Talk:FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012)

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[list of Volkswagen Group petrol engines#1.8 R4 20vT 110-221kW|1.8-litre 20v Turbo]] The anchor (1.8 R4 20vT 110-221kW) has been deleted.
[[list of Volkswagen Group petrol engines#1.8 R4 20vT 110-221kW|Audi 1.8-litre 4cyl 20v Turbo]] The anchor (1.8 R4 20vT 110-221kW) has been deleted.
[[list of Volkswagen Group petrol engines#1.8 R4 20vT 110-221kW|Audi 1.8-litre 20 valve block and head]] The anchor (1.8 R4 20vT 110-221kW) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

GP2 comparison

Is this less performant that GP2? It seems like it... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champion's team

Is it really necessary to mention MSV as Soucek's team? There aren't teams in the traditional sense, so we should just leave it blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.59.27 (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I also don't see why 'manufacture' needs to be in the championship table. It is a 'one-make' series, so under WP:BOLD, I'll remove it. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose article Formula Two to be merged to FIA Formula Two Championship because of a huge overlap in the articles. The Formula Two article holds information about the new Formula Two Championship and even has the logo of the new championship in the infobox. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The overlap is far from huge, modern F2 takes up less than 15% of the content of Formula Two article and there are no pictures. Question I have for you is to why not merge the article into European Formula Two Championship which is much closer to the subject article of Formula Two as it stands? I would oppose that as well, but I'm just wondering to what extent you've done your research on this merger. --23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I can't see the point, it would be a more logical idea to include FIA Formula Two Championship in this article. The current championship is just one competition for formula two over the years. Would you merge association football to FIFA World Cup? John Anderson (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This subject came up in this deletion debate and overwhelmingly the mood was not to merge. Can you close this discussion out now? --Falcadore (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FIA Formula Two Championship. 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) 18:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved(non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIA Formula Two Championship (2009) → FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012) – There were four seasons in 2009–2012, so the title must reflect the period, not only one year. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FIA Formula Two Championship (established in 2009). Yes, it is long, but I have never seen in the disambiguation practice a period instead of year of birth/death/inception. If I am wrong, please provide the example of the opposite.Support per nom. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I find it only common-sense to include the whole period for something that has ended, per WP:PRECISION if nothing else – how is reader supposed to know that they're looking at a former and not current competition if it's not clearly indicated? Examples abound, for example we distinguish Austro-Turkish War (1788–91) from Austro–Turkish War (1716–18) from Austro-Turkish War (1663–64)‎. No such user (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for examples. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. While I moved the page to its current namespace, I agree that it should include the full date range of its existence. Various sports teams could also be a good example in determining the name, for example, Baltimore Bullets (1944–54), Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) and Baltimore Colts (1947–50) among others. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably per all of these examples we should move it to FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–12)? Corvus tristis (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATERANGE (which this should be deferred to) disagrees, stipulating full-year notation (and citing a 2016 RFC), but it does not seem widely accepted. Personally, I'm ambivalent. No such user (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I agree with the arguments in a 2016 RFC and will stick to four-digit ending years. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.