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also say it is the same Lotus as before, as is also the official story of FIA: The return of Lotus - the history of a legendary F1 name. The Malaysian Lotus' Tony Fernandes also declare that: “Colin Chapman had a fantastic pedigree and we want to enhance it, protect what's there and add value to it. Very much we see ourselves as the original Lotus and carrying on the processes”, from Fernandes seeking experience for Lotus line-up. Dagrqv (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't really believe anyone considers this to be the same team. An entirely different group of people from a different country, setting up with an old name. Team Lotus and Lotus F1 are run by different companies - Proton is a partner in the new team (apparently they don't own it), and Lotus Cars is not directly involved in it all at the moment. Fernandes can be expected to say that his new outfit is a continuation of the old team because that's the where the money and interest lie, so he's hardly objective. He thinks he's bought the history of the old Lotus, which is slightly offensive, in my view. It's a different team from a different country with an old name, and we should treat it as such. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As a partner in the conglomerate, Proton is of course one of the owners. John Anderson (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion much will depend on their results, if they will be successful, they will be considered as sort of a continuation, if they suck then... Loosmark (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The coming results should have nothing to do with this question of wether there is a form of succession from Lotus to Lotus or not, I think. John Anderson (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Two penn'orth: no connection with the former Team Lotus other than the word 'Lotus', so this is (as the consensus seems to be going) a new team that happens to use a similar name and is a new article. As has been pointed out, other resurrected teams (Honda, Renault) are/were owned by the original parent company. However, if the new team does start to be treated as a continuation in serious sources, which has happened for revived brands in other sporting arenas, then we should reconsider. 4u1e (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see no consensus. I can see two different opinions: that there are two different Lotus teams, and that there is one and the same Lotus team; hence, no consensus. I still believe in FIA's opinion that it is the same team. Dagrqv (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The FIA? Where does it say the FIA think it's the same team? The article you linked to says it's a new team AND it says it's the old team. Typical F1.com garbled stuff. It mainly just says it's a return of the old name. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Dagrqv, Formula1.com is run by Ecclestone's Formula One Management (FOM), not the FIA. The two should not be confused. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 11:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'd point out that "consensus" isn't reached by weight of numbers alone, but more by the quality of the arguments presented. On the "they are the same" side at the moment all we have are dubious third-party reports from commentators who are either not specialists in the field (national press, etc.) or who have a vested interest in generating hype (FOM, etc.). On the "they are different" side we have reports from established specialists (Autosport, etc.) and comments from people directly involved with the team (Mike Gascoyne, etc.). Just sticking you hand up and voting doesn't mean a thing. These are different teams. Pyrop e 13:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the arguments have to be convincing for them to make a consensus, i.e. people at least have to agree that there are some point to them even if they do not agree personally. Of course, a consensus is not the same as a vote (weight of numbers), but noone has argued that either. A consenus is an agreement. So convince me that you are right! Also, you do not take up all the arguments which have been presented here. We have seen that there is in fact a link, or acctually two, albeit admitedly both a bit weak, from the old Lotus to the new one, since the old team trademark has been bought by the new team and the owner of the car marque Lotus is a co-owner of the new team. John Anderson (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

how is this situation different from for example a NBA team changing ownership? Loosmark (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Because there's no continuity - no connection whatsoever between the old team and the new team. Generally when a team changes hands, they change the name (even though in many cases it's effectively the same team) and we start a new article - Jordan - Midland - Spyker - Force India. Or Ligier - Prost and even Sauber - BMW Sauber. These were continuations of the same team with largely the same personnel, yet they still got new articles. This is an entirely new bunch of people in a different country, after a 15 year gap, under different ownership with no remnant of the old team in evidence - it's completely against our usual procedure not to start a new article. Just because the name is old, it does not mean the team is the same old team. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is continuity. It might be weak, but it's there. So the argument should not be wether there is a connection or not, but if the connection is strong enough for the new team to be seen as a continuation of the old team.

When new owners puts a new name on a team, it is becasue they want to start something new. When a new team takes up an old name, is this because they want to start something new or because they want to connect to something old?

Present day Bugatti is usually seen as the same marque as the old Bugatti, even if they only have the name in common (which is the same trademark continued). Why shouldn't the same principle be applicable for F1 teams? John Anderson (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there's any continuity. What are you referring to exactly? The name on its own does not represent any continuity. The connection, or lack of it, is infinitesimal compared to many, many other examples where we have started new articles. It is not about what the team owners may want, it is about what actually exists. It's not a continuation of the old team merely because the owner says it is. He's biased and it's in his interests for it to be a continuation of the old team. His technical director disagrees with him anyway, as has been quoted.

I don't know all that much about Bugatti, but as far as I know, it never stopped being a company of sorts. There was a continuation under a series of owners. The Lotus F1 name became completely defunct for 15 years, and has now been revived in a completely different form in a different country. Also, each individual segment of Bugattis' history does not deserve its own article, whereas the two Lotuses (Loti?) clearly merit individual treatment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, but just the Bugatti name was acquired in the 1980's for a new car producer, i.e. just the trademark as far as I understand. And I don't say there is a continuation from Lotus to Lotus because the owner says it is (I don't care what he says because of course he is biased and want to advertise his company), I say it is a continuity because the trademark was lawfully acquired. OTOH, I am not sure it is strong enough an argument for us to treat the old and the new Lotus as the same Lotus. John Anderson (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. The closest F1 parallel I can think of is for Williams. Frank previously ran "Frank Williams Racing Cars", which went through a number of identities and was eventually mostly subsumed within Wolf, which was then in turn bought out by the Fittipaldi team. However, FW and Walter Wolf parted company earlier and so Williams Grand Prix Engineering (now trading as WilliamsF1) was born. Same basic name, same team principal, but we rightly treat them as separate entities despite having a far greater claim to continuity than does the future Lotus F1 Team. While the name is similar (note, Lotus F1 Team, not Team Lotus) for the new Lotus entry, the trademark wasn't acquired from a descendent of the F1 team, but the car company. These are different entities and have been since 1954. Lotus Cars was never involved in Formula One. Both retained rights to the name and badge when the companies split (properly) when GM bought Lotus Cars in the 1980s. The situation is similar to the split in trademark that occurred when Rolls-Royce sold off their car building arm (although in that case the trademark was retained by the engineering firm and licensed back to the car manufacturer for that specific application). You have two companies now operating under the same name, but there is no real link between them. The Lotus case isn't one in which the present owner of the F1 identity (which is David Hunt, hence Classic Team Lotus remains part of the Lotus Group) has leased its trademark to Fernandes' company, he has bought a similar identity from someone else and is trying to confuse people into thinking that he has revived Team Lotus. Pyrop e 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So Classic Team Lotus still own an F1 identity? I didn't realise that. So where did they get it from, and did it have anything to do with David Hunt? So it looks like Lotus F1 is little more than a consortium using Lotus Cars as a front for a Formula One team. As you rightly point out, Lotus Cars have never had anything to do with F1 before. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As I see it with the arguements over Bugatti, the old Bugatti and the new Bugatti are both 'the car marque Bugatti'. Team Lotus and Lotus F1 Team are not both just 'the Lotus team in F1'. They are seperate, entirely different teams, and different entries. They should have seperate articles, if not now then they should come March so we should leave it as it is. - mspete93 [talk] 16:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Now you must have it wrong, Pyrope. What you are saying is essentially, that the new Lotus F1 team is making a trademark infringement, and I can't believe that is correct. Team Lotus and Lotus cars where both created by Colin Chapman, so they do share a common history, even if they eventually split. Bretonbanquet wrote earlier that the F1 team "belonged to the David Hunt Team Lotus outfit, which was the direct descendant of the original Team Lotus. Hunt had bought the entire team in 1994. Hunt sold the name to Litespeed for their failed attempt to enter F1. The Malaysian government and the accompanying consortium now own the name, which they bought from Litespeed". Was Bretonbanquet wrong in this description of the succession to the right to the Lotus F1 trademark? John Anderson (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's basically what I was asking. I'm trying to figure out if there can be two identities, i.e. two sets of rights to use the name in Formula One. My legal knowledge isn't up to that though. What I described earlier is, to the best of my knowledge, what happened to the Lotus name after Team Lotus folded in 1994. Does Classic Team Lotus (which as I understand it, restores and runs old Lotus F1 cars) have the sole right to use the name "Team Lotus", leaving other uses of the Lotus name to Lotus F1? Or does it have the right to use the Lotus name, but not as an F1 team? I think it's possible that the various rights can be shared, but I'm interested to know exactly what rights CTL have and where they got them from.

However, even though Team Lotus and Lotus Cars have a common history, they were merely two different companies within the Lotus Group, and the split came before Team Lotus entered F1. Lotus Cars had no presence in F1 at any point, so any use of that name in F1 now would be a whole new thing. When the Malaysians bought Lotus Cars, they did not buy Team Lotus, or any part of that company. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Who owns the rights for the Team Lotus name? Loosmark (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting interview [14] Loosmark (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the Chapman end of that conversation. I haven't heard that Chapman sold or gave any rights to the Lotus name to Fernandes' outfit. I didn't even think Chapman had anything to sell. Maybe Pyrope can clarify it. It's Fernandes' job, apparently, to boost the image of his team in the initial stages, and nothing more, since he's leaving after the first few races. That, plus the fact he doesn't know anything about motor racing, leaves it all in a bit of confusion. Also, they'll be hoping they can find a bit more money than that, or else they'll be back-row Charlies. This talk of rivalling Ferrari will make them a bit of a laughing stock. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well we will see what happens but IMO the FIA will make sure that the Cosworth engines are competitive. Loosmark (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The interview seems to indicate that it is something to do with Litespeed, which is not what other sources said early on (see my earlier comments). I'm very confused. - mspete93 [talk] 12:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoever owns the right to the name Lotus for formula 1, has the right to both "Team Lotus" and "Lotus F1 Team". The names are too alike for anyone to be able to own one of them and someone else to own the other. "Lotus" is the main part of the name, as a trademark. E.G. (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For the user who mentioned Bugatti, I've just discovered that the two companies have seperate articles anyway - Bugatti and Bugatti Automobiles. That clears that one up. - mspete93 [talk] 21:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from Bugatti, another example of a common name but different just about everything else is Spyker; Wikipedia has two articles: Spyker and Spyker Cars.--Midgrid (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

2010 Formula One season protected, we need discussion on Campos and Manor

See Talk:2010 Formula One season#Campos/Manor again. Three different FIA sources say three different things regarding the names of the Campos and Manor F1 teams. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

FYI, Pitstop.com.my has been proposed for deletion. DH85868993 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing the format of Grand prix Pages

On User:Wild_mine/GP_Pages, you can see the new format of the Grand Prix pages that will be in its first appearance as a test in the Singapore Grand Prix page Wild mine (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to do that. We don't need tables of the drivers dropping out in each stage of qualifying. Text will cover that. Also we're not having a separate results table for drivers who have retired. Too many tables. Otherwise, what you have there is basically what we're doing already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That will place far too much emphasis on qualifying. - mspete93 [talk] 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the tables of ELIMINATED in Q1, Q2. Wild mine (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, apart from the extra table for retired drivers, which seems pointless - what you have there is the same as what we're already doing. There's no way we're moving the articles to any official names though, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the only novel thing you are suggesting is changing the page names, and that's a non-starter. Who on Earth refers to the race by its sponsored title outside of the organisers themselves? And in years to come even they aren't going to give a fig about that part. Bad idea. Pyrop e 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Definate thumbs down. A lot of unneeccessary detail as Wikipedia is not a motorsport statistics repository. One three tables need be used, the race infobox, qualifying and race results.

And by the way, nice of you to inform the Wikiproject you were taking over, I'll clear my desk for your agenda. --Falcadore (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the current format is fine. And I think that stating This is the new format of the Grand Prix pages that will be from the 2009 Singapore Grand prix onwards is a terrible way to suggest your ideas – you'll just get everybody frustrated with you. Darth Newdar ^talk 09:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The previous format was good enough to get articles to Featured status. I personally hate tables in the middle of the text, really breaks the flow of the article. Formal name is never used outside of the event programme, so that's also a bad idea. AlexJ (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Like others, I see no advantages with the proposed changes. John Anderson (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No advantages whatsoever with these proposed changes. Cs-wolves (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Crashgate

Discussion moved to the article talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2011 race reports

User:Vettel543 has decided to create reports for the 2011 formula one season, redirecting them back to the 2011 season even though there is not a confirmed calendar in place. Included are events like the 2011 Korean Grand Prix which we have no idea will even take place.

I'd like to have them AfD'ed rather than re-directed as we are so far out from these races occurring. --Falcadore (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually occurrs to to me they could easily be Speedy deleted. --Falcadore (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete them. We don't have a 2010 official calendar yet, 2011 races are definitely not useful now. Asendoh (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RfD process has been started. --Falcadore (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

2008 Singapore Grand Prix / Crashgate

Additional info regarding points/positions based on if Alonso's race win was stripped, has been added to the article. See diff. Am wondering if such info is necessary/encyclopedic/significant enough; and even so, should it be included in the actual Crashgate article instead? What do you guys think? - oahiyeel ^talk 09:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I had no probelm remoiving such blatant speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is quite a quagmire at the moment, and I can't help but feel it's suffering a bit from WP:OWN. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me. You can't change a word of that thing without it being reverted, even if it then makes even less sense. It's an awful article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Mosley also told reporters that it was now too late to change the result of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, whatever the outcome of the case." [15]. AlexJ (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything like that should be removed immediately. The result won't be changed and it's utterly irrelevant to speculate on a) what would have happened had they changed the result, or b) what would have happened had Piquet not crashed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Linked pages from BBC F1 pages - very bad condition

Hi all

The page on Traction control has been linked to from the BBC F1 pages...and it is in terrible state, including two "Factual accuracy is disputed." sections, however the biggest surprise was n the discussion pages where there was a slightly racist comment (which I have hidden with the old )

The wiki page is linked from [[16]] near the top of the page "Benetton were accused of running illegal traction control, but got away with it. The FIA found the device in the Benetton cars but could not prove it had been used in races."

I am concerned that I do not have enough technical knowledge to enter into the discussions on the disc pages, but was totally disgusted that someone could leave such a racist comment and it be used in such a high profile link

If this is a trend which is to be continued, and lets face it it is a prestigious accolade to be used as an encycopaedic reference in such a way by such a high status website, then we should consider looking at pages which may be used and ensuring that this sort of mess is not there in future.

Sorry I have been away for such a long time but it was unavoidable due to bereavement and illness.Chaosdruid (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

1995 British Grand Prix - Peer Review

Hello everyone. I've listed the 1995 British Grand Prix article for a peer review here. All comments are welcome and much appreciated!--Midgrid (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The peer review's still open for anyone who would like to comment. Surely there can't be any major problems with the article? :P --Midgrid (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Silverstone map

For some reason, the map of Silverstone used in he pages on the British Grand Prix pages keeps appearing as a white line on a white background. If you the link to the link to the actual file - [17] - it appears to be fine. Is there a reason for this problem, and what can be done to fix it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to work display fine at sizes of 660px and above, but not at 659px and below. Very strange. AlexJ (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be an IE7 thing - the "Other versions" section of the Silverstone map image page contains a PNG version with the comment "PNG version for those with browsers like IE7 that don't support SVG". I'm also finding File:Île Notre-Dame (Circuit Gilles Villeneuve).svg, which is used on several Canadian GP reports, invisible at "infobox size". DH85868993 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Same for me on both counts, but I'm using Google Chrome.--Midgrid (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too, I can't see either at infobox size, but the originals are fine. I'm using Firefox, strange. Schumi555 20:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the uploader of the map on Wikimedia Commons.--Midgrid (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the thumbnailer is acting up again. The white lines are actually something I use so the PNG stands out when I overlay it in Google Earth. Here, they have no use. Will (Talk - contribs) 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes

The notes section from the 2009 Belgian GP article (picked as random example).

Lap Leaders: Giancarlo Fisichella 4 (1-4), Kimi Räikkönen 33 (5-14, 18-31, 36-44), Sebastian Vettel 6 (15-16, 32-35), Nico Rosberg 1 (17)
First pole position, championship points, and podium: Force India
First points for 3 teams using Mercedes engines in the same race: Force India's Giancarlo Fisichella, McLaren's Heikki Kovalainen and Brawn GP's Rubens Barrichello
First Retirement of 2009: Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton, Jaime Alguersuari, Romain Grosjean (although Lewis Hamilton was disqualifed in Australian.)
This was Kimi Raikkonen's 4th win at Spa. In doing this he becomes the only man on the grid to win the same race 4 times. This was also the first time a driver won the same race for the fourth time since Michael Schumacher at the German grand prix in 2006.

Does anyone else think the triviality of these notes is getting out of hand? If it's just me, say so. I mean, First points for 3 teams using Mercedes engines in the same race:? What? Britmax (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I actually like having milestones such as first/last/50th/100th race/points/podium/pole/win/fastest lap (and possibly lap leaders) extracted into a separate section, so I don't have to read through the whole race report to find out that information. I'd be happy for such a section to be titles "Milestones" rather than "Notes" with strict controls over what may/may not be included, if that makes it more palatable. Alternately, we could have a "Milestones" section in the infobox, although it's already pretty large. As for other notes in the quoted example, I find the Mercedes and Raikkonen notes of interest, although I'd be happy for them to be included as part of the main body of the report. The "first retirements of the season" (for Button and Hamilton) aren't quite as notable as they would have been, say, 10 years ago and the "first retirements of the season" for Alguersari and Grosjean aren't notable at all (imho). DH85868993 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Having trivia is kind of fun, but stuff like the aforementioned "First points for three teams using Mercedes engines in the same race" is going too far. Important stuff, like Force India's maiden pole, or Button's Monaco victory being the first time in the sport than one engine has one three races should be included, but only because it's the interesting and relevant stuff. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

I honestly don't see the need to have milestones put into a separate section. If the report is written well enough, these can easily be included in such a way that the information is easily accessible. In addition, I think creating a separate section for milestones is a slippery slope; what is important enough to include (should the fact that the race was Badoer's last, for example, be included? What about the first win by a Ferrari engine this year? First win from sixth on the grid? Third time this year Barrichello's anti-stall system has earned its money?). Raikkonen's line seems a little esoteric (not quite as esoteric as the Mercedes one). I agree with Britmax, this is getting out of hand, it is trivial, and if necessary should be included in the body of the article. Aptery gial 07:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is refered to as Milestones or Notes, it's still essentially trivia, and by renaming it is using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law in the sense of renaming the section to anything other than trivia. I agree with Britmax (that it is getting out of hand) and Apterygial (that these milestones could easily be incorporated into the text if it is sufficiently well written). A growing trend within WP:F1 is seeing the displaying of information in tabular forms instead of text format, which is against what wikipedia is supposed to be. --Falcadore (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep lap leaders and first Pole Position for Force India and axe all others. Loosmark (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One

I thought that it was good to change the colour scheme of Portal:F1. The colour associated with Formula One is black and white. So I thought that it will be good that we change the colour scheme to black and white. Wild mine (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a little ... boring? Black, white and red seems to be the colours FOM like, but F1 goes back a little further than that. The current scheme is based on a reworking of those JPS Lotus colours, so it is neutral to all the current teams. Aptery gial 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So it will be more impartial with the F1 teams, and the FOM is F1-related too. Wild mine (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Enormously unimportant issue. --Falcadore (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not broken, so don't fix it. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Autosport articles over 30 days

I couldn't help but notice Autosport have made their news articles online subscription view only after 30 days of publication. I don't know how this is going to affect the way we link to them, but if there is a requirement we link to articles more freely available, we might need to rethink where we cite to (as the general trend is, at the moment, and rightly so, to Autosport). Does anyone reckon this is something we should be worried about, or am I just getting paranoid again? Aptery gial 13:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to link to cite. Cite them properly (i.e. full author, date, publication), as though they were hard copy, and use the appropriate {{cite journal}} or {{cite news}} templates and, although a url field is built in, if the url goes dead then the citation is still just as valid. Just look at how many pages have citations taken from books, videos, and even museum displays (used that one myself...) which are not available at the click of a mouse. I'd rather we use high quality but difficult to access sources, rather than sketchy websites just because they are simple. Pyrop e 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The references that are currently used from Autosport have been archived by WebCiteBOT, using the WebCite project, so that's not a problem. One thing is that I haven't got an Autosport subscription, so I can't look at the articles; no more Autosport refs from me! I don't how many other users have the same problem... Darth Newdar ^talk 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Drivers at the race!

Someone keeps on putting the list of all the drivers that were present at that grand prix. What is the point. If you want to see this just go the the Formula One season article. Along with this is of course the free practice times aswell. --Troggy3112 ^(talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Both those things are totally superfluous. There's a danger that the race articles are going to get ridiculously long if we don't keep this stuff out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. The times set in free practice sessions don't count towards anything and can be summarised in the text. A full entry list could be useful in earlier Grands Prix to cover a wide range of chassis, engines, tyres etc., but a simple list of teams and drivers is unnecessary.--Midgrid (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thirded? Anyway, I agree as well! Darth Newdar ^talk 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)