Jump to content

Talk:2016 Formula One World Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ITN

[edit]

Just a reminder that this article is listed at WP:ITN/R. However, it won't get posted whilst there is a maintenance tag on it. The referencing issues need addressing before it is removed. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background colours

[edit]

According to the FIA, drivers who fail to finish a race but complete at least 90% of race distance are classified. However, they are still considered DNFs. See the official classification for Austria 2016 as an example.

http://www.fia.com/file/44607/download?token=Yp5eZzQ1

Because these drivers were non-finishers, they should be coloured the same as other DNFs. This is distinct from non-classified finishers.

DrX au (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are already distinctly marked, it's what the cross is for. Since cars that are classified but fail to finish are treated the same as every other classified finisher (i.e, can score points and podiums), using the same colours as a retirement will be extremely confusing, particularly in situations where they have scored points. QueenCake (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before we go any further, I think we should move this discussion to WT:F1 (or possibly even WT:MOTOR). This issue affects hundreds of articles and the discussion should not be held on the talk page of just one of them.Tvx1 20:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it confusing? The cars in question actually were retirements. For example Perez crashed out in Austria. The colour key says blue is for non-points finish or not-classified finish. Purple is for DNF / retirements. According to the FIA, 17th-20th places in Austria were DNFs. Therefore the blue background is incorrect.

If other pages have incorrect entries, they can be fixed on a case-by-case basis. DrX au (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that not every classified non-finish is a non-points (i.e. blue) position. For instance, what would you suggest we do with the Monaco results on 1996 Formula One season?Tvx1 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Monaco 1996 - 5th and 6th place were classified but didn't finish. If green is for points finish, then they've been coloured incorrectly. They are non-finishers and should be purple with a symbol and footnote. This accurately reflects their race result - DNFs. DrX au (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The colours as used are fine as they are. Purple is used for retirements but that is overridden when a driver is classified, so he gets the blue background. It's most definitely overridden when they score points, and they get a green background. It's really pretty clear. That's how it was designed. If there's any confusion for some people, they key can be reworded rather than trawling through thousands of articles dicking around with colours. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The colouring of the table is determined by template:F1 driver results legend 2, according to WP:F1 convention. There is no text list or table of finishing types with their corresponding colours. According to the original template, purple is for DNFs (classified or not), and blue is for non-points finishers (classified or not). The argument is about whether a driver who was classified can be considered to have finished the race or not. The FIA says that he didn't finish. Who are WP editors to override that?
Why is this even a point of contention? Purple means "Did not finish". The FIA official classification say that places 17-20 in Austria 2016 were DNFs. They did not finish, therefore they should be purple. Their classification is secondary to that, hence the footnote.
A classified non-finisher is not the same as a non-classified finisher, in fact it's the opposite. So why should it be the same colour?
If WP editors have a problem because articles contain errors that they missed, or the original conventions have not been correctly applied, then that's too bad. Errors should be corrected, instead of rewording the conventions to be consistent with the erroneous entries. You have to start somewhere. DrX au (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2016 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 FIA Formula One World Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 17:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll pick this one up. Harrias talk 17:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Nico Rosberg (left) won his first World Drivers' Championship, shortly before announcing his retirement from the sport, beating the defending World Champion, Lewis Hamilton (right).
Teams and drivers
  • I know you motorsports types love them, but the MOS does ask us not to use flags without accompanying them with the country name in MOS:FLAG.
    • It's a guideline, not a policy. This has come before in GAN's and FAC's This was discussed at the WikiProject here. The broad consensus was that the addition of the country names would create undue emphasis on that aspect for the gain of little quality. Note that those discussions are pretty old and that technology has massively developed since. Flag icons are not simple images, but are actually generated though templates. Templates which proved links to the country, which make the name of the country appear if you put your mouse on the flag (or put your finger on it) and which even ensure that the country names are read aloud to people without fully-abled vision or without any vision at all who use assistive technology to read these articles. Therefore I think the contested wording of the MOS has become obsolete. In total we have 16 FA's and 77 GA's which achieved that status despite using the exact same system in use in this article. So I think this should not prevent this one from attaining GA status as well.Tvx1 20:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem; I always bring it up, but I would never block a GA or FA because of this. You make well reasoned points that might be best directed at an RfC to update the MOS though. Harrias talk 09:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolve the [citation needed] tag.
Season calendar
Rule changes
Sporting regulations
Season report
  • "..into the outside barrier before barrel-rolling and land upside-down against the barrier." Should be "landing" rather than "land".
  • "..finished an impressive sixth in the other Haas.." Impressive according to whom?
  • The whole second half of the first paragraph is unreferenced.
  • "the sport's Strategy Working Group and over-ruled the teams" – No need for the "and", unless it changes to "the sport's Strategy Working Group met and over-ruled the teams".
  • Be consistent over whether to use "elimination-style" or "elimination style", both are used at the moment.
  • "The race finished with no retirements, a feat that has only been achieved six times." This might be better phrased as "The race finished with no retirements, only the sixth time the feat had been achieved." (Or similar.) This would avoid having to update it if it happens again, rare though it is.
  • "with Vettel and Kvyat getting involved again as in China, but this time Kvyat hit Vettel two times forcing Vettel to retire." The China incident wasn't actually mentioned in this section, so it reads a bit oddly here.
  • "The Grand Prix was marked by controversy: Rosberg secured pole position on a drying circuit in qualifying after McLaren's Fernando Alonso spun in front of him necessitating a double waved yellow flag. Although race stewards confirmed that Rosberg had slowed, he nevertheless secured pole with his lap time." – I don't know whether more explanation is needed here for a layperson; maybe spell out what the double yellow requires of the driver?
  • "Hamilton dropped as low as fifth at the start.." Lots of words to say not much; "Hamilton dropped to fifth at the start.." would suffice.
  • While I grant that it was an interesting race, Singapore seems to have a lot more written about it than a lot of the earlier races, is it really all necessary in a season summary?
  • "..when his engine exploded.." The source only says his engine expired; "exploded" is quite a dramatic term to use without appropriate referencing.
Results and standings
  • The use of bold and italic in the World Drivers' Championship standings and World Constructors' Championship standings tables contravenes MOS:ACCESS, though again this is a wider issue than should really be settled in a GAN.

That's the prose review completed. I still need to check on the references and images, and will hopefully get those finished soon. Harrias talk 11:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images all fine.
  • Ref #1 uses "Formula1.com", ref #3 uses "formula1.com" and ref #4 uses "Formula 1.com". Pick one format and use it throughout. Similar issues with whether the article uses "Haas F1 Team" (for example) or "mclaren.com" / "fia.com" or "FIA.com". Quite a few instances of these variations, please take a look through and make them more consistent.
 Should be done now.... Let me know if there are still issues remaining.Tvx1 12:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #24 has no publisher details, same for ref #40, #46, #51 – check the rest please..
  • Ref #34 shouldn't be in all capitals.

Status query

[edit]

Harrias, Tvx1, where does this stand? The review has been open for over three months now, and Tvx1 hasn't made any edits to the article in over a month. Any chance of wrapping this up in the near future? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, this slipped from my mind. I think I actually dressed all the major content problems. The referencing still needs some further uniformizing. I have some time the next days, so I'll get this going again.Tvx1 23:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx1, have you finished with the referencing? I see that you made a bunch of edits shortly after the above. This nomination will be a year old tomorrow, so it would be nice to get it moving again. Unfortunately, Harrias hasn't been editing much over the past couple of months; if you'd like, I can see whether I can find someone else to finish this off. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, it would indeed be nice if someone could finish this off. The referencing should be ok now.Tvx1 21:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx1, I wanted to be sure you were aware that a new reviewer is here and is posting their comments. Best of luck with getting this finished! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second reviewer

[edit]

I'll take this on. It looks like there was a fairly thorough review above, which seems to be all dealt with, so rather than go through the old review line by line I'll just read through again as if this were a brand-new review. I'll work on it this evening but it might not be done till tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I screw anything up.

  • underwent changes regarding their power unit supply: a little stilted. How about "made changes to their power units", or "changed their power unit supplier"?
  • I understand your concern, but I don't think either of your proposals work. The first one actually reads af it they made physical changes to the power units, whereas the second one is wrong as Red Bull Racing did not change their supplier but merely had the name of their power units changed.Tvx1 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He joined the newly formed Haas F1 Team for 2016, where he was joined by: two consecutive "joined"s. Could the first be changed to "signed with"?
  • The race was originally scheduled to début in 2013, but has been delayed for four consecutive years: no longer the right tense, since it's not 2016 anymore. If it eventually happened, make it "was delayed until 201x"; if not, "but has been delayed and as of 2018 has still not been held" or something like that.
  • This format was heavily criticized by teams, drivers, fans and the press, to which the decision was taken to review the format before the next race: "to which" is not right, but I'm not sure of the intended meaning so I can't fix it myself. Was the decision taken to review the format because of the criticism? If so, I'd make it "... and the press, which led to a decision to review the format...". And do we know if the format actually was reviewed before the next race? Or do we only know they decided to do so, but we don't know if they did? If the review happened, there's no need to talk about the decision, so "...and the press, which led to a review of the format...".
  • Can we briefly say why the teams didn't like the qualifying format?
  • I'm not sure this is warranted in a season article. This was also very subjective between the different the teams and drivers. Though in general the main criticism was that there was not enough on track action with the pole time (and last time laps) being set well before the end of the session in both cases.Tvx1 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the controversy surrounding pit-to-car communications: there's been no mention of controversy; can we summarize whatever it was?
  • Verstappen was subject to increasing criticism over his driving standards: what are "driving standards"? Driving ability?
    •  Tweaked, it was his overly-agressive tactics (which he keeps using even in today's race) during overtakes (both while passing and when others attempt to pass him) rather than his general ability.Tvx1 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I happened to notice that the Bahrain race was on after I finished this review, and I watched the second half; first F1 race I've watched in decades. A good one to pick, it looks like! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • using strategy to get ahead of the Ferraris of Vettel and Räikkönen: "using strategy" is too vague.
  • Red Bull Racing decided to pit Daniel Ricciardo from second to prevent coming under threat from Hamilton: I don't follow this; Ricciardo was ahead of Hamilton; wouldn't pitting enable Hamilton to pass or get closer, and threaten his position?
    • It would indeed bring Hamilton closer. However as long as Ricciardo did not pit, Hamilton was closing in because he had fresher tyres and might have gotten ahead of Ricciardo if he waited too long to make a pitstop. When Ricciardo made his pit-stop, now on tyres of the same age Hamilton was not much a threat anymore and Ricciardo could actually attack Rosberg who opted to nurse his tyres to the finish instead of making another pit-stop. I will note that in Formula One they have to make a least one tyre change per race according to the rules.Tvx1 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not sure every reader will understand that a pit stop is almost invariably a tyre change, with an implied speed change, but there's a related explanation in the next sentence, so I think this is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Hamilton's engine really "explode" in the Malaysian Grand Prix?
  • Not an issue for GA, but [1] is a dead link; you may want to fix it. I didn't check all the archive links, but I noticed this one failed to correctly archive; again, not needed for GA. FYI, this discussion was interesting -- not everyone likes to see large-scale archiving of working links, apparently.
    •  Fixed. The first source you mentioned simply had an incorrect url. I was able to retrieve the correct one. The second one you mention actually works fine for me. What issue do you experience? As for the ANI discussion. I don't think this is much of an issue here. This subject is not as large and evolving as Donald Trump and this article is well within size limits.Tvx1 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The first link is fixed; the second is telling me I've run out of free articles on autosport and have to subscribe, even though this is an archive.org link. I've struck the point since none of this is required for GA. Re the AN discussion, yes, I agree, I just thought it was interesting and I have to say personally I agree with the point that archiving can be overused, but I was just mentioning it as an FYI. This article is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not you who has run out of free articles, archive.org has run out. They too have to subscribe if they want full access. An archived link cannot circumvent a paywall. Anyway, it's just a temporary thing since the site in question has a monthly quotum of free articles. Each month the used counter is reset to zero.Tvx1 21:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes these sites reliable?
    • jamesallenonf1.com a reliable source? It looks like he's an experienced journalist, but there's no editorial oversight.
    • racefans.net/f1fanatic.co.uk; the current version has a page showing that Collantine edits another author's work, but I don't see anything similar for the 2015 archived version, and I'm not sure that's enough in any case.
    • formulaspy.com

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1: checking in -- just the formulaspy source to address now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Replaced all, Tvx1 12:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Season results needs changing

[edit]

The format of the results by team needs changing back to how it is on EVERY OTHER F1 wiki page. Whoever changed it has destroyed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.36.34 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand about it? --Falcadore (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same format as every year since 2014. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the 2014 onwards table loses the visual pattern of the points allocation, the current two rows may as well be replaced with a single number for WCC points scored per round rather than a row for "the second placed car for that team" who unless you refer to the Driver's table you can't work out. Prior to 2014 the table was instantly more informative as you could see which car was, say, suffering more retirements within the same team. Ei2g (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=1235089996"