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: " 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)


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)

GA nominations[edit]

Dear all, after what I felt was a successful peer review I have submitted 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix as a GA nominee. Help would be appreciated! I also saw that Z105space nominated 2000 Hungarian Grand Prix. So two chances to add to our GA tally! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • And one further point, if anyone will be willing to contribute to the FA nomination of the 2000 Belgian Grand Prix, I welcome all feedback whether positive or negative and it would really benefit the achievements of this WikiProject. Z105space (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Six (!) new F1 GAs over the last couple of days. We are so good :) Congrats to User:Z105space in particular for his impressive 2000 season project! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
On a different note, I saw that the FAC for 2000 Belgian Grand Prix has been archived. Any chance to bring it back? I would do a review if noone else is interested... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I did a great deal of work today on 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix and I believe that with a little more work it can go to GAN some time soon as well. Maybe one of you guys can take a look at it and leave comments on what could be improved? I bumped the article rating up to B already since I felt it met the criteria. Feel free to change it if you think otherwise. Cheeris, Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Podiums in F1 car infoboxes[edit]

The recent addition of a "Podiums" field to {{Infobox racing car}} has led to some toing-and-froing at Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid and Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid over:

  • whether the field should be used, and
  • if it is used, whether it should contain the number of individual podium finishes the car scored (e.g. 31 for Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid), or whether it should contain the number of races in which the car scored one or more podium finishes (e.g. 19 for Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid).

Opinions? DH85868993 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Whichever one is chosen, it needs to be consistent with the races box. You can't have a car scoring 31 podiums in 19 races. As Mercedes built two cars, you could reasonably count the car twice for each race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Surely, if a car can score up to 43 points in the same race, it can score up to two podiums. Tvx1 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps adding a "No. of cars" field to the infobox as well? Personally, a casual reader seeing "701 points and 31 podiums" in 19 races would be confusing. Though, the table at the bottom would clearly show that each Grand Prix had two cars entered, unless noted by a DNS. Either way, it should be cumulative totals. It would not make sense to only count the first place car and ignore the third place car if it's the same vehicle. Twirlypen (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I don't find "Races: 19, Podiums: 31" confusing - as Twirlypen identifies, the results table makes it clear that there were 2 cars in each race. I'm not sure a "No. of cars" field would work for all cars, as there would be many (especially older cars) where the number changed from race to race. Perhaps we could have an "Entries" field containing the total number of entries for the car (e.g. 38 for Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid), but, as I say, I don't personally find it necessary. DH85868993 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is not necessary. But I would propose to make it a tooltip instead of linking it to Podium. Like this: Podiums. What do you guys think? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Safety cars[edit]

Why all of a sudden in the last week or so has all this excessive trivial detail about safety cars shown up? How does knowing what type of car it is affect the Formula One racing season?

Is this anything other than stats creep? --Falcadore (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely trivial. It is information relevant to the particular Mercedes-Benz model pages, and has no affect on the season's set up or outcome. The359 (Talk) 18:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
CtrlXctrlV has added all of that information. Tvx1 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tvx1, yes, added most of that information (and fully referenced as per your advice). Safety cars are now part and parcel of F1 now and, quite often, their pace (or lack thereof) has had adverse impacts on race outcomes - best example, the first Safety Car in 1973 or even the Vectra at Imola 1994 where it's been speculated that its slow pace may have caused Senna's tyre pressures to drop. What's the harm of specifying which it is anyway? They aren't just Mercedes-Benz. Falcadore I see they have reverted your full on deletion from Safety cars where I see no possible content dispute. Wanna tell the FIA this information is trivial? Start from this page [then] and make sure you also tell all F1 publishers who yearly report on what car it is. What would be trivial is listing medical cars and track marshal cars, which only have an incidental role - the safety car is ingrained in the rules CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
This information has been deleted as being trival from this article before. Someone then spun it off into it's own article and it was trivial deleted again. YOu said it yourself it was only speculation about the Vectra. And speculation has never had a place in wikipedia. And a Puff Piece on the formula one website about how Mercedes has paid them a lot of dollars to use there cars is not even remotely a justification.
What has changed? What is so important about the badges on the back of the safety car that it needs tabulating? Is the fact that its a Mercedes and not a Zil, or Cizetta or TVR affect the races?
Or do you think we should also tabulate what cars are used for the Medical FIVs? Or the senior marshals car? What about the cranes that retrieve the parked F1 cars when the break down or crash?
Why is the identity of ANY officials vehicle important at all? --Falcadore (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Because the FIA makes a big deal about the type of car used and its modifications. See the link provided, which answers whether or not it can be performed by any other car as you suggest without basis. I don't know what you're referring to about other changes and it was me to assert that listing any other vehicles would be trivial - I don't see why you're repeating that valid point. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
So because they've put different suspension and radios on the safety cars but not on the medical cars that makes it worthy of inclusion in an article about how the 2014 season was won and lost? Really?
Those same modiciations could be made to a Maserati or Porsche and have the same effect. So again I ask, why is the specific model of car important? The modifications are what's important by your own reasoning, not that car they are applied to. --Falcadore (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The FIA does not make a big deal of anything. Formula One (not the FIA) signed a contract with Mercedes-Benz as a sponsorship deal. No different than all the champaign being supplied by Moet, or timing by Rolex. The sponsorship deal with Mercedes-Benz could just as easily be replaced by another company who could use any type of car. See BMW's contract with Formula E or MotoGP as similar instances. However do not for one minute think that only performance cars can be pace cars. Oldsmobile Bravada – enough said. The359 (Talk) 08:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing in your link describes modifications other than radios which are used by safety cars in every motorsports series in the world.
Which car Mercedes-Benz chose to wheel out for each respective season is trivial. Just because news websites report press releases from Mercedes-Benz does not mean the information must be repeated on Wikipedia, at least specifically on the season article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Information on specific models which serve as safety cars are relevant only to articles on those models of car. The359 (Talk) 08:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── CtrlXctrlV, I modified your reference into an external link because it was going to put a reference at the bottom of this talk page until the discussion was archived. While I'm here, I have to say I agree with your detractors. The make and model of the safety car is insignificant. It bears no outcome on the progression of the season. While the physical presence of the safety car can affect the outcome of a race, its make and model does not. Twirlypen (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Also CtrlXctrlV, web forums, of any description, do not meet WP:Reliable Source criteria, so those references are worthless. --Falcadore (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should keep different issues apart here. On one I side I have no problem with having a specific article on Safety Cars. In fact the existing article includes information on Safety Cars in different categories of autosport and does tend to mention the models used in all of these categories. On the other hand I tend to agree with my colleagues that the Safety Car models used holds little value on the F1 season articles. Tvx1 14:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree. It really doesn't matter what Mercedes choose to use as their safety car in each season. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No-one is saying there should not be an article about Safety Cars. This is about the appearance on multitude of articles in the last week of excessive detail concerning what model of car has been used as safety cars. --Falcadore (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No problem Twirlypen, I struggled linking it right! And thanks too Tvx1 and others who debated constructively. Pity some others choose to act in a rather overzealous manner, which makes me wonder whether it is a reflection of their lives and desire to win at least in the virtual world (e.g. via blank deletions) because of their incapacity to do so in the real world. I won't mention names ;) By sheer coincidence, and not to fuel this topic further, I just came across this Safety Cars reference [[8]] (go at at 25") that also led to "Pace Car"... enjoy! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Youtube videos don't satisfy WP:RS either. Tvx1 14:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I know, it was just to share with the rest of you CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You both need to stop edit-warring while the discussion is active. Twirlypen (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

This information regarding the safety cars is better suited in the Safety car article, which it already is, and/or the actual vehicle articles. As in "The SL 55 served as the Formula One safety car in 2001 and 2002" in the car's article which, again, is already mentioned. Aside from that, it is at best nothing more than a piece of trivia for it to be mentioned in the season articles. Twirlypen (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest not even in the Safety Car article. If there is a list of all the Formula One safety cars, why not a list of Indycar Pace cars? And NASCAR? Le Mans, WEC, WTCC, MotoGP... and suddenly the article is now a list article. If there is a place for this data, I would suggest this website --Falcadore (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Twirlypen, I do not and did not consider Tvx1 edit-warring with me and I hope this feeling is mutual. He's been one of the few to alert me to the need for referencing instead of engaging in total deletions. Anyway, I will refrain from making these short replies in case they are miscontrued. Except to say, just because other sections of articles aren't as factually complete, I do not see how those sections that are, should be removed altogether. It's like saying (and this may be a poor example on my part), since not all articles are as detailed as Ayrton Senna's, the contents of his article should be deleted or scaled back. ADDENDUM: looks like for the Indy 500, not only is there a full list but also pictures for each car used pre-dating F1's introduction in 1993. Off tangent - didn't F1 adopt pace cars after the appeal it had on F1 fans now following Mansell across the pond? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── CtrlXctrlV, I was referring to you and Falcadore on the 2014 page. You both should have gotten a warning on your talk pages for that. Right now, concensus seems to be on the side that specific safety car model information should not be included in these articles. In either case though, it's unwise to revert to a preferred edit over and over while a discussion on the matter is active. All I've seen supporting its inclusion are forum posts, reddit posts (which also falls under forum), and YouTube videos. These, as pointed out earlier, fail WP:RS. While there may be a article stating the model of safety car has changed, it is of negligible importance to the seasons in question. It is akin to sources coming out that Sauber has changed its livery. Twirlypen (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning the safety cars that have been used in the sport through the years in the Safety Car article. However, a detailed list of every model and type for every year is just overdoing it. The Indianapolis and NASCAR sections of the article give a much better example on haw it can and should be done. By the way, I didn't edit war at all. Tvx1 16:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyone other than User:CtrlXctrlV (originating editor) in favour of keeping the additional detail on Safety Car page and on F1 season pages? If not I think we can consider a consensus having been formed. --Falcadore (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
copypasta of my comment on Talk:Safety car: the inclusion of the F1 lists (or any other series) is simply not appropriate on Safety car. Perhaps on a page related to F1. But even then, I don't think so. There's a long list of models of cars which is basically trivia. If relevant, the page for each race should note which model of safety car is used. There's another long list of races which either started or ended under caution, which is not even trivia. It's just part of the rules of the series. If it's important, it should be noted with a footnote in the table of season results. We have plenty of those already. Simishag (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines for attendance figures[edit]

Lately I have been doing some work on 2014 Russian Grand Prix, which I would like to nominate for GA—or maybe even FA—status. However, there is one issue that I think needs to be resolved before that can happen: the question of attendance figures.

The article was the scene of an edit war over the inclusion of attendance figures. It was resolved with the understanding that the subject would be revisited when a more precise figure could be found. Since no such figure has been provided, I have moved to delete the content, but this has opened up a wider question: what is our stance on the inclusion of attendance figures?

Looking through other articles, they are applied inconsistently. When they are included, different numbers are being used. Sometimes they are taken from the race itself. Other times, they are the cumulative total across the three days of a Grand Prix. Sometimes the figure is calculated based on the number of people going through the turnstiles, while other times, it's taken from the number of tickets sold. And other times, as in the case of the Russian Grand Prix, it's an estimate.

So first of all, I think we need to decide whether or not we should include attendance figures. And secondly, assuming that we do keep including them, then we need to decide on which figure we use and the method of its calculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If an exact number can be reliably sourced, then I see no reason to exclude it. As far as what figure we want to use, race day only or weekend total, we must first agree on what the subject our Grand Prix articles are. Is it the race, or is it the weekend itself? We report on qualifying and, if necessary, any unique and/or substantial events that may happen in practice. Therefore personally, I see it as the latter, so I would tend to go with weekend totals, but again only if an exact total can be reliably sourced.
Also, I don't see it as a "well we can't put it in some articles and not others" situation, because there are other figures we include if the sources are readily and reliably available and exclude if not, such as weather and temperatures. It's nice to have if it's available, but not critical that we make an "everything or nothing" situation out of it. Twirlypen (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
On a side note, I don't know much about the criteria, but I do know that if this article is going to pass GA review (forget FA), would you mind if I went through and eliminated all the overlinks? Twirlypen (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hear hear! What Twirlypen said in that last paragraph is common sense personified. --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Second last now :P Damn postscripts. --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the confusion of which attendance figure we use (entire weekend or race) seems to strem from the fact that the attendance paramater is not properly defined. If we simply change the parameter in the template to "race attendance" that's the first question already answered. As for the second question, that's a really really obvious one. The words says it all. Attendance is the number of people who actually attended. Those who went to the circuit. Not simply those who bought a ticket. You don't attend an event simply by buying a ticket for it. Tvx1 03:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Tvx1, I had actually thought about bringing this up in my original post. Many sporting venues will announce an attendance figure based on tickets sold or otherwise given away, not how many clicks the turnstile counted. I've been to many baseball games where an attendance has been announced at 35,000+ while it was plainly obvious that there were no more than 20,000. At least here in North America, this isn't unusual. For that, we might just have to go with it if it's to be used, because on the official record, 35,000+ people attended. And Falcadore, my apologies. Didn't mean to jam you up there. Twirlypen (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering we state only the date of the actual race in the infobox, we should accordingly only put race attendance in the box as well. Also, I absolutely agree with Twirlypen, it is not all or nothing. There are plenty of races, especially in the deep past, where we'll never find a lot of information in the first place. So let's include it if we find it. If there is no valid information to be found considering the 2014 Russia race then in my opinion that should not exclude it from achieving GA status. It's the same with pictures: If there are simply none to be found, it does not mean the article cannot become a Good article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I myself have no problem with adding the figures when they are available, but I do think we need a consistent way of drawing on the figure. In the case of the 2014 Russian Grand Prix, it's an obvious estimate, and there are multiple sources out there claiming everything from 55,000 to 65,000, which is a massive range, and I don't think that such a variation is acceptable, even for vital pieces of information.
Ideally, I think that figures for the race day based on actual attendance (rather than sales) would be best, but I appreciate that this is a very narrow window and would probably result in the exclusion of a lot of data. So cumulative total would be okay, but I think that we need to go off actual attendance—data based on ticket sales is better than an estimate, but it's still a fuzzy area. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Twirlypen, I have no objections to you delinking as you see fit. The attendance figures are really my concern at the moment. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Any figure we decide to use should not be any sort of estimate or guess. Twirlypen (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Reliably sourced estimates are acceptable. Dential (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Would you care to give a reason why? Perhaps you could back that up with a policy guideline, given that there is the start of a consensus in favour of removing estimates. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? Attendance is of general relevance to the subject, which is presumably why there is a field for it. The crucial requirement per policy is verifiability. This figure is verifiable, so would you now care to give a reason why you are apparently so keen to omit it? Dential (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Addition of title years to F1 team navboxes[edit]

I notice that a list of drivers' and constructors' titles have recently been added to {{McLaren}}, {{Scuderia Ferrari}}, {{Williams}}, {{Benetton Formula}}, {{Red Bull Racing}}, {{Team Lotus}}, {{Brabham}}, {{Tyrrell}}, {{Brawn GP}}, {{Cooper Car Company}}, {{Alfa Romeo F1}}, {{Renault F1}}, {{Mercedes in Formula One}}, {{BRM}} and {{Honda F1}}. Is this necessary/desirable? Some of those navboxes are already pretty big. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. Especially list of consturctors' titles that duplicates {{Formula One World Constructors' Champions}}. Cybervoron (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Then remove other team personel and "other notable drivers" in some aspects and other jibberish that is of "even less" relevance as well? I think title years are defining successful periods of the team's history and therefore are certainly important. This Wikipedia non-info culture is frankly sickening at times. If looking at a template it might help people not knowing all the title years in their heads to figure out which periods the team was successful. What is the problem with that? It also takes only two rows of space, way less than former team personel and all the cars the team has ever built - which frankly is not so relevant. Better to have "title-winning cars" and "recent cars" if so. Lommaren (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I would agree with the last post. Title years are probably more important than listing out every car designation, which takes up a lot of space -- for the major teams anyway. Perhaps car "names" could have a template which could be shown or hidden as desired? Eagleash (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I too actually think this information has its merit there. Tvx1 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Lommaren, I am afraid that you forget that the main purpose of the {{Navbox}} is navigational, not informational. So, it has sense to add in the navbox links to the articles only that contain the navbox. The "successful periods of the team's history" belongs to the article. P.S. I think it's a good idea to create in some cases separate templates for the cars. Cybervoron (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Cybervoron, with all due respect I feel that title years are so fundamental to the team's history that it's relevant as a navigation tool too. Given that is takes so little space in the template compared with other things and cover a relevant aspect in the team's stature and history, I think it's fair to say that those season links have a strong place in the Navbox. I agree with Eagleash in that only title-winning cars or a link to a subpage for cars should be displayed in the templates. That would definitely save some space, since I definitely agree that the templates are a bit long-ish. However, that doesn't merit a user being unable to navigate to the defining title years of the team through the navbox in my firm and honest opinion. Lommaren (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's a bad thing to navigate our readers to the articles for the years during which teams won titles. The only navbox that considerably increases in size as a result of this is Ferrari's, which is entirely normal given that they been around since, well, as long as the World Championship exists. Tvx1 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Cybervoron does raise an interesting point. The entire point of these templates is to provide an ease of navigation amongst related topics which might not be revealed in the text of the articles. Driver and car articles would have links to the championship years and other years as well. While not irrelevant it certainly isn't neccessary. --Falcadore (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with car articles as navigation to seasons is that it is not particularly easy to code Ferrari F300 or McLaren MP4-13 to 1998 just based on car numbers. That is only possible when cars are named after the year like Benetton always did and Ferrari have done on many occasions, but not always. Therefore to the average user the car numbers will mean absolutely nothing. Even myself having followed F1 for 17 years still had to check up which MP4-number the 1998 McLaren car that won their last Constructors' title had. Therefore I see no sense in regarding car codes as a proper navigation tool. Lommaren (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Car codes are not meant to navigate to season articles but to those cars' articles. Tvx1 17:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Silverstone Circuit needs you...[edit]

...or at least its article does. It tells you something about my lack of editing in the last couple of years, but somehow the complete rearrangement of the Silverstone Circuit page had passed me by. Having been taken there by another topic yesterday I will admit to being startled by what I found. Gone is the discussion of the circuit, its origins, the history of its development, and a sensible look at the major competition developments. In its place I find a "stuff that happened at..." article apparently written by the motor racing correspondent for Hello! The circuit development issues have been hived off to another page entirely (now called Development history of Silverstone Circuit) and barely rate a mention at the parent page. In contrast, it seems that almost every international-rated race, and a fair few domestic events, at the circuit in the last 40 years has a brief report, commonly in the most gushingly floral of purple prose, riddled with POV and with very little consideration given regarding the significance of the event to the article subject. Hence, we now have an almost indiscriminate screed of unencyclopedic peacocked trivia that doesn't give a thorough overview of the article topic, but misses much out entirely and buries the rest under a mountain of cruft. Obviously someone has put quite a bit of time and effort into this reworking, so I am reluctant to charge in and just delete like crazy (no matter how tempting), but I'm struggling to see an alternative.

This raises the question: what to do? Quite apart from the non-NPOV, peacocked, reportage writing style (which could simply be rewritten), this article's current state begs the question of what should an article like this look like? What content does a good Wikipedia racing circuit article need? Answers on a postcard, please. Or here, here is good too. Pyrope 19:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather transient at the moment so I won't be able to give a full reply. After having a brief look however, I just have to say charge in and delete like crazy. The whole history section - which is just a collection of race reports, not the history of the circuit - is unsalvageable. I would suggest that the content currently on the "Development history of Silverstone Circuit" page be merged back in, as there is no justification for hiving off the only information that actually concerns the circuit. We don't need an overview of every international and domestic event on this page - if you want a history of the British Grand Prix read that page. QueenCake (talk) 23:06, 15 April 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)