Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Category:Formula One scandals[edit]

An editor recently added "Tyre-gate 2013" into Category:Formula One scandals (they added it directly as text into the category page, which is incorrect, so I reverted it, but it raised some questions in my mind): Was "Tyre-gate 2013" really a scandal? Certainly it was a controversy, but personally I wouldn't describe it as a scandal. Which made me wonder: should Category:Formula One scandals be renamed to Category:Formula One controversies, noting that 3 of the 7 articles in the category are named "XXX controversy" and one of the parent categories is Category:Auto racing controversies? If the category was renamed, would Tyregate then be a suitable inclusion? (Note that I'm not suggesting creating an article for Tyregate; I'm imagining we could just create a redirect to 2013 Formula One season#Tyre issues and put that in the category). DH85868993 (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Short answer: Yes, it should be renamed, and no, I wouldn't call tyre-gate a scandal. Long answer: "scandal" is not NPOV compliant in my opinion, and it is also hard to define exactly what constitutes a scandal; however, controversy is much broader, much more neutral, and much more accurate. A CfD for the rename should be opened. Personally, I don't remember hearing about "Tyregate"; it was just an issue with Pirelli's tyres, and didn't have a -gate suffix appended to it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I've started a CfD for the rename. People are welcome to contribute any views they may have at the CfD discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, a scandal would be something like the tyre manufacturer deliberately supplying inadequate tyres, which are designed to fail, to one or more teams in order to knowingly disadvantage them, which was not the case at all. Controversy is the more accurate description. And I don't know why every controversy has to be described with a word with a -gate suffix either. Tvx1 (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I was unaware there was such a category. If we must have it, it should certainly be renamed controversies. Oh and Tvx1, Watergate. QueenCake (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I am aware where the -gate originated from. I just don't understand why every single controversy has to be named somethinggate. I mean the orginal doesn't come from a scandal involving water were the the suffix -gate was added to form a nickname. I was just the name of the building. Tvx1 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting phenomenon. List of scandals with "-gate" suffix suggests that New York Times columnist and former Nixon administration speechwriter William Safire promoted the practice as a means of diminishing the relative importance of his former boss' crimes. This Washington Post article suggests that giving a scandal a "cute" name helps to make it accessible to the public. And on a practical level, "-gate" names make for shorter news headlines, which for print media means you can use a larger font, for greater visual impact. DH85868993 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, were drifting of now. I remember now that Tyregate referred specifically to the "secret" tyre test conducted by Mercedes and Pirelli, not so much to the Pirelli tyre issues in general. Tvx1 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Listing drivers excluded from qualifying[edit]

I was wondering how we should list drivers who took part in a qualifying session, but were afterwards excluded from it. There currently doesn't seem to be a consistent approach to this. 2012 Spanish Grand Prix has Hamilton still on top op the table, whereas 2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix have the excluded drivers on the bottom. 2006 Monaco Grand Prix has Schumacher on the bottom as well but without times listed (although If I remember correctly Schumacher wasn't excluded, but merely demoted to last place). Tvx1 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

By my understanding, exclusion means all of their times from that session are disallowed, meaning they did not officially set a time in qualifying. It is as though they never participated at all. They should definitely be listed at the bottom for that reason. As for listing their times, I think that should also not be included: Just because we know their "unofficial" times doesn't mean we should list them. The359 (Talk) 22:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The official results retain the times though. Tvx1 (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's the FIA document as I would rather stick with that over the version, especially since the F1 site says DSQ instead of EX. However they also are listed in their normal position, as seen in the 2012 Spanish Grand Prix you linked. Looking back at the FIA report for 2012 Abu Dhabi, the starting grid has no lap time for Vettel. Same for Spain 2012. The359 (Talk) 00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I found another example of an excluded driver [1]. In that case the driver isn't even listed as excluded in our table. Tvx1 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Link specificity[edit]

Hi! In order to get an overall good quality level in linking, the MOS suggests (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Link specificity) to avoid links like

  • [[Maserati in motorsport|Maserati]] [[Maserati 250F|250F]]

and use instead a simpler

  • [[Maserati 250F]]

Moreover linking many times on consecutive rows the name of the same company is just plain overlinking (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking and underlinking). I know the first link seems "more complete", but from the point of view of the reader is pointless to link also the company, he is going to find it on the car article. For these reasons I suggest to adopt also in this project (eg. Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Tables) links like [[Maserati 250F]]. I'm running a bot in order to fix wikilinks like these, so we are not going to spend human time on them. What do you think? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No, not cool, and some of the bot "fixes" have already been undone. This is, unfortunately, an example of the MoS creating more problems than it solves, and of people trying to force square peg solutions into every hole they find no matter what the shape. The existing conventions used by this WP have been developed over nearly a decade now, and are there for very good reasons. To deal with your points in order, the separate manufacturer and model links given reflect the fact that there are many Formula One cars for which no article exists (or have any prospect for there ever being an article). Therefore, rather than providing no link, only a redlink, or an easter egg link to the manufacturer's page, the two are separated. Hence, when a car page exists it can be linked clearly, when it does not there is a redlink to show that there is no specific page for that car, but the manufacturar's page is linked so readers are not 'left hanging'. The link structure is clear and explicit. Trying to combine them into one single link would lose either clarity or function, and in many cases both.
Secondly, I'm afraid that your statement that "linking many times on consecutive rows the name of the same company is just plain overlinking" isn't a cogent argument, but rather suggests that (like so many who simply invoke MoS diktat) you haven't really put your brain in gear when considering the functionality of Wikipedia, and particularly how people use and interact with tabulated data. Generally, when reading a table, a reader will scan down a column that gives some sort of sequential ranking (finishing positions, years, race times, whatever) or individual ID (driver name, team name, and so on) and then read across the row when they find the entry they are interested in. People don't commonly read a table from right to left, top to bottom. Hence, imposing an overlinking protocol that was developed for prose to tabulated data is fundamentally flawed. If someone finds a particular year that they are interested in, then reads across to find out what the driver was driving that year, they then should also be able to simply click that entry for more information should they want it. It is very inconvenient, and not a little disrespectful, to force your reader to have to go searching for a link further up the table. In tabulated data there is no problem with overlinking from an aesthetic aspect (actually, an even table of similar blue links actually looks smarter than a hodge podge, to my eye), no readability issues (unlike multiple blue links in prose), and there is no markup or other functional reason why each entry shouldn't be linked. So why not do it as it makes life much easier for someone actually, you know, using the thing to inform themselves?
I'm sorry if the above seems abrupt and discourteous, but I'm getting heartily fed up with the MoS and people trying to invoke its precepts without actually considering individual applications. As time moves on and Wikipedia develops, it is increasingly apparent just what an ill-conceived dogs' breakfast the MoS is in places, and unfortunately because of dogmatists and the self-appointed MoS defence league that situation is unlikely to change. If you can come up with some sort of reasoned argument as to why we need to change things then please do, but if all you are going to do is refer to stale MoS guides then you would be better off developing the chocolate teapot as a beverage container. Pyrope 20:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Completely agree with Pyrope, also noting that WP:OVERLINK explicitly says "... links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." (my bolding). DH85868993 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with both the above editors, and Pyrope has explained it extremely well. All of these aspects have been explored and discussed in the past, some many times, and the current situation is the result of years of fine-tuning. Absolutely no offence meant to Basilicofresco. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Twelve links to the same article within two inches look a bit punctilious, but I failed to remember that MOS allow them inside tables. Moreover your point about the random starting point in reading a table make sense, so no problems about them. Nevertheless I still feel quite excessive a link like "[[Cooper Car Company|Cooper]] [[Cooper T45|T45]]".
  1. If Cooper T45 article exists, then it is the most specific article about the topic "Cooper T45" so we should link it without any unnecessary piping. It's the chassis column and should link a chassis. If the reader does not know what "Cooper" is, then he will find the link [[Cooper Car Company]] inside Cooper T45.
  2. If Cooper T45 article does not exists, then a redirect should be created to the more appropriate article#paragraph. The correct paragraph is better than just the manufacturer's page (they could also be on different pages). It's the best solution if an article is going to be created, it's the best solution if no article is going to be created.
Basilicofresco (msg) 23:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
In many instances the manufacturer article doesn't specifically mention the chassis type. So the redirect would be an "easter egg" redirect to the whole article. Readers could click the link expecting to find more information about the chassis type, only to find there's none there. By having separate links like this: Cooper T55, the reader can see that we have an article about Cooper, but there's no specific article about the T55 (which may encourage them to write an article about the T55). Or if the chassis article does exist, the reader has the choice of going to the chassis article, or directly to the manufacturer article, without having to go via the chassis article first. DH85868993 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
DH makes some very sound points. Basilicofresco, if a car article existed for all cars then your argument would be sound, but the facts as things stand are that there are not articles for each and every car. Hence, someone like John Watson has a combination of blue and redlink entries in his career table. What you are suggesting is that some of those links should be to a car page, and some of the links should be WP:EASTEREGG links to a manufacturer's page, and that we should be mixing the two in one table. Can you see how confusing and unintuitive that would be? A consistent and repeated style is much easier to comprehend. Using your own Cooper T45 example (a pipe to a very brief mention on the Owen Maddock page, incidentally), do note that the term "T45" appears a grand total of absolutely no times on the Cooper Car Company page. How would a piped easter egg benefit the reader there? Pyrope 23:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to get things straight. Has this bot been run on any articles of WP:F1 at all? Tvx1 (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It was run on Jack Brabham yesterday (which I reverted). That's the only one I've noticed. DH85868993 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Having scanned through the bots contributions somewhat, I have found that it has been applied to at least Michael Schumacher[2], Monaco Grand Prix[3] and Formula One[4] as well. It's likely that I failed to recognize some, because I can't possible now the names of every single Formula 1 driver there has ever been. Tvx1 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Also International Formula 3000 [5] and Brabham [6] have text altered from before his bot run. GyaroMaguus 16:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Brabham situation is compounded by several early Brabhams official name was Repco Brabham. Whole other issue I know.
Basilicofresco does have a point. WP:LINKSTYLE specifically mentions this sort of behavior and why it should be avoided. Cooper T45 should link directly to the car article, which then can onward link to Cooper Car Company if a reader is sufficiently interested. If there is not an article on the car, then perhaps it should appear as Cooper T55 ([Cooper Car Company|Cooper] T55) instead of a redlink. --Falcadore (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Team Lotus (current)[edit]

There is currently a discussion about what should be done with the Team Lotus (current) redirect, which presently targets Team Lotus (2010–11). Previous discussions about this redirect has not ended in a consensus so more input would be particularly beneficial here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Team Lotus (current). DH85868993 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Benetton nationality[edit]

An editor has suggested that Benetton were at first British, then Italian, then British again. You are welcome to participate in the discussion at Talk:Benetton Formula#Benetton at first British, then Italian, then British again. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move of John Barnard[edit]

An editor has proposed that the article currently located at John Barnard be moved to John Barnard (motorsport) and that John Barnard be converted to a disambiguation page. You are welcome to express any views you man have on the matter at Talk:John Barnard#Requested move 05 December 2014. DH85868993 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

1960 United States Grand Prix[edit]

Hi all, Just passing on some feedback received on OTRS about 1960 United States Grand Prix-

The course diagram that accompanies this entry is wrong. Riverside International Raceway in its 1960 configuration only had nine (9) turns – officially. The turn connecting the ‘back’ straight (1.1mi inlength) and the front (S/F) straight is T-9. The two turns at the ‘top’ of the course are T-6 (a multi-apex RH turn of over 180° over the crest of a ridge), and T-8 (a long diminishing radius RH entry followed by an abrupt LH exit onto the back-straight). T-2/3/4/5 are all RH turns – each of these are followed by a left which is considered part of the preceding turn. You did get T-1 correct.

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 16:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know why the turn numbers are out, but you are right, they are. The circuit plan is correct for the 1960 USGP (i.e. the longest configuration of the pre-dogleg Riverside was used) but during drafting of that diagram the turn numbering seems to have been done by eye rather than with reference to any historical source. I'll see what I can do to correct that, although my vector graphics skills are not superlative! Pyrope 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so even a quick renumbering is stymied by there being not enough detail in that diagram, so I'll knock together another one in full. Might take a couple of days. Pyrope 20:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done There are new diagrams of the original circuit, the revised circuit, and a comparison of the two. If you or anyone else could please let me know about any mistakes or omissions I'll rectify them as soon as possible. Pyrope 20:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated[edit]

A tedious discussion regarding 2015 Formula One season is developing. The issue is how to best counter a vast number of edits to a particular section of the section. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. You can bring your input at the article's talk page. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent Ayrton Senna changes[edit]

An editor is making changes to the above article. I would like the project's opinion on whether the sources are reliable and accurately reflected (I do not speak Italian), whether the changes are excessive detail and whether the editor is trying to change the place of death by stealth. Opinions? Britmax (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, a lot of their additions and alterations seem to be 'supported' by the 8W article. However, that article itself uses very few direct quotations and is obviously paraphrasing and interpolating in places. One interesting thing to note is that the 8W article makes no claim about the relative status of the times of brain death or cardiac arrest in Italian law (as it is being used in the text), just that Dr. Fiandri made an annoucement at 6:40pm and that apparently the time of death would be recorded as 2:17pm. However, this is directly contradicted by the Libero Quitidiano article wherein Fiandri herself is quoted as saying "l’elettroencefalogramma che non dimostrava attività, cosa che oggi consentirebbe di dichiarare la morte, ma allora non potevamo farlo perché per la legge italiana la morte coincideva con l’arresto cardiaco: e finché non si è fermato il cuore, noi non potevamo constatare il decesso." (English: "the electroencephalogram showed no activity, which today would declare death, but then we could not do it because under Italian law death coincided with the cardiac arrest, and until you have stopped the heart, we could not ascertain death."). That's pretty clear cut. The legal time of death under the law in 1994 was the time of cardiac arrest, and that was when they turned off the machines. It seems that possibly today they have changed the law, but these things aren't retroactive. Pyrope 20:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I have no issue with some undoing of my revisions on the basis of "excessive detail" but I do resent the "trying to change the place of death by stealth" claim. It is all referenced and it is unfortunate that we don't all speak all foreign languages but that's no basis for the latter claim. The above response is definitely constructive. In 1994, this accident caused a huge scandal within the Italian institutions and investigating bodies because the time of death was 2:17pm and the circuit should have been shutdown as a crime scene... on the Sunday or, indeed, on the Saturday of Roland's death. Of course, commercial rights took priority and this is why, still today, we have the apparent but justifiable inconsistency that Britmax seems worried about.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact that we do not all speak foreign languages may not be the basis for a claim, but it may be the basis for querying whether there is a claim to be made. I am satisfied that no such claim exists. I must say that your reply to my having queried you in this way was quite measured: some would be spitting feathers. I expect to see you around here for some time if you can maintain this calm demeanor in such circumstances. Britmax (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I know that there is this Senna's-death-wasn't-declared-until-hospital-for-commercial-reasons story going around, and people claiming it was a "scandal" at the time, but I have yet to see much in the way of evidence for it beyond some halfwit charlatan posturing from a supposed professional or two, none of whom were connected with the accident or its investigation. People keep mentioning the autopsy that was read at the trial, but they never give a verbatim transcript and, as we have seen above, when it comes to a good conspiracy theory only verbatim will do. Paraphrasing by a journalist or unconnected party is hopelessly flawed. Fiandri and Watkins both report that he had a pulse, and Watkins was involved in restoring his airway, so as far as action at the track is concerned in terms of a First Responder's ABCDs they were good to go. Fiandri's comments indicate that Senna was legally alive when he reached hospital, and this has always been the position of the Italian authorities. As things stand there is no confusion about the time of Senna's death. The accident happened at 2:17pm and Senna died later in hospital. If you have evidence to the contrary please do provide it, and I do mean hard facts not speculative (and, speaking as someone who has some fairly high-end emergency medicine training, very odd) ramblings from a medic who is not only unconnected with the investigation but doesn't even work in the same jurisdiction, as unfortunately seems to have become incorporated into some of our coverage here. One thing this discussion has prompted me to do it take a good, critical look at our Death of Ayrton Senna article, and I'm troubled by what I see. Pyrope 16:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
All I can make up from the "new" sources is what we already knew. Senna's brain activity stopped (and thus brain death occurred) at the moment of impact, while legal death occurred in the hospital when life support was switched off after it was determined his condition was irreversible. Tvx1 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Short of accessing Court files, this source is as detailed as it gets and supports the "official time of death" of 14:17 - see The Senna files (and another in Portoguese search "A hora oficial da morte") - as submitted to the Italian Courts on 18 March 1997 published throughout. Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that as currently drafted (my doing), it gives the impression that Dr Fiandri came out at 16:40 saying Senna passed away but then clarified that his official time of death is 14:17. That is not so. It was only during Italian court proceedings, after the medico legal experts and autopsy report came out in 1997, that it was found the death was caused by celebral death, which was instant upon impact with the wall at 14:17 on 1 May 1994. The link above is a thorough collection of happenings at the time. At the risk of being told off (I am a wiki newbie but realise that defence does not apply on here!) I will redraft... but feel free to revise, obviously.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Which is exactly what it pointed out in my last reply. Brain (or cerebral) death officially occured at the moment of impact. Legal death however is something completely different from official (biological) death, and you are incorrectly mixing these up here. Legal death is generally declared through issuing a death certificate. Tvx1 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no incorrect mixing up, there has been imprecise editing on my part (now changed) and the subsequent attempt (with all due respect) by some of you purporting to interpret the situation on "medicine" without regard to the Italian law. The link to official (biological) death is all well and good - but generic and irrelevant to Italy. See instead - current Italian regulations on this topic. "Legge 29 dicembre 1993, n. 578" (a "code"; another distinction from case law systems from where I assume most of you English-speaking editors are) is what applies in this case. N.B. Inter alia, this "code", which was enacted in December 1993 and therefore applied in full in 1 May 1994, stipulates that: "In medicina legale la morte si identifica come la cessazione non reversibile delle funzioni dell'encefalo" = "in forensic law, death is identified as the irreversible cessation of all brain functions". That is all I attempted to add - a distinction between the biological death referred to above (caused by cardiac arrest at approx. 4:37pm and announced 3 minutes later at 4:40pm), and the subsequent court finding that "legal death" was on impact at 2:17pm. What is indisputable is that it is good to see Senna still being remembered and spoken about, 24 years on.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
No, you're again mixing up terms. Firstly, biological death is not a black and white situation like you claim and does not occur per definition by cardiac arrest. Brain death is just as much a case of biological death and that was what occurred at the moment of impact according to the Italian laws. Legal death is entirely different principle you still fail to understand. The legal death is the moment when someone ceases to exist as a legal person and thus ceases to be subject to their rights and restrictions determined the laws. A person is legally dead (≠biologically death by law) when a certified (i.e. the doctor) declares them to have died (no matter at which second exactly) and issues a death certificate. Tvx1 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Forza Rossa Racing AFD[edit]

I have nominated Forza Rossa Racing for deletion as there is absolutely no evidence that the team exists beyond paper. The deletion discussion can be found here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're not jumping the gun a bit here. It was never their plan to enter in 2015 or never in the first place. Just like Haas, they were granted the permission to enter the sport in either 2015 or 2016. In fact, I thnink we jumped the gun a bit by at one point hinting they were scheduled to enter 2015. I'll leave this up to you though. Tvx1 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
If they intend to join in 2016, then we can recreate the article at a later date. For now, it's premature and apparently only exists on paper. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I do think deleting now might be a little premature. If this entity does end up purchasing Caterham's assets, as has been rumoured, it could yet turn up next year, or at least have a real team in place that will deserve an article. I'd rather keep the article in place for a month or two to see if anything happens, rather than go through the hassle of deleting it and then possibly having to recreate it. QueenCake (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that we should be keeping articles alive based on a rumour of what might happen. And the article is a stub - it's not like I'm proposing that we delete McLaren. Recreating it if need be won't be a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think recreating the article if needed isn't so much of a hassle either. If necessary, one of us could copy the entire current article to their sandbox. And if it should prove to be required than they can recreate it from their sandbox within 30 seconds. Tvx1 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Separate "Baku European GP" from "European GP"[edit]

I would like to propose that we create a separate article for the Baku European Grand Prix and separate it from the European Grand Prix as its a separate race title, The United States Grand Prix West is separate from United States Grand Prix so why not separate those previously mentioned, Grand Prix titles cant be edited once a new name is used its a new grand prix in the eyes of the history books it would make a lot more sense as the European GP has never had the host city in its title. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)