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.
 

Proposal for the flag field in F1 infoboxes[edit]

This is a long-running issue, but it should be addressed. I've just had an exchange with an editor who was removing these flags, who made some good suggestions with regard to our flag use in infoboxes which might better satisfy WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Although the most recent discussion resulted in overwhelming support for keeping the flags, we could still make some adjustments to make our flag usage clearer. We should not see our large numbers as an opportunity to ride roughshod over any MOS recommendations.

The editor's comment was as follows: "...you don't really want or need to show the person's nationality with a flag appended but want to display their nationality as shown in FIA F1 Super Licence they hold. So my question would be, why not call a spade a spade? Instead of attaching a flagicon to the name of the country of birth, don't call it Nationality but call it what it really is FIA Super Licence nationality with a flagicon and leave the personal details section with place of birth free of the flagicon, as is usual. To me that might even be just about acceptable to the WP:INFOBOXFLAG enforcers. It would be similar to the Allegiance link and flagicon for a military person, such as we see for Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein that uses the template {{Infobox military person}}."

This seems very reasonable to me, so I propose renaming the nationality field as he suggests, and keeping it separate from birthplace / birthdate details. It is an F1 infobox after all. This would clarify the link to FIA Super Licence#Nationality of drivers, which as he rightly points out, is completely unsourced. That really needs to be fixed.

I'm going on a Wikibreak as of tomorrow, but I was hoping you guys would be able to discuss this and maybe come to a conclusion. It's not a big stretch for us, and it would make things clearer for others. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

At first glance I'd rather have Racing licence nationality. The Super Licence has not always been required to race in F1, but I believe a racing licence has always been required to race. Since some drivers don't race with their actual nationality, but their racing licence nationality (Grosjean, Gachot, etc), I think it would still remain accurate. Plus, it can be used outside of F1 infoboxes, though we'd need to visit WP:MOTORSPORT to do that. GyaroMaguus 13:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I also would prefer the label to be something more like "Racing licence nationality" - it seems a bit incongruous to have a field labelled "Superlicence nationality" in (for example) Ascari's infobox. But apart from that, I'm happy with the general principle. DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the exact wording can be changed to suit us: I like "Racing licence nationality" or something similar. It's less specific and would certainly make more sense historically, and superlicences are always subject to change anyway, as we've seen lately. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree vehemently. This is NOT how a F1 driver's nationality is determined. Quite in the contrary. Article 9.5.2 of the FIA's International Sporting Code states: " All Drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their Licence, participating in any FIA World Championship Competition, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, publications and prize‐giving ceremonies." Thus drivers with a dual nationality like Grosjean, Nico Rosberg en now Max Verstappen simply chose which country they want to represent. I think renaming the field simply to "Sporting nationality" or "Racing nationality" would be a much more adequate description. Tvx1 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what you're disagreeing with. I'm talking about renaming the field, not changing how we determine nationality or anything like that. Are you just objecting to the world "licence" in the field? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm objecting renaming it to "Racing Licence Nationality", because as result of article 9.5.2. there is a possibility that the racing license nationality does not match the nationality a driver uses in F1. That label does not coverer all possibilities. A prime example of this is André Lotterer. Lotterer is actually a German-Belgian dual national who actually has a Belgian racing licence, but opted to represent Germany under article ISC article 9.5.2. Tvx1 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see in any problem in calling it racing nationality. As far as I am concerned, it quite honestly denotes the same information – the nationality that the driver uses to race. The actual nationality is not relevant, just the nationality that the driver uses, and thus the issue that the person Breton was talking to had. As for the passport point, unless we have references on what nationality passport a driver has, we cannot use that specific definition to fill out the parameter. Rather, we have to use things like this (and this) to define the nationality. As a slight note, one thing I do know about German passports is that if you have a German passport, you cannot have another passport. This is why Lotterer is German and races as a German. On an extra note, there is nothing stopping us from filling the parameter with multiple nationalities, but in the way it is done at Bertrand Gachot and potentially to place both German and Belgian nationalities in Lotterer's infobox. In these situations I would source the information, place a note, or simply write something like "German (FIA) · Belgian (holds licence)" (but with a line break). GyaroMaguus 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: upon reading German passport, I learn that a German is allowed to hold both a German and an EU or Swiss passport (as a second passport), but not a not non-EU or non-Swiss one. Since Belgium is in the EU, my initial assumption is technically incorrect. What I believe to be the case is that Lotterer is German, not Belgian, because he is German-born and thus German nationality law places that with higher importance. GyaroMaguus 16:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Erm, No. German nationality law places those who are born and raised in Germany with a higher priority. However Lotterer was raised with his Belgian mom in Nivelles, Belgium (read the source I provided earlier). Anyways since he was born to a German father and a Belgian mother he received both countries nationalities according to both countries' nationality laws. Anyway his Belgiumness should not be added to his F1 Infobox because, because he never represented Belgium during his F1 racing career (as far as I know of). There should be some mention of it in his article though. Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in nationality law, and I didn't read the source. I recall from when I was being taught German in secondary school that a German could only have one passport, the German one, even if they were foreign (in which case they would have to stop using their current one). That was said to the whole class about 6 to 8 years ago, so it is actually quite well remembered on my part. To enhance my point, I read both the passport and nationality law articles and I actually have to assume my final sentence (which I did start with "what I believe"). The information I gleaned about Lotterer was from his WP article, which, as you appear to have seen, literally makes absolutely no mention of his Belgianness. Hence, why I was wrong. GyaroMaguus 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's no that important for this discussion anyway. If you want to have a more in-depth discussion about Lotterer's nationality you can always do so on his article's talk page. What I tried to point here was that there are examples were racing licence nationality does not match the nationality used in F1, and that "racing licence nationality" is therefore in inadequate label for the field.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, I'm up to speed. So are there any objections to "Racing nationality" or further suggestions? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection with either Racing nationality or Sporting nationality. Oh and holding a German passport and a non-EU or non Swiss passport simultaneously is not forbidden, but just restricted. See German nationality law as well.Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I see no difficulty in accepting 2 fields (assuming there are no formatting problems) I.e. Nationality (birth or assumed) and racing licence nationality; BUT to which field would the flagicon then be placed (if at all), presumably the racing licence nationality... or have I missed something here :P. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Like I pointed out, having a racing license nationality field is not a good idea because there are examples, like Lotterer, of F1 Drivers whose nationality in the sport does NOT match their racing licence nationality and because, according to the International Sporting Code, F1 Drivers (as well as drivers who compete in any other FIA World Championship e.g. WRC, WEC, WTCC) retain a passport nationality and not necessarily their racing license nationality. I have no problem however with using more than one nationality field in an infobox. A Nationalit(y)(ies) (legal) field on top and a Racing Nationality field per racing category's section that is included in the infobox. The flags should be used with the Racing nationalities, I think, since these are the flags we will use in our race reports, season reviews, team articles etc. Tvx1 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I've thought about this and in Breton's quote above, we have that military personnel don't have a nationality field, rather, an allegiance – because that is what is important. Here, we should note the "racing nationality", and not a nationality, as that is what is important. To further my example, I picked a musician, Taylor Swift, who is definitively 100% American, and her nationality is not noted, because it isn't important. Though yes, we can keep the flag. We've fought too hard to give it up now. GyaroMaguus 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with "Racing nationality" or "Sporting nationality". Of the two, I have a slight preference for "Racing nationality". DH85868993 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Eagleash, Yes, the flag would go on the "racing nationality" field, not any regular nationality field, although I don't think a regular nationality field would be necessary under these circumstances – in 99% of cases the two would be the same anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As point of interest, changing this field has been discussed before. Tvx1 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Having sifted through many of our drivers articles I noticed there is an important inconsistency in the way the nationality information is included in the info-boxes. Some articles, like the contested Jean-Pierre Beltoise one, show it near the top together with the driver's personal information; while others, like e.g. Sebastian Vettel have it in the Formula One section of their infobox. Should this be made consistent over all the articles? Tvx1 (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel it should be at the top of the box, together with DoB (and death if applicable). All other boxes (F1, bikes, Le Mans etc.) are secondary to this information. Eagleash (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
But that's the whole point - a "Nationality" field at the top of a driver's infobox would seem to describes a driver's "personal" nationality (whatever that means) whereas the "Nationality" field beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading specifically indicates the nationality they raced under in Formula One (which is why the word "Nationality" is linked to the Superlicence article). That's why we're discussing changing the label, to make that more obvious. By rights, all F1 drivers should have their (F1/racing) Nationality listed under the "Formula One World Championship career" heading, but in cases where there's already a Nationality field further up the page and it would be the same (e.g. Beltoise), we tend to leave it out to avoid the appearance of duplicate information. One reason for showing the Nationality beneath the banner rather than above is that we always know what country a driver represented in Formula One, but their "personal" nationality is sometimes less clear. Consider:
  • Bertrand Gachot - raced in F1 as "Belgian" from 1989-91 and "French" from 1992-95. But what would you display at the top of his infobox as his "personal" nationality?: French? Belgian? Luxembourgian (where he was born)? In a 1991 interview, he said "I am not really one nationality. I feel very much a European."
  • Nico Rosberg: Races in F1 as German but holds dual citizenship (German and Finnish)
  • Jochen Rindt: Raced in F1 as Austrian but was born in Germany and had German citizenship
Also, on a more practical level:
  • if you put "Nationality: British" at the top of any Scottish or Northern Irish driver's infobox, you can guarantee someone will change it to "Scottish" or "Northern Irish" as appropriate in a very short amount of time, and
  • a flagicon at the top of an infobox is way more likely to be removed by someone quoting WP:INFOBOXFLAG, than if it is beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading.
DH85868993 (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, didn't explain myself very well. All the points raised above are valid, but nationality is important basic information and should be displayed prominently, (if at all that is). I would mention that in the "deaths in" pages, nationality is displayed as "X"-born "Y" where applicable so maybe something along those lines is a possibility? Then racing nationality in sub-boxes, (and the way it's done on Bertrand Gachot's page seems a reasonable solution (if slightly unwieldy at first sight)). UK is a peculiar problem and always has been. I consider myself English first of all but don't have a problem with being thought of as British. British should refer to the whole of the UK otherwise it becomes politicised (and POV). Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I also didn't read what you wrote properly - I thought you were proposing moving Nationality from beneath the "Formula One Championship career" heading to the top of the infobox in all cases, which is not what you wrote. I'm open to the idea of having "personal" Nationality at the top of the topmost infobox on the page (i.e. near DOB) for all drivers, and only having (racing) Nationality beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading for cases where it is different. However:
  • per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, we probably wouldn't be able to have flagicons in the "top" Nationality field (which doesn't worry me personally, but I know some people are attached to them)
  • it would be a nontrivial amount of work to update the 800 or so F1 driver articles (but WP:NODEADLINE, etc), and
  • we'd have an issue where the F1 infobox is the only infobox on the page (because it doesn't currently support a Nationality field above the "Formula One World Championship" heading), although this could be addressed by converting the F1 infobox into a {{Infobox racing driver}} with an embedded F1 section.
DH85868993 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm coming round to the idea that the original questioner proposed, I think, together with what is proposed immediately above. The infobox could display date & place of birth but not necessarily nationality. Any anomalies could be quickly explained away in the lead which already usually has nationality details in it. E.g. "X"-born "Y" (assumed nationality) racing driver who raced under a "Z" racing licence...with a field in the F1 infobox for "licence nationality" (or "racing licence nationality"), with the flagicon displayed there (or not) once agreement reached. DH85868993 I'd be willing to help out when I could. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
As I have explained twice before, racing licence nationality is NOT the way to go, since there are examples of racing drivers, like André Lotterer, whose racing licence nationality does NOT match the flag they raced under and because the International Sporting Code dictates that F1 drivers (and other FIA World Championships' drivers) retain a passport nationality and NOT their racing licence nationality. Tvx1 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
We could conceivably move the nationality field to the top of the info-boxes as long as we make a clearly distinguished difference from their personal nationalities, for instance by naming the relevant field "Racing nationality" or "Sporting nationality" which is exactly the sort of nationality we are allowed to mention under MOS:SPORTFLAGS.
As for DH85868993 issues with F1 infobox-only articles, surely that can be tackled by editting the template?
P.S. Gachot should have a personal nationality, shouldn't he? Surely he has a legal nationality (i.e. a passport)? Tvx1 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the second para above is pretty much what has been proposed, should it be agreed that a change is necessary. I.e. separating personal and racing nationalities. As far as Gachot is concerned he could quite legitimately use just the EU passport (I think). Eagleash (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a pure EU passport. Any passport from an EU member state still belongs to that member state and the holder will have that member state's nationality. By the way, he has a French passport! Tvx1 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah OK. I've no idea really: I don't even have a UK passport. & it's all a bit off topic now anyway. Eagleash (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Heaving read through WP:INFOBOXFLAG again, I'm not so sure anymore that the proposed change is going to help us satisfy WP:INFOBOXFLAG more than is already the case. After all the guideline gives "sport nationality" as one of the non-exceptions for including a flag in the infobox. The main situation remains that WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a guideline an not a black and white law we must follow. Everything is written in the normative style using "should" an nothing is forbidden by the guideline. This means that if we have a consensus that it's for the betterment of our articles and indeed our entire project to have ONE flag in our info-boxes, which he have now for quite some years, it is our good right to do so. And to be honest, I don't quite agree with some of the opinion-based assertions that are presented as facts in content of INFOBOXFLAG guideline. Tvx1 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reset[edit]

I think the above has been a useful discussion. May I suggest that we take a step back and discuss/decide what nationality-related information we think needs to be displayed in a F1 driver's infobox(es), and once that's agreed then return to discussing the location and labelling of the information, what's the best way/how much effort it might take to update any articles and what other issues may arise? I think the first two questions we need to answer are:

  1. Should an F1 driver's "personal" nationality (e.g. Räikkönen is "Finnish", Vettel is "German" etc) be displayed in an infobox (as currently occurs for Grand Prix motorcycle racers [1], [2], IndyCar drivers [3], [4], [5], [6] and many other non-F1 racing drivers)?
  2. If the nationality under which they raced in Formula One is different to their "personal" nationality, should that also be displayed?

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking Tvx1's good thoughts, this is a tricky one. No matter if drivers have dual citizenship (which by the way since last month is also possible in Germany for non EU citizens: [7]), they will still choose a flag they drive under in Formula One. But they might drive in other categories under a different flag (like Nico Rosberg did, who drove in F3000 under the Finnish one. The regulations of F1 state that you race under your passport nationality. But divers might have 2 or more passports. Here are some thoughts on what we might do:
  1. As is now we should have a section above "Formula One World Championship career" with personal information where we put ALL of the drivers legal nationalities.
  2. Further down in the F1 part we should put "Raced in F1 for" or something around this line. This should NOT be called "Licence nationality" as we found out that the licence does not dictate which flag you race under in F1. This should only apply if the F1 nationality differs from the legal nationality (so leave it if drivers have single citizenship like Michael Schumacher.
  3. In sections about other Formulae or other racing series we might put another nationality info.
For André Lotterer that would mean that under his picture we would have both the German and Belgian flag, but at the bottom F1 section, above "Active years" we would open a new category. For Rosberg that would mean we would have both his citizenships in the personal info, the Finnish one in his F3000 section (there is none yet) and the German one in his F1 section. Contra: There will be a lot of flags in the infoboxes, pro: but they would be correct. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It might look like this for Lotterer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that works well enough. The link to the nationality section of the FIA Super Licence article works well to give a explanation of why the nationality appears twice. I don't think there is problem linking that to pre-Super Licence nationalities. On the other hand, I'm not too sure about having two nationality fields active in situations where we only have one racing competition in the infobox (such as Rosberg), though I'm pretty sure that if I saw that with my eyes that view may change. GyaroMaguus 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The point of my original proposal was to remove flags that show ordinary, non-sporting nationality. Hence the two flags there in Lotterer's infobox under his picture should be removed. The German flag would stay for the F1 infobox. Other series would only show the nationality field if a different nationality was used. Per the MOS, we would have no justification for any flag for basic nationality. Repeating flags in a sporting infobox is unjustifiable and would attract even more drive-by removals of flags than we have now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I have similar concerns. I fail to see how adding more nationality fields and more flags to the info-boxes is going to result in us having less issues with MOS enforces (note that a guideline actually can't be enforced). The question that was raised is should we rename the nationality field in the F1 Infobox? So should we? Bear in mind that WP:INFOBOXFLAG lists "sport nationality" as a non-exception (something I personally disagree with). Tvx1 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

On future races[edit]

Consider the following template:

On a casual glance it would not be immediately obvious which of the current season's races have been completed and which have not. Therefore I suggest italicising the links to races which have not been raced:

Is this OK with you people? Parcly Taxel 09:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was something done for this precise issue and believe it was, or at least should have been, the solution. GyaroMaguus 11:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Tvx1 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Formula 1" or "Formula One"[edit]

See talk:Formula One where someone has requested it be renamed to "Formula 1" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Lap chart - how to?[edit]

Hi everyone! 2015 Spanish Grand Prix does not have a lap chart yet. I cannot seem to find an instruction anywhere that specifies how I can create it. Shouldn't that be included here? It would be great if someone could tell me. Thanks in advance! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Tvx1 17:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Could you still tell me how it's done though? ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for forgetting to completing doing it, I'm on a little break from editing (if that wasn't too obvious). Basically just copy from the above race, correct the race it links to and the "period" (the number of laps), and insert the laps lead. The first driver to lead has from:start, the winning driver has till:end. Because it is continuous, the start of a driver's stint has to be coded to start on the previous lap (so someone who leads from lap 10 gets the coding from:9), and they end on the lap the stint ends. The "shift" parameter is the positioning of the text label (leave at (20,-5) unless the text is cramped together, in which case alter the -5 to separate them. The rest should seem clear. GyaroMaguus 23:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm still too stupid for this. My main problem was, that I did not find where the page lies in which I edit. The article links to a template called F1Laps2015|ESP. Where is that? How do I access it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Template:F1Laps2015. Shouldn't have assumed that. Hopefully your stupidity will leave once you see the coding. GyaroMaguus 14:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was searching for! That should really be made more obvious... Or maybe that is just because I don't know much about templates yet. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, normally me or Cs-wolves do it (and occasionally others), so normally it gets dealt with anyway, but clearly this is flawed. It is however, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Updates, so that needs to be placed somewhere (or somewhere more prominent) on the main WikiProject page. GyaroMaguus 14:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I did not know that page either. That should really go in the Project Main Page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I put it somewhere. Hopefully that is good enough for now. GyaroMaguus 14:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Renault's racing heritage[edit]

I've brought this subject up before but it seems to always get ignored, The Renault in Formula One article is meant to provide information on the Renault car companies participation of the Formula One World Championship and for some reason the 2011 season when the team competed as "Lotus Renault GP" is included, The team was fully bought off Renault by Genii Capital which made the team a privateer and no longer the official Renault factory team despite still using the "Renault" constructor name, this being due to their already being a team that year using the name "Lotus" and how the money is shared out at the start of a new season, going back to my original point is that it shouldn't be included as the "Renault" team that year had nothing to do with the actual Renault car company apart from them still providing the team with engines, The Renault F1 article should only include information about the factory teams participation and engine supply, Just because the team still used the name "Renault" doesn't really make it a valid reason to be there, just look at the current "Manor/Marussia" situation, this also goes towards the total Renault race count tally it shouldn't really include the 19 race entry by "Lotus Renault GP", Renault themselves don't see the 2011 season as them participating. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Their situation is actually identical to BMW Sauber in 2010 and to Marussia Manor right now. The Lotus constructor that competed in 2011 is the exact same as the Lotus of today. The main argument that has been always presented for counting the 2011 constructor as Renault is that it continued the chassis naming tradition of Renault. But the most obvious proof that it shouldn't be counted so is that they themselves don't see as themselves participating. Tvx1 19:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It makes more sense having the "Lotus Renault GP" 2011 season information on the Lotus F1 article, It was really a transition year for the Enstone team as Renault reverted to just an engine supplier thus "Renault Sport F1" was created and "Renault F1" became "Lotus Renault GP" no longer the Renault factory team and fully owned by Genii Capital and sponsored by Group Lotus becoming a privateer. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a complicated situation and there are arguments both ways whether Lotus Renault GP's 2011 activities should be included in Renault in Formula One or Lotus F1. In my view, they should be included in Renault in Formula One:
  • for consistency with external sources like ChicaneF1, StatsF1 and FORIX (subscription site) which include the 2011 results on their "Renault" page, and
  • to minimise confusion for non-experts. I think non-experts would find it very confusing if clicking on the word "Renault" in 2011 British Grand Prix takes them to an article entitled Lotus F1.
Regarding Speedy Question Mark's statement that "The Renault in Formula One article is meant to provide information on the Renault car companies participation of the Formula One World Championship": With due respect, that's your interpretation. Personally, I consider the scope of the article to be the Formula One involvement of all things (i.e. teams/cars/engines) named "Renault", which therefore includes the 2011 cars. DH85868993 (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Previous discussions on the topic may be found here, here, here and here. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
DH85868993, the argument is not exclude the 2011 activities at all from the Renault in Formula One article. The argument is that it is labelled under the works team/constructor section of the article, while it should actually be put under the engine supplier article along with such teams as Red Bull, Toro Rosso and even Lotus' post 2011 activities. Tvx1 14:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe the 2011 stats should be included in Renault's infobox stats:
  • (at the risk of semi-repeating myself) for consistency with external sources like ChicaneF1, StatsF1 and FORIX (subscription site) which include the 2011 results in their "Renault" stats, and
  • in line with our general principle of aggregating results based on chassis make (which we often incorrectly refer to as "constructor name") - the 2011 cars were called "Renaults", so in my view, their stats should be included in Renault's totals.
(and if the 2011 stats are included in Renault's stats, then it follows that discussion of the 2011 season would be included in the "constructor" section of the article, rather than the "engine supplier" section). DH85868993 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
DH is making some good points here. Broadly, the situation in 2011 was that Genii took over the works Renault team, lock stock and barrel. They continued to operate it as Renault for a further year, before switching to Lotus. In 2011, as Robert Kubica put it, Lotus were just a sponsor. I think the page structure as it is is perfectly fine, and accurately reflects the operational and chassis history of that entity. Pyrope 18:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
However, neither ChicaneF1, nor StatsF1, nor Forix have the official authority to credit results. In fact, we have found StatsF1 to be using Wikipedia themselves as a source occasionally. And what about Renault's own view on the matter? Why is that continuously ignored? And if we always follow our tradition of "chassis make", then why are crediting results the Marussia MR03 achieved to Manor? You see, there are always exceptions. There's just no such thing as "one rule fits all" Tvx1 09:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Very true, also. However, the only provider of truly official data is the FIA, and so far as I am aware its files are not accessible to the general public. Also, do you have a source for Renaults own opinions? Failing that, and even where that source may differ from the majority of reliable sources, Wikipedia's practices are guided by aspects such as WP:V, WP:OR, the principle of least astonishment, and others. The fact that most of the accessible reliable sources treat 2011 as a continuation from 2010 is therefore the reason that the same practice is followed here. You are right to say that each case is considered on its merits, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the way we usually handle these instances without a decent discussion. The new Manor team does indeed seem to be currently treated as a clean break with the old Marussia, but to be honest I think that situation (bankruptcy, sale of assets, complete ownership restructuring, etc.) is unusual in F1 history so using it as a template would be a bad idea. The situation with Renault's sale to Genii is much more like that which occurred when Jordan was sold to Midland (the Midland-owned Jordan cars are included in Jordan's results), when Midland itself was sold to Spyker (Spyker-owned Midland cars are listed under Midland results), the post-bankruptcy Team Lotus entries in 1994 (David Hunt-owned Lotus entries are listed under Team Lotus results), Marussia's purchase of Virgin in 2010 (cars were run and recorded as "Virgin" entries for 2011), the Project 4 'merger' with McLaren (McLaren International and Bruce McLaren Motor Racing Team results are all counted as "McLaren"), the sale of Brabham to Bernie Ecclestone and from him to Middlebridge (everything is just "Brabham" to us), and so on. Put simply, Genii continued to run Renault as "Renault" for the 2011 season. It wasn't just that the chassis were "Renault", the team name was Lotus Renault GP as well. Lotus had no technical involvement and were simply a title sponsor. Do we split Williams Martini Racing results away from BMW WilliamsF1 Team? Your example with Manor doesn't make me think "oh yes, we should be treating Renault this way too." Rather, I wonder that Manor has managed to be treated at odds with almost every other similar example I can think of yet there hasn't been much discussion on the topic. Pyrope 19:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sam Tingle[edit]

Tingle's page has had the flagicon altered from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, which makes it different to how it appears on the LDS (automobile) page and different again to how it appears on the 1963 South African Grand Prix page (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland), but the same as 1969 South African Grand Prix. 1965 South African Grand Prix has Rhodesia again as does 1967 and 1968. Tingle's career seems to bridge the time when the independence of the region was in dispute, and he was born in Manchester, UK, so using his DoB as a base for the flagicon might not work. Furthermore the Zimbabwe flag on Tingle's page is again different to that shown on the Wiki Zimbabwe page.

If it helps any; Small, Steve (1994). The Guinness Complete Grand Prix Who's Who. p. 382. ISBN 0851127029.  calls him Rhodesian and says he raced in his 'homeland' from 1950. My own initial thought would be to go with the 'Rhodesia' flagicon (as displayed on the LDS & '65, '67 & '68 SA Grands Prix pages). Thanks, Eagleash (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it cannot be Zimbabwe as that did not exist at the time he competed. Different flags were used by the country during the period he competed. It was the flag of Rhodesia and Nyasaland for his 1963 race, the flag of Southern Rhodesia for the 1964-1968 part of his career and the flag of Rhodesia for 1969. Alternatively, we could use the UK flag as the country was unrecognized and still an official colony of the UK and they did always use the Union Jack combined with the aforementioned flags. Our rule is to always use the flags that were used at the time the driver in question achieved the results in question. Hence why Jody and Ian Scheckter use the pre-1994 flag of South Africa. Tvx1 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, 1969 has Zimbabwe which it seems cannot be correct at any time in Tingle's career, so that should be Rhodesia by Tvx1's answer; '63 seems correct at Rhodesia & Nyasaland. '65, '67, and '68 was Southern Rhodesia and '69 Rhodesia. Next question is...was/is the Southern Rhodesia flag/flagicon different to the Rhodesia one...? Eagleash (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Update: OK experimented in sandbox and both Southern Rhodesia and Rhodesia flagicons exist so not a problem. I also confused myself by somehow looking at an old version of Tingle's page and the Zimbabwe flag has been altered subsequently, but to 'Rhodesia' the later green and white one, not the Rhodesia (1964) mainly blue one. However is this correct for his overall page as he was racing in Rhodesia (or Fed. of Rhodesia and Nyasaland as then was?) as early as 1950. Or should his page show either Fed Of Rhodesia and Nyasaland or Rhodesia 1964? Eagleash (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It should show all the different flags he raced under with the corresponding years between brackets behind them. Just like for instance Bertrand Gachot. Tvx1 21:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK that can be fixed. It seems that the flag for S. Rhodesia is the same as that for the earlier Federation and it was replaced on the break-up of the Fed. in 1964/5 by the Rhodesia (1964) flag/icon as S Rhodesia then ceased to exist. Will update the pages accordingly. Many thanks for help. Eagleash (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad I have been of help. Now, while I was strolling through the aforementioned South African Grands Prix's articles I noticed there are more Rhodesian drivers. They might need to have their info checked as well. Tvx1 00:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I had it in mind :P Eagleash (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
All the ones in *Category:Rhodesian Formula One drivers* have been updated with the exception of Gary Hocking where the lead box is Motorcycle related, so up to that proj. to decide how they wish to display flags if at all. Eagleash (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Monaco circuit changes[edit]

For this year's Monaco Grand Prix there have been some modifications to the Circuit de Monaco. These involve shortening of the lap by 3 metres, and consequently the track data needs updating, along with the background to the race. I have little spare time to do this, so if somebody could look into it and help, that would be very much appreciated. SAS1998Talk 10:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

List of FIA licensed circuits[edit]

I found [this] list updated by the FIA on 6 February 2015. It doesn't seem to be featured on their site and is available to view as a PDF download, but it is a treasure trove of nearly every circuit in the world and their FIA grade that could be used to add to their respective articles. Cheers. Twirlypen (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So there are whopping 37 circuits worldwide that could currently host a Grand Prix. Even one in Thailand. And if Monza wouldn't be able to sort out a deal for beyond 2016, there are two alternatives for hosting the Italian GP. Tvx1 11:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Interlagos is not listed at all. The359 (Talk) 15:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Nor are Montreal or Mexico City. Tvx1 16:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Mexico could be explained as the upgrades were likely incomplete at the time of publication, thus the FIA couldn't grade the circuit. But yes, very strange that Interlagos and Montreal aren't listed. Also, 4 of those 37 are alternate Bahrain setups. I suppose this is why this list was buried on their website. Twirlypen (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Only one Australian circuit listed. Interesting. --Falcadore (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
There are also no ovals listed, with the exception of Rockingham's oval circuit. The359 (Talk) 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
That could explain why Mexico City isn't listed as a Grade 1 circuit, but it isn't listed at all. And it has been used for other categories these last few years. Tvx1 23:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [Here] is the same list from November 2012. Interestingly, this one DOES have Interlagos and Gilles Villeneuve, but still no Hermanos Rodríguez and no Austin even though they had just completeled their first races less than a month prior. Twirlypen (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits to distance fields in race report infoboxes[edit]

Over the past month(?) or so, IP editors (possibly one editor under a range of IP addresses) have made minor changes to the "Lap Length" and "Race distance" fields in the infoboxes of numerous race reports, like this. The articles I've noticed these edits in are:

  • 1995-2007 Spanish Grand Prix
  • 2004-2015 Chinese Grand Prix
  • 1999-2009 Malaysian Grand Prix
  • 1996-2015 Australian Grand Prix
  • 2004 Bahrain Grand Prix

Is anyone able to confirm whether these changes are correct? In most cases it's the most recent edit (old race reports typically don't get that many edits). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well the 2005 Spanish Grand Prix example you gave was an incorrect 'correction'. 4.627 km is 2.875 miles (actually 2.87508) so the IP's alteration to 2.876 was erroneous (I've reverted). Some edits are more complex. For example, the 2007 Spanish Grand Prix article was altered by incorrectly 'correcting' 4.655 km to 2.893 miles (2.892 was correct), but in the same edit they altered the total race distance to 302.575 km (65 x 4.655 km) from the previous 302.449 km. As our race data is very rarely sourced it is difficult to know where any of the numbers come from, but when even the 'official' data don't make sense and contradict themselves (66 times around a 4.655 km circuit should be 307.230 km, as our infobox shows for scheduled length, not the 307.104 km that the F1 website gave that year) it is clear that some decisions have to be made here. I note in that latter case that GEL and Forix both list 302.449 km, which contradicts both simple maths and the number on F1.com. I can't find the official FIA record of that event (their new website seems to have expunged the past) but I suspect that may be the source for the latter two. So what do we do? Revert to previously stable and assume that whoever originally entered race lengths was operating from a reliable source (FIA?); revert most of the IP's circuit length 'corrections' but take the opportunity to calculate the race distances for ourselves (OR territory here); or what? As a final note, it appears that the FIA allow for the physical distance between the start line and the finish line when quoting race lengths, as this year's Spanish GP is shown in official FIA documents as 66 laps of a 4.655 km circuit adding up to 307.104 km. Pyrope 17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This gets more confusing. While an awful lot of their edits are simple incorrect distance corrections, there are some very confusing ones. The 2008 Bahrain edits are incorrect, but they get closer to the official record than the previous data in that box. Quite how someone managed to provide a proper, archived source for the number on this occasion and then enter details that don't agree with that source is something I'll have to dig about in the page history to discover! Pyrope 17:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The reason why a race distance is not always exactly x times the circuit length is because often the finish line is not the same one as the start line. Basically the first lap of a race is often not an entire circuit length. If you look at the map in the 2008 Bahrain Grand Prix example you linked to, you'll notice very cleary that different start and finish locations are marked. That's why there is an apparent discrepancy and that means the official data are correct and that doing the maths ourselves is a major no-no. Tvx1 19:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)