Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Dashes

User:Kwamikagami has recently edited numerous F1 race report, season summary and "xxx Grand Prix" articles to replace the hyphens between constructor and engine name with en-dashes, like this. I have asked him not to make any further such edits until consensus for or against such changes is established here. DH85868993 (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm opposed to the change, mainly because I foresee it leading to an ongoing maintenance issue (i.e. even if we change all existing instances, I think editors will continue to use hyphens when contributing new text). Plus, if it's a sensible change for F1 constructors, then it would also be a sensible change for all other racing categories, which would mean many more articles which would need to be updated and maintained (and probably require consensus at all the other motor racing WikiProjects). I just don't think the perceived benefit is worth the effort. DH85868993 (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It may not be worth the effort. The reason for it, as laid out at WP:ENDASH, is the same as for objects or laws named after two people: the en dash distinguishes a joint name from a single person with a hyphenated name. For example, it is unclear what "Ligier-Mugen-Honda" would be, unless you happen to be familiar with Mugen-Honda. Some sources leave spaces between the partners, so that a hyphen is only used for hyphenated names. Thus, that example would be "Ligier Mugen-Honda" However, some names already have spaces in them, so "Toro Rosso Cosworth" is opaque if the reader is not familiar with Toro Rosso. And if you hyphenated it "Toro Rosso-Cosworth", it looks like Toro and Rosso-Cosworth joined by a space. "Ligier–Mugen-Honda" and "Toro Rosso–Cosworth", on the other hand, are unambiguous.

I could take care of the F1 articles, which would leave a minor amount of maintenance as new articles are written. At the very least, I think the articles should be formatted per the MOS if they are nominated for GA or FA. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I for one don't really think the majority of Wikipedia readers, let alone F1 article readers, would know the difference between two styles of dashes. This really would not help inform people any more than it would confuse people as to why the dashes "look funny". The³5₉ (Talk) 08:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the current system (i.e. using hyphens) is ambiguous as it is anyway, as the chassis and engine constructors are almost always linked, to different pages, and so appear thus: Ligier-Mugen-Honda, so there should be no confusion. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a trivial issue, but since we are discussing it here already, here's my take: We are talking grammar/style, not the content. It's true that en-dashes are preferred stylistically to hyphens in the case discussed. Refer to any number of manuals of style and to Wiki's already cited policies. I also feel that arguing against the use of en-dashes is a bit like arguing against proper placement of commas or periods, especially if it's done on the basis that it's hard to maintain going forward (i.e. there is always a chance that new edits will contain incorrectly placed punctuation) – yes, no Wiki article may ever be perfect, but that's not a good reason not to improve it. I would say we need to support the users who are willing to undertake an effort to improve articles in such stylistic ways – even more so since they are willing to maintain this going forward. So I strongly support the replacement of hyphens with dashes where appropriate. cherkash (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Cherkash in that technically, endashes should be used where grammatically appropriate. However, I'm not convinced that hyphens are grammatically incorrect in the way we're using them. According to Dash#Relationships and connections, there is some disagreement over whether to use a hyphen or an endash in these attributive compounds, and neither can be said to be right or wrong. There's also an argument that says (for example) a Minardi-Ford is not so much a pair of independent elements making up a whole, but in fact an intrinsically bound-together entity, which as such would be hyphenated as per the Wikipedia MOS. Certainly, Formula One cars are often referred to as such. I certainly think there's enough ambiguity to not bother trawling through thousands of articles changing them. Furthermore, endashes make sentences look untidy - just my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So we have:

• two editors in favour of the changes (including one who stated that it may not be worth the effort)
• three editors who think the changes aren't necessary and/or that there's sufficient ambiguity that it's not worth the effort, and
• one editor opposed to the changes

Does that indicate insufficient support for the changes to be made? Please note that I'n not trying to hurry the discussion to a premature conclusion, but I'm mindful that if there is a consensus for Kwamikagami's changes to be reverted, then the sooner it occurs, the easier it will be (i.e. before intervening edits prevent the changes being simply "undone"). DH85868993 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I will revert Kwamikagami's changes, to restore consistency across the Formula One articles. DH85868993 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Race reports

I think we need to review our race reports. I was just checking out the 2010 Malaysian Grand Prix page and I was struck by just how unencycloaedic it is. I know I've courted controversy myself for being unencyclopaedic in my writings, but this is something else entirely. The race report is little more than lists of driver names, the laps they pitted on, and the times they set both before and after pitting, and all of it shoehorned into a paragraph of prose. It also feels like it was written by someone who is a fan of Lewis Hamilton, since Hamilton's exploits get recounted first and in detail before the author doubles back to describe what happened to others two laps previously. I wrote the original race reports for most of the 2010 season, but going back through them, they've all changed dramatically. It feels like the same person is doing it, but since it was a year ago, I can't work out who it was.

When I write a race report, I always follow the same structure: 1) Any major incidents before the race (like speculation over Red Bull's "start-only KERS" device or drivers who cannot take to the grid). 2a) The start, from the line to the first corner, including anyone who gained significant positions. 2b) Any subsequent incidents on the first lap, such as accidents. 3) Establish a running order for the first phase of the race (lap two to the first round of stops). 4) The first round of stops, but only if there have been any incidents along the way. 5) The second phase of the race, usually from the first driver to stop through to the last driver to stop. 6) Recount any and all retirements in the order they happened, from the start to the end of the second phase. May require some foreshadowing earlier in the report. 7) Anything and everything that happened in the final phase of the race. 8) The finish, including the winning driver, his margin to second place, and anything significant about the top three (such as Vitaly Petrov's first podium in Melbourne). This is followed by listing all of the points-scoring positions.

I think we really need to establish a set of guidelines for writing race reports, and monitor the pages to stop reports like the 2010 Malaysian GP report cropping up again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely the best guidelines we've got are the featured articles? There's quite a few for the 2008 season that cover 'regular' races, which would have a fairly good structure to follow. AlexJ (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the 2010 Malaysian report was written by User:Gokul009, who is thankfully now permanently blocked for sockpuppetry. He was also the guy who kept vandalising the Lewis Hamilton article with the racist stuff. At least we can be sure he won't be writing any reports this year. I agree that following the example of the featured articles would be a good idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of uncounted championship points

I notice that an anonymous user, under the IP address of 87.198.178.118, has been removing the championship points that did not count towards the championship in the results tables. (See an example here) In my view, the articles have been like this for some time without any issue, and removing the bracketed points does make some of the points disappear without any explanation, so I don't think this is necessarily a good change. Any thoughts on this? QueenCake (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning (if it doesn't count, why mention it?), but IMO it's wrong, because of the cases where the winner was actually outscored. Also because it will (may... :/) make readers who don't know all points didn't always count look further, which is a worthwhile thing IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't see the reasoning. This is not a "post hoc application" of recent rules. The drivers concerned did score those points, even if they were later discounted for the Championship. In scoring those points they prevented their rivals from amassing them; it isn't as if, once they had decided which points were going to count and which were not, that the results of the races were altered, is it? They were clearly marked as what they were, put them back. Pyrope 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Another re-writing of history. Contemporary accounts give those results with both the full score and the discounted one. To be reverted. 4u1e (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Forget "recent rules". Rules in play at the time for many points meant they did not count. There's at least one case (names I don't recall... :( ) where the Championship winner was outscored by 2d place man, but won the title because the 2d place man's points didn't all count. So the question remains, should only the points that counted be included, or not? As noted, I think all should be. Which doesn't mean I don't see the point. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reasoning implies knowledge and understanding. The justifications offered in the edit summaries for these actions belies a lack of both. Pyrope 00:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Prost scored more points in 1988 than Senna, until the scores were discounted. And since we're in the game of reflecting secondary sources, not making our own rules, I can confirm that for example the 1989 Autocourse gives both total and discounted scores in the end of season table (see page 241). 4u1e (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Prost scored more points in 1988 than Senna" Actually, IIRC it was Graham Hill... Neither am I defending the deletion, just to be very clear about it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Prost did score more points in 1988 than Senna (before dropped scores). Doesn't seem to apply to either of Hill's championships. You may be thinking of 1963, when Hill finished second ahead of Richie Ginther only because Ginther had to drop scores. Anyway, the point we're both making is that the dropped scores are sometimes of interest. 4u1e (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Well, Prost did score more points in 1988 than Senna" I seem to recall that. ;p No, after a bit of looking, I find it was Surtees & Hill in '64. And, notice, I completely agree with you. I think removing the "non-counts" is a bad idea. I simply do understand the reasoning. I don't say, nor have AFAIK ever said, I agree with it. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Of interest in what respect? The championship table should reflect the championship standings as they were according to the rules at the time. If total points are to be included they should not be part of the championship standings.

In the respect that it provoked debate at the time. And eventually a change in the rules of course. And that's a bit of a straw man, since of course the tables do reflect the championship standings as they were at the time. No-one is pretending that Prost won the 1988 championship or that Ginther finished second in 1963. 4u1e (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also in that there may well be readers who don't know all points didn't always count, & that it was ever possible to take the title with fewer points or fewer wins. (Which I belive is correct; IIRC, if only best results counted, more 2d- or 3d-places might actually outscore a lower number of wins.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated on the F1 website "only the best x of y SCORES counted towards the championship". My reasoning is that as soon as a driver achieved a 5th haul of points it immediately made the "5th best score" irrelevant and those points were deleted determining championship position. Since the tables are "World Championship" tables it should not include scores which don't obey World Championship rules. Therefore, if driver A had won the first 4 races in the 1950 season setting fastest lap then no further points would be awarded in the remaining 3 races, so how could they be counted? In my edit I have placed a note below the tables specifying exactly how many scores counted towards the championship, which would inform an individual previously unaware of the rules. Including a "total points scored if all scores counted" score is extra analysis above and beyond the championship table and as such should not be included in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.178.118 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet those dropped points are almost always included in drivers career totals - indicating that the officials running Formula One do not share this belief. --Falcadore (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ, given that Luigi Fagioli's score for the 1950 championship is listed on the F1.com website as 24 (i.e. 4x6pts for second place and ignoring his 3rd place finish). There is a difference between points scored in any given race and points scored which count towards the championship. On the championship standings for each season on the F1 page there is no mention of "total points scored if all scores counted" only the total according to the best x of y rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.178.118 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But as indicated above at least some reliable contemporary secondary sources (Autocourse for one) do list both sets of scores, as we do here. What Formula1.com does is also of interest, but their tables are not particularly accurate and if we're talking about 'post hoc' application of rules I'd take a contemporary Autocourse over a 21st century website any day of the week. 4u1e (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your criteria for inaccuracy being that they do not include what you would like them to? Autocourse is a second hand source, it was not published by the governing body. However, the official Formula One website is. Furthermore, the Crash Media Group's "Autocourse Grand Prix Archive" displays the same points scores as the F1 website which, if what you say about the annuals are correct, directly contradicts their earlier published work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.30.210 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh? My criteria for accuracy are, for example, that regardless of what F1.com says, Johnny Herbert did not race a Lotus in the final three races of the 1994 season. And various other examples of a similar nature. Wikipedia (a tertiary source) has a preference for secondary sources over primary as it happens, although the F1.com website is no more a primary source than Autocourse is. Accuracy of the F1.com website is probably a side issue here, but as it happens although it's a great resource for new stuff it has its problems for older material and if we're talking about the 1950s, well before F1.com or FOM existed, I'm not sure I see where its over-riding authority comes from. 4u1e (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Formula1.com is not owned by the FIA, it is owned by Formula One Management (FOM), which is Bernie Ecclestone's company, which plays no part in the rule-making process. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But it is the sole company with explicit permission from the FIA to promote information regarding Formula One. Since the website is being used to correct race times and gaps to the leader in various races, it would appear that most of the content is viewed as trustworthy. And as I have said already, an Autocourse website gives the same final championship standings as the F1 website. 87.198.30.210 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What permission is this? You seem to be confusing the series promoter and owner and the series governing body, and what the relation between the two is. The FIA does not own Formula One, they would not be able to permit or revoke permission for data. Formula1.com having some correct data does not mean all of their data is correct, this has been discussed by this project before. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The FIA sold the commercial rights of Formula One to FOWC, thus the FOWC results are the official results, in the same manner that an FOWC video feed is the official one. This not a discussion on the ownership of Formula One, it is about the reason for including total points "scored". The additional points serve no purpose other than to show who would have won a championship if the rules were just a little bit different and these should not be included in a final championship table because it does not accurately reflect the regulations at the time. 87.198.30.210 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Um... no. Just wrong. Firstly, the commercial rights are only leased. Secondly, they are only commercial rights, they have nothing to do with rule making or regulation. FWOC (nee FOM) are just the series promoter, they don't write the rules, they don't administrate entries, they don't run the lap timing, they don't police the cars' legality, and there is much much more that that they don't do. This issue got confused during Max Mosely's time as he pretty much did Bernie Ecclestone's bidding, but Jean Todt is doing a good job of re-establishing the boundaries between the series promoter and the sanctioning body. As for the total points issue, all of the points were scored, its just that later some were not counted towards the Championship placings. Once a driver had enough point to win the Championship they didn't stop scoring points. Had they finished first they were awarded the points commensurate, they didn't go to the second placed driver. Contemporary secondary sources list the total points scored so we can too. Therefore we have the option, and in my opinion it is daft to remove perfectly valid information that was properly noted and identified for what it was and distinguished from the final scoring total. Pyrope 14:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's at least partly my fault, but we're getting off topic here. The sale of rights post-dates the change in the rules anyway, so the current ownership of the information is not that relevant. Anon, I understood your original position to be that we were inappropriately applying modern rules to the pre-1990 results. You now seem to be arguing the other way round - that we should take a single modern source as the only indicator of how results should be presented. Have I misunderstood? 4u1e (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My view is that it makes no sense to take away this information - the points were awarded and then later dropped, so the pages gave both stats, with emphasis on the championship deciding dropped score. Whilst we are sometimes guilty of going over the top on details, this is one case where the cost of having the information is so small (four characters), it makes no sense to delete it. Oh, and as for Formula1.com only listing Fagioli's 1950 score as 24 points and not 28 points 87.198.xxx.xxx, take a look at [1] (or look for yourself [2].) AlexJ (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I also believe the information should be retained. If the "total points" are not displayed, I suspect we will see increased instances of non-expert editors "correcting" a driver's points to equal [his points from the previous race] + [the number of points scored at this race] (notwithstanding the "only best N results count" footnote proposed by the IP editor). This has occurred in the past with the 2000 Austrian Grand Prix where a well-intentioned editor has updated McLaren's score to include the 10 points they were docked for the seal missing from Häkkinen's car.DH85868993 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion?: The Anon seems to have left the conversation and as I understand that everyone else believes the bracketed points should be restored, I'll revert his/her changes unless I hear otherwise within the next 24 hours. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Think I got them all. 4u1e (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep you got them all. I was going to do it myself, having started the discussion, but had an unscheduled leave away from here. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Third driver tables

Noticed a bunch of drivers who have never been anything other than Third Drivers were getting full results. Third drivers do not make a contribution to the Formula One season beyond practice and testing. Doesn't affect the grid or the race results. Unless you get a race start a table indicating when you've done a practice session is just overkill. --Falcadore (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, there are a few races which have a table listing third drivers but gives no other indication or explanation as to why this is significant. These should be deleted as well. --Falcadore (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted you at Fairuz Fauzy, I hadn't seen this discussion at that point. I disagree on the first point - third drivers take part in the weekend and I don't see how it matters that it doesn't affect the result. Lots of things we mention don't affect the result. It's valid information to mention which races each third driver has participated in, and I don't see the logic in including third driver participations for drivers who have started a race, and not for those who haven't. Either the info is valid or it isn't, and there doesn't seem to be any real reason just to delete it from several articles and not all of them. Why is Vettel's third driver info more important than Fauzy's? They did the same job.

On your second point, I don't think the information should be deleted, as this is the kind of information that people look for, me for starters. The info should probably not be in a table, but transferred to text, with a proper explanation of what third drivers do at a race weekend. Bretonbanquet (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The information is statistics for the sake of statistics. These are articles about the drivers, and all the table says is that they practiced at one session which did not count for anything. It's a large table which can be entirely replaced with a seven word sentence. It's table bloating for no actual benefit. To use you're vernacular, it's not valid information for tabular purposes. --Falcadore (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As I say, I disagree. In terms of a driver's career, the information is clearly important, and it is not by any standards a large table. If you think it's not information "for tabular purposes", then presumably you advocate removing all third driver info from all tables? Why is third driver info invalid, but DNS / DNQ info valid? That info has no effect on the race result either. Bretonbanquet (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I advocate removal if third driver is the ONLY information it carries. Apart from anything it carries the additional implication that the driver concerned is a Formula One driver, when they are not. --Falcadore (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an arbitrary line drawn with no basis in the information itself. Either the information is useful or it isn't. We can't have a situation where it's useful for some drivers and not for others, when it is the exact same information. It's probably a good thing that this info implies that these guys are Formula One drivers, because they are Formula One drivers. Their job is to drive Formula One cars. They don't have race seats, they are not race drivers, but they are F1 drivers. The info does not state or imply that they are race drivers, in fact it says very clearly that they are (TD) test drivers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not an arbitrary line at all. You have a race start, you get a table. I fail to see how that is even remotely arbitrary. Until you get a race start, you are not a Formula One driver, it is the same policy we've used almost everywhere else in Formula One statistics. --Falcadore (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bretonbanquet on this issue. Drivers like Ernesto Viso, Giorgio Mondini, Matteo Bobbi, Daniel Ricciardo (to name a few) have competed in official sessions of World Championship Grands Prix, and I think this fact is of sufficient notability for inclusion in their articles.--Midgrid(talk) 19:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent, not to say a touch apathetic, on this issue, but to say that they "competed" is wrong. There is no competition during testing, despite what some people seem to think. Pyrope 22:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is my point. --Falcadore (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In which case, you should be advocating removal of all third driver participations in results tables. To talk about removing some and not others does not constitute a balanced policy. It really doesn't matter about the semantics of "did they compete" or "did they just participate" - they were present in the Friday a.m. sessions at the Grands Prix - so at the moment, we include those participations in the F1 tables. Is anyone advocating removal of those cells? Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That, to me, is a side issue that I am indifferent towards. You have my arguments above. I am not indifferent to inclusion in the article, but just testing is a long way short. Testing does not indicate anything other than they were there, and that in itself can be misleading, as a filled in box suggests they took part in the race, until you look up what TD actually means. You state above that TD states very clearly that TD is Test Driver. It is NOT clear at all. No explanation of what TD means is provided in the Fairuz Fauzy article at all. So some of your reputtal points are not accurate. --Falcadore (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to seem awkward here, but what is the key for if not to tell people what the abbreviations mean? TD no more implies that a driver took part in a race than EX, DNQ or DNS does. If any reader is unclear on these abbreviations, then the key is right there to be used. The explanation IS there - there is nothing inaccurate or misleading about it whatsoever. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, not seeing it. Is it hidden? Is it in a compeletely different article? --Falcadore (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Each table has a wikilink to the relevant key, below the subtitle, above the table itself. I presume we don't show the keys on the page in order to save space, unlike the season articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly there, where it says "Key" - it could be made more obvious but that is beside the point. Bretonbanquet is right that either being a test driver on a Friday is valid or it isn't. It doesn't only become valid if a driving goes on to race in a Grand Prix later on in his career. There has to be a level all across the field and not the inconsistency between articles that Falcadore is suggesting: Fauzy or Ricciardo are no different to Yamamoto or Vettel in the validity or significance in them competing in a Friday practice session before a Grand Prix. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fauzy or Ricciardo are no different to Yamamoto or Vettel - except we have firmly established, across basically every other collection of statistics that they are different. Two are Formula One drivers, two are not. This is the core of my point. --Falcadore (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the point that Mr X clearly made was ...in the validity or significance in them competing in a Friday practice session before a Grand Prix, which is what we're talking about here - nothing else. What you're saying is that Yamamoto's and Vettel's Friday practice appearances are more notable than Ricciardo's or Fauzy's, which is patently not the case. We even have Hulkenberg taking part in the very same session, yet you'd include his result and not Ricciardo's. Where is the logic in that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never once made that point, and I would appreciate that you not put words into my mouth. --Falcadore (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, how else would you like to put it? You want to include one driver's participation in a particular session (Hulkenberg), but not another driver's participation in the same session (Ricciardo). Yet you say that one is not more notable than the other? Please explain the logic in that, without making any pointless reference to any other aspect of these drivers' careers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore, that is exactly what you have come across as saying. You have been wanting to remove information from Fauzy etc. on the basis that he has never started a Grand Prix when that is quite irrelevant to the validity of his participation in Friday practice. His participation has equal weighting and significance to any other driver regardless of were their race career leads: fact is they have reached the milestone of being in Friday practice and that doesn't only then become significant if they then go further and race in a Grand Prix - it is significant now for what is it and will not become more so over time depending on the future of the driver's career. This is really a common sense issue about keeping a level ground. It is the session status which is important here, not the driver. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

His participation has equal weighting and significance to any other driver regardless of were their race career leads... [it] doesn't only then become significant if they then go further and race in a Grand Prix - exactly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The logic is, Fauzy, Ricciardo et al, are not a Formula One drivers. They've never started a race. A table full of TDs conveys no real information of significance, that is not already covered by the body of the articles. --Falcadore (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

But it's not covered by the article. Also, this is exactly the sort of information that is best displayed in a table rather than a paragraph of text trying to explain the same thing. You, with respect, still don't seem to be understanding the main point of the argument, which has been explained many times above, that the significance of a session is not driver dependant. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore, I disagree that these guys are not Formula One drivers, as I have outlined already above. Since when is the definition of a Formula One driver dependent on whether or not they've started a race? These are people who drive Formula One cars for Formula One teams at Formula One events - it's not outlandish to hold the view that they're Formula One drivers. I suggest we see if anyone else agrees with your proposal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

But it's not covered by the article. Really? Which one? --Falcadore (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore, I disagree that these guys are not Formula One drivers. Well the structure of how Wikipedia:F1 is set up very firmly establishes a difference between those who have started races and those who have not, so I'm afraid the entire project disagrees with you. --Falcadore (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Have to start a race to be F1 drivers? - what about those drivers in the 1950s who failed to qualify for Grand Prix etc. but are still listed in the drivers' standings. You always refer to Wikipedia policy but has it ever occurred to you that it could be wrong (or need amending), afterall it was written by people no different to us, so policies can be daft or lacking in common sense much of the time. Just a thought. Officially Mr X (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the structure of how Wikipedia:F1 is set up very firmly establishes a difference between those who have started races and those who have not, so I'm afraid the entire project disagrees with you. Show me where this is "set up" - show me a project policy, a guideline, anything in fact, that "very firmly" says an F1 driver is only so-called when he starts a race. This is becoming ridiculous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr.X - how many races have Fauzy and Ricciardo and friends attempted to qualify for? How many? Is it less than one? If you have not even attempted to qualify for a race, never even tried, then how can it count? I've been accused of lacking logic in the debate, where is the logic of including drivers who have never, ever tried? TD makes no acknowledgement of performance, good, bad or indifferent, because there was no performance at all. Breton: you've accused me of lacking logic, I have laid out the logic. Zero starts, zero attempts. Zero. This is the setup I refer to. Additionally have a look at Daniel Ricciardo's category article. His article does not belong to any Wikipedia Formula One categories. This is also the set-up I refer to. You might disagree, but it is not illogical. So please, do not make it personal. --Falcadore (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So in fact there is no WP:F1 structure that dictates this at all, just categories that are present or not present in a driver's article? And there is no "firmly established difference between those that have started races and those that haven't"? I'm not making anything personal, but you said things that don't seem to be based in fact. Yes, these guys have not actually entered the races, but the point remains - Vettel/Yamamoto/Hulkenberg etc didn't enter those races either, and the idea of including some and not others is farcical, in my opinion. The question revolves not around the drivers themselves, but the notability of a driver's presence in a Friday morning practice session. My argument is that a driver's presence in a Friday morning practice session is either notable or it isn't. Either they are all notable, or none of them is notable. Your argument appears to be that Friday practice appearances are notable, but only for drivers who have since entered a race unconnected with that practice session, and that once a driver starts a race, then his test driver practice sessions from previous races suddenly become notable - is this your argument? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

TD makes no acknowledgement of performance, good, bad or indifferent, because there was no performance at all. Of course there's a performance. It's a timed session, in which the FIA rank the participants in order of the times they achieved, as opposed to pre-season testing, which has unofficial timing. The Friday testers are included in that ranking. It has no bearing on other sessions, but the fact remains that the drivers are officially ranked by time. All the results tables make no reference to anybody's performance in practice or qualifying (except pole position) - the TD is there to show which practice sessions that driver participated in. It really seems that you're implying that you think these test driver presences are not notable per se. I would find this a comprehensible argument, if it were applied to all drivers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What Vettel or Hulkenberg may or may not have done is not relevant to the point I am trying to make. I've not said a third driver appearance by a driver who has a race start is notable and a driver with no race starts is not. I am not suggesting any alterations to other drivers tables. You may say it is farcical to suggest that, but I have never made any such suggestion. Any farce is contained entirely within your own argument and I wish you would not imply any connection to my arguement.

The fact additionally remains that if you look at the results of say the 2011 Chinese Grand Prix, none of those third drivers appear anywhere. Whether they took part in a practice session or not, they have no official presense in either race results, or season pointscore. There is no performance. The season is made of the races, of which these drivers have not participated.

And the table itself is titled Complete Formula One results. But there is no result is there? --Falcadore (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

MidGrid: I am not saying third driver appearances is not notable enough for inclusion in articles. My entire argument is that a table of Formula One Results that contains nothing but TD's should be deleted. That table could be entirely replaced by a seven word sentence, which in all cases already exists, despite Mr.X assertion that it does not. --Falcadore (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to agree to differ. There's a fundamental difference of opinion on the implication of a prospective removal of "some" tables. I've made the point a number of times that I believe if one driver can have a TD in his table, then any other driver must have one as well, due to consistency. I do find it bewildering that you find farce in that argument, and with respect, I find your reasoning for this proposal utterly nonsensical. In your paragraph that starts: The fact additionally... - in my view, you strongly imply that third driver presences are not notable, and I'm amazed you don't see that. If Ricciardo's table could be replaced by a seven word sentence, why can't the 2006 row in Vettel's table be deleted in the same way? It takes up practically the same amount of room, i.e. not much. I am tired of this exchange - let's see if there is any support for this proposal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't find farce at all. Apart from me using it to highlight a reponse I've never used the word - again putting words into my mouth. I make no suggestion as to whether TD should be removed from drivers like Vettel or not. That you find it bewildering is strange becuase I've never made any suggestion one way or the other on that topic. Consistency with other articles has never been a part of the argument, apart from to point out how we use consistency to define who is and is not a Formula One driver. Easing your bewilderment is easy, because you are arguing in places side issues that I'm not talking about. I do not believe third driver appearances is not notable. If you imply that from my arguement then I state here that is not what I am implying, any implication is entirely your doing.

A table titled Results, that has no results in it should be deleted. Does that make it clearer for you? Instead of making implications and creating farces and talking about drivers articles I have no issue with and am not proposing making any alterations to, why not talk about that? --Falcadore (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Any farce is contained entirely within your own argument - your words. I don't need to put them in your mouth. I know you've made no suggestion that Vettel's participations should be removed - my point is exactly that they're identical to Ricciardo's, yet you advocate one removal and not the other, for no other reason than driver #1 has done some other stuff and driver #2 hasn't. Some of the tables are titled "participations" rather than "results", if that settles the petty results semantics argument. I assume you're not going to suggest they haven't participated. The tables contain information, best displayed in a table rather than text. If I see false implications, that's because I read what you write and try to figure out a more logical reasoning than the confusing one that is most apparent. You usually make plenty of sense. If your argument simply consists of removing third driver participations from drivers who have not started a race, for no other reason than because you don't like the tables and you erroneously believe all that information can be put into seven words in the text, then I struggle to put into words how unencyclopedic, inconsistent, arbitrary and unbalanced I find that. I know you don't advocate it for other drivers, but there appears to be no reason whatsoever why you don't find the same objection to rows such as Vettel's 2006 row. Why is consistency something you have no interest in? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Any farce is contained entirely within your own argument, and what I meant by that was that your words were the only place farce had come from. You were the only one who had typed that word, a[part from the clarifier above. It was not meant to imply anything about an opinion of your argument. --Falcadore (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't draw an opinion from an abstention. That I do not advocate removal from Vettel's is not an opinion for or against removal, it is simply not what I am talking about. It can be up to others what happens in the case of Vettel. To me it is a separate issue. For the purposes of this argument, TD is not indication of a result, it's a job description. It is similar if we filled a box of results on Adrian Neweys page with a disgnation as Designer. That Ricciardo's role in the team is that of a Third driver is not improtant next to the fact he took no part in the race or qualifying what-so-ever. And a table full of Results which only state what role Ricciardo and others has and does not indicate a result at all (which very importantly is the title of the table) is either confused in its intent or fundamentally wrong. Additionally I find that changing Results to Participations produces equally semantic a result - a third driver is not a participant. Where in the results of a grand prix are third drivers listed? I've never seen a Grand prix result primary or secondary, that says 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc DNF, DNS, Third Driver. --Falcadore (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that what you mean to say always comes across clearly in what is typed on the page, but in any case, this is pointless. Input is required from others if this is to go any further. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore, can I just point out that there is a difference between a third driver and a third driver who participates in a practice session. Therefore, "TD" is more than just a job description in this case, it is referring to a performance that was there. This consistency thing is one the most important issues here, despite what you might say, because it is fundamental to any balanced publication or encyclopedia. You cannot cherry-pick information or leave it fully open to interpretation that one driver's participation in a session is more important than another, or by not including the table for a driver like Ricciardo, it may not even be obvious that he was in the session because in line with other driver articles, a reader would be expecting a table to confirm that information. Anyway, this argument has gone on way too long - I think someone else needs to give their opinion on this, and then a conclusion can be reached. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is not some value of performance attached to it, then it is just a job description. All third drivers have the same describer do they not? 1st, 2nd, 15th are all obvious performance indicators. DNF/Ret indicates they did not finish. DNS/DNQ give a very basic description of events. TD does nothing of the kind, it merely describes what they are. How can it do anything else because they did not particpate in the race or in qualifying whatsoever. There was no performance. Once the timing clocks made an actual difference to the unfolding of the event they did not set foot on the track.

Additionally you seem to have no understanding of half of what I am saying. I am not cherry picking in anyway. You are describing things of me which have not occurred whatsoever. I am not saying TD should be removed from Vettel's page. I am not saying it should be retained. I am offering no opinion at all on Vettel or any other 'graduated' former third driver. I am offering this argument only on articles like Fauzy, Ricciardo and other drivers who have likewise not participated in a race or qualifying session. That you've linked in this argument about consistency is entirely your doing. I am not sure how many different ways I can say it. Do not connect my motivations on this subject with other subjects I have not offerred an opinion on.

If you wish to have a debate on whether TD should be retained on other drivers pages, I can create a separate discussion for you to hold forth on it, you will likely have that discussion to yourself. I am not sure how to ask this diplomatically, but is abstention a difficult concept for you to grasp? --Falcadore (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I just think it seems a little odd that you have such strong views on TD for some drivers, and no opinion at all about the same information for other drivers. You spend a lot of time explaining how third drivers don't enter the race, participate in qualifying or have any kind of "result" to speak of, yet all that opinion evaporates once a guy starts a race. It implies that the third driver role only means something when a driver has left it behind and started racing. Until then, it means nothing. I do get what you mean, but I don't agree at all, and I just don't see how Wikipedia can make such an arbitrary distinction and remain encyclopedic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing of the kind. The two need to be debated separately. While they are related, the reasons to keep/delete are different. I can't stop you making implications as to my motive, but I can tell you when you have made an incorrect assumption. It seems I need to spend more time doing this than debate the actual subject. Question I have is, if you make the debate long enough and spend enough time going over the same words repeatedly will ir successfully intimidate any other edittors from weighing in? Well that seems to have worked. Or don't you like others attributing motive to your actions without confirming with the author? --Falcadore (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made no implications as to your motive (rest assured I have absolutely no idea what your motive is or even if you have one), and you need to assume good faith. I'd like you to retract your accusation that I've prolonged this debate in order to discourage other editors from joining in, when I have said clearly three times that we need them to do so, hoping that this futile to-and-fro would die a death. I haven't been talking to myself here, though you generally don't attempt to address any of my points anyway, you just repeat yourself.

In my last post, I told you already that I understand your point, I just don't agree with it. You really don't need to go over it again and again, as I can see now that there's no further rationale behind it to be brought out. I suspect the reason nobody else has weighed in is that it's an irrational suggestion and it's not going anywhere anyway. Two other editors have already said they don't agree with it, another didn't care, and I was just trying to understand it. This was because I initially suspected a rational impetus behind your proposal, simply because there usually is one with your proposals. I now accept that there's no coherent, encyclopedic policy basis for the suggestion at all, and we can leave it at that. I say again, let's see if anyone else has an opinion. Feel free to transclude our discussion if you feel it "intimidates" other editors, though I don't know of any regular WP:F1 editors who seem the intimidatable type. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes you got it. Mr.X is his last post however didn't. You however said it was odd, which you have also expressed previously, so it appeared I needed to re-iterate. Implications of lack of rationality however, don't appear to reflect good faith though. --Falcadore (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I did say it's odd, because that's what I think. I'm not saying that you're irrational - I'm talking about the proposal itself, and I'm saying that I see no rational policy basis for it. What I'm also saying is that you haven't provided a rationale answering my main objection to this proposal. I'm not going to repeat it because it's a waste of time, but in all this crap, there is no answer to that question. If you won't supply or even hint at an answer, or retract your accusation of my trying to artificially sway this discussion (like I need to), then I have nothing further to add. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have provided a rationale - you just don't agree or believe it. Pyrope, while admiting apathy, appears to have acknowledged some level of the concept with his line about stating that TD drivers and I quote "but to say that they "competed" is wrong". While examples like Wikipedia categories you have disagreed with, the distinctions do actually exist within Wikipedia, so some level of logic is inherent there as well. Third drivers are routinely not included in qualifying and race reports/summaries/tables in print and electronic media, so there is some level of belief there as well. OK, so we disagree on the point. --Falcadore (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I know all of what you've just said there, that's not what I'm talking about. My issue is this: here's an example, based on what I understand your preference to be - Chinese GP 2011. Hulkenberg and Ricciardo do the same third driver job in the same session. Hulkenberg gets a TD in his table. Ricciardo doesn't get a table because TDs don't justify a table as he hasn't started a race, he's not an F1 driver, and Friday a.m. practice sessions are not included in press qualifying/race data. I fully understand that part of your argument. My follow-on point is this: if TDs don't justify a table on their own for those reasons, then they don't merit being in any table at all. Conversely, if they do merit being in a table, then they justify a table even if there's no other info. You disagree with that, saying that they're two different subjects to be treated separately and you're not discussing TDs in race driver articles. I maintain the question: how can encyclopedic treatment of two pieces of identical information in two similar articles not be irretrievably related and treated in the same way, regardless of other aspects of the subject's career? My stance is that they cannot be treated separately with encyclopedic integrity remaining intact. Having TDs in all articles would be encyclopedic. Having TDs removed from all articles would be encyclopedic. Removing some TDs on the grounds that those drivers have a lower status would not be encyclopedic, when the nature of the TD role is exactly the same. On that, I never received a satisfactory answer. I know we disagree and it's best left that way, but I want to finish my involvement in this discussion by clarifying that initial point. I do not wish to be accused again of prolonging the debate to further some nefarious secret motive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That you have brought up Hulkenberg at all suggests you have not gotten my point. I brought up the difference between Formula One drivers and Formula One testers for a different reason than comparative labelling of table contents. Let me explain it thus - I am not advocating the removal of TDs, I am advocating the removal of entire tables that contain nothing but TDs in it. There is a difference between deleting the TD contents of a table and leaving it otherwise intact and deleting the table entirely. --Falcadore (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what you're advocating, why do you keep repeating it? I cannot fathom how you think I haven't understood your point - I just typed out a long paragraph detailing how I understand that you're only advocating the removal of TD-only tables and that you see a difference between TD-only tables and other tables. It's right there above, didn't you read it? I've moved beyond that to what I believe is an inextricably linked point, which you still haven't answered. I'm raising the subject of both types of table, because I'm saying that they can't be treated separately - this is my objection to your point. It's not a valid answer that you're not talking about race driver tables, because that is exactly my objection. It's a total fob-off. You have no apparent intention of answering or understanding that point, and this is a waste of my time, so we'll leave it there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, why the repitition on your part then? I understood your personal onjection was on the nature of consistency. My apologies if I did not make it clear that I understood your that nature of your objection. I reject it being unencyclopedic though on the basis that I would definatley agree with you on the unencyclopeidc part of your objection IF I was also advocating the removing of text describing a driver had a third driver role. --Falcadore (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review request

Hi guys, I've put 1980 Spanish Grand Prix up for a Peer Review here. If you've got a few minutes, could you take a look through the article, and let me know your thoughts. It doesn't have to be a full in-depth review - if you took a quick look and suggested even just one improvement that would still be much appreciated. Gracias, AlexJ (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Season review tables

Hello all, just a quick note to highlight more "work" by User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 and his IP sockpuppets. He seems to have taken the unilateral decision (surprise, surprise) to change the 1975 Constructors' Championship summary table to a complete compilation of all results for the constructors for the year, here. As ever I have asked for a discussion, and as ever they have refused. I'm not going to say anything more on that, as anything I do have to say would likely get me banned. I'm just opening the floor here for a discussion. Pyrope 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just try to give as much "good" information in a season in the 1975 Constructors' Championship iv'e also done that. I don't see the point that we should give a summary if we can give the whole information. Kevin 18:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a summary, it's the championship table. The rules at the time only rewarded constructors championship points to the highest placed car in the race, hence the reason only one car is shown in the tables. QueenCake (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The table needs a note to explain the championship points method for that year, but I'd agree that adding in three times as much irrelevant data as there was relevant data before certainly makes the table less useful. We give a summary, because a DNQ by a privateer is irrelevant in the scope of the championship if a works driver for the constructor scored points. AlexJ (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, a note stating the points system should indeed be added, as well as stop anyone else changing anything inaccurately. QueenCake (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this makes the table overly complicated if only the highest finishing car gets points. It basically leaves it up to the reader to have to work through the table to finish out what is the actual car that scored points for the team.

Simply having available information, even if it is good, does not mean it must be in a Wikipedia article. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing that seems to have been overlooked by some here is that yet again, a particular editor has made an edit, been reverted, then logged out and reverted back to his preferred version. Why are we putting up with this rubbish? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not be quick to make the accusation of sockpuppetry. Hes not block evading and hes not particularly attempting to appear as another user, so simply because he is making his reversions while logged out is not necessarily something done intentionally. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd believe that if he hadn't been told about ten times, and he didn't keep using his IPs to revert back when someone changes his edits. SPI would eat this for breakfast, like they did the last time he did it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree, breaking out the constructor points by driver is a bad idea & unnecessary, but I do like the addition of the car numbers in the results (somewhere...). Attach them to the driver's standings? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, after this discussion in which nobody agreed with him, did Kevin just revert to his preferred version [3] with no edit summary? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I did have a lengthy answer for you typed out here, but I deleted it as my blood pressure led me to say things that aren't passable in polite company. His flood of crap is spreading out into WTCC, F2 and other formulae now, as I feel he reckons that his disruption will be less stringently policed in the lesser series articles. I am increasingly feeling that we are dealing with a very subtle and insidious troll, but a troll nonetheless. He's been given an awful lot of chances to improve and so far nothing. Either it's intentional or it's stupidity, and we aren't here to offer a free creche for the hard of thinking. Pyrope 01:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Fleetwood Mac? Nice choice of tunes... ;-) Pyrope 01:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have many obsessions ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, as much as you perhaps do not want to hear this, this expanded version of the 1975 constructors table is actually harmful, as it presents the results as though all drivers for the that constructor contribute for each race which is fundamentally incorrect. Only the best car for each constructor contributed, so only the best contribution from each constructor should be listed. If a reader wants a more comprehensive breakdown of results can either consult a) consult the drivers' championship table above on the same page, or b) visit the page of the Grand Prix. It is not Wikipedia's role to operate as a results database. The format and coding are inadequate to perform that role competantly, so it should not be attempted. There are many other websites already in existance who perform that role more than adequately, Wikipedia should not be used to duplicate that level of detail, but rather to reference these other websites and provide appropriate links in order than other may look it up external to Wikipedia.

Perhaps you need to re-read some of the documentation that defines what Wikipedia is for? --Falcadore (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely spot on. Detail is great, but if it's not managed detail, Wikipedia becomes very difficult to use and worse, thoroughly misleading. In this case, Kevin is taking the level of statistical detail beyond a level which makes sense. Pushing it aggressively with reverts and different IPs is plain not allowed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

... aaaaaand again [4] Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So how do we go about requesting some formal sanctions. This is now definitely disruptive editing, breaching 3 reverts and sockpuppets rules amongst others, and more to the point is downright rude. I'm fed up of seeing time being wasted dealing with this by everyone, when we could all be doing something more productive to improve the encyclopedia. We've tried to sort it as a Wikiproject, attempts have been made to contact the editor directly through his talkpage without success. Anyone know where to escalate this to? AlexJ (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have an SPI case ready, I'm just waiting for Pyrope's input before I go ahead with it. When it begins, the more people who want to have their say, the better. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings could be started. --Falcadore (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry requires no warnings as such, we've allowed it in his case because he has contributed well enough in the past, and we have tried to talk to him about it on a number of occasions. Now that we've reached a point where he can't or won't edit properly, there's no real reason to continue turning a blind eye to the sockpuppetry. There's clear sockpuppet edit warring at Andy Priaulx and Colin Turkington, apart from the F1 1975 season article. You reverted him, his IP reverted back, CS Wolves reverted, and Kevin's named account reverted again - all on the same day. It's totally against the rules - no excuses. We're probably breaking the rules by not reporting it sooner. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This also: [5], [6] Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the examples you've selected place him on the cusp of 3R. --Falcadore (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to warn him of that, go ahead, but I think the sockpuppeteering is more serious, and the edit-warring will be taken into account there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started an SPI case here, so if anyone would like to make any comments either supporting or criticising this user, that is the place to do it. I've taken it there because I think the sockpuppetry is the most serious of the problems, and the consequences are a bit more far-reaching than the 24-hour blocks doled out for vandalism. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Brabham TFA 2 May

To note that Brabham will be on the main page tomorrow (2 May). Probably a relatively quiet day, in the UK at least, due to the Bank Holiday, but I'd be grateful for anyone who can keep an eye on the more insidious kind of vandalism.

The article was promoted back in 2006 and had suffered a bit of degradation in the intervening period: Apterygial and Bjmullan have been kind enough to do some spring cleaning on it. When I look at it now, it's not really how I would approach the topic, but I don't think there's enough time to rewrite the whole thing from scratch - perhaps we'll get some useful contributions during the day! 4u1e (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, well done on this! I've added it to my watch list for the duration. Pyrope 00:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seemed a quiet day in the end; this was the sum of all changes to the article while it was on the main page. It's still worth watching, as it will be linked from the main page for the next three days. Apterygial ^talk 00:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing Osama helped the article by attracting all the vandals. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A front page appearance that almost resulted in more attempts at genuine improvements than vandalism. Well done to all involved! AlexJ (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those who kept an eye on the article. Seems we just don't do front page vandalism like we did in the good old days </irony>. 4u1e (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG

I'd like to raise the issue of conformity to MOS:FLAG, the part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style that deals with the use of flags and other icons in articles. Specifically, I am referring to the criterion which requires editors to "Accompany flags with country names". As it stands, our articles use the {{flagicon}} template, which produces an image of the flag, a link to that country's article (by clicking on the image) and the name of the country in mouseover text. Which is great, but does not accompany the flag with a country name. I'm proposing a something like 1906 French Grand Prix, which uses the {{cc3}} template to place the three-letter country code next to the driver's name, in addition to the {{flagicon}} template. This fulfils MOS:FLAG. A similar model to this was implemented by Midgrid in the infobox of 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, before it was reverted by DH85868993, and by AlexJ (at my suggestion) in the infobox of 1980 Spanish Grand Prix, before it was also reverted by DH85868993. I've brought the matter here in the hope of achieving the consensus required to prevent future reversions. Here are my reasons for the change:

• The addition of the {{cc3}} template is a minor change, and would not result in wholesale overhauls of articles.
• I don't buy the argument that to use {{cc3}} on one article would necessitate its use in the ~3,500 other articles under WP:F1's purview. This project runs the risk of putting too much emphasis on consistency and not enough on quality; I'd rather 1% of articles did this well and be inconsistent than 100% of articles settle for inferiority.
• I'm aware several editors at the project are openly hostile to the MOS, as indicated during the previous discussion on this topic, back in 2009. MOS:FLAG, as with the rest of the MOS, does not exist simply to annoy people, nor to provide needless bureaucracy. In this case, the addition of names next to a flag is an accessibility point. Many flags look very similar (I can't tell the difference between the Australian and New Zealand flags at that resolution), and many people have vision impediments which prevent them from clearly viewing flags at that level. Finally, no-one can recognise every flag; the major ones we know but there are many we cannot correctly identify visually. While mouseover text is useful, it is even easier and quicker to be able to glance at an acronym or abbreviation to find out what the flag represents.

As I say, this is a minor point, so I hope we don't get too worked up about it. But I think if consensus can be reached to approve my suggestion, it would be a change for the better. Apterygial ^talk 04:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I really couldn't give a damn what's decided, but the CC3 solution seemed to work OK. I don't see consistency as a reason for anything: 95% of F1 race articles are one line stubs with a trivia section. Should we strive to make our featured articles consistent in this respect also, by stripping out all their content and adding in some banal bullet points? AlexJ (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone who can tell any flag at a glance, I may be somewhat biased, but I think the current system is good enough. The point you make about being able to glance and see not only the flag, but a 3 letter code as well is a good one, however as people are unlikely to know every single flag, they may also not know which country is referred to by which code. I'll give you two examples:

• a really obscure country, such as Vanuatu or Bhutan is not only going to be difficult to identify by its flag, but also by its code. There are many people who won't know countries beginning with Van and Bhu, and will more than likely mouse over the flag anyway to find out which country it is. Granted, more people will figure out the country from the code than from the flag, I can't deny that, but my argument is that the difference in ease of understanding between the two isn't that much.
• countries with similar names. As with any code of this kind, there will be times where it's impossible to give every country the first 3 letters of their name. As an example, there are 2 countries beginning with BEL, however Belgium is BEL but Belarus is BLR. This may lead to the erroneous assumption that BEL is referring to Belarus, which counters the aim for "clearer" information the proposed change has.

As it is, I'm not sure why we have country flags next to drivers in tables etc. anyway, it doesn't affect the result and it's easy to find out the nationality of a driver (or any person) by clicking on their page.

As a final point, for me consistency is one of the most important things in any encyclopaedia, and I disagree with your comment that having 1% correct is better than having 100% consistent, especially when "correct" is subjective in this case. Allypap81 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Allypap81's comments. Another reason I'm not in favour of the addition of the CC template is that I think it over-emphasises the driver's nationality. In Formula One, drivers race for their team not their country (as opposed to say, A1GP or the Olympics, where competitors compete for their country). If I had to choose, I would remove the existing flagicons next to driver names rather than adding the country name in text. DH85868993 (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I happen to think that the status quo is a pretty sound system. Use of the flagicons neither over emphasises the drivers' nationality (as slavishly adhering to MOS would end up with), nor does it ignore the drivers' nationality (which is an intrinsic part of the F1 package, for a number of historical reasons). I'm not hostile to the MOS, but I see it for what it is. It is still the case that these are a guide, not rules. They have ben written to be applicable to the broadest range of articles possible, which undermines their usefulness as specific cases need specific solutions. I understand your point about the accessibility, but no solution is perfect and Allypap81's point about abbreviations being no more accessible than flags is perfectly true. Mouseover gives the full country name, and clicking links straight to the country page. Flagicons work because they act as a quick visual index (many people already know the nationality of a driver they are looking for specifically, for example) and they help to break up a long text list. They are, in fact, icons. Most times, when we have these discussions, the decision is made to stick with what we have. There's a reason for that: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Pyrope 00:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DH85868993 that drivers drive for their team not their nation, but disagree that it makes this info irrelevant, after all I mainly support British drivers despite them not driving for GBR and, I think most F1 fans do the same for their nation if it has any drivers. I personally think we should have both the flag and the three letter code, or just the three letter code - I think just the flag is the worst option. Re: Allypap81's comment on the confusing nature of some code - true, some are confusing, however this is not a good reason not to use the system (some flags are equally, if not more, similar and obscure) ARDawson (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Season points graph is back...

There was just an attempt to add [7] to the 1997 Formula One season article. Another attempt to display season points tables with a colourful bar chart - can we please put an end to these? --Falcadore (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For the love of God, let's not have these. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Driver infobox updates

In case anyone is wondering what all the driver infobox updates are about - it's part of a scheme to standardise infobox parameter names, per this discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

2013 Formula One season

I think it's about time for the 2013 Formula One season page to be created. Even if it's just an outline - the season will see the biggest overhaul of the technical and sporting regulations in the sport's history (of which we know quite a few details), plus there's the addition of PURE to the grid as an engine supplier and we already know some of the driver moves. At the very least, there's enough information to justify a page modelled on the current content of the 2012 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Huge changes to the sport, many of which are already 90% decided/confirmed. 2013 will be a monumental and much remember season, I suspect. ARDawson (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)