Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

[]
WPF1 open tasks:
• Article requests: Daniele Coronna, Hans Fouche, Chris Radage, Tamiya radio-controlled Formula One cars, John Hogan, Bryan Bozzi
• Copyedit: Bahrain Grand Prix, History of Formula One, Monaco Grand Prix, 2006 San Marino Grand Prix, Rob White (Formula One), Rob Smedley
• Expand: Paddy Lowe, Red Bull RB3, Spyker F1, Toyota TF107, BMW Sauber F1.07, Mario Theissen, Franz Tost, Chinese Grand Prix, Colin Kolles, Concorde Agreement, Formula One Constructors Association, McLaren MP4/1, Ove Andersson, Bob Bell, Korea International Circuit, Grand Prix Drivers' Association, Spyker F8-VII, Arai (company), Shoei, Schuberth Helme GmbH, Bell Racing Company, Jim Bamber, Nazir Hoosein, Formula One video games, Make Cars Green, Jonathan Legard, Michael Turner (illustrator) more
• Update: 2024 Formula One season, Will Stevens, Manor Marussia F1, History of Formula One
• Images needed: 2008 Turkish Grand Prix, Paul Rosche more
• For more work, see this generated list or the Auxiliary list

Which flag for the Pacific Grand Prix?

An editor has changed the flagicon associated with the Pacific Grand Prix from the Pacific Community flag () to the Japanese flag () in Pacific Grand Prix, 1994 Pacific Grand Prix, 1995 Pacific Grand Prix and List of Formula One Grands Prix. Do we think this is a good change? If so, then we should make the same change in 1994 Formula One season and 1995 Formula One season, for consistency. DH85868993 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I know my comment might be slightly deviating from current concern of this thread, but how about we get rid of all the flags (including the once listed above and numerous others) where flags are being used in violation of a well accepted guideline. MOS:FLAG discourages use of flags in cases where there is no nationalistic importance attached to the entity in question. e.g. A Grand Prix that is staged in a nation is actually held or organized by a private company/consortium of companies that are in most cases not representatives of nationalistic pride or the sovereign government. This logic is even more obvious to Formula One teams which really are private companies and do not represent the respective nations they are located in, as they are presented when prefixed by respective national flags. ^LeaveSleaves 02:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a well-accepted guideline why hasn't an editor associated with MOS:FLAG written a 'bot' to run through all corporate/commercial sports articles and wiped them all clean of flags then? If the question is that simple, then the answer is that simple.

Unless it is not simple. And unless the well-accepted guideline is not well-accepted and has been rejected by the majority of sports-focussed articles.

Choose. --Falcadore (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that a bot isn't written to implement that guideline does not mean that it's not well accepted. Also, could you give me a case or a consensus where a sport-related community (read Wikiproject) has actually rejected this guideline? On a second thought, forget it. What happens on other Wikiprojects is of no concern here. ^LeaveSleaves 03:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We had a discussion a while back about changing the flags for such things as the Las Vegas Grand Prix and stuff to the country, rather than the city or region. Add to that the fact that the "Pacific Community" flag is a poor choice, as Japan isn't even a member of the Pacific Community! ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a flag, it should be the Japanese. The Pacific Community flag doesn't really suit the context. Readro (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Readro. Though I am not in favour of a flag in this context. I think for the teams it serves some purpose, as they do race under a flag that may not be obvious (Red Bull being Austrian etc). For the venues? I don't need a flag to tell me that the race in Japan is in Japan. Or that the British Grand Prix that is in Britain is British. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But it's PACIFIC not the same case as Britain is Britain. It's the Pacific Grand Prix but because hat isn't a country it has a host country. The Six Nations of Rugby has a host for each test. It doesn't change the 6Nations logo. Chubbennaitor 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that Laguna Seca staged the Pacific Grand Prix in the 1960s. A Japanese flag is almost sweeping this under the carpet. Readro (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I say, if we give it one, a Japanese flag is the only one we should consider because it is the only flag that /adds/ any information not included in the name. The same with the Europe one, god knows why we are using the EU flag (Which is pretty dense of us, the EU flag is not the flag of Europe. Switzerland et al do exist). Personally I'd prefer less flags, but if we are going to have them, at least make them useful not decorative. Were we to have no flags, I am as well informed as if there were no flags on all those (if the pacific community one was there, hell, I'd even say misled on the San Marino) --Narson ~ Talk • 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We use the European Union flag because FOM uses it as well. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We use them and they aren't decorative. The simpler the pages the more user friendly. Chubbennaitor 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

The EU flag is decorative. It provides zero information not covered by 'European Grand Prix'. A flag of the nation the race is held in might provide more information. (Though then you do run into that San Marino problem). If it is just going to be a flag that represents the name of the event, the flag is certainly decorative. To sum up: I'd rather not have the flag, but if we are, it should reflect where the race is held so at least there is some attempt to be informative. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It is not decorative as it's the 'EUROPEAN GRAND PRIX so a EUROPEAN FLAG is necessary. Two German or Spanish flags are confusing. It's in Europe but it isn't a certain country which makes it confusing over time. It tells us that it's the European GP not the second Spanish Grand Prix which is wrong in its own sense. All the media use what we've been using for so long. Chubbennaitor 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So if there is no European flag you don't know that the European Grand Prix is in Europe? What information is being conveyed by so many flags next to names that convey the same meaning as the flag? --Narson ~ Talk • 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

the fact of the matter is that it's the European not the Second Spanish GP! How can you not see that? Putting a flag that's different from the text is just confusing from someone who is new to the sport. Chubbennaitor 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I havn't asserted that a flag is necessary there at all Chubbennaitor. I'm asking you why you think a flag /at all/ is useful in that situation, in the British Grand Prix situation? If we are simply putting a flag next to a country or entity represented by that flag every time, then what purpose does it serve? Where is the informational gain? Is it not simply decorative? --Narson ~ Talk • 21:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If we take a closer look at various cases of flag usage the bottom line comes out that the flags are in fact decorative and are being used at own discretion (either sole or group) of editors. As we are discussing various cases of flag usage such as Pacific and European, let me put in another example that created minor debate at 2009 F1 article: whether to use UAE flag or Abu Dhabi flag for Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Now in this case nothing would be the correct answer because the venture of hold this Grand Prix lies on neither of the entities that represent that flag. Ergo, there should be no flag there. Any flag usage would be purely decorative. Also, I'd like to ask The359 where does FOM use the flags for Grand Prix. ^LeaveSleaves 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The F1.com website does not appear to have one now, but I'm fairly certain that the European Union flag has been displayed on their website before. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

By way of summary, neither the Pacific Community or European Union flags are really appropriate because Pacific and European Grands Prix have been held in nations not belonging to the Pacific Community (Iida, Japan) or the European Union (Bremgarten, Switzerland). Several other Grands Prix has nebulous even false names, like Swiss Grands Prix held in France, San Marino Grands Prix held in Italy, several different names for Spanish races, European Grand Prix tags used to conveniently give access at various times for Spain, Germany, Italy and Britain to hold second Grands Prix for commercial reasons, and in almost all cases the usage is mostly decorative as the flag will sit next to a description which then states the name of the nation in the flag, making the flag itself superflous information. The only cases where the flag could be used are those misnamed grand prix were general the wrong flags are then used, correct?

I'd almost rather propose to have the name of the soccer article changed again. Let's make a decision and stick with it instead of wringing our hands over the issue every two months. --Falcadore (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

They aren't decorative. They are slightly decorative but they make the article interesting and slightly more informative for the younger generation. Chubbennaitor 07:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If think you've just defined decorative with that statement. --Falcadore (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? It makes the page look boring and uninteresting without colour. Flags add colour and people watching. Can we just leave it as it is because otherwise we are in danger of ignoring all media and I think the Official site. Christmas trees have decoration to make them look good. Who wants a boring tree in their house? No-one will want it and it won't be christmas. A boring house s not a nice place to live is it? Chubbennaitor 08:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

An article is not Christmas and flags and not Christmas trees. A flag is a symbol and representation of certain entity and like logo of a a company, it should not be used unless the flag's purpose truly and completely fits the need of its usage. If you wish to "decorate" an article to make it "interesting" try other stuff such as tables, charts or images. ^LeaveSleaves 12:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, we are not a pop up book for 12 year olds. We are an encyclopedia. As has been pointed out several times in the thread, MOS:FLAG deprecate the use of decorative flags, they clutter the page, they often take away from the text (in my opinion), they can be misleading (As is the case with some of the ones used in the list of F1 races) and they make the Encyclopedia look less academic and serious (Again, that one is my opinion. Try to hand in an undergraduate essay with unnecessary images, you'll get reamed.) --Narson ~ Talk • 12:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (ec)

Excuse me? We don't want more tables. What do you hate about flags being there? W aim it at everyone. I can't see anyone understanding that page who's under 13! There's such a thing as too much text some times and a flag means that you know that it's going to be a certain thing. If I see a Spanish flag in an F1 article I know that it's going to be about Spain or a Spanish GP. We are also supposed to be interesting not a plain boring piece of text that only people who are interested in will read. If you want us to be boring then get rid of the flags and the tables and the images and the boxes. If one of them go the page loses the interest by 20% immediately. The old GP articles without info boxes I've never read because they look boring. The articles are not essays because if they are then look above. Simple WP is useless because most people who need have no awareness of it. Chubbennaitor 13:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? The spannish flag tells you that it is about the Spanish Grand Prix on the List of F1 Grand Prix article? The fact next to the spanish flag we have written out Spanish Grand Prix doesn't do that? I have no problem with the flags in some locales, next to a driver name a nationality flag isn't necessarily a bad idea. To avoid repeating something over and over again in info boxes or grids. I'm sure there are some great uses for flags, but that article? Not so much. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

so Spanish flag next to European GP makes sense to someone who's new or in fact hasn't read that much into it? Chubbennaitor 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Any race named after an entity on a higher level than a country or on a non-geographic basis shouldn't have a flag at all. Readro (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Again Chubb, I prefer /no/ flag on the tables on that page, as they are being used in violation of the MOS. They are just decorative. My point about the spanish flag was that it would be the only way a flag could be used to convey information not covered by the name of the GP on that page. Just ditch the flags. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of reducing the proliferation of flags across the articles. In this case, neither the Pacific Community flag nor the Japanese flag are accurate, and in the absence of an accurate flag, there should be no flag. Likewise for the European Grand Prix. It's not the European Union Grand Prix, so the EU flag is not the correct flag to use, regardless of who else uses it for this purpose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And? I'm sorry but why can't flags be used. As soon as you all realise something isn't a tiny it wrong it is all wrong and nothing should be used. A flag isn't decorative. It's worked since they were first used. Without the flags it all looks boring. Why can't you understand that without any type of colour a table is pretty much just boring and no-one will be interested. the closest flag we have to europe is the EU flag. we actually have a Pacific flag and therefor is 100% true and not misleading. spain last time I checked was in the EU. every European GP has been in a EU country. so not untrue at all. why are flags so bad? They haven't mislead anyone and they aren't ow. If it is an 'area' GP then we use that area's flag not the host countries flag. a flag is the only thing that makes the race links look any where near interesting. there are a few drivers that have two flags for obvious reasons, are you also sayng that they shouldn't have a flag? Chubbennaitor 18:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you want, a decorative border? Cherubs in each corner? Wikipedia isn't about making articles look pretty. If people find the pages boring, then they're likely to be people who don't have the concentration span to read past the first paragraph anyway. Regarding your other points - yes, we have a Pacific Community flag, but that's an organisation of which Japan is not part, so it's not appropriate. That's the whole reason we're having this discussion. Not every European GP has been in an EU country - it's been held in Monaco and Switzerland in the past. There is no European flag, only the EU flag, which is a political organisation not representative of the sport in any way. With regard to flags for drivers, I think there are also too many per page, but that's not the issue at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. People won't read past the first paragraph unless they really want learn; that means the majority of english speakers will only read the tables glance at a few sentences and images and read the title becase most don't have the time or the necessity to learn. By making the areas most will read slightly more interesting. In which case there is no point in removing the flags as the written work is only for the minority. I've already said that the closest thing we have is the EU or Pacific flag. But why remove the whole of the flags. You've narrowed it back down to the original 'rebels' again. If they're the problem then put the host country down. Don't go stupid and destroy flags altogether. Why do we have to ignore what the FIA and media are doing; putting flags in. I want to follow the majority then we can't be blamed for being wrong. (Don't patronise me ever again). Chubbennaitor 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this conversation is getting ridiculous. Written work is for the minority? Then why are we creating FAs, for self gratification? People won't read because if a flag is removed from top of the page? Be serious. And just so you know, FIA or any related organizations do not use flags except to denote driver's nationality. ^LeaveSleaves 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The written work is only for the minority? Why bother at all then? Why don't we just make a picture book? The EU flag represents the European Union, a political organisation which is not the same as Europe the geographical entity. Indeed there are several countries that are a member of one but not the other. The Pacific Community is a political organisation to represent the views of islands in the Pacific Ocean. This, again, is not equivalent to the geographical entity. Japan isn't a member. So that rules out those flags. For the races, such as 1995 Pacific Grand Prix, I don't see why we couldn't use the Japanese flag, but for the main article, Pacific Grand Prix, using the Japanese flag is a no-go because it hasn't solely been held in Japan. Likewise with European Grand Prix. For those two articles it would be best to remove the flags. Readro (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Chubbenaitor, you've made the same point several times now and I just don't agree with you at all. If the written work is only for the minority, then we might as well all go and do something else - that's about the most bizarre comment I've ever read here. Most of us aren't here to try and help people who aren't interested in the articles, especially at the expense of accuracy. I have no idea what you mean by 'original rebels', and I have never suggested removing all the flags. (Don't leave threatening little comments in your posts). Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the Pacific and European GPs. If you aren't suggesting removing all the race flags then go ahead with what you want to do. Just don't get rid of race flags. Which threats? Technically this isn't a edit conflict. Chubbennaitor 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So was I. I am referring to the race flags for the European and Pacific races, and the debate is which flag to use. For the race articles, I suggest using the flag of the country the race is held in, not the Pacific / EU flags. For the generic European Grand Prix and Pacific Grand Prix articles, I suggest no flags. Lastly I was referring to your comment in brackets at the end of your previous post, which could be construed as a threat. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I'll start changing after two more agreements. Well you shouldn't patronise me then. Chubbennaitor 20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't patronising you. If you have a specific issue with something I've said, address it constructively rather than making jabs or threats, if that's what it was. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't a threat it was a reminder. Do you agree so I can go round changing everything to what we've agreed on above. Chubbennaitor 21:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit late perhaps, but after reading all of these comments I would also support removing the flags from the general suprnational Grand Prix articles, and changing to the flag of the country where the race took place for individual Grands Prix that are affected by this discussion.--Diniz(talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me started again. Flags are productive and I will argue to my death to keep them. I'll get started changing the flags to the host country then. Chubbennaitor 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, rather than commit seppuku, you could just brush up on MOS:FLAG and engage in a policy based debate. Though yes, removing the flags from the supernational grand prixs et al would be a good idea. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have changed the flags to just as wrong as they were before. ^LeaveSleaves 21:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Did we agree to this? I mean, I suggested it, but I was thinking of the race articles - specifically the flag in the race article infobox. I wasn't thinking of every reference to the European Grand Prix everywhere. This needs a lot more of a consensus before any action is taken. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I got consensus by enough people to carry out the task. I did hat I was under the impression we were doing. This is why I said it was a bad idea. Revert them if they are bad but I started a job I thought had enough consensus to carry through. I haven't done the Pacific GPs yet. started at the season articles because they ere quick and easy to do. If you wan them reverted I'll do it myself. Chubbennaitor 22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You consider two editors agreeing as consensus? In fact, it is not even two if you read Bretonbanquet's last comment. Seemed like you were acting at your own discretion without even waiting for others' response to your question as to whether you should start changing the flags. ^LeaveSleaves 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had more. I'm human and I'm aloud to make mistakes. Are we keeping the edits or not? Chubbennaitor 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus having just read this discussion. And you're argument "Flags are productive and I will argue to my death to keep them", is a rather invalid argument... people are here to read articles, not to look at flags. D.M.N. (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they were the main part of the article and stop telling me off for what I thought was good nature before I loose the will to live. Chubbennaitor 18:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Chubb, the references to the whole 'Wikipedia is my life' stuff combined with the 'loose the will to live' and 'Fight to the death' is getting somewhat troubling. I'd suggest tweaking it down a bit, someone could take it the wrong way and think you are serious. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's good to take a step back - this Wikipedia business is best not taken too seriously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well. Try and see why I'm saying it; it's the only way you'll actually listen. Now, are we carrying on with the flags or not? I will revert all of those edits if it's seen as a bad idea. I take the last few issues very seriously but I don't really see this place as a full commitment but you need to have some though. Chubbennaitor 20:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See, the "only way you'll actually listen" stuff is pretty insulting. I can't speak for everyone but I understand your point, I just don't agree with it. I think we all have plenty of commitment. The flag issue needs further discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? We reached an agreement, we can say where though and I'm sure I'll agree with you. But am I reverting my edits or not? Chubbennaitor 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Skimming through the discussion, I don't see any agreement forming here. I suggest disengaging for 24 hours or so, and revisting this in a day or two, because this discussion is starting to get heated. D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If the country where the race took place could be put near the header for the infobox maybe you could have the flag next to that? Britmax (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely that would be pointless, as they would usually be the same country, and if it was not the same, it would make it confusing, defeating the concept of infoboxes? DeMoN2009 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I've been lurking on this discussion and thought to finally put in my two-cents. The problem boils down to the issue that flags being placed next to the name of some races (notably the European Grand Prix and the Pacific Grand Prix) can be erroneous, misleading, and/or confusing since those races have been held in different countries over the years. MOS:FLAG does have a "Use historical flags in contexts where the difference matters" clause. Meaning if we are talking about the European Grand Prix held in 19xx the appropriate flag to use would be for the country 'hosting' the race in 19xx. If we are talking about the European Grand Prix in a more general context, no one flag would be appropriate. This would suggest to me that a flag, if used at all, should be used for an individual race based on the country 'hosting' that race, but a flag should not be used for discussion of the Gran Prix in wider context. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, that's the way I'm thinking too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean what I did was right? I also looked at the official site and for Europe they used the spanish flag. Chubbennaitor 21:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, yes but we needed more people to gain a decent consensus - hopefully now a few more people can chime in with their thoughts on the specific action as outlined by TreyGeek. Secondly, and I fear this is where Chubb and I part company, I don't think there should be any flags in the table of races in the season articles - it's enough to say "GP of France" or whatever, without the need for a French flag. Chubb disagrees but I just don't think they're necessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think we overuse flags and would support a reduction. To be honest, I'm not sure why the drivers need them next to their names all the time - they're not officially representing a national team, just themselves and their contracted team. Readro (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that - in race articles, the drivers have a flag in the qualifying table, another one in the results table, then another one if they're in the leading drivers' table. I think it's overkill and maybe one flag per driver per article is enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do they even need one flag? The flags do tend to emphasise nationality and I'm not sure there's really justification for it. Readro (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is something that WP:MOSFLAG is a bit vague about. The drivers don't represent a national team, so does their nationality actually matter? On the other hand, some people might consider nationality important enough to include. Maybe people can share their thoughts here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that the flag should be there to give additional information on the driver, i.e. their nationality, but this is already stated in the infobox so therefore the flag becomes redundant. Schumi555 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to drivers, the use of flags does serve some purpose of indicating the nationality of the individual. Equally significant is the fact that FIA and FOM use flags for drivers and do not use them for races or teams as some are wrongly stating above. The flag overkill and misuse is particularly in this area. As Readro stated, flags are used to indicate the representation of the nation and it is grossly wrong to suggest the teams or the races are actually officially supported or founded by the nation they are held in. ^LeaveSleaves 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Acctually, and I am sure you have grasped I am not a flag fan in general, we could do with a flag on the team infobox or a section on the infobox, as they do nominate a country to represent (Which decides the national anthem played, see Red Bull switching to Austrian the other year). Though as I say, it could be done with a line in the info box. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Does having the flag next to a driver's name in the race report article really add anything to it? Would anything relevant to the article be lost by removing them? Readro (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the flags really don't serve significant purpose anywhere in Formula One since since the entire sport privatised and there is no national representation involved. But I won't stringently oppose use of flags for drivers for reasons me and Narson stated above viz. that FIA and FOM honor nationality while publishing classification or other such instances and the national anthem played during closing ceremony. But elsewhere, they should simply be removed. ^LeaveSleaves 13:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So, this means we remove the flags we don't need, and if we do keep any, make them the flag of the host country (so for the European Grand Prix, use Spain instead of Europe). DeMoN2009 16:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want me to leave again? The flags aren't overused they just help the younger readers to understand what race and nationality that race or driver is. They are needed as all media use them but I can understand the removal of flags from the article itself. Chubbennaitor 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If people agree I'll change the flags and carry on with what I was doing before I left with a few tweaks? Chubbennaitor 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't care about divas or Spider-Mans. ^LeaveSleaves 18:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough of the drama. Grow up. Readro (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And I need to be patronised? Answer my question please. I'm not the one to grow up. I came back. I asked a question civilised so I could go and do something for the Project, you're divas for doing so. Chubbennaitor 18:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is nowhere near any consensus or agreement on any topic and do not jump the gun making mass edits like you did last time. ^LeaveSleaves 18:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Civilised? You threatened to leave again! If it quacks like a duck... Readro (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chubbennaitor, reading this thread it is very clear that this project has not come to any consensus on what to do with the flags. There are lots of ideas and suggestions, but until there is a final agreement, there is no consensus. And honestly, I doubt there will be a consensus anytime soon. As I've seen in other sporting projects, flags are a very contentious issue and rarely can a majority of people come to an agreement on what to do with them. Perhaps if the discussion goes around too many more circles someone could draw up a proposal of what seems to be the best solution(s) here on what do to and ask for the project to vote on it. I wish ya'll luck on it. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. This is bizarre. Look for what it's worth I shall put my opinion that the name Pacific GP is merely a name of convenience because Japanese GP is already taken. It represents no nation other than where it is placed so if any flag it MUST be the Japanese. No flag is good too.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The only appropriate flag is the Japanese in the case of the Pacific Grand Prix - but we need to be consistent and referring to the  San Marino Grand Prix and the  Luxembourg Grand Prix is more likely to confuse than to inform. The best option seems to me to be simply not to use any flag for any of them. Drivers and teams are different because they have to have countries registered for podium ceremonies - but for races I think the best idea is simply to avoid them. If a flag is really necessary, put it by the track name, not the race name. Pfainuk talk 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we leave it as it is? We've had several proposals I've agreed with and I obviously did those mass edits correctly because they haven't been reverted. The flags are fine as they were and no-one was complaining. Of course I was 'threatening to leave' but as a joke. I don't know how wanting to leave is to be a diva as I've never felt I'm higher than anyone. Chubbennaitor 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This IS getting bizarre. Look at the length of this section... Shall we try and break this up into individual questions that we can try to get a consensus on?

1. Firstly, removal of the flags from the European Grand Prix / Pacific Grand Prix articles. Without checking, this actually might already have been done.

2. For the race article infobox, e.g. 1994 Pacific Grand Prix, 2008 European Grand Prix, do we agree to use the flag of the host nation?

3. In each season article, there is the table of races for that season. Currently there are flags in those tables. Do we want to keep the flags in those tables? If we do keep the flags in those tables, will they be the flags of the host nation, wherever that may be? This then opens up the aforementioned San Marino / Italy and the Luxembourg / Germany problem and more pressingly the UAE / Abu Dhabi problem. We would need to be consistent.

Let's leave driver flags until we sort these issues out first. Otherwise this will just become some horrible nightmare that people just walk away from. Let's not leave it as it is, because clearly lots of people are unhappy with things as they are. Chubb, you'll forgive people, I guess, if they thought you were serious about leaving, since a few days ago you sent everyone a message saying you'd left. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree

2. Agree

3. Agree with changes. Maybe not San Marino though as no media has ever used it as Italy. Chubbennaitor 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree

2. Agree

3. Agree

Easy. DeMoN2009 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree to counting the European GP the same. For one I am a citizen of a place called Europe. Nobody's a citizen of a place called the Pacific now are they? Second I believe you will find, can't point you to proof just now, that at European GPs since the existence of the EU the EU flag has been flown. That's quite a difference. Name of convenience they both share, but Europe actually exists as a place with a flag. The Pacific does not. Hell the race would have to be under water, in the Pacific Ocean, in any case to really be the Pacific GP. Then at the end, what does the FIA do - do they assign any flag to the race?--Amedeo Felix (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pacific region obviously does exist as a place, and has an organisation called the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, the flag of which we were using until recently. This is similar to the EU. Europe and the EU are not interchangable, as there are several European countries not members of the EU. The race is the European GP, not the EU GP. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I agree on point 1. Point 2, I would suggest that the flag is probably better placed by the name of the venue if we're using the flag of the country it was held in. That would not require a change on all the articles, only a change in the infobox code and changes articles on European, Pacific, Luxembourg and San Marino Grands Prix (the first two are probably already done). I think consistency between articles is important and it doesn't make sense to use a British, German or Spanish flag for the European Grands Prix but then to use a San Marino or Luxembourg flag for the San Marino and Luxembourg Grands Prix - but use Italian and German flags and you get the problem I highlighted earlier. On the third point, I think removing them all is the best option - but failing that, move the flags to the names of the venues and then use the flag of the country they're in (and that would be the UAE in the case of Abu Dhabi). I'm not quite sure what people are agreeing to above on point 3.

FWIW the European flag was the flag of the Council of Europe before it was the flag of the European Union - and the CoE's membership at the moment includes every country with territory in Europe except Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Vatican. A clever person (or committee) in the EU early on decided to adopt the same flag as a completely unrelated organisation on the same continent. Because that was never going to cause confusion, was it? </sarcasm> Pfainuk talk 00:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for information, there used to be a genuine Luxembourg Grand Prix, held at Findel, so I'm in favour of the flag staying in the article. Readro (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have conditionally supported use of flags based simply on location of the Grand Prix based assuming that this flag would be limited to single use in infobox on the main Grand Prix and individual articles. But, I don't see the need of to use the flags in infoboxes either. The flags are intended as representation of sovereign nations and despite the fact that these resepective Grand Prix are staged in those nations, the government does not play an active role in their organization. The infobox clearly describes the location of the Grand Prix, as does the lead of the article. Unless someone else supports the hypothesis that people don't read the articles but just look at pictures, I don't see the point to add a flag except for decoration. ^LeaveSleaves 01:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Agree

2. Agree

3. Agree in the instance of host nation. Otherwise no flags. While that may create San Marino-Luxembourg-1980s Switzerland confusion using their flags implies that San Marino etal actually have motor racing facilities, which is a falsehood of its own. Call it a preference for no flags actually.

If there is a belief that articles need more colour then the obvious response to me should be add more images rather than substitute flags for the purpose.

On the subject of drivers, for decades now the flag of a drivers nationality has been near universally painted onto the race car next to the drivers name. --Falcadore (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Only because the teams have actively decided to put them there - there's no rule that says they have to. They are not representing their country - only themselves and their teams. Readro (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

They're supposed to show where the drivers come from not who they represent. Chubbennaitor 15:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See that's where your whole understanding of flags is flawed. The flag usage should not be handled on origin/location of the person, team or race. Flags are symbols that indicate affiliation to and representation of the country. ^LeaveSleaves 17:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely late but I want to give my 2c (I'm sorry if this has already been brought up but I tried to read the wall of text and I can't even get to the half without headached). I personally feel that whatever change is discussed here, one of the most important goals is mantaining uniformity. I could agree with changing the flag in the seasons' articles to the flag of the country in which the GP was held instead of the GP "title" flag, as that would solve the problem of supranational entities like Europe and Pacific. But then there's the already mentioned problem of the San Marino and Luxembourg GP and also, for example, the lone case of the 1982 Swiss GP held in Dijon, France. Changing all those flags would cause lots of uniformity issues. So I think there are 3 options: cancel the flags, which I don't support because I think flags are quite useful when used correctly; stick to to what the FIA/FOM/any governing body says it's the right flag; we had a similar issue some time ago at the GP motorcycle racing project with the right flag for Indianapolis GP, and we simply stuck with the flag displayed on the MotoGP site; or display the flag that's associated with the "title" of the GP, so Europe for European, Pacific Community for Pacific, Switzerland for Swiss and so on, which is the option I'd prefer. Asendoh (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, we have two options - remove all the flags or remove flags for the European and Pacific Grand Prix articles. Europe, as an entity, does not have a flag. A collection of some countries, not all, form a political entity with a flag and do not represent the whole continent of Europe. As for the Pacific Community, that is much the same and Japan aren't even in the Pacific Community! However, for races named after a country, we do have flags to represent the countries. We'll have some oddballs (Luxembourg, San Marino, Swiss), but what else can you logically have as a representative flag? Luxembourg GP has had races in both Luxembourg and Germany, Swiss GP has had races in both Switzerland and France. My opinion would be that if we are keeping flags, we do not use any for races not associated with a country, and for those named after a country, use said country's flag. The race itself is fundamentally different to the location. The British bobsleigh championships were held in Turin, Italy. You wouldn't use an Italian flag though! Readro (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we all please vote ad agree/disagree on the three points further above. Chubbennaitor 16:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't formed by voting. Readro (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It can be formed that way however. Ya'll have had a big, very long, discussion over this topic. Reading through it all to determine what the status of the situation is can be difficult. It is not unprecedented for there to be a vote following such a discussion to settle the matter one way or another. (Just an semi-outsider's POV) --TreyGeek (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should use the Pacific Comunity flag and the European Union flag for Pacific GP and European GP. We are using two sets of standards if for these GPs we use the countries flags and not for Luxembourg and San Marino. We must remember that there have been GPs in Luxembourg, thus it would make sense to use the German flag for those that happened in Germany, which would cause some confusion. So for the Abu Dhabi GP, we shouldn't use UAE's flag. So, in that case:

1. Disagree

2. Disagree

3. We keep the flags relatively to the GP name. Fsarmony (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Change	Agree	Disagree
Removal of flags from controversial articles	III	I
Race info box keep country flags	III	I
Change all different types of flags to be consistent	III	I

Just so we can keep track. The Proposals are:

"1. Firstly, removal of the flags from the European Grand Prix / Pacific Grand Prix articles. Without checking, this actually might already have been done.

2. For the race article infobox, e.g. 1994 Pacific Grand Prix, 2008 European Grand Prix, do we agree to use the flag of the host nation?

3. In each season article, there is the table of races for that season. Currently there are flags in those tables. Do we want to keep the flags in those tables? If we do keep the flags in those tables, will they be the flags of the host nation, wherever that may be? This then opens up the aforementioned San Marino / Italy and the Luxembourg / Germany problem and more pressingly the UAE / Abu Dhabi problem. We would need to be consistent."

Place an 'I' in the box above. Chubbennaitor 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems a very weird way of doing things - there's no way to keep track of who's opinion is behind each of those votes, and no easy way of checking that someone hasn't added multiple I's. Makes it a worthless IMO. AlexJ (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It has to be more transparent.

My proposal is that we adopt the following.

• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is above the level of a country, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Pacific Grand Prix has no flag in the main article and the Japanese flag is used in 1995 Pacific Grand Prix.
• If a race is named after a country, then said country's flag will be used in the main article and elsewhere, even if the race takes place in a different country. If a flag is required to denote the location of an individual race, the flag of the genuine host country shall be used. Example: The Luxembourg Grand Prix article uses the Luxembourg flag. Individual races use the Luxembourg flag, although if the Nurburgring circuit requires a flag, the flag of Germany shall be used.
• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is below the level of a country, the flag of the country containing said entity shall be used in both the main article and elsewhere. Example: The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix uses the United Arab Emirates flag, because Abu Dhabi is below the level of country.
• If a race is named after something else, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Glover Trophy shall have no flag in the main article but the flag of the United Kingdom shall be used for individual races.

Would this have support? Readro (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would fully support all that. To clarify, the 1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix article will show the Luxembourg flag - and no flag of Germany in that article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Readro (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - sounds good to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, I would support this proposal.--Diniz(talk) 17:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support but he's repeated what the table's for. Chubbennaitor 17:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I felt that it was a little ambiguous and so worded it a little more formally. Readro (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my original "third point" was more a point to be discussed rather than something to be agreed with or disagreed with. This is now a much clearer and more concise "yay or nay" question, given that we've probably discussed this enough ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, support. D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. DeMoN2009 19:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support here too. Cs-wolves(talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet more support from here- if it means the european gp in the 2009 season page will get a european flag rather than the spanish because that's just a bit daft. Petera93 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you've seen the discussion you've just agreed against what you've said. Chubbennaitor 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Disagree
Cybervoron (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You going to explain your reasoning? --Falcadore (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because, the european flag is really used [1]Cybervoron (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the crux of the matter. There is no European flag. There is a European Union flag, but that is not by any means the same thing. The European Union is only some of Europe. If it was the European Union Grand Prix or the Some of Europe Grand Prix, you would have a case for usage of that flag. The European Union is an economic and political entity with not ties to professional sport as such. Europe is a word used on maps and as such is not an organised entity at all. Part of its border, through Russia, is even largely imaginary. --Falcadore (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we put this as an archived discussion so we can keep this as reference and for people coming the FIA use the spanish flag. Chubbennaitor 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all: the FIA website uses the European flag (http://fialive.fiacommunications.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/europe/Pages/Circuit.aspx); second: you can find the European flag also on the race tickets & hotel page of the Official Formula 1 Website (http://www.formula1.com/services/tickets_and_travel.html); third: last year the FOM broadcaster used the European flag inside the perimeter of the track for the circuit graphics transmitted after the official Formula 1 events intro; fourth: the European flag is not only the European Union flag adopted for the first time in 1985. In fact, it is also the flag of the Council of Europe and was adopted for the first time in 1955. Moreover, nearly all European nations have acceded to the Council of Europe with the exception of Belarus (dictatorship), Kazakhstan (dictatorship), Kosovo (partly unrecognised), Abkhazia (recognised only by two countries), South Ossetia (recognised only by two countries), Northern Cyprus (recognised only by one country), Nagorno-Karabakh (unrecognised), Pridnestrovie (unrecognised) and the Holy See (unique status). So, for these reasons, the European flag has to be used. Mattomatteo27 (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the above? All the arguments above are virtually unbeatable as by FIA I mean the Official cite which actually updates itself. I was on the side of keepinglike it is but everything had a counter argument with something I had nothing back against. Chubbennaitor 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, the FIA also use the flag of Abu Dhabi rather than the UAE. AlexJ (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And on the marshal uniform there was the European flag and not the national flag of the country hosting the circuit. Mattomatteo27 (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that Abu Dhabi isn't really a country. Chubbennaitor 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that flags have to be informative, not decorative. An EU flag next to some words saying 'European Grand Prix' isn't useful. It can be argued that a flag telling you where a race took place is. I mean, personally I'd rather go without, but Chubb et al argued their corner and at the very least this way there is a claim of being informative, even if you don't necessarily agree with it. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can Cybervoron and Mattomatteo27 stop changing the flags otherwise it will be treated as either an edit war or vandalism (depending on what the people here agree with). Chubbennaitor 15:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Imagine what would be with flags in this article, if the European Grand Prix will take place not only in Britain, Germany and Spain... Cybervoron (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Use the current one. Chubbennaitor 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

May as well bring this up again, but User:Lucy-marie is reverting all the instances of the European Grand Prix back to the from the location. I've reverted it once, and given the link to here to discuss her changes, but she has re-reverted. Cs-wolves(talk) 15:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Must be mad to change from he Europe flag, the standard convention is the use of the flag all across Europe even in countryies that are no part of the EU such as Georgia and Turkey. The standard is the use of the flag of the name of the race not its location. To continue with that logic would result is three German races in 1999, highly confusing and misleading. The use of the Europe flag provides clarity that the race was European Grand Prix and not a second Spanish or German grand Prix. What next we have the Spanish flag for the Moto GP of Catlunya, that is what this logic has as its conclusion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have come to the project first before undoing everything that had been agreed upon? Just as a common courtesy? We had achieved a consensus on this issue, there was no need to change it. The use of the European Union flag is inappropriate. Readro (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I personally think that the consensus was well-challenged by the references and arguments that Mattomatteo27 provided, and you have to ask what the flag is for. The flags are primarily there as a visual shorthand and an aid to readers when orientating themselves. I personally feel that having a German flag atop an article about a European Grand Prix is far more misleading than having the EU flag. Ok, so the EU didn't organise the race, but the EU flag is certainly used by the organisers and the vast majority of media who report on the race, and the EU flag has become symbolic of Europe over and above its strictly political origins. The arguments also hold true for the Pacific races, but there we have a problem in that there is no globally accepted visual shorthand for "the Pacific", but were there I would use it. Pyrope 16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To run it up the flagpole again, why do we need the flag in the first place? So we know the European Grand Prix took place in Europe? To know the German Grand Prix was German? British Grand Prix was British? If it isn't reflecting where the race was held but simply the name of the grand prix then it provides no extra information and should just be junked like so much glittery sparkly cruft. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the flags provide an orientation and identification shorthand, a "feel" for want of a more accurate term, that helps the reader by providing visual distiction between articles. Used properly they provide a depth to textual information and a page identity that goes deeper than simply available through text. This is also why they lose their purpose when too many are used. The problem, as with so many things that rely on judgement, is how do you draw the line between "enough" and "too many". Pyrope 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From a visual point of view it is easier to distinguish the Grand Prix apart and locate the main article which is being looked for when dealing with a list of Grand Prix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I find that on this article for example it provides very little, and the sheer volume of flags acctually takes away from the words while providing nothing by way of information. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So take it up on the individual article. I'd actually agree about that article being complete overkill with regard to flags. They are jumbled and confusing and break the wikitable formatting in many places. But to take a dog's breakfast like that (I'm actually sceptical about that whole page's existence) and argue "down with all flagicons" isn't reasonable. Pyrope 17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite 'down with all' pyrope, just down with all that have zero added value in terms of information. I have never found a flag next to the word the flag is meant to be substituting useful. In place of, or next to, things like EUR or GB I can see the argument for the value, it is far more convenient compared to a legend --Narson ~ Talk • 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Flags are useful in many different ways. I always find flags informative and I thought we had closed this discussion. Chubbennaitor 06:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I say do away with these flags altogther. Only the most challenged of readers actually need them and they're clearly not something we're going to decide upon. In the spirit of the recent arbitrary mass changing of flags, I've changed them again, mainly annoyed with other people's edits being described as "madness" and "lunacy" without either word being spelled correctly. There are proper ways to write edit summaries, and improper, impolite, irritating ways. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie has begun edit-warring again. I've opted to take this to the Incidents Noticeboard, see here. D.M.N. (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Stating that this is an edit war is a misrepresentation. A simple reading of the discussions so far have concluded that the removal of the EU flag was originally against consensus and the user of I have reverted was also edit warring by this definition. The user whom was reverted by myself was advocating the complete removal of all flags and not the use of national flags over the EU flag.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that you haven't suggested a compromise all you are doing is undoing people's revisions - you are not helping the situation at all by creating a revert/edit war. D.M.N. (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless consensus is changed what was there originally is stuck with, Consensus was not reached to change from the EU flag in the first place and it has been discussed and concluded not to use national flags over the EU flag. In this case we stick with the original, no compromise middle ground can be found it is a simple either or not both situation. I would also like to know why the other user was not pulled up on 22 May?--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We have agreed to use the flag of the host country last I checked and that was discussed and passed. People fail to see that. Chubbennaitor 15:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No we have not agreed concensus changed, after reading the discussion previously, it was pointed out that they did not change the original consensus and descended into voting and were opposed by a number of people as has been shown by the later discussions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I do like the idea of no flag. I have always thought we use flag icons too liberally in the sports articles. David D. (Talk) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IP changing 2009 entry numbers

An IP has changed some 2009 entry numbers without explanation. However, anyone seeking to revert the changes would be advised to refer to this [2] before so doing. Regards Britmax (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The FIA is just a catalogue of fuckups already this season, isn't it? I wonder what is next. They will realise actually all the cars should be motorbikes. Narson'sPetFerret (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is Force India cares more about its merchandise than its cars. Apterygial 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The FIA have run a good ship until they tried to change the rules. Chubbennaitor 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Incivility/swearing

Chubb? Don't edit my comments to the talk page. It has the potential to piss me off. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe in no swearing. I don't like it, so instead of changing the whole edit I put stars there that only older members understand. I'm not changing your comment just censoring as this is a public encyclopedia. I'll put stars in for this edit. Chubbennaitor 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Chubb, what you believe in does not translate into things you are allowed to do. Bear in mind that wikipedia isn't censored. It was not a hideous swearing tirade, it was the use of a vernacular once. Quit it. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(See WP:CENSOR, although that doesn't directly refer to talk pages. 4u1e (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, it is quite interesting. The best you will find really is the talk page guidelines which tell you when you can edit someone else's comments in some way. Appears that WP:CENSOR has shifted over the years. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So, taking offense doesn't apply on talk pages. Chubbennaitor 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally on talk pages the main reasons for editing a comment would be a personal attack or BLP concerns, I believe. It is all in the talk page guidelines. If I was swearing /at/ you, then yes, you might be perhaps justified. If we simply allowed editing of others comments to remove what people didn't like...well, I'm not too fond of American spelling so I might go around changing your 'offense' to 'offence'. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If we were allowed to edit any comments that we take offence at, then I'd be busy all day! :D Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of American spelling, my computer's in American, but the thing is people take offence by a swear word just said randomly. I'm talking about swear words which on nearly every public site are blcked out. Chubbennaitor 16:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

People take offence at a great many things. If we stopped doing them we'd have to blank out large sections of the encyclopedia. It is just not OK to go around editing other peoples talk page contribs except in clear situations as outlined in the talk page guidelines. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm very sorry for not wanting incivility on talk pages. Chubbennaitor 16:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing another users comments is uncivil, Chub. Two 'wrongs' (using the term loosely) don't make a right. If you don't like it, just skim over it, but it's not up to you to decide what language is acceptable on this page. 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then who is? Chubbennaitor 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit silly. To answer your question, Chubb, no-one gets to decide what other people can or can't say on talk pages, unless they are attacking another user. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry to bring this up again, but, because of the swearword in this discussion, I am unable to access this page whilst I am at school (which is where I normally do quite a bit of WP work) as the school blocking filter always blocks pages with swearwords on them - this is why I haven't really commented much on here recently. I would, for one, be extremely grateful if we could &*^% it out. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Chubbennaitor 16:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah - now a practical reason for avoiding the words in question is different. Although I wouldn't want to see anyone policing language: it's still a matter of personal choice, although we should be aware that it causes problems for others (Btw, shouldn't you be working at school ;-)). My two cents etc. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we block them up then. Chubbennaitor 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "block them up"? Do you mean "replace any existing swearwords on this page with "***" or "!@#$" or something like that" (so that Cdhaptomos' school blocking filter will let it through)? If that's what you mean, I don't have any objection. DH85868993 (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss this guys. Take it elsewhere. ^LeaveSleaves 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Where else are we supposed to discuss it? I think here is as good as any place.

Is anyone against replacing the swearword with asterisks? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The best place to do this is on the editor's own talkpage, not the project talk page. There you can explain your difficulties with the language used and ask them to refactor their own comment. This talk page is for discussion of WP:F1 and it's aims, not common courtesy. Pyrope 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If users have issues with other editors, take it to their own userpage. With the Cdhaptomos situation, if users swear we don't **** it out (WP:CENSOR, its just one of those things, you won't be able to use Wiki in school then. D.M.N. (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this. Are we going to block the swear words (Yes I meant it that way) or not for practical and offensive reasons? People can swear but remove one of the letters or replace that letter with a '*' so we know they're swearing but children don't understand it (this is public) and for other practical reasons (page blockers at school). (I don't see at any time the wp:censor says swearing is allowed or disallowed which is why the above should resolve it especcially as it started over something as silly as what Narson was 'angry' about)Chubbennaitor 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While I personally don't believe in censorship, the applicable rule is WP:CIVIL, in which case says not to swear. On that note: fack, shoot, dang, gosh, flippin, Tina come eat your ham! But seriously, refer to WP:CIVIL -- Guroadrunner (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Children understand it, trust me. ExamRevision 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst there is WP:CIVIL to abide by, there are certain times when the use of a swear word will not infringe those rules. As a WikiProject we do not have the authority to instate rules over and above those of Wikipedia itself. We do not own these pages and refactoring talk page comments is not allowed. On a less serious note, the best profanity is clearly Semprini. Readro (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in CIVIL that I violated. To quote from CIVIL: Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor. It was directed at no-one. If Chubb had a problem he could have come to me rather than deciding to edit my comments. He didn't, he chose instead to edit my comments. Hopefully he has learned from this. My apologies for the delayed reaction, I have been somewhat budy off wiki. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So, for no reason at all we're going to allow incivility and I didn't come to you narson because you would shout back in my face. You all make me sick because you all believe that we all have to follow the rules as one person wants us to. Toyota etc. have (gotten) away with it and because you all don't have the decency to remain civil in your words you have all pushed over my limit of being able to cope with life. Why can't we just allow the intention but not the word. That makes sense and the only children who will know it is because their parents have allowed them. Chubbennaitor 18:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets just f*cking leave this alone and "drama queen"? I thought you'd realise that's not the best thing to say. Chubbennaitor 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I took your message to the admin noticeboard because I read it as a suicide threat. Saying that we've "pushed you over your limit to cope with life" is a serious statement to make and it rings many alarm bells. Using the phrase "drama queen" was for the benefit of the administrators. It refers to your numerous threats to quit without actually doing so, in order to get your own way. Instead of being arsey that I called you a drama queen, be glad that I cared enough to worry. Readro (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also note /again/ that my undirected language was not uncivil and it gets tiring to have you repeat ad nauseum your mistaken reading of our policies. I'd suggest just checking the list of word we maintain articles on, just put in a swear word or a fetish and you will find we have it. Go to commons and you can have your pick of images of male genetalia (And fewer of female ones for some reason). We are not censored and, like all things on the internet, adults should check out a site thoroughly and make an informed decision about their children coming here. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Portal

Our Portal is now Featured! Thanks to everyone who gave me a hand putting it together (Chubbennaitor, Cdhaptomos and Diniz among them). It doesn't end there though, I'm always looking for more DYKs and pictures at Portal:Formula One/Did you know and Portal talk:Formula One/Selected picture. Apterygial 01:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done everyone. Sorry haven't been helping out recently. Chubbennaitor 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Well done everyone! Does that mean we can implement my idea now, Apterygial? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not hugely keen on it, but if you reckon it'll be better for the portal I have no grounds to oppose it. Apterygial 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Which idea is this and shall we bring this back to the Portal's talk page. Chubbennaitor 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it in later tonight. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion...

...I, formerly Diniz, have had my username changed to Midgrid. Just so you all know!--Midgrid(talk) 22:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Chubbennaitor 07:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should quote from his userpage:

Eventually I became dissatisfied with this name, and on May 9, 2009, my username was changed to Midgrid, in accordance with my standard username on several other websites.

That would explain it. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Constructors in tables

In the various Grands Prix articles, I notice the convention is to refer to the winning cars as Constructor-Engine rather than the name of the car. Is there a good reason why this should not be ammneded so that say McLaren-Honda might become McLaren MP4/4 Honda? --Falcadore (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The column is called "constructors" not "car model". Darth Newdar (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically it follows an FIA convention based upon their rules. For the purposes of the World Constructors Championship, each entry is taken as a Constructor-Engine combination. Thus, as Ferrari did a few years back, a team can run a completely different model of car in one race to the another in the same season with all results counting towards the same WCC total. However if a team switched engine suppliers mid-season, they would get two entries in the WCC (say for example Williams-Toyota would be listed seperately to Williams-Mercedes). The 1983 season shows quite a few examples of this. AlexJ (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Darth: that's the semantic version of a response. Why can't it be the car name? --Falcadore (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AlexJ: That convention only applies to the World Drivers' Championship yes (1950-2009, or the first year constructors were recognised: 1958-2009)? Most of the Grands Prix have a history that is not completely inclusive of the World Championship, Argetine (I think), Australian, Belgian, British, Caesars Palace, Detriot, European (I think), French, German, Hong Kong, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean (if you included the Super Prix), Long Beach, Macau, Malaysian, Morrocan, New Zeland, Phoenix, Singapore, Spanish, United States, essentially it is forcing the constructors nomenclature onto some races which either did not recognise or pre-dated the concept. Also, this is pertaining to results of individual races, not season points totals, surely then supposing the Ferrari F92AT won its one-off race, which it did not, but if it did then that is worthy of recognition in the race article concerned - like the Brabham 'fan car' did at Anderstorp in 1978(?). In some races more than one model of the same FIA convention (Ferrari, Cooper-Climax, Tyrrell-Cosworth etc) appeared in the smae race, making it additionally worthy of clarification. --Falcadore (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking it to extremes, should it be McLaren MP4-24 - Mercedes-Benz FO 108W? The challenge is getting the balance right when it comes to level of detail. We are a general interest encyclopedia, not a dedicated F1 stats site. Most mainstream media will make reference to team-names and sometimes team-engine names (especially in results tables). However, rarely will you see an article in a broadsheet newspaper naming the particular model of car driven. For one-race models, of course the car deserves a mention in the prose of the article. Indeed the other cases where one driver drove one model and another a different model can also be covered in the prose if it's deemed important enough. However the results table should be as uncluttered as possible, and having the car model in there dilutes the (most) important data (in my opinion). AlexJ (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Falcadore: just to clarify: are you proposing the addition of car model info to the race results tables in the individual race report articles (e.g. 2009 Australian Grand Prix), or to the "list of winners" tables in the "<country> Grand Prix" articles, e.g. Australian Grand Prix? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"<country> Grand Prix" was my original request. Part of my recent crusade at promoting non-World Championship events that contribute to a Grands Prix history. --Falcadore (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not support this unless you are suggesting an extra column; if you are, that's okay, but if you're suggesting changing the "constructor" column, then it's a strong oppose from me. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you define constructor? --Falcadore (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Have we considered just seperating the tables for pre-F1 days? If this is already the case, I don't see the problem. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not be a fan of that as the World Championship should be viewed as part of the whole and not the entire reason for the article. --Falcadore (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What are we all on about. We use the name of the constructors name, (this means engine (and chassis) as well. This means that Prodrive would be Prodrive-McLaren-Mercedes). Brawn-Mercedes makes sense and so does Force India Mercedes, Scuderia Toro Rosso Ferrari etc. Chubbennaitor 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The constructor is "Brawn-Mercedes" or "Red Bull-Renault" etc. Darth Newdar (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What I said. Chubbennaitor 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Using historical precedent a Prodrive team utilising a 100% customer version of McLaren would still be McLaren-Mercedes (no Prodrive at all). Pop back into the 70's and 60's when cars were referred to as March-Cosworth or Cooper-Climax, Brabham-Repco or Ferrari, regardless of the team name. Additionally, a Prodrive team running a McLaren-Mercedes would contribute to McLaren's points tally rather than their own. Team names are a quite separate issue, but there is no Prodrive team, so its a bit moot. --Falcadore (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither particularly in favour of, nor opposed to the proposal. However, here are some points to consider:

• Adding car model info to the winners tables in the "<country> Grand Prix" articles might encourage editors to want to add the same info to the race results tables in the individual race reports, which would be a lot of work. (Or, perhaps, more typically, they would add them to the current season race report articles [since they're the only ones they personally care about], thereby making the current season race report articles inconsistent with those of the preceding 59 seasons).
• We would need to decide a consistent format, i.e. is it "McLaren-Honda MP4/4" or "McLaren MP4/4-Honda" or "McLaren MP4/4 Honda" (no dash), etc [not a huge issue]
• As a general principle, we use/claim www.formula1.com (which only lists constructor-engine) as the reference for all our race results. So if we want to add car model info, we'd possibly/probably need to identify a reference for the info. I'm aware that there are various sites such as ChicaneF1 which contain car model info, so that could be one solution.
• There tends to be more discrepancy between various sources when it comes to car model names than, say, constructor names, e.g. what one source calls a "Ferrari 312/66", another source will just call a "Ferrari 312". Probably not a huge issue, especially if we're only talking about cars which have won races.

DH85868993 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I really hate this! Virtually nobody wants to know the car model; the constructor is much more important. The only thing I think you could have is an extra column called "car model", on the season reports, but I object to it on the Grand Prix articles. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

DN: How do you get past that the constructor term is not accurate for several races? I want to know why and what I get from you is you hate it and you don't care about the inaccuracy. A lot of Grand Prix articles are incredibly WDC and in this instance WCC-centric. Right now I want to know why not make the corrections, not 'can you green-light me to start making the corrections'. --Falcadore (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have plenty of print reference with the correct models. --Falcadore (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For the races where constructor is not relevant, couldn't something like Entrant be used instead? AlexJ (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, I think putting the information of the car model would be okay in the season articles (where more information is okay) but I don't think you need it in the grand prix articles. Saying that Jenson Button was racing for Brawn-Mercedes is much more worthwhile than saying he was racing in a BGP 001, isn't it? I suppose you could add an extra column if you wish, something like "car model", but replacing the constructor with the car model makes no sense to me at all, even if the constructor information is inaccurate. Darth Newdar (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, missing my point. For example the 1984 Australian Grand Prix, a Formula Mondiale race, or the 2009 New Zealand Grand Prix, the 1993 Indonesian Grand Prix, a Formula Holden race, those early 1950s Monaco Grand Prix sports car races, exactly which 'season' article do you mean? This is what I mean by WDC-centric, its the non-WDC races in particular where the constructor term is if not wrong, then certainly misleading. Entrant is more confusing, not less. For example from the 1950's Indy races, what is a 'Leader Card'? Or for that matter Rob Walker's F1 team often had a mix of Lotus and Coopers models, how would you know what Stirling Moss may have been driving when it says 'Rob Walker Racing Team'? --Falcadore (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, I think that for non-WDC races the car model is fine. I'm saying that WDC races should be the constructor (not the car model). Darth Newdar (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Alerts

I set up the Article Alerts for us a few days ago, and the results appear on our project page. All the same, you may want to watchlist this page just in case there's any prods or AFDs. Apterygial 08:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2010 season

There's a discussion going on (only between two of us, admittedly) about how to deal with the driver/team list for next season. If anyone would like to take part, it's here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

1963 non-championship F1 races

Does anyone have details of the non-championship F1 races run in 1963? That's the only pre-1982 season which doesn't have the non-championship races listed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Added. --Sporti (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A. J. Foyt

User:Erika39 has controversially moved the article to Anthony Joseph Foyt. I have decided to dispute the move per WP:COMMONNAME. Please comment with your opinion about the name for his article at Talk:Anthony Joseph Foyt. Royalbroil 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Budget cap row... need for an article?

Considering we've got several major teams saying they'll pull out next year, and the FIA refusing to back down, anyone think we need an article on the whole matter? D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Not unless 2010 Formula One season fills up enough that a split is needed. That article currently contains speculations and crystal-ballery. A request was made above to comment on the issue being discussed and I believe if the issue is solved logically, the article perfect place to start on the budget row and related issues. ^LeaveSleaves 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

'd suggest an article on the main inquires etc. of 2009 as we've had a lot. (this also doesn't make it sound like the FIA isn't doing a good job and, yes, I know that we have to stay Objective not emotive but it might just catch someone's attention.) Chubbennaitor 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Would this article be of any help? Britmax (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We are not a news source. We should not be collecting opinions and complaints made by F1 personalities and publishing them. When there is a policy shift we should write about what the policy shift is. Be enclopedic. Describe the events, not the posturing. --Falcadore (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an article (It's my name for a page) on the controversy during 2009 is encyclopedic as people could understand what happened in full detail. The double-diffuser, budget cap, the sudden rule changes before Melbourne etc. Chubbennaitor 21:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree wth Falcadore on this. Until there is some major effect, it doesn't require major coverage. We are not a news source to report at length on /potential/ impacts. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is what the season summary article is for - to report the stuff that happens during the season that doesn't properly belong in the race reports or team articles? Agree with Leavesleaves, Falcadore and Narson, in other words. Also bear in mind that there's a long way to run on this one; as an encyclopedia we need to keep our eyes on the long term and not get bogged down in the details of what's happening this week. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I was merely saying that this is fairly big and the season summary isn't big enough. Chubbennaitor 16:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The season summary is plenty big enough, providing the race-by-race stuff is kept brief, and doesn't start delving into unnecessary details about the battle for 16th place or whatever. AlexJ (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If it gets too big then write more concisely. --Falcadore (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But there is a lot even if written as brief as possible. Chubbennaitor 06:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What has actually happened? Is there still a lot if you limit it to events that have occurred and not mention anything that is rumoured or threatened? Remember we are not a news source so we don't have to write anythign of about speculations. --Falcadore (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review notification

Just letting you guys know, I've put 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix up for Peer Review here. Thanks to Midgrid for helping me with referencing and adding content to the article. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox flag icons

All of the team infoboxes have been changed so that their is now a flagicon for the location of the team's base and no flagicons for team executives. What is the point of this? Is it a widely approved change? It seems far less useful than the previous setup. Please reply quickly because otherwise I'm just changing them all back. Eightball (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you spoken to the responsible editor, I believe User:THEunique on the subject? --Falcadore (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I see any reason for the team execs to have flags. On the issue of team flags..have we got a source for some of them? Only the Red Bull win got the British National Anthem not the Austrian. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This source indicated the wrong anthem was played. Apterygial 11:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, tis what I figured. Just thought we had better have sources available just incase. I do think a flag for the team is a good idea, specifying what flag they fly under. A flag for where their base is? Not so important. I mean, we all know Milton Keynes is in the United Kingdom. The execs...well...one could argue either way, can't see why their nationality is important, but hey, it is information not otherise conveyed. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you said, executives are different to teams or drivers, as the latter two operate under national sporting federation licences, while executives do not. If the info needs conveying, then their individual pages (if they have them) can convey that. Can't really see why it would need to be in team infoboxes. Apterygial 12:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the above. Where nationality is significant then flags are great, but where it isn't then they are a distraction. Drivers and team registrations: yes; executives/designers and team locations: no. Pyrope 16:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My view fwiw: flags for teams, races and drivers and nothing else. Apart from anything else, it's actually quite hard to prove someone's formal nationality in most cases. 4u1e (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So would no one is opposed to me removing the infobox flags beside team locations? There seems to be a consensus to that effect. Personally I liked having the flags beside team principals/technical directors, but the question of proving nationality is a valid concern. However, would it possible to acquire this information from the FIA/F1.com? For example, the caption of every photograph on F1.com includes displays nationality in parentheses next to any notable person in the picture. Eightball (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you spoken to the responsible editor, I believe User:THEunique on the subject? --Falcadore (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 French Grand Prix references

I posted this at WP:MII, but as I got no response I'll post it here instead:

On the 2008 French Grand Prix, please could somebody with the Autocourse book reference both the championship standings after the race, and the background section's section (that looks odd) on the championship standings going into the race. Darth Newdar (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari F1 car article renames

Four Ferrari F1 car articles have recently been renamed as follows:

• Ferrari F1 640-->Ferrari 640
• Ferrari F1 641-->Ferrari 641
• Ferrari F1 642-->Ferrari 642
• Ferrari F1 643-->Ferrari 643

Is everyone happy with these changes? I am, but I thought I'd check there's consensus before going and changing all the references to these cars in other articles. DH85868993 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the official car names include the "F1" term, similar to Ferrari 248 F1? If not, the move is fine. D.M.N. (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

...and that depends on what you mean by "official" name. If you mean what the Ferrari website uses then I'm not entirely keen that we treat that as "official". Many of those names are revisionist terms that they use to avoid confusion where they have reused names. Pyrope 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the renaming is correct. Just checked my copy of the Grand Prix Data Book and F1 is not part of the name. link Ferrari seem to calling them F1-90, etc, which I'm pretty sure is revisionism - they were called 641, etc. Spute (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW yes, that's what they were called in the press at the time. And since Ferrari have built very few non-F1 racing cars in the last 30 years or so (A1GP and 333SP notwithstanding), I think there's little need to specify that they're F1 cars. 4u1e (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. In which case good move. :) D.M.N. (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, consensus seems pretty clear. I'll start updating references to these cars in other articles within the next couple of days. DH85868993 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

USF1

Ructions going on here regarding the name of this team. Argument revolves around the fairly acute point that the USF1 name is not permitted to be used until the team's entry is accepted. I am maintaining that Wikipedia should follow that line, and others, mainly one other editor, disagree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken Anderson made it very clear: "it is Team USF1." Furthermore, both Anderson and Windsor have reflected that USGPE was simply an alternate domain name they used until their entry was filed. USGPE was never going to be the team name. So we have two biggest guys in the team saying, "USGPE was never the team name" and "the team name is Team USF1." There is no argument. Eightball (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an argument, and it's at the 2010 discussion page, not here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I should be clearer: there shouldn't be an argument. Why you persist with one is beyond me. Eightball (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, why I persist with the argument is beyond you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind seeing a lock placed on the article until an official calendar is announced. It's 2010 season folks - the 2009 season article needs a lot of work - priorities please, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a new service remember. --Falcadore (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a teams table unless it's of the current teams of 2009. Chubbennaitor 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 Brazilian Grand Prix on main page

Looks like 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix will be on the main page on June 12. Might be a good idea to watchlist it (particularly with those Glock conspiracy nuts about). Apterygial 09:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to change this on the actual article but the following sentence: "Coulthard will continue to work for Red Bull Racing in 2009 as a testing and development consultant", is now incorrect as it is now 2009. Darth Newdar (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Apterygial 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I added two bits of information, but it's up to someone other to put links if needed. One was about Coulthard's helmet camera and one about Force India's tyres (at least this may be found if you google "tyre strategies brazilian gp".BleuDXXXIV (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

McLaren page move

Someone's moved the McLaren page to McLaren (racing), which is not only a rather rubbish name for the article, but it has created a zillion redirection problems. Should we move it back or do something else? The guy didn't discuss it with anyone... Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be an idea to decide on a course of action pretty soon, before bots start redirecting things. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I have always wondered why McLaren article did not have a disambiguation in the title. But since it was convenient from my point of view (I know, not very considerate of me), I never bothered to bring it up. I'm not clear as to what the problem is in this move. ^LeaveSleaves 15:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the racing team is pretty blatantly the primary meaning. Someone switch it back. Controversial, needs a revert and discussion from the previous position. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would revert it back, but only admins can do that.... someone will need to list it at WP:RM. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a Primary Topic, no question about it. The problem is fairly clear - the huge number of redirects that have arisen, from a move which shouldn't have been made anyway. Plus "(racing)" is a hopeless suffix for an article name anyway. I'm for moving it back. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Then follow D.M.N.'s advice and file a request at WP:RM. ^LeaveSleaves 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo (talk · contribs), who made the move, has also made a request at WP:RM to move McLaren (disambiguation) to McLaren, which I think should be commented upon there before any counter-request is made.--Midgrid(talk) 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Move request to revert has been created. Please all add your comments to both move requests. --Falcadore (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't it been moved! It needs to be the other way. McLaren is the obvious meaning and the only one in the list that is just McLaren. The disambiguation page needed to stay! why is it still the same. Chubbennaitor 20:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does an admin need to move it? I can move it buy clicking on move. What's the problem. Chubbennaitor 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact RM is running a week behind, you might want to have a read of Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Are move discussions popularity contests? --Falcadore (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would actually like to know as I don't know why we need an admin. Chubbennaitor 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

question

is there an article on wiki about the double diffusor? Loosmark (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of; I think this and individual car articles are the closest we have.--Midgrid(talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO an article specificaly about the DD in F1 is very necessary. Loosmark (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why. It can easily be explained on 2009 Formula One season. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A so called "double diffuser" isn't conceptually different to a "diffuser", it's just a diffuser which has a larger effective size. It's not as if anyone has invented something new - it's just a case of different teams interpreting rules slightly differntly. For a few months this year the "double diffuser" was important (and should be covered in 2009 Formula One season), but I see no need at all for an article. There's enough other things to do. Spute (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Since there was so much talk about it, many people are interested in what way are these DD different from the normal diffusers and an encyclopedia should provide them an answer. Loosmark (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All diffusers are different. What exactly is a "normal" diffuser? You're simply comparing this new diffuser to older diffuser designs in F1. This is hardly a new invention. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the principle of every diffuser is obviously the same but the DD is a more complex design than what they had in last years, the hole to feed the top side and all that. But anyway my point is when an occasional F1 fan hears all these talks about the DD and doesn't know what is that and decides to type "double diffuser" in wikipedia i think he should get something rather nothing. Loosmark (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The double diffuser is not a more complex design, it's a rule exploit that's not the first use of this sort of concept. I'm fairly certain Wikipedia's search engine will find "double diffuser" in 2009 Formula One season and get relevant information. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh, not a more complex design!? Everybody says it's more complex, see for example http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73700 The car also appears to exit hot air under the gearbox fairing and rear crash structure, as part of a complex diffuser solution. Loosmark (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We spoke about this earlier. Last I saw we decided against the article as 2009 article covered it enough. Chubbennaitor 20:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As with any suggested article on Wikipedia, if you want to write one then write one. Make it interesting, informative, relevant and substantial, with plenty of references to show NOR and notability, and it will probably survive even a fairly determined AfD/merger challenge. However, if you make stubby and thin then it will get blown away with the rest of the chaff. If you want an article on this then you write one, the others here don't seem massively keen but if it yanks your chain then do it, just take on board their comments. Pyrope 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. And don't get upset if others start poking hole in the article. ^LeaveSleaves 18:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Flags

Lets have a clean break and start again.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You might need to clarify what you mean, Lucy, it's not really clear from what you've said so far. 4u1e (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So you thought you'd change everything to how you wanted it and then discuss it? That's not how it works. We had a discussion on the use of flags some time ago. That discussion ended and a decision was taken. Everyone accepted it at the time. If you want to discuss the use of flags again, we can do so. What we will not do is change everything to suit you and start all over again. Please outline your problem with the use of flags. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a fresh discussion as to the use of flas in general in F1 articles and if they should be used how they should be used. This is not the place for edit warring and incivility and the discussions should focus as such.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this is a fresh discussion, so we'll start with how consensus (9:3) was established after the last discussion. The only person edit-warring is you, and I see that despite a complaint being made against you for doing (which you closed yourself! Wow...) you are still doing it. It would be advisable to confine your edits on the subect to this page, starting by (for the second time) outlining your problem with the use of flags. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your first line is not starting fresh your are using an old discussion to further your own POV that is hardly a fresh start now is it. this is descending into you just being blatantly in-civil to push your own POV either be big boy and discuss this will end in an in-civilty block.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because you are now reverting to versions of articles as if the first discussion never took place. If you want to accuse me of "blatant incivility", I would like you to report me and see what happens. I have not been incivil anywhere, as is plainly obvious. Furthermore, I have already asked you twice to state your problem with the flags, yet all you can do is accuse me of not discussing the subject, edit-warring and POV, none of which assume good faith, do they?. You're not making any sense. Looking forward to the incivility block. If you can eventually start discussing the flags, that would be nice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is content fee and an attack section only so a new section below has been initiated.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the last time I'm going to accept you accusing me of attacking you. If you have an incivility issue, I insist that you take it to the appropriate place and cease making accusations against me here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, what's all this then??

Okay, so do we need a discussion on flags, and Lucy-Marie, you haven't taken a position one way or the other with what you want changed from the current format. Until that is explained, then there's no need for a discussion (because there's no showing of discontent for the current system) -- Guroadrunner (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) /// nm, I didn't scroll down to read the discussion. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of Flag in F1 articles

This section is for discussion as to the general inclusion of Flags in F1 articles and if thy should be included how they should be included.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still happy with Readro's proposal above. If you have your own proposal, then I suggest that you make it rather than just effectively stating that "there is going to be a discussion".--Midgrid(talk) 19:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are there now two sections for this? If you have an issue with the flags, what is it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the name of the race should dictate the flag used and where that is not possible use no flag a all.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Others, myself included, prefer that the flag should reflect the country in which the race is held. This arose when another editor rightly brought it to our attention that the Pacific Community flag is not appropriate for the Pacific GP, because the race was held in Japan. Japan is not a member of the Pacific Community. Likewise, not all countries in which the European GP has been held are members of the EU. Using a flag for some races and not others is not a workable policy, in my view. Maybe others will disagree. Theoretically, a race can be named after anything, including entities which do not have flags. Therefore, most of us in the last discussion felt it better to use the flag of the home nation. If enough people raise an argument against that here, it will of course change. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Germany, Great Britain and Spain were all members of the EU when they hosted the European Grand Prix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland was not, and is not. Apart from that, the European Grand Prix predates the European Union - we can't use a flag to refer to a race given that, at the time the race took place, both that flag and the organisation it represents did not exist. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Before the use of the title European Grand Prix races were simply designated as the European Grand Prix and the country name was still retained in the race title as opposed to the race being solely called the European Grand Prix. There has never been a European Grand Prix held in Switzerland that was only called the European Grand Prix the Swiss Grand Prix was simply designated as the European Grand Prix for that season.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that makes any difference. They were still called the European Grand Prix, designated as such and listed in the EGP article. Whether they had other names or not is utterly irrelevant. Besides, this is only a small part of why the European flag is not appropriate in this case, as is outlined by others in this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The races were still called the British Grand Prix or the Monaco Grand Prix, The designation as the European Grand Prix was purely honorary and irrelevant to these discussions as the European flag is not being mooted for use within those articles. It is only being mooted for use in articles where the race was known exclusively as the European Grand Prix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point, but I disagree. The title as used now is only a title of convenience because the FIA do not allow two races of the same title in one season. So it's really the same thing. The EU has no motorsports federation so it cannot, and does not, "hold a race". Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the principle, and I agree that it's unworkable to have flags for some races and not others. I would also add that using flags to reflect the name of the race (and thus not carrying any new encyclopædic information) violates the MOS.

My own preference is to ditch the flags beside the names of races completely, and instead - if anywhere - put them beside track names. This would have the advantage of making it clear which country the race was held in, and thus would carry encyclopædic information. This would also carry over to races held outside the countries that they were named after (so the San Marino Grand Prix would not have a San Marino flag, but would have an Italian flag next to Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari or Imola). Pfainuk talk 20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't mind ditching the race flags for the season articles - I don't think they add a lot, and there are too many flags generally. For the individual race articles, e.g. 2009 European Grand Prix, I think Pfainuk's suggestion would work very well if the template could be adjusted to show the flag in the right place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pfain beat me to the MOS point (And I duly hate him for it! Coming in here stealing my points. Not like I have enough to share!). Anywhere the name of the grand prix is spelled out in full, lets ditch the darn flag. For things like tables where we are using a flag or EUR and then a flag for space saving? I'm more ok with that. Pfain's idea about the track I'm iffy on if only because with the track bit in the info box, it seems we could just put 'Imola, Italy' or 'Silverstone, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom'. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ditching flags for all GP names in infoboxes. I can see the logic in having a Brazilian flag next to say Ayrton Senna, as this conveys the extra bit of information about his nationality, with a clear distinction between the graphical nationality info. and the textual name info. Having the same flag next to Brazilian Grand Prix however is pointless as it adds no extra information, it's graphical nationality followed by textual nationality. With regard to the space saving usage, I prefer using country codes to flags, as they can be easily wikilinked to the relevant article. AlexJ (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I also support the idea of getting rid of flags. They don't add any information.Spute (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, we used the the same layout that general media use. If we go and start to change it, people will come and it will be from the norm and people won't be happy. I think the flags are good and help add the tiniest bit of colour stopping it looking dull. I like the current layout or the one we had before the Pacific GP discussion. Flags are used in the media as hey are at the moment. I have done research and the general view is that flags are useful and as they are used in the media make sense on Wikipedia. The only controversial result is the type of flag which I haven't gotten any evidence for. Chubbennaitor 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, what the rest of the media use is not relevant here. Wikipedia has rules and guidelines which we are supposed to follow. The MOS for flags says that a flag has to add information not otherwise provided. In the case of flags for races, that is generally not the case, as AlexJ explained very clearly. The MOS also says flags are not to be used for decoration. I think the idea of country codes that can be wikilinked is a good one. Furthermore, with regard to the problem of people coming in and adding flags where consensus decides there shouldn't be any, we can easily keep the lid on that, and I'm sure it won't be a prolonged issue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I think I said above somewhere, I'd use them (sparingly) for drivers and teams, who officially represent a nation. Individual GPs don't need them, as it's given in their title. Breton correctly quotes the MOS on not using flags for decorative purposes. 4u1e (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that we are not a newspaper or a TV channel. We don't report, we document. For reporting, check out Wikinews. You will notice a more media style in the sourcing, writing et al. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We are also an encyclopedia. We give information and document it. If you look at most encyclopedias that use similar layouts to ours they follow what the media. If we are supposed to inform people we have to give them the norm, so they don't get confused. We are supposed to document this for the public and we effectively have to give them what they want. I have done research as I strongly want the flags and if the research went against my argument I would step down and let it go ahead. It will also look detrimental to the loom of the page. We are the media (listen to that) and we want people to read the page, boring grey tables don't help that. When the flags are there I look down and use the colour's of the flags to go directly to the correct one. For the brazil GP I see a bright green colour and it leads me towards it. Chubbennaitor 11:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Britannica [3] and Encarta [4]. No flags there. And we are not a media outlet. AlexJ (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Woah, let's stop here. AlexJ is right - we are not the media. We also do not follow the media or reflect it. We also do not have to give the public what they want. We just follow the guidelines as set out by those Wikipedians who do that kind of thing. Chubb, read WP:ICONDECORATION and please drop the idea that we are obliged to make pages look pretty. Flags that don't add information should be dropped. How about for the Brazilian GP, we just look down the table for the word "Brazilian"? More people will look for that than will recognise the flag anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

With the same point above we are also not Encarta or Britannica just the same as wictionary is not Webters or Collins.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Another guideline as stipulated in the MOS for flags is the following, which I believe is applicable here, regardless of how many other websites use the EU flag for the European Grand Prix:

"Do not repurpose icons beyond their legitimate scope -

Icons can represent a specific entity and should not be repurposed to represent something else, e.g. because an actually appropriate flag is not available. For example, do not abuse the flag of the United Nations to represent the entire world, as this is not an accurate application of the official flag of that international organization."

I believe this can be interpreted very simply in this case, in that the flag of the EU does not represent the European Grand Prix. It is not the European Union Grand Prix, therefore the EU flag is not appropriate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We may not be direct media but we are technically media. Media-A means of mass communication. We are a mass communication. I like the spanish or EU flag but not having no flags. The FIA represent the races with flags, the race hosts represent themselves with flags, why should we be different. People won't like it and numerous amounts of people will reboot their arguments against wikipedia (do we want that?) sometimes rules don't make sense in cases and there is always a exception. Why do we do this but nobody else make these rules. Why are you all against good looking pages, informative pages? These flags help inform the reader; they may not add much but they don't deprive. Chubbennaitor 13:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, what other sites do is not relevant. But to address the decorative issue, not only is there a clear guideline against decorative flags (which does make sense), but not everyone agrees with you that they add colour and improve the page. I for one think they're a pain in the cheeks. They clutter the pages up and it irritates me that there are so many on the season pages and race article pages. I think the articles would be clearer without so many flags. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes some pages into unreadable messes (like List of Formula One Grands Prix) where the flags are so numerous they just become noise. Really, I'm not seeing any policy based argument for their inclusion (Just 'I like them') or arguments that fly in the face of policy ('They are decorative'). We do have some flags that convey information (like driver's nationality and team nationality, that stuff) which should remain, they conform to policy from my understanding. Where a flag is being used decorativly, where it is being used to represent something other than the organisation of that flag, we need to holdoff and conform to the MOS. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grands Prix was not an article I was familiar with - if ever there was an article rendered ridiculous by the repeated use of flags, this is it. It looks awful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the races nationality? On the season article I think they make sense. Maybe not the other articles. I am willing to have them removed from all articles except the season articles. Chubbennaitor 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A race's nationality tends to be given away by the name of the race. You don't need flag help to establish the nationality of the German Grand Prix. Driver or team nationality is not so obvious hence the flag is okay. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A general guideline is that if the flag is representing a word already there, it is not providing any information. German flag next to German Grand Prix is just replicating the German part. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We get back to the European flag subject. What is the nationality that year. As far as I can see we all agree on removing the race flags on all articles accept the season articles, so we can start on that. On the season articles it makes sense for European GP to have a flag of it's host country but it looks wrong and messy if it's the only flag. Chubbennaitor 19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would favour no flags for races in season articles. The need for flags for the majority of races is nil, and the need for a flag for the European race is negligible, in my opinion. The host nation is still fairly easy to determine, even for those unfamiliar with the track location. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone was looking for the host country of a European GP, a simple click on the link to that years race article would immediately tell you the exact location of the race, so I feel the flag again is unnecessary. Schumi555 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It will look wrong. Many people don't want to look at more than one page. The flags give immediate information over a shirt period of time. I zoom down and I see the European GP and I see a spanish flag - I immediately know that it is in Spain. The season articles are the only pages that really need the different flags. Chubbennaitor 16:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That analogy is lunacy, I see a Spanish flag I immediately think Spanish grand Prix. I see the EU flag and I immediately think European Grand Prix. I do not think Spanish flag its the European Grand Prix held at a race course in Spain.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? I see the spanish flag and I think 'Spain'. Really, these flags are unnecessary, can we just chop them to bring ourselves more in line with the MOS? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the whole analogy. Chubbennaitor 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could resolve this because it's been going on forever, and now we even have the FA mob chipping in with flag issues. We obviously have too many flags and I don't see more than one or two people disagreeing. Can we organise some plan of action, hopefully as in line with the MOS as we can get it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Main page

It's AWESOME to see a racing article on the main page as today's featured article. Kudos to everyone who spent time getting it there! Royalbroil 00:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Well done all those involved! Pyrope 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Turkish Grand Prix photos

A large number of freely-licensed photographs from the 2009 Turkish Grand Prix has become available here. I have already uploaded a number of them, and will continue to do so in the future, but if anyone else wants to upload any, please feel free to do so!--Midgrid(talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lap leads

An editor is adding lap leaders to Grand Prix articles (example). I thought this was considered trivia and not truly an encyclopedic information (with or without the decoration), but felt I should get a confirmation here before revert the additions. ^LeaveSleaves 15:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

revert; a) its trivia; b) should be noted in prose. D.M.N. (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I throught that it would be helpful if it was included, as some people like that sort of information. User:F1season] 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Whose in the lead" can easily be put into text in the race summary, even if it's someone leading for one lap. We don't need more charts. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivial point that can be covered in text if important. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We need to be careful of adding too many stats and tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for the comments. ^LeaveSleaves 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we still have the laps lead list in the 'notes' area though? Chubbennaitor 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Lap leads lists in general are trivia and should not be added simply as lists. However, the same information can be covered well enough in the prose section wherever significant. ^LeaveSleaves 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any information of this type could and should be in the prose. Lap leaders are important enough to be featured in the race report, apart from guys who lead for a lap or two during a round of pitstops. These leads are trivial anyway and do not need to be mentioned, in my view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New 2010 Teams in Template:Formula One constructors

Is there any way we could incorporate the three new F1 teams, Team US F1, Campos Grand Prix and Manor Grand Prix into the constructors template? It is currently rather annoying trying to move between the three when adding new details, particularly if there are more to come. Could we add an extra small section? What do we think? Petera93 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and added another group. I really can't see any reason why those three can't be in the template. Apterygial 11:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that- I was tempted to do it myself, I was just slightly worried about doing it all wrong and messing it up. I'll add the template to the articles in a second. Petera93 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationality again

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

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

Breakaway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aw, crap. The war's back on again. [5] Readro (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Flags again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see your point and made further investigations. Nine-ball was put it into MOSFLAG by SMcCandlish at 13:42, 14 September 2007, [6] when the article looked like this. Basically, nobody checked later to see if the article has changed (and deviated from the MOSFLAG). Regardless, the F1 list here does not have multiple instances of flags spread across columns to spur such issues, does it? One flag per row in each table; only the first table would need {{flag}}, the second could do with {{flagicon}}. Jappalang (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see it working. They are driving under a British or German flag, but not for Germany. If that follows? 'UK Jenson Button' seems odd. Would a legend be appropiate somewhere in the table section? Though all this does seem unnecessary in that we appear to be assuming that our readers are unaware of common flags (They can acctually look up those flags on the wiki if they want!), all a debate for MOS:FLAGS however. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"They can acctually look up those flags on the wiki if they want!" is not going to help readers (let us not disturb their reading experience by making them go plowing through the Wiki). We are to serve the readers and make it less confusing for them. That is what the MOS is advocating—clarity for the readers. The claim is that the flag is to serve nationality and not international representation, but is that clear? Would someone not familiar with F1 simply see the flags as representing international competition? Template:Flag states that you can use {{flag|UK|name=British}} to show nationality, thus British. The first table can either do that or include a Nationality column to help readers understand it is nationality that the flag represents (and of what nationality in text). The whole point of including text on first showing of the flags is to avoid ambiguity and confusion. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "false information" was my misunderstanding, and has no part to play in my stance I first came with and still hold (names on first mention of flags in tables/list). Jappalang (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

One might not know the locations, flags, or existence of certain countries, but stating the name would give them a word that they would more readily identify with than an uncertain flag—Congolese Racer B. In such a situation, they (ignoring accessibility factors) would be more of "Congolese... must be some nationality, perhaps, Congo? Okay." rather than "What the heck is this flag? Why do I have to click on the thing just to find out?!" The naming is only for the first list/table with flags.

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

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

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

Cubbennaitor, the MOS you point to states,

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

The original issue is not over the removal of flags but their placement next to their countries' name on first mention (effectively the first list/table). 2008 Monaco GP was going on a "no-name-on-first-mention" format before this ruckus,[7] so your above statements seem contrary to what you are linking. Could you clarify your stance? Jappalang (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discrepencies

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

1. 2008 Monaco Grand Prix without flags in table; the other 600+ have flags
2. Some 1995 race reports I've worked on have no boldness in table; the other 580+ do have boldness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new series

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

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

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

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

Test driver / third driver

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

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

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

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

Citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F1 2010 (video game) protection and contradiction in sources

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

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

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

2008 French Grand Prix peer review

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

1971 South African Grand Prix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reference: [8], [9]. Here's a Cosworth in the back of Fabrizio Barbazza's F3000 Leyton House [10]. Although on the other hand we also have [11] and [12], and Clark is seen here with a Ford [13]. Forix use the term "Ford Cosworth", so maybe we can do something like that. It just seems daft to link to Ford Motor Company when we have better suited articles like Cosworth or Cosworth DFV for DFV cases. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bertrand Gachot's nationality

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

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

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

'I am not really one nationality,' he says. 'I feel very much a European, but today I have to accept that a united Europe is not yet a reality. Certainly from a legal point of view." [14]

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1951 Belgian Grand Prix (Offical names of races)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formula One Car Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A "gem"

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009 F1 Season drivers

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

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

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

To do list - HIGH IMPORTANCE

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

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

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

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

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

Brabham BT46 GA Sweeps: On Hold

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

Campos Drivers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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