Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Frank Williams

It has been proposed that Frank Williams be changed to become a disambiguation page (or a redirect to a disambiguation page) and that the existing article (about the F1 team boss) be given a new name. Please express any opinions you may have on the matter at Talk:Frank Williams#Proposed move. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the use of flagicons in lists

This RFC may be of interest to our project. DH85868993 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Which Flag?

I'm new to Wikipedia but I've noteced something. In every year every European Grand Prix has the flag in wich country it is been hosted. But in the Swiss GP of 1982 , wich was held in france has the swiss flag and also the Luxembourg GP of 1997 and 1998 has the Luxembourg flag while it has been held in Germany. Why? Dasilva123 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Swiss race was held in France because motorsport is banned in Switzerland. Nevertheless, because it was the Swiss Grand Prix, it ran under a Swiss flag. In the case of the Luxembourg GP, there was demand for a second race in Germany to captalise on the success and popularity of Michael Schumacher. However, as the European Grand Prix was held at Jerez in 1997, they couldn't call it the European Grand Prix, and so they had to get a little creative. Since the Nurburgring is not far from the border between Germany and Luxembourg, Luxembourg was chosen as the host nation. Jerez lost the European Grand Prix after a violation of podium procedure in 1997, but they still retined the rights to the European Grand Prix name, and did not give it up in time for the Nurburgring to acquire it, so the race was run under the luxembourg name again before the circuit acqired the rights to the name for the 1999 season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure that quite addresses the inconsistency of the flags for events held in regions different from their title. One could equally question the San Marino flag on the San Marino Grand Prix.

The short answer is that there is no flag the represents Europe as a whole. The European Union flag was used before, but the European Union does not actually represent Europe, and the European Grand Prix is not related to the European Union. Therefore we needed some relevant flag for the European GPs, and the decision was that the flags should reflect the location of the circuit. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:ARAB#Template:2010.E2.80.932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests re the inclusion of the 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix on {{2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests}}. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Silverstone map

I've noticed that the map of Silverstone has a few things that need changing. I'd do it myself, but I'm hopeless with graphics programs and don't know how to upload my own images. This is what needs to be done:

1) The start line needs to be moved from its original location on the old main straight to its new position between Abbey and Club. 2a) The new corners are listed as "Arena"; this is actually the name of the configuration, not the corners. 2b) The new corners need to be renamed in order: Abbey (existing), Farm, Village, The Loop, Aintree and the Wellington Straight (though Hangar Straight is not listed either, so Wellington might not be needed).

That should bring the circuit diagram up to date. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Formula One companies

Category:Formula One companies has been nominated for deletion. Please add any views you may have to the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Season in Progress" footnotes

Noticing this footnote in the Formula One season article, I would question why we need it. People who do not know what season is current can see that the season is in progress by the blank races in the row. Surely? Britmax (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

When you say "in the Formula One season article", do you mean "in 2011 Formula One season"? Because I can't see a "season in progress" footnote in that article. If you mean "in the articles of all the drivers, teams and cars partipating in the current season", then the reason for the footnote is that blank races in the row could mean that the season is still in progress or that the season is finished but that particular driver/team/car stopped participating mid-way through the season. DH85868993 (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1995 Brazilian Grand Prix - GAN

Just to let everyone know that I've nominated 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix for Good Article status.--Midgrid(talk) 18:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Season articles

Today I have changed the 2009 Formula One season article to merge the various driver/team/calender sections all into the Background pre-season part of the article. I know that the rather poor and frankly ugly looking lists attached to most season articles have been a general annoyance to most of us here, so I took the trouble of trying to integrate them all into one coherent section - I've currently left the mid-season changes as these would be better placed within the season report. At the moment I've left the rule changes separate, as this is a quite large and fairly detailed section, and looked somewhat out of place. I'd welcome any opinions you have on the changes I have made, before applying the changes to other articles.

Also, I have noticed our race calender tables have two columns saying essentially the same thing; the "Official Race title" and "Grand Prix" columns. I would personally just delete the Grand Prix column to save the duplication.

Thanks for any comments. The season articles are probably the most important part of the project, after the core articles, and I am interested in getting them up to scratch. QueenCake (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Team Lotus can use some refs

Team Lotus is a top-importance article in the start class.

I believe with references, the article can go up to C-Class. The text is there, it just needs refs.

Opinions? Additions? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1995 Brazilian Grand Prix GAN

The 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix is being reviewed and has been placed on hold for an initial seven days to allow time for the lead to be developed and for more detail to be added regarding fuel checking - see: Talk:1995 Brazilian Grand Prix/GA1. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Ricciardo

Can someone please keep an eye on the Daniel Ricciardo page? Articles from Australia are claiming that he will race for Hispania at the 2011 British Grand Prix, but they contain no quotes from the relevant parties. An announcement is "expected soon", bu until then, we need to keep a lid on things. I'm going around trying to make sure pages aren't being updated incorrectly, but it's just gone midnight here and I can't be everywhere at once. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Autosport says "it is understood that a deal is close", so my bet is that it's only a matter of time, but you're right, we need to wait for a reliable source. Let's hope it's sooner rather than later. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's still nine days until the British Grand Prix. Most people will get the message early on, I think. It will largely just be a case of reverting edits until then. Although I have no idea what that guy meant when he said me invisible message was "blatant vandalism". Wanting something to be true doesn't actually make it true, even with a reference that basically says it "might" happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

Yeah, exactly. Isn't there a rule against accusing someone of vandalism when there patently isn't any vandalism? If not, then there should be. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed already [1]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gilby

I have proposed that Gilby be moved to Gilby Engineering, thereby enabling Gilby to become a disambiguation page. Please add any thoughts you may have on the matter at Talk:Gilby#Proposed move. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The page has been moved. Thanks to those who provided input. DH85868993 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Lotus Renault

There's a discussion at Talk:Lotus Renault about whether Lotus Renault should be a disambiguation page or a redirect to Renault F1. Please contribute any views you may have at Talk:Lotus Renault#Redirect or disambiguation page?. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

British GP practice

Someone has written a report on the first practice for this year's British GP and the spelling and prose have to be seen to be believed. I would clean this up myself but have to work in the morning. Any takers? Britmax (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a shocker. The grammar is poor but the spelling is dire. Personally, I'd just delete most of it - it's only practice, and we don't need two lengthy paragraphs about it. A couple of lines will do - who was fastest and who had big accidents. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I had a look, & realized, not having watched any of the coverage, I had no idea what was supposed to be happening, so "fixing" it was a bad idea... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sebastian Vettel's records

There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Sebastian Vettel on the subject of the records included in the article, and whether or not some of them should be removed. Input from additional editors is welcomed, as there is no clear consensus right now.--Midgrid(talk) 22:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate at least some input on whether "Most wins before the age of 24" is the kind of thing we should have as a "record" achieved in F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Londoño

(Thanks in part to F1 Rejects' article on this driver) Some information about this "Formula One driver" seems to be a bit odd, at least from WP:F1 standards. Londono was a Columbian who was signed for the Ensign team but never received his Superlicense. He was entered for the 1981 Brazilian Grand Prix and participated in an acclimatisation practive held two days before the race practice proper. From my understanding this was an unofficial test and therefore he did not need a Superlicense to participate, but after the test his application for receiving a Superlicense for the race proper was rejected. He therefore never participated in any official part of the race weekend, and never appeared in Formula One again.

Why, therefore, is he listed as having participated in the Brazilian GP (Round 2) in the Drivers and Teams chart of 1981 Formula One season, and having been Excluded from Brazil in the Drivers Standings chart? Further, he has a 1981 season summary chart on his own page which lists the Brazilian GP as Did Not Participate, and infobox has 1 Race with 0 starts!

Finally, it what is likely just a rehash of the F1 Rejects article, it states that Londono is the "first official Columbian Formula One driver", which seems quite fishy. Sure, he drove a Formula One car and even participated in the Aurora F1 series, but this seems a bit of a silly statement to make. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the "EX" in 1981 Formula One season to "DNP", for consistency with Ricardo Londoño and 1981 Brazilian Grand Prix. But apart from that it all seems correct to me: he was entered in a Formula One Grand Prix, so that qualifies him for inclusion in Category:Colombian Formula One drivers, noting that the description of the category is "This category includes all Colombian drivers who have participated in (or attempted to participate in) a Formula One race or a WDC race". The "Races" field in his infobox reflects the fact that was entered for 1 WDC race but did not start it. And the fact that he was chronologically the first Colombian to be entered in a F1 race makes him "the first Colombian Formula One driver" (although the word "official" is probably unnecessary). DH85868993 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

But if he was never eligible to be a Formula One driver, due to the lack of a superlicense, how can his entry be considered legitimate? Further, we vehemently did not include Riccardo on the 2011 drivers results table until he had participated with HRT, so why is a driver who was never even allowed into Formula One in the driver standings? Finally, the "Rounds" column in the driver and teams table, is it for entries or is it for actual participation? Because he never participated in Round 2. And really, if he never participated at all, why is he in the table to begin with? See Robert Kubica for a driver with a contract with a team who is not participating at all this season. He certainly was on entry lists prior to the start of the season. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

His entry was legitimate because it was made by an existing F1 team for an F1 race, regardless of whether or not he had the correct licence at the time the entry was made. In Italy in 1951, Ken Richardson was entered for the GP and got as far as having taken part in qualifying before he was chucked out for not having the right licence. His entry still stands in the record books, even though that entry was taken away from him. Prior to scrutineering, any driver entry is valid - if it then emerges that you or your car are not fit to take part, then you're excluded. Londono had an entry for the race just a few days before the race took place, and he was on the final entry list - not weeks/months before like Kubica. Ricciardo never had an entry for any race before he joined Hispania, so that's why he wasn't on the 2011 driver results table. It's a moot point, but Londono should have been given a superlicence - he was certainly fast enough in the FIA acclimatisation test - but he upset Rosberg somewhere, and the next time round Rosberg brake-tested him. Londono hit Rosberg's car and bang went his chances of a superlicence. But he had that entry, so we can't really pretend that he didn't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Londono was on the final entry list? His superlicense was denied a day before the GP weekend started. It seems a bit naff to me to consider simply being an entrant to be equivilant to being a driver. One would think that someone would actually have to drive to be considered a driver. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the test was on the Wednesday, so his licence would have been refused on the Thursday, the day before the first proper practice session. Final entry lists are drawn up a while before that so the programmes can be printed, plus it's in the F1 Rejects article. Surer would have been added at the last minute, either Thursday night or Friday morning. He still had the Colombian flag on the car. I think it's just semantics to be honest - he had an entry as a driver, so I don't see a problem with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hispania Racing

Hispania's new owners have apparently got big changes in store for the team. It seems they're ditching calling the team "Hispania Racing", instead going for the chassis name (HRT), and have sealed the deal with a big, disgusting new logo (should we change it now?). Something to keep an eye on. JonChapple^Talk 19:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes. JonChapple^Talk 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything official, it's certainly not featured on the HRT website, despite what your article claims. The entire article is in fact a retelling of a publication in a Spanish newspaper, and not something which seems to be confirmed.

Further, it does not make much sense to replace the current logo, you certainly could have uploaded the file to another name allowing us to use both logos. As the logo does not appear on the Hispania website, we don't know where that logo came from. I'm reverting your logo for now. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I don't really upload pictures very often. I've uploaded a new copy. The logo does appear on the Hispania website; that's where I got it from. Where are you looking? JonChapple^Talk 20:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, looking around the website, they do seem to have done away with any reference to Hispania. - mspete93 20:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking at Hispania's website a few days ago, and really I do not notice anything that has changed. HRT had seemed to be used just as much as Hispania. There do appear to be smaller versions of the HRT logo that Jonchapple uploaded elsewhere on the site, but those seem to have been there for a while. I however certainly don't see the actual logo that Jonchapple uploaded, so where exactly did you find it on their website? The³5₉ (Talk) 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Top left, you can't miss it. Are you looking at a different website? JonChapple^Talk 20:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I see it now after a hard refresh, I guess my viewing from a couple days ago was why I was still seeing the Hispania logo. The article itself likely warrents a move as well, although lets not get hasty with that. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that may be the case! :) I'd say the article definitely warrants a move if they stick with the HRT thing, but let's give it a little while. JonChapple^Talk 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor fields in F1 car infoboxes

Some of you may have noticed the recent addition of "Predecessor" and "Successor" fields to {{Infobox racing car}}. Before these fields are populated in too many articles, I thought we should try to achieve a consensus on the desired format, i.e. do we want the preceding/succeeding car name in full, or just the type designation, e.g. in the infobox for McLaren MP4-25, do we want to see: "Successor: McLaren MP4-26" or just "Successor: MP4-26"? My personal preference is for the name in full, primarily for enhanced symmetry (and clarity?) when the constructor names are different, e.g. in Mercedes MGP W01, I think:

Predecessor: Brawn BGP 001

Successor: Mercedes MGP W02

is clearer/looks better than:

Predecessor: Brawn BGP 001

Successor: MGP W02

But I'm not especially passionate either way. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How exactly are we determining successors and predecessors for cars which were used by multiple privateer teams, or cars which were used, frowned upon, and the team reverted back to the predecessor model? The³5₉ (Talk) 02:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a simple "numerical" progression would be easiest (best?), e.g. even though Team Lotus reverted to using the 72 after the failure of the 76, I would expect to see:

• Lotus 72 - Predecessor: Lotus 63; Successor: Lotus 76
• Lotus 76 - Predecessor: Lotus 72; Successor: Lotus 77
• Lotus 77 - Predecessor: Lotus 76; Successor: Lotus 78

DH85868993 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it that important to invent yet another method by which wikipedia edittors can be lazy and not write these details out in text thus allowing an easily flexible method of describing how apparently different methods of succession can take place? Perhaps we can extend the infoboxes sufficiently long enough that each individual race can be included? Tell me to shut up if you want, but how about increasing the emphasis on improving the text instead of turning sentences into statistics? --Falcadore (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I too am struggling to find reason to cram more (and sometimes not quite accurate) information into the racing car template simply for the sake of having that information. Don't the individual team templates at the bottom of the articles already list their cars in chronological order? The³5₉ (Talk) 05:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this could be a really useful tool if done properly. Clearly there should still be some mention in the text of the evolution from preprocessor, but having a link in the info box makes it much easier to navigate around - surely a good thing. I'm not sure we need a hard and fast rule, but perhaps a recommendation? Personally, I think it should use the full name, keeps it nice and clear ARDawson (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really needed or even applicable in every case. Readro (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, how is it not difficult to navigate around from the team infobox at the bottom of the page? The³5₉ (Talk) 10:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How would that work then to find that the predecessor of the Mercedes MGP W01 is the Brawn BGP 001? I think it's a nice simple way to step through the ancestor and descendent vehicles. -- de Facto (talk). 11:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that in the highlighted example, the Brawn BGP 001 is not the only predecessor. Mercedes-Benz W196 is also a predecessor. So we create yet another potentially ambiguous statistical field to make a mess with, when not doing it, and using a text descriptions can accurately portray the correct information without needing interpretation, or for example plunging into the chaotic mess of Ferrari's usage of vehicle naming and the occasional verting to previous models when new ones did not work. Similarly Lotus would often do this and Brabham too. --Falcadore (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it wouldn't worry me if the fields were deleted. I was just wanted to ensure that if we do have them, we use a consistent format. As noted above, for all the F1 cars, you can see the succession of types in the navbox at the bottom of the article anyway (except where the constructor name changes), plus the predecessor is often already mentioned in the text. DH85868993 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Race name links in season summary calendar/race schedule tables

We currently have some inconsistency in the race name links in the season summary "Calendar" (or "Race schedule") tables:

• for 1994, 1999, 2004-2006 and 2009-2011, the race names (e.g. "Australian GP") are linked to specific race reports (e.g. 1994 Australian Grand Prix)
• for pre-1994, 1995-1996, 2000-2003, 2007-2008 and 2012, the race names are linked to the article covering the history of the race (e.g. Australian Grand Prix)

What's our preference? I think they originally all used to link to the "history" articles. DH85868993 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I incline to linking the year's race, since that's the subject. It sometimes means redlinks... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would tend toward keeping individual season links out of the calendar tables. The calendar section is more of a pre-season buildup section, and the year's races are linked in the results and points tables anyway. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would actually question the need to even have a separate "Calendar"/"Race schedule" table - information such as the circuit and date of the races could easily be merged into the Grand Prix result table, which itself has links to the specific race reports AND the overall race articles (as well as race winner, pole position, etc.) This arrangement (as far as I know) is actually used on the season articles from 1950 to some time in the 1970s. This would both solve the above question and reduce the amount of needless tables. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Trekphiler. Don't believe it would cause any redlinks, all GPs have articles now. --Falcadore (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not every year does. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Which ones do not? --Falcadore (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Offhand, I couldn't tell you, but I've come across years that come up red. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is my belief you are mistaken with regards to WC Grands prix, although that is a side-issue. --Falcadore (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I prefer being taken to that years race. When you click on the link to the British gp in a table of 2001 races, I think its pretty obvious you want to know about the 2001 British GP! ARDawson (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Drivers who start from the pitlane

In race report articles, there's often a lack of clarity with regard to drivers that fail to take up their grid slots and start from the pitlane. These occasions need to be clearly stated in the text and the race results table needs to indicate that the driver did not start the race from his grid slot. The "PL" indicator doesn't seem to be working for some editors, me included, but leaving the grid position alone in the table is not acceptable. For those readers casually looking at the race table, it appears that the driver started from his slot on the grid, so it's misleading and inaccurate. Some kind of system acceptable to everyone needs to be devised to clarify pitlane starters.

The 2011 Canadian Grand Prix article has it the wrong way round in my view. It mentions Alguersuari starting from the pitlane in the qualifying table when the race table is more appropriate. Pitlane starts have nothing to do with qualifying. At the 2010 Bahrain Grand Prix, both HRTs started from the pitlane - there's nothing indicating that at all in the article, which is again misleading and inaccurate, and we shouldn't be satisfied with it. There was a previous discussion about this here [2]. It would be nice to have a simple system that we can use for every occasion, and apply it to past races as well. Maybe a footnote system in the race table. Thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)