Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 2

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.
 
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

Missing results?

I don't know if this has been noted before, but a lot of the historical results seem to be missing the last driver (i.e. the first driver to retire from the race). For example, see 1998 Brazilian Grand Prix compared to [1] - Ralf Schumacher went out on lap 1, and is missing from the WP page. sjorford →•← 11:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

yeh i noticed this with one race a while ago but thought nothing of it. BillCook (no longer here i don't think) did all races automatically using a VisualBasic program, there was obviously a bug in it if that has happened for a lot of races. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I've noticed that the times aren't always accurate. (Case in point, the 1972 - 1977 United States Grand Prix entries had minor time mistakes, at least according to United States Grand Prix And Grand Prize Races 1908-1977 (Doug Nye, ISBN 0-385-14203-X) More I'm sure were slightly off, but alas, I had not the time, and the book was due back at the library... -slowpokeiv 22:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

2006 Formula One season

Foolish Question. As it is silly season, I pose a few questions regarding the current listings on 2006 Formula One season:

  1. Should the current lists be in place? (or should they be removed until all details are confirmed.)
  2. Should the dates list include the tracks? (or should just the dates be present)
  3. Should the flags of drivers not yet confirmed be present?

My answers would be 1) Yes, 2) Yes, and 3) No, as To Be Announced does not have any nationality assigned to it. I figured it would be good topic to bring up, as it only 4 editors have altered this article, showing that the existance of the page might not yet be public knowledge. -slowpokeiv 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. No - the flags are just strange. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Table Formatting Template?

Foolish Question: Do we need/want a table formatting template? I pose the question, as the formatting that is suggested on ou WP page, and is currently in use is much nicer than "prettytable", the formatting template currently in use on the 2004, 2003, and further back season reports. I suggest said template, possibly called F1table, and have that added, inplace of the other formatting in place for just about all of our tables. (honestly, I can't find an exception, and it would add the benifit of if we wish to change the standard, we can do it once, instead of X times.)

Also, side note, recently discovered (as I was putzing for the main table) If you want to declare the entire row a colour (our header, for example) you can mere state

|- style="background: #f9f9f9;

instead of declaring it each time, even in the first row (which does not usually require the |-). -slowpokeiv 02:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made one called Template:F1 race table that sets up the style and columns for the F1 race results, like the table shown in 1950 British Grand Prix. It is used like the prettytable one, just:
{|{{subst:F1 race table}}
|-
|data
|-
|etc
}

AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a CSS class (in MediaWiki:Common.css) that defines a consistent look for basic tables. Just use class="wikitable" at the start of your table. Templates for defining style have a bigger processing cost than CSS. Rather than use a template for only F1 articles, just document some example tables with copy-and-paste wikitext. -- Netoholic @ 23:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories?

For the GP Race Reports should the category be YEAR in sports, or YEAR in motor racing. From 2000 on, and including the current year, motor sports seems to be the standard, but prior to that sports is, and is also the listed standard on WP:F1. Slightly confused, and just want to know, before I change one or the other... -slowpokeiv 16:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Motor racing is more specific than sports, I'm guessing what's happened in the later years is someone's created those categories, but hasn't done them for pre-2000. If motor racing is available I'd use it, where it's not use the 'in sports' one.. - Joolz 18:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>

F1 Race Report Infobox?

As I was formatting pages, I ran across the race report of the 2003 United States Grand Prix. What struck me as interesting and unusual, was the use of an infobox at the top. Rdikeman had created the article with an infobox, that included all the vital details, including race location, distance, weather, podium, etc. I'm thinking, this would be extremely ambitious, but using said infobox (templated, of course) for any race report article that actually has a report (summary) might be a nice idea. What does everyone else think? -slowpokeiv 18:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Rdikeman left me a comment when I first added "report" links to the GP articles (in fact it was the very first comment on my talk page :-)); apparently he has already written a series of USGP summaries for another publication and was considering contributing them to Wikipedia.
As for the infobox, I think adding it to all race reports which have paragraph summaries is an excellent idea, though its appearance could use some streamlining. — Dan | Talk 15:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I like the idea of an infobox as well, although I agree with Dan that it could do with some streamlining, it's a little too wide for me at present -- Joolz 15:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this one? User:Joolz/workshop3 -- Joolz 22:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, nobody have any opinions on it huh? Well I like it, at least :) -- Joolz 22:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'd have this to say: in the abscence of objection, assume acceptance. :) Sorry, guess I'm tired. I like do it, but have two (minor) points against it. 1) I'm not sure I like how tall it is. Try this on for size. 2) I don't like that shade of red. (I told you it was a minor point.) One idea: we could either have one standard colour for the template, or if we want, we could have the title bar BG colours change GP to GP, one would just have to make sure that bar_bg_color = #efefef| (or whatever) would be present in each infobox. (possibly more trouble than it would be worth, but eh, an idea...) -slowpokeiv 16:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I like yours better, shall we implement it? -- Joolz 17:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
This is looking really good. The one thing I think is missing, however, is the race number. Perhaps we could have "3rd race of 15", with that being linked to the season? Something like that. violet/riga (t) 17:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


OK, this has sat long enough. :) It is in place, at {{F1 race report infobox}}. Usage listed on the talk page therin. it has been used at 2003 United States Grand Prix, with further additions to come. -slowpokeiv 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, related idea: What do you think about combining the Template:F1 race report infobox with Template:F1 race report? Two of the info variables are already used in the infobox, and the remaining 4 could be copied straight from the F1 race report box at the bottom of said pages. The main reason I suggest, is that I saw a similar design at this page, and I though it looked nice. A design for my proposal is available at my sandbox. The two changes made: addition/merging of two templates, and widening of the template by 2 em. (The template was not originally designed with flagicons in mind, as such, longer names wrapped, causing the infobox to lengthen.) Let me know what y'all think. -slowpokeiv 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I like having the F1 race report infobox wide enough for fewer names to wrap, but I think I prefer the F1 race report box separate, as it is now. It seems a bit busy to me to have it all together right up front. This is just a preference; not a strong feeling. Thanks for the idea.
Rdikeman 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, it might seem a bit buzy, and as such, less than desirable. At the same time, I find it less than desirable to scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to navigate through articles. This also a preference, and not a strong feeling, certainly not strong enough to start an edit war... (not that it would, but eh, if no one else wants it, and someone else doesn't, why bother...)-slowpokeiv 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Formula One portal

About a month ago I created Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Formula One (see Wikipedia:Wikiportal if you're unfamiliar with these), and Mark83 did some work on it while I was out of town. However, maintaining it is a big job, so please help out! Each of the boxes is a subpage, and each has an "edit" link in the upper right corner. Also, please add your comments to the talk page, and help decide things such as how often the featured article and picture should be rotated, how to format the standings, etc. Thanks! — Dan | Talk 14:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Tire Manufacturer?

I hope that this is the right place to ask. The question is why the default F1 Race Results table do not include a column for tire manufacturers? Is this discussed before? Can we add it? --Pulsar 20:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Formula One

I hope I'm not treading on anybody's shoes or anything (although you are supposed to "be bold" on Wikipedia!), but I thought that Formula One could do with a good old tidy up, so I'm about to edit parts of the whole article. I think the article at the moment is a bit too long; it needs to be more concise. Perhaps we need to set out what really needs to be in the main article and what can be left for other articles such as History of Formula One, as I think the aim of Formula One should be to explain the basics of F1 in a concise manner. doctorvee 20:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. There is, and doubtless will always be, a tendency for people to add details about the current season which are irrelevant to a general overview of the sport, and instead belong in one of season articles. However, though concise writing is desirable, there's nothing wrong with a long article, so long as it doesn't contain any extraneous information. — Dan | Talk 20:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just edited it then. Although the overall shape of the article remains much the same, I've trimmed it down a bit and I've tried to remove any repeated information. When you just look at what's been edited you can miss an awful lot of stuff that has already been mentioned elsewhere in the article. The links section in particular was pretty bad, and I've cleared most of it. I think in future every link should either be discussed here or deleted immediately to avoid spam. doctorvee 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


Say, congratulations all on shaping Formula One into a Featured Article! Are we going to have some sort of celebration on September 23, when it hits the main page?

Yay! I've put its little FA infobox on the WikiProject page, hopefully we can get some more in the future. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

GP and circuit articles

I think there needs to be a bit of work done on some of the Grand Prix and circuit articles. While some of the articles are very in-depth (such as Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps and Autodromo Nazionale Monza), Brazilian Grand Prix has very little in it.

I'm trying to think of ways you could expand the smaller articles, and also to distinguish the GP articles from the circuit articles (eg. don't include information that's specifically about Monza in Italian Grand Prix). I think for the GP articles you could write about such as venue changes and particularly notable grands prix. The circuit articles could contain more information on how the circuit has evolved, or famous corners. What does everybody else think? doctorvee 18:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've fleshed out the Canadian Grand Prix a bit -- added a paragraph on the 1982 Grand Prix. Is this sort of along the lines of what you were talking about? CanSpice 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm thinking of! There'll probably be a severe bias towards writing about recent grands prix, but it's better than nothing. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 00:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Privateer entries

I noticed the classification tables in the Grand Prix reports use "team" rather than "car". While this is not a problem for races held since 1982, it does pose a problem when talking about older Grand Prixs, as privateer teams and drivers were a regular fixture in World Championship events up to the mid 1970s. Also, the season reports should take into account non-World Championship events, such as the BRDC International Trophy, the Solituderennen or the Syracuse Grand Prix. Pc13 18:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Related Changes

And I quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, "How to help", point number 5:

Keep an eye on Formula One-related changes at Special:Recentchangeslinked/Formula One.

I don't know about you, but as far as my F1 interests are concerned, I don't give a (insert phrase here) about 2001, Japan, October 23, World War II, 2005, Moscow, and the likes. Yes, those articles are important, and they should be kept accurate, but to be honest, I just don't care. (That, and someone else can do that.) What I suggest, and have started to implement, is a listing of all truly F1 related pages, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Related Pages, allowing the use of the following link (Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Related Pages) to quickly see what pages that I do care about have changed. -slowpokeiv 15:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea, I imagine there are lots of pages though. -- Joolz 17:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure there are. I started by conglomerating all the "list of" pages, I figured that should cover all Grands Prix, Circuits, Constructors, drivers, and other non-driver persons. I'm sure if there are any omissions, someone will add them to this list. (hopefully...)-slowpokeiv 22:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I fixed the link in the "How to help" section. — Dan | Talk 05:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

External links

When I copyedited the main Formula One page a couple of weeks ago, one of the things I thought was particularly in need of attention was the external links section. There were about two dozen links in it. This doesn't help anybody — how would anybody be able to know which sites to visit if they wanted to find out more about F1? The list needs to be short and discerning. I trimmed it down to six. It seems that people have a habit of coming along and adding a site to the list, never to be seen again. I would call this spam. I said at the time that I thought links should either be immediately deleted or discussed here. What does everybody else think? \•/ doctorvee » Talk 17:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially if this page is to be Featured Article quality, the "spam" links should be cut to a minimum, and if there is a link that appears, it should be immediately removed. If possibly noteworthy, it should be discussed here. If not, it should be pointed out to the user that inserted it, and that user should be invited to discuss it here. -slowpokeiv 22:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Automated generation of updates

Having taken a while to sort and transcribe the qualifying results for Spa this weekend, I decided to take a go at automating the process. The result is available here: [2]. Though it's fairly basic at the moment, I've used it to populate a number of races this season.

I'm not sure of the status of other such scripts — I know Bill Cook created a program to populate past results — but I'm thinking of putting further effort into this sort of thing; the idea being the creation of automated qualifying and race results, updates for the portal (such as next race, championship standings etc), circuit and driver infoboxes and so on.

Any thoughts/suggestions? » Christopher | Talk | 23:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Good Work. I've been working to standardize and correct old race data but it would be a great time saver for new info. ChrisR | Talk | 16:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Track Maps

Any thought of having the race direction arrow at the start/finish line, as is done on the FIA television graphics? CanSpice 20:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Pre-F1 grands prix

I was wondering if you have any plans to expand the project to cover grands prix prior to 1950 or if it's worth starting a new WikiProject for the task? I've added a race report for the 1937 British Grand Prix using the basic layout from the 1950 race and expanding it a little. Comments, suggestions, help and criticism welcome. Luca's Ade 21:47, 1 October 2005

I have tonnes of information on the pre-1950 races. Andreasu 04 October, 2005 09:52.

Great. I've started a new category to try and bring the information together, rather clumsily titled I'm afraid Category:Grand Prix Before Formula One. Any help appreciated. Luca's Ade 21:15, 4 October 2005

Would a WikiProject Grand Prix racing be a good idea? Those articles certainly could use some improvement. — Dan | Talk 23:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That project should only cover racing before World War II. Racing held after 1945 should belong to the F1 Project, as F1 rules came into effect in July 1947 with the Swiss Grand Prix. - Pc13 11:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 USA-Race

DNS stands for when a car does not take a a race start. Makes sense. By having Ret listed that mean the driver has actually started in that race and will count a race starts towards the driver race start tally.. The formation lap does not count as a lap at all as it is not added towards the race classification. For when does a driver 'start' a Grand Prix? To my mind he does so only if he is on the grid when the flag drops or light goes green at the final start. Should a driver have failed to compete the formation lap, for instance (as was the case with Prost at Imola in 1991), he cannot truly be said to have started the race. In the case of restarted events such as the British GP in 1986, poor Jacques Laffite certainly did start the race, but this was declared null and void and he was not presented to take the restart, which is the only one that counts. For true official race results is best to get them off www.forix.com as they receive their race results from the officials. Yes I know formula1.com is official but not 100% official in statistics. If you decide to leave it as Ret then you must give all the drivers a race start count!

I have spend hours in researching and asking many F1 statistician who are famous and know more on Grand Prix. All the statisian I have contacted and got back told me it is actually DNS not Ret, they also have mention the formula1.com is not very accurate with their race results. The formula1.com is incorrect as listing as ret instead of DNS for 2005-USA. This were the responses from the following people. Renowned F1 statistians, like David Hayhoe or Autosport's Peter Higham agree that all Michelin drivers were DNS in 2005-USA, but consider a RET if a driver didn't made a re-start, for example. That was the common view in the past - no contemporary source listed Lauda as a DNS in 1976-Germany - and they simply ignore the current "null and void" FIA rule. I totally agree to change it as DNS not Ret as they didn't take part on the first lap.

Here is a intersting fact. Button will start his 100th race start in the 2005-China race. But according to wikipedia when doing the math by adding all Button race starts it would be his 101st race start in China as Button has been listed as Ret instead of DNS for this year 2005-USA race. Does this make sense to you. That means wikipedia will have an extra race start for all the drivers who have no started in the 2005 USA race have an extra race start which wouldn't be official to the drivers stats.

I am trying to help you all to have accurate data on Formula 1 on wikipedia. I DO beleive the formula1.com site doesn't not give out accurate race classifications. As I have been involved with FORIX and autosport.com for many years as my job is to look for incorrect data on their server. Andreas 04 October 09:36

Go for it. I put them down as DNS before, but took it off my watchlist a while after the race had ended. - SoM 20:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor F1 teams

I was looking through Category:Formula One stubs there, and there are several teams who participated in a very few Grands Prix, and have next to no chance of ever becoming filled out articles (e.g., Eifelland, Apollon (Formula One), Cisitalia and Connew to pick a few at random).

So, unless there are objections, I'm going to merge them into a List of minor Formula One teams, and redirect the pages to there sometime within the next week. - SoM 17:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I object emphatically. An article need not be merged simply because it will never become much larger; merging is generally reserved for articles which are not encyclopedic in their own right, but are relevant in the context of a larger topic. Such is not the case here; all Formula One teams are eminently encyclopedic and deserve their own articles. — Dan | Talk 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a substub for a team which once had one driver at one grand prix and folded straight after is "eminently encyclopediac." It is a minor, minor branch, which per WP:DP should be merged.
Hell, I'm not even suggesting deletion, tempted as I was, just collecting all the substubs into one article which isn't a substub and might get a couple more eyes on it that way (and if it ever grew big enough, oc we could break it back out again). I fail to see why you're so defensive. If you want them kept on their own, Expand them! - SoM 20:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
What teams were you planning on moving? Out of the four you mentioned, I can find two cases that can be fairly expanded. Cisitalia's one-off F1 attempt was actually with an F2 car that enjoyed quite an interesting career [3]. In fact, the company's single F1 design (the Tipo 360) only entered non-championship races in 1948. As for Eifelland, they are actually a well-known caravan builder [4]. Their 1972 F1 entry was based around a re-tooled March 721 chassis, but the team also raced in F2 and F3 in the early 70s. - Pc13 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "defensive". I'm simply disagreeing. After browsing through the policy you linked, I found two cases which apply to these articles: "Article needs improvement" and "Article needs a lot of improvement". Both of these suggest listing for cleanup or general attention. The one you quoted - "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" - is inapplicable since these teams are not facets of a single topic, such as Formula One; rather, they are topics and entities unto themselves. A branch of a subject is something like History of Formula One or, to take a hypothetical example of an article which would probably fit the quoted criterion, Effects of recent FIA rule changes on competitiveness in Formula One. Incidentally, saying "fix it yourself" is not a valid response; I could just as well say the same to you for proposing that they be merged in the first place, and there's no rush to get the encyclopedia finished. — Dan | Talk 22:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Small problem with the tops of F1 Driver Articles

Hello all - I've just noticed that the infobox at the top of each driver article (and perhaps more articles..) results in a { being displayed at the start of the article - having fiddled with the Alonso article, i can't find a simple explanation or solution - this occurs in IE and Firefox, and apologies if this is a known MediaWiki problem - anyone got any idea how to tidy this annoying display bug up? Petesmiles 04:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been the result of vandalism to Template:F1 driver, which is now reverted. — Dan | Talk 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Flags on Grand Prix Pages

Quick suggestion: I know that the discussion had been held, and the statement made, that nationality had no place on grand prix past winners articles. (discussion) I would propose that it seems to be that a driver's nationality does seem to be relavant, in that on 2005 Formula One season, and on current race reports (AUS, SMR, MCO, etc...) flag icons are present. I propose that flag icons be added to all Grand Prix articles, to match what had been done at Dutch Grand Prix and Belgian Grand Prix, among probably others -slowpokeiv 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Dave Walker

I was looking at the 'What links here' for Dave Walker (a musician) and found links from Grand Prixs. I investigated it and found that there was a Formula One driver named Dave/David Walker. I can't find any Wikipedia pages about the latter. Should a page be created for him, and then all the incorrect links moved?

I could write that, as I have the neccessary research materials (just give me a chance to find that 'Motor Sport' article about Walker from last year). Dave Walker is famous for a few things in F1 history, but mostly for being the team-mate of Emerson Fittipaldi at Lotus in 1972. Fittipaldi won the Championship, while Walker didn't score a single point. Walker's still bitter about that even now...Lec CRP1 04:35, 18th October 2005

David Walker article has now been created. Probably needs a bit more work. --Lec CRP1 06:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

2007 Formula One season

It's to early to have this page, right? If so, someone please delete it, vfd, or speedy, whichever is most appropriate. -slowpokeiv 23:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually think it's a useful to put all 2007 rumours etc. in one place. Spute 16:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree. Let's keep it all in one place. MonkeyMumford 09Jan06
AFD is best, putting it up... NSLE (T+C) 08:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nurburgring - number of turns is wrong!

The Nurburgring page has a track map at the bottom that says: The current 20.8 km long Nordschleife of the Nürburgring, with 173 corners.

That is incorrect. Earlier in the article, it references 174 turns -- but as it says, that is the combined total for the Nordschleife and Sudschleife (which no longer exists). The track map only shows the Nordschleife, so 173/174 is way too high. I have had trouble finding a published number of turns for the Nordschleife in its current configuration (the 1967-1982 config used the Sudkerhe loop which no longer exists.

Can anyone find a published source with the correct number of turns?

Sauber?

I think the Sauber page may have been changed a bit too quickly. First, their logo most likely wont be just the BMW logo because of the fact that they are still retaining the Sauber name. Second, I think the page should keep the name Sauber, not be changed to BMW_Sauber. It's unknown at the moment wether the team and chassis will be known as "Sauber" or as "BMW", so it's a bit iffy...

I don't know, something just rubs me wrong about the way the Sauber page was changed. Maybe I'm alone on it.

1994 season - lots of incorrect info

The 1994 drivers and constructors table is a complete mess - it was just a copy of 1995. I've started correcting a few bits, but a lot more to be done. Hopefully others can help. Spute 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[5] and [6] would probably help.
And who the hell gave DC a Danish flag? - SoM 17:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

oops, that was me!Spute 22:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Cosworth page

I've started a table to contain a summary of Cosworth's involvement in F1. Any help filling it in would be good, thanks. Spute 16:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Sauber vs BMW Sauber

Up until a couple of days ago, Sauber redirected to BMW Sauber, and the combined history of both teams was on the BMW Sauber page. Then someone (probably accidentally) put information about Sauber's outside-F1 activities on the redirect page, and now all the information regarding the "original" Sauber has moved back to the Sauber page. I think this is the right way to go, because BMW has completely taken over Sauber, and Peter Sauber has walked away - similar to what happened with Benetton/Renault and Jaguar/Red Bull etc, despite the team keeping the "Sauber" name. I was a little surprised when I first saw the changes, but after thinking about it, I think it's right. I was just wondering what everyone else thought. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Sauber has history outside F1, especially in sports car racing, that needs to be on its own page and is completely unrelated to BMW Sauber, especially regarding the Sauber-Mercedes partnership in Group C racing and the initial Sauber prototypes. --Pc13 11:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree. I was just thinking the other day that someone should write a proper article about Sauber's sportscar, etc. history.- there's loads of info on Sauber's official website that could be included - and best to do it before BMW revamps the site and makes it about their own motorsport history. I'd have a go if i had time, but really not feasible at the moment.Spute 13:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of editing the BMW-Sauber webpage to include BMW's F1 history as well as a short history of Sauber in F1. If someone wants to modify the regular Sauber page with a more complete sportscar and F1 history, feel free. The359 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Formula One World Champions

I've recently been working on getting the List of Formula One World Champions up to featured list status. I put in a lot more information than the current list (here), and as a result, drivers' and constructors' champs couldn't be put in the same table. So I did two seperate tables, and got a bit more information (records, totals) such that I thought they might even need to be put on two seperate pages altogether. I think this is the best way to go, as it means that we could have information specific to either Championship (it would be awesome if someone could find a free image of one or both trophies), and the pages do not get too big. I've included a little marking on each to indicate when the team's driver has won the wdc, and vice-versa for the wcc, so to tie the pages together. The problems are that (1) we have a v. nice template Template:Formula One, which links with the word "Champions" and if we had seperate pages, we would need 2 links to fit in the same space; and (2) i'm not sure what would go on the List of Formula One World Champions page... Anyway, here are the lists I made:

There is also a User:Albinomonkey/List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems, which shows the distribution of points for the championship over time but i'm not really sure about the suitability of this. Maybe we could write a general description of pointscoring etc on the List of Formula One World Champions (current) page and include this information on that instead. Let me know what you think!

ps, i made a new template for quickly inserting links to F1 seasons - instead of typing [[2005 Formula One season|2005]] to produce 2005, you can now just type in {{subst:F1sl|2005}} (you can leave out the subst: bit, but i think it makes it easier for people in the future). Thanks AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 15:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions on WP:FLC

I've put List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions as a featured list candidate. Express your support or opposition for it's promotion here. Thanks AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 05:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

New Template: Formula One?

Articles related to Formula One:

History of Formula One
Formula One regulations
Formula One cars
Formula One racing
Future of Formula One

Lists:
Grands Prix | Drivers (Champions)
Constructors (Champions)
Circuits | Records | Other People

Articles related to Formula One:

History of Formula One
Formula One regulations
Formula One cars
Formula One racing
Future of Formula One

Lists:
Drivers (Champions)
Constructors (Champions)
Grands Prix | Circuits
Records | Other People

Since I've split up the List of Formula One World Champions into separate lists of drivers and constructors, I thought we should probably change the current F1 template (see here) to include links to the new lists, replacing the "Champions" link currently there. I also took an irrelevant list of F1 records off the WC page, and made a new page List of Formula One records, and I think this should be included too. I'm not very good with this kind of stuff, but I had a go at adjusting the current one... Hopefully someone can tweak it or come up with something better. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 05:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

ATS (automobile) vs ATS (wheels)

I've noticed on various pages, specifically race reports and season reviews, that the two completely seperate teams that both went by the acronym of ATS (with different meanings) are being confused for one another and incorrectly linked. ATS (automobile) applies to the team that raced in 1963. ATS (wheels) applies to the team that raced from 1978 - 1984.

Userbox Insanity!

Alonso-WPF1logo.png This user is a member of the Formula One WikiProject.

Eh, I'm going userbox crazy, and thought I'd create the {{User WP:F1}} userbox. Proclaim with pride that you are a member of the Formual One WikiProject!Or not, up to you, just thought I'd announce it to everyone. -slowpokeiv 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Flag Debate

OK, possibly controversial subject here: When using flag icons, what flags should be used? The flag as currently used in that country, or the flag that was used at the time of the event? Anyone that can guess why this could become controversial, well, bonus points for you, but if we continue to use flagicons, we should have a policy as to which ones we do use. -slowpokeiv 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to use the flag of the country at the time of the event. What would we do for countries which no longer exist, otherwise? Obviously, the controversial flag would be Germany's from the 1935-1945 period. But when German drivers won races during this period it was the swastika which was raised above the winners podium, wasn't it? I'm not sure if any German drivers or teams participated in races between 1945 and 1949, though. If so, there may be a problem as the country had no flag at the time. (These issues regarding Germany only need to be dealt with for pre-Formula One grand prix, as the flag has been constant and non-controversial since 1949, assuming the East Germany wasn't involved in F1.) Pburka 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
True, that flag has been constant since then, but not all F1 flags have. (quickie example, the (some would call annoying) habit of the USA to change their flag each time that a state is added, last occuring in 1960.) Main point was, that whichever policy we have, (and podium flown seems to be a good one, and consistant with consensus when the Union Jack v. St. George question came up.) we should agree to it, and as it is in place, be able to enforce it. (my standardization tendancies, coming through...)(side note: Occupied Germany 45-49 used a Nautical C flag 20px with a triangle cutout, so I suppose that would suffice, and would have probably been used.) -slowpokeiv 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mark Webber

The Mark Webber article is a complete mess, i have tagged it as needing a cleanup --Windsok 13:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Future season pages editing policy suggestion

Now that it has been decided to keep the 2007 Formula One season article, it is important to keep the information contained within pages like this respectable. I have removed M Schumacher from the Toyota driver line up of the 2008 Formula One season article. This is complete and utter speculation. I would suggest we apply the following guidelines to these articles and similar speculative articles in relation to F1:-

1) If information is confirmed by a team, driver or the FIA then it should obviuosly be included. e.g. Alonso to McLaren in 2007

2) If information is strongly hinted by those invloved and backed up with a large amount of media writing but yet to be confirmed, it should be added but with a * (* = to be confirmed) and references (and links where possible) given.

3) If information has sufficient back-up i.e. respected media strongly suggest it to be true, then it can be added but with a ** (** = Strongly speculated) and references (and links where possible) given.

4) If information is mere speculation in media and general gossip, then it should NOT be added to the article but discussed on this talk page with references (and links where possible) given.

I don't want to restrict freedom, but it would be good to discuss things first on the talk pages.

Feedback/comments please. MonkeyMumford 19:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Season 2010 is a candidate for delection. Feedbacks (or eventually improvement to article) in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_Formula_One_season, i.e. are there some interesting things to tell in the article? Should we wait some years?. -- Cate 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Constructor's Championship results

I've been going through the season pages all the way back to the 70s, and I've noticed that a lot of the results for final constructor's results are way off, especially in that teams are listed in the apparently incorrect place. I'm going off of the final results pages on Formula1.com, and I'm being left just utterly confused... The359 19:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? I noticed your list of FAs, are there any others? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Community, which supports the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects effort. Just wanted to let you folks know (if you didn't already) that you have a listing at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WPHobbies#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One and the article Brabham Racing Organisation is being assessed at WikiProject Australia/Assessment. I know zero about auto racing of any kind, but I'm impressed by this WikiProjects efforts and have learned a lot since I encountered Peer review/Brabham Racing Organisation and Portal:Formula One. I took the liberty of editing WikiProject_Formula_One/Task_template and Category:Formula One (Hope you don't mind). I highly recommend Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment, considering the bulk of articles you folks are handling. • CQ 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Constructors/Teams

Am I missing something regarding teams?

I'm tidying up the Formula One history page (or at least I hope that's what I'm doing!). Having just gone through to make sure all the team links actually point to the team concerned, I note quite a lot of inconsistency in naming the team articles (XXX Racing, XXX (racing team), Scuderia XXX, or just plain XXX). Given that I thought I saw a team template around here somewhere, this makes me wonder whether I'm just missing the 'real' articles somewhere. As many team links throughout the Project - Tyrrell for example - go to disambiguation pages I guess I'm not the only one. Are they all laid out somewhere?

My favorite 'missing link', by the way, was the Pacific F1 link, which was pointing at the entry for the Pacific Ocean. 4u1e 09:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Try
As for the "inconsistency", we've been using the official name of the team, ie British American Racing or Jaguar Racing, Scuderia Italia or Scuderia Ferrari, etc. just plain XXX is used when that is simply the name of the team (eg Sauber), and XXX (racing team) is used when XXX is ambiguous with another topic on Wikipedia... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 21:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ta. That helps - I thought it seemed as if most items were working on the official name, it's just that there seem to be some exceptions. Cheers. 4u1e 16:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical data

Can we add the technical data for the cars to the appropriate teams article? For example, Super Aguri:

Technical Specifications

SA05

Chassis Construction: Moulded carbon fibre and honeycomb composite construction incorporating front and side composite impact structures. Integral roll protection structures. Fully enclosed fuel cell.

Bodywork construction: Composite one piece sidepod and engine cover, separate carbon floor section, structural composite nose box and composite wings.

Front suspension: Wishbones, pushrod operated torsion bars and dampers. Mechanical anti-roll bar. Rear suspension: Wishbones, pushrod operated coil springs and dampers. Mechanical anti-roll bar.

Dampers: Ohlins

Wheels: BBS

Tyres: Bridgestone

Brakes: AP Racing Calipers, Hitco material

Steering: SAF1 power assisted

Steering wheel: SAF1 specification and composite construction

Drivers seat: Driver specific carbon composite

Seat belts: Takata

Fuel cell: ATL kelvar reinforced to SAF1 specification

Battery: 2.5 Ah lead acid

Instrumentation: SAF1 specification

Transmission: SAF1 carbon composite maincase. 7 speed semi automatic electro hydraulically controlled

Clutch: Sachs

RA806E

Displacement: 2.4 litres Configuration: V8 naturally aspirated Vee angle: 90 degrees Maximum power: Over 700 bhp Maximum revs: Over 19,000 rpm Valve train: 4 valves per cylinder, pneumatic valve system Throttle system: Electro hydraulically-operated system Ignition system: Honda PGM-IG Spark Plugs: NGK

TruthCrusader 09:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it's a bit much. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just thought maybe people would want to know the tech parameters of the cars themselves. TruthCrusader 15:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a bit much for the team article. Where there is an article on a specific car you could put it in, though. (Not very many car articles at present - see Brabham BT46B for example (Yes, I'm blowing my own trumpet...)). It would be more relevant there. 4u1e 16:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Formula Dé

I recently created a Formula Dé gallery to go with the page on the Formula Dé board game. I then added the appropriate picture to the bottom of the page for each circuit that has been printed for Formula Dé. Shortly thereafter a user who is a member of this wiki-project removed them as inappropriate to the pages. I thought they were both illustrative (of the circuit layout, sometimes in a past version) and informative, (someone who likes this sport might also like the game). I thought I might see what others here think before adding the pictures back in. —MJBurrage 14:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that while the fact that a given Formula Dé board exists for a circuit might warrant a mention on the circuit page, with a wikilink to Formula Dé gallery, perhaps -- and you should get consensus before adding it, becuase it is somewhat tangential -- it certainly does not deserve either its own section or to have the image of the board included in the article text. Nandesuka 12:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
C trillos, please do not remove comments like this from the talk page. It can be considered vandalism.
Great!, now let's add a section about soup operas in this talking page!, or a section about Italian food or about smallville... The board game Formula Dé does not make part of the Formula One project, as simple as that... Still, let me apologyse for having deleted this topic in the talk page, but my reasons are well fundamented. C trillos
If there was a soap opera that was about Formula 1 drivers, or a Smallville episode where Clark Kent races an F1 car, it would not be unreasonable to raise the issue here. Please work harder at assuming good faith. Thanks for apologizing. Nandesuka 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Formula 1 vs Formula One

I believe that the entire F1 section needs to have every reference to "Formula One" changed to "Formula 1".

All branding material from the FIA refers to it as Formula 1, the official site is formula1.com. I also seem to remember a rant about 1 vs One in Road and Track magazine by Rob Walker (although it could also have been Paul Frere or Phil Hill -- their other F1 honchos).

Comments? -- BarnacleKB 19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've got a personal preference for 'Formula One', but that's not the criteria here. Branding wise there is in fact a mix of '1' and 'One'. Even www.formula1.com uses 'One' in some of its material (See the 'Hall of Fame' entries - http://www.formula1.com/archive/halloffame/ - , for example). Looking at the press releases on the FIA website (http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/f1.html), there's a mix, but with perhaps a majority for 'One' there's a serious majority for 'One' (Edit: 35x 'One' vs 1x '1' in titles of press releases on that page). The sporting and technical regs (http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html) seems to use 'One' (Edit: Sporting regs 24x 'One', 2x '1'. Technical Regs 6 x 'One', 1 x '1'.) On that basis I don't think we can say either way - perhaps we will just have to do what Bernie and the FIA seem to be doing and use either as seems appropriate. In the majority of cases I would argue that that would be 'One' based on my hazy understanding of 'proper' writing for this kind of context.4u1e 10:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (Edited by me, having actually checked the relative numbers of each kind. 4u1e 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC) )
  • I have no particular preference. It could be argued similarly that all references be "The Grand Prix" or "F1". I would go along with a mixture of "1" and "One" until someone can perhaps convince me either way. --Mal 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple of further points - I've had a look at the style guide for numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Numbers) and there's nothing stronger than 'many people prefer numbers less than 10 to be spelt out', which is enough for me to do so in my own writing, but is nothing like sufficient justification for me to go through and correct all numerals less than 10 (ten, whatever) to words. I think this agrees with what I said above. There's no strong reason to jump either way ('1' or 'One'), but I will continue to use 'Formula One' in prose, and probably use Formula 1, or much more rarely F1, for labels, picture titles, column headings etc. Equally where the term appears to be, for example, part of an organisation's name - WilliamsF1 seems to be an example - then I'd go with the form they've used. The second point is responding to Mal's 'Grand Prix' comment - I'm sure you know this, but just to be clear, although an F1 (informal context!) race is a Grand Prix, a Grand Prix is not necessarily an F1 race, so the term should be used with care. 4u1e 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually checked the relative frequency of the terms in FIA sources (see edits above) and the case for 'One' is even stronger than I thought it was, albeit leaving some room for using either as appropriate. It's an FIA championship when all's said and done, so I would regard their usage as pretty definitive. 4u1e 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes 4u1e, I am of course aware of the complications of using "Grand Prix" specifically to refer to F1.. it was just an example though. For the rest of what you said, I agree entirely, and I will probably use roughly the same policy as yourself in future edits. --Mal 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

Someone has recently vandalised Template:F1 driver. We need to keep an eye out for these in particular, as ONE change in ONE of the F1 related templates will change ALL articles which use that template. --Mal 01:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the vandalism by the way. --Mal 01:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Country codes and results tables

At present, there is no uniformity in the three-letter country codes used for Grand Prix countries in results tables. The codes for some countries seem to change with each driver's article (compare the codes for Germany, San Marino, and Malaysia in Kimi Räikkönen and Mark Webber). The standings tables in 2006 Formula One Season use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 for three-letter country codes, and they look much better than the FIA's own 1-3 letter country codes (see example here). Should we adopt ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 as the standard for Wikipedia F1 results tables? Majin Izlude 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah this is probably my doing. I recently rewrote the Mark Webber article and did the results table myself, just using the Olympic country codes as that was what I was most familiar with and didn't realise the ISO codes were already being used. Personally I prefer the IOC ones as they make more "sense" for English speakers (eg GER instead of DEU for Germany; SUI instead of CHE for Switzerland), but I guess since most (all?) of the other tables use ISO i'll fix the Webber article. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to change it right now. All of the Formula One Season tables use ISO currently, but several of the drivers' tables, such as Räikkönen's, do not adhere to either system (using "BAH" for Bahrain and/or "MAL" for Malaysia). The IOC codes may be a better fit than ISO for the reason that you stated. After all, this is the English Wikipedia; if the IOC codes are easier to understand, why not use those? I would wait and see what others think about this before making changes either way. Majin Izlude 12:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I find the FIA 1-3 letter codes quite confusing, but have no real problem with ISO 2- or 3-letter codes. --Scott Davis Talk 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What about ISO versus IOC (Olympic) three-letter codes? Majin Izlude 15:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless wikipedia has an overarching policy on this I'd suggest sticking with the FIA codes for consistency with other records. Do we know, for example, whether the IOC and ISO codes cover exactly the same countries? (As an aside, where did the FIA codes come from? They look like the codes used on stickers to put on the back of your car when driving through Europe?) 4u1e 26 April 2006

It appears that the FIA codes are based on the international license plate codes established by the United Nations Conventions on Road Traffic. Here is the UN's updated list of codes as of August 30, 2004 (in case the codes do not match up with the Wikipedia article).
The FIA's codes (from my first message) match that list for all of the smaller locations (Bahrain, Monaco, Malaysia, etc.), but there are two countries for which they do not match: Colombia and the USA. Colombia was not a part of the UN agreement, but it was given the designation "CO" anyway. The page on fia.com lists Juan Pablo Montoya's nationality as "COL." The USA's code is "USA" in the UN agreement and "US" on the FIA site. That's a bigger problem because we need a code for the US Grand Prix... Majin Izlude 16:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Just my .02: As I was the designing the F1 season results table, I decided upon ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 for one reason, and one reason only: It was the most universal standardization that I could come up with. The way I figured, if we wanted to have a world wide encyclopedia, and wanted to abbreviate throughout the entire encyclopedia as uniformly as possible, the ISO was a good a place as any.

Looking at this from a Encyclopediec POV, as opposed to an F1 POV, I would be opposed to the use of FIA codes where they differ. If we use FIA codes, in a general encyclopedia, we are in effect saying that before you can understand it, you must understand it the Formula One way.

I would also be opposed to the IOC codes, for the reason that they differ for historical reasons from ISO codes. This is not as strong an opposition however, as it is a more general and widely known abbreviation than FIA. -slowpokeiv 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that besides the countries there are also non-country Grand Prix, such as Las Vegas (LVG or LVS ?), Pacific, Europe, USA East and West, which cannnot be covered by ISO, and we would need unified codes for them as well. Could someone put a reference somewhere, like a reference table, I think we should avoid to have DEU and GER for Germany, SPA and ESP for Spain, etc...Hektor 06:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the ISO codes are really odd in some cases. "DEU" for Germany is really not a generally known code, nor is "MYS" for Malaysia. "GER" and "MAL" are much easier to understand. I realise that "DEU" is short for "Deutschland" but it's hardly consistent when Hungary is not "MAG" for example. Also, "SPA" for Spain can be mistaken for Spa Circuit. In addition, countries that no longer exist are not on the ISO list, like East Germany, and as Hektor points out, there are other races like Las Vegas and Pacific that also have no code.
I do a lot of results tables and it would be nice to sort this out and keep it consistent. I would personally go for a system of codes that is just easy to understand, rather than religiously stick to a set code that doesn't really suit our needs. Bretonbanquet 14:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Navigation template

I'm starting to wonder whether one reason that so many visitors to the Formula One main article add inconsequential details about the current season is that there is no obvious route from the main page to the current season details.

I've added a link to 2006 Formula One season to the head of the History section, but thought that a link to Current season could be added to the navigation box at the top right of the page, which I assume is part of the Formula One template.

Does anyone agree and does anyone know how it is done? 4u1e 26 April 2006

Yeh I think it's a good idea. I'll leave it to you to work out whereabouts it should go in the box - edit it here. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So, if it were to look like this:

Current Season Summary:

2006 Formula One season

Articles related to Formula One:

History of Formula One
Formula One regulations
Formula One cars
Formula One racing
Future of Formula One

Lists:
Drivers (Champions)
Constructors (Champions)
Pointscoring system
Grand Prix | Circuits
Records | Engines
Colors | Other People

How would that be? (I removed the 'float right' just for here, but would replace it for the actual template, obviously. 4u1e

Done 4u1e 27 April 2006

Wikilinks

I've found the use of wiki links in F1 articles to be very haphazard. If you mention a year in an F1 article, please link to that year's world championship not to the generic year article (link to the generic year from within the year's world championship article insteadO). If you mention a specific race, don't link to the city (I found a link pointing to Monza) but link to that actual race (e.g. 1994 Italian Grand Prix), and link to the city and race track in the race report. Always wiki link the first mention of a driver, team or manufacturer. Don't create red links for shortlived non-notable spinoff operations, or minor team figures who are only notable for their involvement in that team. Thanks. --kingboyk 06:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, although it's big job. I've been through the History of Formula One article once already, but I think it needs doing again, as it's expanded somewhat since then.....Hey ho! 4u1e 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Grand Prix Masters

Since Grand Prix Masters is for ex-F1 drivers only I think it's within Project scope... Please note that the 2006 Qatar race doesn't have a race report. Calling all Mansell fans who have Sky TV! --kingboyk 06:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Quallifier result tables.

At the moment, Quallifier tables seem to be generaly formated so that the Position presented is the one in qualifier rankings, but not the official grid position. It's become apparent over the season that these positions are almost never identical due to engine changes or other incidents. This makes reading the tables counter intuitive, since it requires the reader to check the notes, then calculate what the grid positions were. This really isn't an acceptable way to tabulate.

So I suggest that we use a different format, where we present both qualifier rankings and ultimate grid position. --Barberio 23:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The actual grid position is shown in the final results table, which i believe is appropriate as this often arises from things outside the qualifying sesson. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it'd clean up the reports significantly if notes on the changes to the starting grid were promoted to a 'Starting Grid Changes' section, instead of being 'notes' on the qualifiers. (This is slightly more logical, as changes to the starting grid affects the main race, not the qualifier)
I'm still not sure if it's right to put the grid position on the final race results. Particualy since we don't get these results till after the race is finished. So this makes it meaningless to someone looking up what the grid will be for a race before it starts. --Barberio 20:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Defunct Teams

I've looked around to see if there was anything about this, but like the search for Shergar it proved fruitless.

Whilst reading through the articles on several of the teams that recently to leave F1, such as BAR, Sauber and Jaguar. One thing they have in common, apart from their distinct lack of victories is that the info boxes down the left hand side of the page have information like Jaguar's drivers are Mark Webber and Christian Klien. Of course, this information is correct so far as Jag's last race, but this implies that Mark Webber still part of the personnel, even though he cut his ties with organisation almost two years ago. In my opinion, when a team ceases to exist, such as the examples above, certain info should be removed such as team personnel.--Ryan86 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're using the same template for defunct teams as for current ones, I think the box should show the last up to date information. However, I think there's probably an argument for creating a slightly different template for defunct teams - for example with a lines for 'notable drivers' or similar in place of current drivers. Webber would probably still appear for Jag for example (alongside Irvine and, well, that's probably it for Jag). To take a team with a longer life, Brabham could list Jack himself as well as Nelson Piquet and Denny Hulme as 'notable drivers'. Because the template would be different, it shouldn't be misleading for the casual reader. You can apply the same principle to several of the other items on the team template. I wouldn't agree with just deleting the info out, because it is of interest to know who used to drive for these teams (or own them, or design the cars etc etc).

Anyone fancy creating a new template? 4u1e 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cough. Johnny Herbert. Won 3 F1 races. Notable racing driver. Cough. --kingboyk 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You want to get something for that cough, mate, sounds nasty! ;-) Point taken, but was JH a notable Jaguar driver? He didn't achieve much with them, but he would certainly be on the list for Stewart (not that it's a long list....) and probably even Benetton as a race winner. You could discuss for hours of course, but I think the general concept is valid - you could arrive at an agreement as to who should be on the list.
Having a different template could also allow for fields such as Best constructors champ rating, best race finish etc, which would avoid all those depressing lists of zeroes against no. of wins etc. I've done something of that sort for Fittipaldi (constructor), but in the standard format. Of course in the case of Enzo Coloni Racing Car Systems and Osella it's going to be pretty depressing anyway, but some teams you just can't help..... 4u1e 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Podiums and Wins

I was about to put an entry on Talk:Juan Pablo Montoya when I saw that it was part of this project, so I thought I would post here instead…. On the article for Juan Pablo Montoya there are many sections, 2 of which are Juan_Pablo_Montoya#Podiums_and_wins and Juan_Pablo_Montoya#Complete_F1_Results. It appears to me that all of the data in the former section is also in the latter. Is this intentional on the part of the project, or something that the project might consider as a cleanup? Removing the Podiums and wins would reduce the page length of the article substantially without removing any non-redundant information, I think. --Brian G 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there's any specific project 'policy' on this - I imagine the podiums/wins section was added before the complete results section, but now it's effectively redundant. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you're right - there's not much consistency on driver or team result presentation anyway, and the new table looks good, so I think you are right to think that the 'podiums & wins' list can go. Probably best to note what you're doing on the article discussion page as well, though. 4u1e 06:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Race Highlights

In the race report, don't you report some race highlights like incidents, overtaking in the track(not overtaking during other drivers pitting)?

Example:

  • Lap 68/70 - M.Schumacher overtaking Raikkonen

--Aleenf1 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indianapolis 500 in Formula One

Hello, I understand that the Indianapolis 500 was a Formula One race from 1950 to 1960, so you are considering participants in the race during those years as Formula One drivers. Many of these drivers, however, had the Indianapolis 500 as their only race(s) in the Formula One series. Some of the articles for these drivers, example Bud Tingelstad, are written as though the driver was just a footnote in history, despite the fact that they may have had (in his case) 120 starts in the USAC Championship Car series. Is there any intent to do more with these articles, or if I wanted them to be more representative of their true careers am I "on my own"? --Brian G 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the case for a large proportion of F1 drivers who participated in few F1 races, but many many races in other series. I think a bot of some sort was used to create articles for every F1 driver, using their F1 stats and so there isn't much info on their other driving. It would be great to see all driver articles have full info on them.. I won't be able to help out for a while as I'm working on some other things but I'm sure there are a few people who could lend a hand. Try nominating an article for the collaboration project that is starting up, here. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. The page you linked me to appears to be for nominating pages for feature status. Is that where you meant to send me? I didn't want to innapropriately post somethig onto the wrong page. --Brian G 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The link's for nominating articles to be selected articles for portal:Formula One - part of the process for that is to get an improvement drive going to get an article up to WP:GA standard. So, feel free to nominate there if you want to improve an F1 related article - although it is the F1 portal, so you might feel that the focus isn't quite right for what you're proposing. Depends on which driver I guess!
As far as your suggestion goes - certainly expand them. My view is that the article is on the driver, not the 'F1 driver', so if they have done notable things elsewhere then these should be detailed (apparently Mario Andretti also competed outside F1......) user:4u1e 5 July 2006
I tend to agree that the folks that are members of this project may not have the priority to improve these articles. They would probably (rightly) prefer to work on the articles of drivers that are more notable to F1 than to other areas. What I am currently working on is the creation of articles for drivers who participated in the Indianapolis 500, so that when someone looks at the results page for one of them, they see at least something representative of their career, instead of a redlink. For most of these drivers which I have encountered, their primary career was in CART or USAC Championship Car. So far I've worked back from 2006 through 1972 and have created ~89 articles in this area. Along the way, I will sometimes see an article like Sam Posey which I added to yesterday, or Bud Tingelstad, which I have not added to yet, but did prompt me to bring this up here. I guess I don't mind continuing to update these on my own, but it would be great if I could at least get a bit of help identifying which of the F1 drivers I might want to look at. Is there any chance I could get a list of F1 drivers who have participated only in Grand Prix that took place in the United States (Indianapolis 500, United States Grand Prix, United States Grand Prix East, United States Grand Prix West, Las Vegas Grand Prix without the "pink years" I guess)? I think that this might help me to at least ensure that I don't overlook any by accident, since it is likely that someone whose only F1 experience occurred in North America would probably have raced in an American Championship Car series. --Brian G 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
A start could be the List of Formula One drivers, which has a note (i think #1) for drivers who only competed in F1-included Indy 500s. I will have a look at some F1 stats websites – I don't have access at the moment – to see if I can get a list like that. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I would truly appreciate it. --Brian G 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

F1 Drivers by Nationality

The conversation above sent me looking at List of Formula One drivers, which I had not really noticed before. This got me to noticing that there are many more drivers listed here than there are in all the Categories which roll up into Category:Formula One drivers by nationality. It looks like there are 2 primary reasons for this:

  1. There are 101 drivers who have note 1 (Competed only in Indianapolis 500 events) and only 6 of them are listed in the "drivers by nationality" category. I assume that it is intentional that these are not listed; do you want the flag removed from the 6 for consistency or added to the other 95? I'm guessing that you want it removed from the 6.
  2. There are 65 drivers who have note 2 (Never started a Formula One race) and 25 of them are listed in the "drivers by nationality" category. I'm not sure it this is intentional or not; do you want the flag removed from the 25 or added to the other 40?

I have all of these noted in a spreadsheet, so I would be happy to make all of the updates, I just need you to tell me how you would like things from a consistency standpoint. Also, if I do add the drivers to the categories, do you want them removed from the non-F1 categories? I would not think so for the "note 1's", since F1 was not their primary series of racing, but I will follow whatever the consensus dictates. --Brian G 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


"DNP"

I've noticed that the abbreviation DNP is used quite a lot in instances where a driver was not even entered for a GP. Are we taking it to mean "Did not participate"? It normally means "Did not practice" in my experience. We don't seem to be differentiating between drivers who were entered for a race and didn't actually turn a wheel, and drivers who were not entered at all. For instance Yuji Ide is still being listed as DNP in current races even though he is nowhere near a race seat. Wouldn't a dash be better than DNP in these cases, and the term "DNP" could be left for more specific "Did not practice" examples, such as those enjoyed by Perry McCarthy.

To me, DNP somehow suggests an actual involvement in a race weekend, and in many cases these drivers weren't even at the circuit. Bretonbanquet 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, the square can just be left blank. I know this would never happen, but under the current system you could list Yuji Ide as "DNP" for the 1951 Indianapolis 500 as well. For cases such as Montoya in 2005 and Schumacher in 1999, "Inj" could be used to indicate although they did not attend the race weekend, they would have apart from the injury (ie they were still under contract or something). Putting so many "DNP"'s (see 2005 Formula One season#Drivers, Zonta and Davidson; or Pedro de la Rosa's 2005-06 seasons) is going overboard IMO, especially when they were not expected to participate in the first place. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, for what it's worth. 4u1e

So what happens? Can I go and change this or do we need a wider vote or something? The Perry McCarthy article now has a results table which is misleading. Will people just revert if I try to improve the tables in this way? Bretonbanquet 11:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should go along and change it wherever you think it is necessary. Your proposal is reasonable and if anyone has a serious problem with the "DNP" not showing, they can bring it up here and it can be discussed in more detail. But I cannot think of any possible strong case for keeping them in. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it'll be a lot of work, but I'll crack on with it and see if anyone objects! Thanks very much as well for your help on my talk page about citing sources - much appreciated. Bretonbanquet 11:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the DNP is fine. I tried leaving it blank but it seems like the data is missing or not yet available (like future races). I agree with what you say but if the driver has not participated in any of the races in a particular year. Instead of leaving it blank I would suggest putting TD(Test Driver) since in most cases the quick replacement is the third or test driver. -Aprithvi 07:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's OK for current drivers because many of the drivers who don't actually race do test on Fridays, but in the past that was not the case. When a driver was dropped from the team, or seriously injured for example, usually he was out and stayed out - it's misleading to put DNP in for those occasions. In cases when a driver was killed, it's not good to put DNP in for the following races. I have changed DNP in the key to mean "Did not practice" anyway, for occasions when a driver was entered for a race and present at the circuit, but did not drive the car. That's what it usually means in stats books etc. If anyone is confused by a blank box, a simple click on the link will explain that the driver wasn't entered for the race anyway.

I'd like to add TD for Friday test drivers anyway - any objections? Bretonbanquet 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a N/A (not applicable) to replace all the DNP's. I just feel anythings better than leaving it empty. And im totally fine with TD (it was my idea after all:P)-Aprithvi 07:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of TD in the results tables (like 2006 Formula One season#Drivers). The results tables are (in my opinion) for the results of the drivers participating in the race. It will be much less "readable" if filled by TD's etc. for races a driver didn't participate in. All in all, I think we should leave a cell blank if the driver wasn't 1st driver, 2nd driver or stand-in for one of these (who may be EX, DSQ, ill etc.) in that particular race.
Please, also take a look at my edit on Template:F1 driver results legend (my apologies to Bretonbanquet, I didn't see this discussion until after my edit – but also, your edit comments could have been more informative ;-) —Fred Bradstadt 10:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This was always going to create differing opinions. I wanted to change a few things and the concensus here was to do away with the DNP thing. OK, but its replacement is causing a problem. What I want to do is make sure each driver has a readable and accurate set of results. Personally I don't mind leaving the boxes empty where a driver took no part in the GP - it seems relatively clear what it means. N/A might be OK, but it might look cluttered again, like the great string of DNPs we used to have. Let's see what anyone else says about it.

The TD thing, I think, is quite important. For Vitantonio Liuzzi for instance, it explains what he was doing on the occasions he wasn't racing. I think it's clear what TD means, and it's very relevant to a driver's career. Also some of these drivers did not test at every race, so it clarifies which races he attended and which he didn't. Overall, it doesn't really affect many drivers in the grand scheme of things anyway, so I don't see a problem. I didn't really think anyone would object, but again, let's see if anyone else has an opinion.

I'm going to reinstate DNA to the key because it's a perfectly adequate way to describe a driver who was entered and didn't turn up for whatever reason - it beats leaving a box blank. I put the explanation of the blank box on the key exactly because one or two people thought an explanation might be necessary - personally I don't, but I can only do what people generally feel is wanted. Thanks for your input Fred Bradstadt - I'll improve my edit comments if you promise to read the discussion page before telling me that I didn't discuss things before editing  :o) I just want to create a bit of uniformity and completeness with the driver results in a way that everyone likes - I was quite surprised to see how many drivers have no results shown at all. Bretonbanquet 17:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Anyway, what confused me was that the discussion was on this page and not on Template talk:F1 driver results legend. I'll keep an eye on this page from now on :o) Fred Bradstadt 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Azdrubal Fontes Bayardo

Someone's trying to get this article deleted. We need to expand this and similar articles and make them more informative to stop people thinking these drivers were total failures, and thus non-notable. Bretonbanquet 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have expanded this article, and this nutcase still wants it deleted. Judging by his user talk page, he's always been lots of trouble, but I'd be grateful if a few people could go over and vote for the AFB article to be kept. Thanks. Bretonbanquet 19:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to those who showed an interest here - the result was Keep. Bretonbanquet 11:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, "Robertsteadman" has been indefinately blocked so Azdrubal Fontes Bayardo can RIP. On a side note, I think that anyone who has ever even been considered for a test role in a team deserves an article. F1 is the pinnacle of motor sports and the elite few who can get a sniff of the race track deserve recognition. -Aprithvi 07:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - I for one am ecstatic that this guy is no longer a problem to anyone. He just wanted to delete anything he didn't understand. I agree with your other point too - I'll start articles for any tester I come across without one. Bretonbanquet 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Championship Car Racing

In case anyone is interesting in voicing an opinion on this topic, either pro or con, the article American Championship Car Racing is currently under review for deletion. --Brian G 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Race Winners

Im not sure if this already exists. If it doesnt, how about we have a list of ALL grand prix winners. i.e. we just have every winners first name listed. I thought this would be a good idea since there are a limited number of race winners. if the list is too small we can make it all those who have reached podium. Thoughts? Cheers, -Aprithvi 07:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick Q:

What is armco? Reason I ask, whilst adding an infobox to Jochen Rindt, I had the occasion to stumble upon the race report for the 1970 German Grand Prix, which states that "...the race was moved to Hockenheim as this track already had been fitted with armco." OK, I'm a newbie, but what is armco? -slowpokeiv 14:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Armco is those crash barriers you see at the side of the tracks, usually placed on corners or other places where accidents have been known to happen and stuff behind it that needs protection. Armco barrier failures were partially responsible for the deaths of Roger Williamson, François Cevert, Peter Revson and Helmuth Koinigg--- Lec CRP1 17:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Juan Jover

Hmm, looks like Juan Jover (DNS the 1951 Spanish Grand Prix) was afd'd in March. Course of action, if any? -slowpokeiv 14:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you have a couple of options:
  1. If you remember it being a pretty good article, you can request undeletion per WP:UNDEL under the clause of "A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen because someone was not aware of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AFD)"
  2. Per WP:DRV, you can just create a new article via WP:BOLD. If you are afraid that the article may get deleted again before it has enough content, you can always create it in a sandbox here in the project space and then move it once you think it is “ready for prime-time”.
Hope that helps. --Brian G 16:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Some driver articles, especially about older drivers from the 1950s, still need major updating. I've expanded Johnny Claes and Jacques Swaters, but I'm sure there are others who need attention in order to escape any possible AFD. --Pc13 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we just had the Azdrubal Fontes Bayardo article up for deletion and I had to scour Uruguyan websites and ancient Argentinian stats books to expand the article. It's not easy to expand some of these, but people out there love to try and delete them  :o( Bretonbanquet 20:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned it at the Azdrubal Fontes Bayardo debate and I'll do so again here. An option would be to group the less notable drivers into collections (Uruguyan Formula One drivers, for example). This would render them less liable to AFD, as each article would be more notable in itself. As (if!) each driver's entry was expanded they could be split off into full articles of their own. Just a thought, and no I'm not volunteering to do it, I've got enough on my plate already! :-D Anyone want to expand the Minardi article for the next portal:Formula One selected article? You've seen Damon Hill's meteoric rise, Minardi could be next.... 4u1e

Hill Article

WikiProject Forumla One's second featured article! Keep up the good work guys. Lets try and increase the frequency of our articles and make formula one a regular feature on the wiki main page. Cheers, -Aprithvi 07:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the opportunity here to plug the 'Selected Article' process for F1 articles. Damon Hill was the first one selected through this process and was improved pretty rapidly up to FA status. Gilles Villeneuve was brought up to WP:GA status as well. We're now working on Minardi.
You can vote for the next article to be the subject of an improvement drive at Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management of selected articles. Feel free to vote and if you can think of ways of getting more people involved, go for it! 4u1e

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index

Are you aware of the above effort to list article assessments by way of a bot? Most major WikiProjects are using it now and yours is a noticeable absentee. --kingboyk 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Martin Donnelly

I would have posted this on the article discussion page, but I am inexplicably blocked from editing that one page on the whole of Wikipedia...

This is an argument I'm not sure I want to have, but I think Donnelly is from the UK. Rightly or wrongly, Northern Ireland is part of the UK and I think he raced under a British licence. Does anyone know anything more? If not, I'll change it. Bretonbanquet 20:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

All the 1990 and 1991 F1 guides I remember reading had him with a British flag. --Pc13 11:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion already been had, consensus, to sum up, Union Jack in all cases applicable. (England, N Ireland, Wales and Scotland)-slowpokeiv 19:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, more or less, but I wanted to be sure. I'll go and change it, if no-one has already done so. I do get the occasional ear-bashing for changing English to British, like here: Chris Craft - but I'm glad I was basically holding the line that was reached by concensus. Bretonbanquet 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Drivers Championship final standings 1981–90

I must be having too much time on my hands... Anyway, I made a bunch of "Drivers Championship final standings" tables:

Please, if you have the time, have a look at them :-) I may have entered (or copied) some errors/mistakes, and we all want Wikipedia to be exact and precise now, don't we? Furthermore, I have two questions:

  1. I have made 'WD' same color as 'Ret', 'DNPQ' same color as 'DNQ', 'NC' same color "finished, no points". Did I do it right?
  2. If two drivers ended the season scoring the same amount of points (see for example Senna and Mansell in 1984), according to the current FIA rules (sec. 25), Senna would win because he has a 2nd place while Mansells best finish was 3rd. But did we have the same rules back then? In the previous standings table (see below my new one) Mansell is listed as 9th with Senna 10th... Who can clarify? (I know that 1984 Monaco GP was stopped because of rain, and that ½ points were given)

That's all for now. I'm looking forward to read your comments. Fred Bradstadt 08:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that must have been a lot of work. I couldn't find any mistakes after a quick look through, and I think your use of the colours is spot on. Like you say, the biggest thing to watch out for is that some of the points-scoring rules were different in those days, like when Jo Gartner and Gerhard Berger weren't given any points despite finishing 5th and 6th on one occasion.
As for Senna and Mansell in '84, I'm fairly sure Senna was 9th and Mansell 10th, although I'm not sure exactly why. The fact he scored a 2nd place at Monaco sounds like a good bet. Nice work! Bretonbanquet 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject for Sports Car Racing

User:The359 has proposed the creation of a Wikiproject for sports car racing. Since many F1 drivers and teams throughout history have taken part in sports car racing, I believe WP:F1 project members might be interest in this. If anyone wants to support this project, please go here: Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject:Sports Car Racing --Pc13 11:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


TfD nomination of Template:FairuseF1

Template:FairuseF1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Abu Badali 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

F1 Race Report

It's been suggested at WP:RFF that the heading "Notes" used on F1 Race Reports might be better replaced with another title, to avoid confusion with the "Footnotes" heading. I personally agree with this, and feel a more appropriate title should be used. I'm not sure how we'd go about changing all the race reports, and if a bot could perhaps be used to modify them should we decide to change it. Do others agree with a change or is it clear enough as it is. Alexj2002 11:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

2005 United States Grand Farce

OK, an American asking for help here: I hear a rumour that the 2005 United States Grand Prix was not aired in full in other countries. (Who could blame them?) As I am in the US of A, I have not the proof required to add this information to the article. (one point of contention blocking this article from FA status.) If someone that was watching the race (or even better, wasn't able to) could please add a referenced comment (something to the effect of that TV's web site apologizing, or something like that) I would appreciate it. Thanks, -slowpokeiv 22:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In Denmark, TV 2 aired the entire race. --Fred Bradstadt 05:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Same in Australia. I must say I haven't heard this before – and Bernie has pretty strict contracts with the television stations I think. The USGP this year was shown in Australia an hour before the advertised time because someone stuffed up the time difference and they are actually not allowed to show that race delayed (most other races are shown delayed). – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In the UK, the race was shown in its entirety, including the podium 'celebrations' and the press conference.--Diniz 12:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See this link [7] and particuarly post #570. Post 660 of the same thread said TF1 did not show the race at all. I can't confirm or deny any of the above but hopefully someone might know where to look. --Jsydave 12:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tire Manufacturer Templates

Going off of the work of those who created templates for B, M, P , and G , I've expanded it to include every tire manufacturer who has participated in Formula 1 except Englebert, simply because I can't find a conclusive color scheme for them.

  • I have a nice enamel plate advertisement in my garage for Englebert and the dominating color is yellow and blue Image Englebert...Hektor 15:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

All tire templates (including tire companies that race outside of F1) are available at this category. The359 04:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Template F1 teams

Dear all, please take a look at Template talk:Formula One teams#Proposal. Thank you, Mxcatania 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)