Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:F1)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Manor/Australian Grand Prix[edit]

San Marino Grand Prix flag issue[edit]

Why season articles use the flag of San Marino San Marino but the Grand Prix articles use the flag of Italy Italy (see for example: 1993 Formula One season#Season review & 1993 San Marino Grand Prix)? Shouldn't there be consistency in the use of flags? And isn't the flag of Italy the correct one, since the grand prix is only held _near_ San Marino. --Mika1h (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Since per MOS:FLAGS, putting a flag of one country next to the name of another country is a very bad idea, IMHO there should be no flag at all in the individual Grand Prix articles.Tvx1 00:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
We use the flag of the host nation, which is Italy. Someone has obviously changed some of the articles and created this inconsistency. QueenCake (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Just like we use the flag for United Arab Emirates for the United Arab Emirates Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, not the flag for the city Abu Dhabi Flag of Abu Dhabi.svg. There have also been cases of national Grands Prix being hosted outside of their namesake, such as the Germany1997 and Germany1998 Luxembourg Grands Prix, each of which were held in and carry the German flag on their individual race report articles. However, the actual event article, the LuxembourgLuxembourg Grand Prix, carries the home flag - just as the San MarinoSan Marino Grand Prix article carries theirs. Twirlypen (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Which, the San Marino Grand Prix article really should have, by the way. Twirlypen (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, I believe the consensus was to have flags next to the locations to make their usage more common sense, not to the name of the race. Hence San Marino Grand Prix should have no flag while Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari, Imola, Italy should have the Italian flag. The359 (Talk) 05:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason the Luxembourg Grand Prix has the flag of Luxembourg is, unlike San Marino, Luxembourg has hosted the race theselves in the past at the Findel street circuit. Indeed most of the LGPs history was at Findel.
San Marino has no such claim and deserves to be treated no differently than the Grands Prix of Rome, Syracuse, Bari, San Remo, Pescara, Naples, Messina etc --Falcadore (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Good points. I've redacted that part of my statement then. Twirlypen (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Save for the fact that the Automobile Club of San Marino organized those races. Tvx1 15:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
UAE and Abu Dhabi is not comparable to Italy and San Marino, because San Marino is not part of Italy. San Marino is an independent country. IMHO, the San Marino GP shall have the flag of San Marino but the Imola race track should have the Italian flag. If then both flags are used (in different parts of the article), so what? It only makes things clearer. (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
San Marino is an independent state is it not? Like Monaco. Therefore is should have the San Marino flag. CDRL102 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm they are. Have visited both of them. And the tracks that host their Grands Prix as well. Tvx1 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, but... Very hard to check for specific topic articles as the search results are chopped up into individual pages by chronology of search, rather than thematic pages, and the bot seems to be entirely incapable of identifying even very obvious mirrors (i.e. even those that actually properly acknowledge the Wikipedia source!) meaning that all of the articles of interest that I found to me were false positives. Lots of "load-page-ctrl-F" for no real benefit. Nice idea, needs work. Pyrope 03:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Caterham CT03[edit]

Am I alone in thinking that the amount of information being added to the infobox in this, and other, articles, is well past an excessive level? Surely the infobox is meant to provide an "at-a-glance" overview of the article subject and as such detailed info like "component X machined from a solid piece of steel" and brake pad sizes etc. are going a bit far. The infobox is longer that the body of the article as things stand.

On another note; regarding the San Marino flag issue, the various European Grands Prix articles seem to display the flag of the host nation. I.e. UK when Brands hosted, Spain for Barcelona, etc. Don't know if this helps at all really. :P Eagleash (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it's TheriusRooney again. We have already discussed this and achieved consensus no to include so much detail four months ago. The exact same article was involved back then. They are fully aware of that. They have done it to all articles on Caterham F1 cars, by the way. Tvx1 06:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes that discussion had slipped my mind, not least because it quickly moved away from the original point, which still remains a valid one. If consensus has been reached I am not sure why the situation has been allowed to continue (or what, if anything, could be done to try to control it). Eagleash (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Has this been reverted already? If not, it should be. Tvx1 16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, just saw that page. Far, far to much detail. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's the same at Caterham CT01 and Caterham CT05. Tvx1 18:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Should we take some action since he's not listening? He's made similar (excessive, but not as excessive as the Caterham cars) to Red Bull RB9 and Red Bull RB10. Zappa24Mati 02:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
We should revert their actions and leave them a kind notice referring to the consensus not to provide so much detail. If they persist we can then refer them to the administrators. Tvx1 12:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone going to take a look at this? All the time, TheriusRooney keeps adding more and more details to these articles. Tvx1 20:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is what I meant by nobody wanting to make the first move after a discussion. I'll start by tagging TheriusRooney. If the discussion has already occured and they participated in it, and is actively ignoring concensus, then I doubt they will listen again. But, as we should assume good faith, we'll see if they voice a reasonable argument for such detailed inclusion. If ignorance continues, either revert the changes or report to admins. Twirlypen (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User has not been active since being tagged. Not currently ignoring this discussion. Twirlypen (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Austria lap leaders[edit]

I notice that {{F1Laps2015}} has not been updated for the Austrian Grand Prix. I'm happy to update the template if someone can provide/point me to the lap leader data. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this help? Tvx1 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I've found this too. Tvx1 16:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I went on and made the update. Tvx1 16:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher/1999 British Grand Prix[edit]

Discussion has revived over whether Michael Schumacher's result at the 1999 British Grand Prix should be shown as "Ret" or "DNS". You are welcome to add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Michael Schumacher#Infobox "races". DH85868993 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Car/Driver numbers in driver/team/car results tables[edit]

Multiple IP's keep adding car/driver numbers to results tabels in driver, car and team articles. As you can see for instance here or here. I thought the project's convention was not to do that. After all the drivers' names provide enough means to distinguish the results and in a driver article there is certainly no point in having them. So I think we should keep our heads up and revert any of these additions. Tvx1 16:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)



As it appears, since this season, all Formula One articles seem to use another sort of tables as they did before. I didn't really like the new ones because I felt the font was too small, but what could I do? But now, the borders keep disappearing in the tables alltogether. Sometimes they are there, sometimes they're not, and if that it the case, I can barely read them, because it is hard to keep you eye in one line. It looks like in the thumb....

Why was the decision made to change them and why does the thing with the borders happen and how do I make sure it does not happen anymore? Can someone please help me out? It's driving me crazy! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

First two questions. Does that happen on mobile or on desktop? And which browser do you use? Tvx1 12:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Desktop and Firefox (happens both in windowed mode and maximised). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Done the check and can confirm that issue occurs. We have received reports before that Firefox has difficulties with the tables. It's more a browser issue, rather than an issue with the content. For further technical assistance, you'd better go to WP:VPT. That's were the people with the technical knowledge are. The guys over here are more concerned with content. The only thing I can do is to suggest to use a different browser.
The core problem are the mobile tables though. In the old format their borders were next-to-invisible. Hence why Prisonermonkeys introduced this new format, but as you can see that causes even more problems. So I decided to propose to have the mobile tables fixed, but it got thrown out. I even raised a RFC for it and advertised the discussion over here, but nobody bothered to go over there to weigh in their opinion. Just take a look this:
A a group of wikitables in a rally article on the desktop site
The same tables on the mobile site
I really fail to understand how people can say the mobile tables are just fine. You can hardly see them. Tvx1 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
On the Android app, the new tables work OK, the borders are well visible. But the old tables work better, especially concerning column width. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Village pump has a clear view on this, we should go back to using wikitables (see here). I support this. Please state your opinion. If we find a consensus on this, I will start changing the tables in the race reports accordingly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, if we do that mobile tables will be barely visible like in my above example. Mobile wikitables are programmed to have very, very light borders. Tvx1 16:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel that that is too bad. Also, as I said, on the mobile app those tables work a lot better. Of course the app is a nightmare for editors, but for just viewing the site, it works well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. The mobile wikitables are absolutely not better to see. Just take look at the tables in this link and this link and tell me which is better. Tvx1 16:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
We are not disagreeing ;) I am simply talking about a different aspect. I am not talking about the mobile view in a tablet browser (en.m.wikipedia...), but about the app. And in the app, the old wikitables are better than the new ones. If the display of the wikitables on mobile websites is bad, then maybe that should be taken to Village pump seperately? Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see you already did that. So forget that last part :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes the Wikipedia app. Now I'm on track with your reasoning. I wasn't talking about that. I'm concerned about their look in mobile browsers. Tvx1 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To push this discussion forward: I believe that if it is true that the new tables are only better on mobile browsers and the old ones are better in regular browsers and the mobile app, then it's safe to say that using the old tables will benefit the larger number of viewers. So I propose to go back to the old wikitables. Please give your vote on this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just how does making tables more difficult to see for the entire mobile readership benefit a larger number of viewers than having tables that only cause problems for Firefox users? Before we revert any tables we should fit the raised problems tables using the "wikitable" class have on the mobile site. Tvx1 12:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
1) I assume the number of readers using Firefox on desktop and the mobile app is larger than the number of users using mobile browsers. I cannot prove that of course. 2) The wikitable issue is more likely to be fixed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I am at an iPhone right now. in mobile view, you are right, the borders are very light. BUT: When I change to desktop view on the iPhone, the new tables don't work well either, cause they reach over the width of the article borders. Yet another argument for switching back! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I too almost exclusively use mobile. However, I also almost exclusively switch to desktop mode even on my android chrome browser. Mobile mode cuts far too many features and makes editing and discussing a terrible pain. The wikipedia app is even worse! The entire mobile experience needs a second look. Twirlypen (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
No questions there. For editors, it's a pain... Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a frame in the top right corner of this discussion with a link to a report to the developers who are working to fix the problem with the mobile wikitables. We just have to be patient now. Once they fixed it we can revert to the wikitable class. Tvx1 19:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


Please watch out for edits by this user to race articles and race reports. He makes senseless edits like this. His talk page indicates that useless edits is all he seems to be doing... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That edit wasn't even correct. The 2015 Monaco Grand Prix followed the 2015 Spanish Grand Prix, not the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix. Twirlypen (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will no longer make any edits to the sports, racing, and Olympics sections. The purpose of my edits was to create new pages for future sporting events that may not have not happened yet, and may even be in the next five to ten years or so, but are still being planned for, taking bids for, or are having teams chosen or infrastructure made. But, because Wikipedia does not ordinarily create pages for provisional events, and out of respect for the need for sensical, logical, verifiable, and correct edits, and out of respect for the staff and editors of Wikipedia, and the messages received, I will cease and refrain from such. But I did not do them out of malice or vandalism- it was meant to be a form of advance planning for future event pages. You all may feel free to delete any and all edits that are out of place. Thank you for your corrections and your services to Wikipedia, and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321 (talkcontribs)

Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321, we have tables at the bottom of each race article, such at the article in question in this discussion, that list each appropriate race before and after the event. I understand what you are attempting to do, but the project discourages having unnecessary redlinks in the prose of the article that would remain there for up to a year. Twirlypen (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand; it is distracting and too early to have it there, and especially with events in the distant future, too many things are unknown and speculative.

It is astonishing to me that a user with almost 1,000 edits still does not bother to sign his comments. For what it's worth: I did not undo your edits because I thought they were out of bad faith. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Manor" MR03B[edit]

Hello everyone. I have kind of spearheaded an issue which may or may not have precedence (because I don't know). Anyway, for 2015, we have been refering to Manor's car as the Manor MR03B, when it is simply a derivative of the car that Marussia built with a couple bolt-ons. In pedestrian terms, we don't buy a Ford Focus, personalize it with our own front splitter, exhaust, and what not and then call it a Douglas Focus, right? It's still a Ford Focus, built by Ford, no matter what we do to it. Wouldn't the same apply to professional motorsports? Marussia may be defunct, but the MR03 is still something they built. Am I making sense with this? Twirlypen (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You are, a little bit. But in this case, it is not the way you describe in your example. It's rather: Ford builts a Focus, then Ford goes bankrupt, then a company is founded that is the legal successor of Ford and they built a new Focus and call it the XYZ Focus. Which also makes sense. It is quite different from back in the 60s and 70s, when small teams bought chassis from other teams. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Except Manor did not build a new MR03. They slapped a few parts on Marussia's model to make it 2015-legal. Heck, they didn't even put a new engine in it. Using your example, Ford goes bankrupt, XYZ succeeds them and states "we are using Ford's Focus with some modifications because our own chassis is nowhere near ready." Twirlypen (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
And it will be different when Dallara builds the chassis for Haas F1, because Dallara is in agreement with Haas to build the chassis under the Haas name, like they did for Hispania Racing in 2010. Such an agreement with Dallara does not exist between them and Indycar. The Indycar chassis are marketed as the Dallara DW12. I know one company is defunct, and the other isn't, so it's apples and oranges... I don't know. Twirlypen (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
But Marussia and Manor are not different companies like Haas and Dallara. One is the legal successor of the other. That's the whole point of the team, that is why they get Marussia's money... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Marussia's money is the only reason Manor entered using their name. But that's not my point. My point is that it's not Manor's chassis. Manor hasn't built any chassis yet. They've openly said they are using Marussia's 2014 car that meets 2015 minimum safety standards (B-spec). If they had said otherwise, I wouldn't have a case. Twirlypen (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Your analogy doesn't hold up though, I can think of quite a few examples of consumer cars receiving a new name upon being modified by a third party. One even from Ford you have mentioned. Ford builds a car named the Ford Mustang. A certain mr. Shelby acquires some of these vehicles, modifies them somewhat and the result is... the Shelby Mustang. Another such example is say the BMW 7 series and the Alpina B7. There even are examples of this in Formula One. For instance the Arrows A23 and the Super Aguri SA05 or the Honda RA106 and the Super Aguri SA07. Anyway, we don't decide ourselves what the chassis name should be. We reflect what the reliable sources say it is. Our 2015 season article state that the team's constructor name is Marussia, so that seems to be a strong indication as to what it should be named. Tvx1 13:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't a compromise be Manor Marussia MR03B? The Renault > Lotus F1 team transition may help (I can't recall what their cars were called during this period). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It was called the Renault R31, even though the team was renamed Lotus Renault F1. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand BMW Sauber constructed a Sauber C29 for the 2010 season, so it doesn't always happen the same way. Tvx1 13:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something. The teams are listed by F1 under the factory name, so if the chassis is owned by Manor, whether Manor actually built the thing this year or not, it's run as a Manor, isn't it? That may not have applied when Cooper was selling chassis, IDK; as I recall, they were run under the team name, then (& I wasn't a big enough fan to know if they were entered as Coopers or not). So, does it make any difference if this chassis was built by Manor or not, since the actual builder is gone & Manor owns what's left? Didn't this also apply to the Brawns? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That's indeed how things go.Tvx1 16:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
This isn't any different to the Spyker F8-VII, which became known as the Force India VJM01 the next year when the team came under new ownership. It was the same car, but had two different names. There is no reason we can't call this year's car the Manor MR03B. QueenCake (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Or the above Super Aguri examples I mentioned. Tvx1 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, though I was going with an example that was all covered with the same article. QueenCake (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Interesting and compelling points on the Spyker/Force India and Honda/Super Aguri examples. I'm sorry for raising such a rather mundane point, and not knowing these precedents beforehand. Twirlypen (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. If we don't discuss it, we can't know what to do in each situation. :) QueenCake (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Do we call a Vauxhall Monaro sold in the UK a Holden because Holden built it? I mean, all Vauxhall did was put some badges on the car and maybe made some tweaks to the user interface of the software. Maybe some different tyres. Alter the air conditioning, but it's still a Holden yeah? So all reference to Vauxhall should be removed.
WP:COMMONNAME suggests it should be Manor. --Falcadore (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, what of the case of Reynard 02S? DBA4 03S, Zytek 04S, Zytek 05S, Zytek 06S and Creation CA06/H are ALL variations of the Reynard 02S. Are you going to rename them too?
You do know, don't you, that there is no such thing as a Marussia MR03B, and one of the principal foundations of wikipedia is we never make stuff up ourselves. For any reason. --Falcadore (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Twirlypen had obviously admitted their mistake in their reasoning. Anyway, such a claim of the commonname is what desperately needs some sources to show that. It strikes me that in a discussion about what the name of a car is, not a single source has been supplied to, you know, show what the car is actually called. And interestingly enough, the first source I consult refers to it as the MR04. And why did CtrlXctrlV change the Marussia MR03 while this discussion is still ongoing? That is NOT constructive. Tvx1 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Instead of reprimanding, "View history" and you will see someone else made changes that compromised the article even more. My revisions were to reflect the discussion here, and preceded most of what has since followed, Tvx1. And for once, I side with Falcadore - i.e. more logical that the MR03B be named a Manor or, as I proposed above, "Manor Marussia" as a valid compromise given the present lack of uncertainty. This renowned scale modeller (Spark) does so CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That was a little overzealous. The discussion was clearly over before you made your last comment. Manor themselves refer to the car as the MR03B; presumably the media guide was created in the pre-season uncertainty over the team. QueenCake (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That FIA document is interesting. Can someone actually provide a source from Manor about the car's name? Cause the Manor website doesn't give one. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither of the sources given in 2015 Formula One season give MR03B as the name. I am starting to think we got it all wrong all this time... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I have now tweeted the team and just asked them ;) Let's see if they reply. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase we can compare notes... I just emailed their PR manager :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that that media guide contains the results of every race this season prior to the British GP, I strongly doubt it was made before the season. Anyway, we're discussing whether this car is called Marussia, Manor or Manor Marussia and I don't think that is over at all. I still haven't seen any source regarding those names and we have to reflect the sources. We can't give it our own name.
Zwerg Nase, the Marussia Manor source in 2015 Formula One season does refer to it as MR03B. And here and here] are more instances of Marussia Manor referring to it as the MR03B.
CtrlXctrlV, we don't follow logic, we follow what the sources say. Tvx1 16:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Duly noted! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right, for some reason the search function didn't show that... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I posted on the talk page regarding the Manor/Marussia/Manor Marussia confusion regarding this 2015 season. Twirlypen (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You know, if different names are actively used to refer to it in the sources, we should seriously consider reflecting that in the article like how it's often done with films. Tvx1 17:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Such as "the team re-emerged as Manor Marussia, often referred to simply as Manor, for the 2015 season."? I don't see how that would be unreasonable if we have credible sources referring to both names. Twirlypen (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Well boys, got a reply from the Manor PR Director, Tracy Novak, and... I was wrong both with my preference for Manor or my Marussia Manor compromise. The team calls the car Marussia MR03B - see email correspondence here (just click to download the PDF; they are short of money and words, it seems, but at least she replied relatively quickly). The latest version of the article as it now stands, I feel, does not warrant any further changes after I attempted to neutralise this issue by not making any express reference to the different possible names. Zwerg Nase sorry for beating you with the answer, good ole email has trumped twitter :P I wonder if the team will now monitor our articles... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
So wait, does this mean it IS the Marussia MR03B, not the Manor MR03B? Twirlypen (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I would imagine so—the car was homologated as a Marussia. It's an evolution of the MR03, but not a completely different car. The planned (but now apparently shelved) 2015 car would have been considered to be a new car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, here is another source that literally states the name of the chassis is Marussia. Tvx1 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sanboxing, part 3[edit]

If anyone is interested and wants to comment on it, I'm getting way ahead of myself and sandboxing the 2017 season article here. I believe I've found good Grand Prix references (most of the 2016 ones held up for 2017), and all the drivers as well (all 3 of them). I had liberties with the rule changes, so don't take that part too seriously. Cheers! Twirlypen (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The regulation changes really look interesting. But then again: It is very unlikely it is gonna happen this way. You might wanna add that DRS at any point of the track in FP and Q was already allowed in 2011 and 2012. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hence the reference name "I wish!". But mostly I'm trying to get confirmation of the other information, like the races and drivers. I'm pretty sure all the sources I've used check out. Twirlypen (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Homogenization of Season reports[edit]

Hey everybody, I believe we are on our way to another brilliant season report with 2015 Formula One season, which I believe will be an easy FA candidate once the season is over. However, that is not true for many other season reports. What is most striking is that there does not seem to be a consensus over the order of sections. For instance, as early as 2011, the report comes before the signed teams and drivers, which I believe is a confusing order compared to what we do now. Maybe we can set up a team to go through all season articles and homogenize the section orders. Maybe one editor for each decade? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, organization can be fixed with an easy copy & paste, just as I have done with the 2011 example. Content, however, would take some significant time to clean up. 2011 is a loooooooooooooooooooooong read. Twirlypen (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I know it's simple, but since it's a dull task, I didn't want to do them all on my own :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I did 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 now. Pretty much every article had its own distinct order... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
If you want to finish the 2000s, I'll tackle the 90s. Twirlypen (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and Zwerg Nase, if you do, be sure to delete the safety car model info buried in the article. There's an overwhelming concensus against having that info in the article as the model of safety car has nothing to do with the season. Twirlypen (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
To be blunt, I don't think that it's "an easy FA". After having a glance through, I think it's a little uneven and inconsistent in places. It's very episodic, which is understandable, given that it is updated race by race. I'll have a closer look and see if I can tune it up a little bit. My biggest concern is that there is a bit of colloquialism used—for example, "Mercedes hit the ground running"—and that will be picked up in the GA review process (an article needs to be GA before it can begin FA). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The prose will be tuned up. As stated on the article's talk page, the subsections of the championship are being written as they unfold, and then condensed in a more direct, summary fashion like the Opening rounds are in leiu of the round-by-round format once the section's events are complete. It keeps the important facts fresh, and avoids the simplistic "Team A did this in round one, then this in round two, then this in round three..." for 10 or 11 paragraphs, basically spelling out the results table for however many teams there are the previous few seasons. And I think Zwerg Nase meant that it is closer to GA/FA than previous season articles because we have been working on it since the beginning to keep the minor things out of the way, like overlinking and adding photos promptly. Twirlypen (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I also didn't mean to say it's FA quality now, but that from where we are, it will be quite easy to get there. I will do the rest of the 2000s. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Does anyone keep track of what has been done already? I'll tackle the eighties if you want that. Tvx1 11:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be perfect :) I see Twirlypen is already through with the 90s. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
2000s are done. I also fixed a lot of headers to make them consistent. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, I have done the 80s now. To keep track of what remains to be done, here is a list of all the decades. Tvx1 23:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

2010s Green tickY
2000s Green tickY
90s Green tickY
80s Green tickY
70s Green tickY

Oh and Twirlypen, while doing the eighthies, I'm came across the 1982 Formula One season which might be an interesting source of inspiration for report subsection headings for you. Tvx1 23:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting.... Renaming the headings is always a possibility once the season is over and the the article has a relatively finite conclusion. Twirlypen (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I would opt for more neutral and encyclopedic headings to be honest... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Having read the 2015 report as promised, I can honestly say that the best thing for it would be to tear it up at the roots and start over. Bretonbanquet (or was that Falcadore—it was definitely one of them, maybe both) is right: it's too long and it's far too detailed. We're halfway through the season and it's already longer than what I would expect the final version to be. It's uneven, inconsistent and lacks cohesion—the first point is that Hamilton chose the number 44 over number 1, and there is a massive section on van der Garde which goes nowhere. There was nothing wrong with the old system, which was very structured and straightforward. This reads like a series of detailed recaps for people who missed the race. No doubt there is content in there that can be salvaged, but given that most of it seems to have been written with the idea that "if it happened, it's relevant", a total refresh would be best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If by "massive section," you mean one paragraph regarding VDG (and Sauber, and their trial that lasted into the actual Grand Prix and caused the team to skip practice 1 under threat of asset seizure), then yes, that's really massive. I know how it is now isn't perfect, but to call how it was any better, is comical at best. "Mercedes finished first and third here. They finished first and second here. In the third round, Rosberg beat Hamilton..." and repeat eleven times. It's basically a word-for-word read-out of the results table. We could literally record someone reading the table, and it would sound 90% like the prose. Also, you needn't mention the 2015 prose quality in nearly every unrelated discussion thread when there's already an existing discussion on this very page. Twirlypen (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

List of fatal Formula One accidents[edit]

@Fitnr: has moved List of fatal Formula One accidents to List of Formula One fatalities. Apart from the questionable wisdom of moving a featured list without discussion, I don't think the title is an improvement, and is now even vaguer than it was before. Much discussion has taken place on the title with no result. Maybe we should decide on a better title at this stage. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I made the move for two reasons. First, the list is a list of people who have died, not a list of events. Second, it's notevery death on the list is accidental in the sense of "happens by chance or without apparent or deliberate cause." Deaths that result from the negligence of drivers or race organizers aren't accidents in that sense, to assert that they are is POV. Fitnr 19:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not simply a list of people, it's a list of people and details of where and when they died, and what they were doing at the time; effectively a list of events. To suggest that they were not accidents is to suggest that they were in some sense deliberate or intentional. None of these accidents was deliberate or intentional. By your definition, nothing can ever be an accident as an underlying cause can be found for any crash or similar incident. Therefore, everything is ultimately somebody's fault. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
To call a group of events "accidents" is to assert that none resulted from intention or negligence. Avoiding the word accident in favor of more descriptive terms ('death', 'crash', 'collision') makes no claims about underlying causes. Fitnr 20:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you have a very narrow definition of the word "accident". An accident is simply an event (usually unfortunate) that is unexpected and unintentional. No underlying cause or absence of negligence is inferred in the use of the word "accident". All the events in the list can be sourced as accidents anyway. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by giving an example of an F1 fatality that you consider an accident and one which you consider not to be an accident. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) One of the principles of Wiki is that we use common and commonly understood expressions in the majority of cases. An accident is a (sudden) non-deliberate event and as such is the correct term. Viz. all road 'crashes' irrespective of blame are referred to as RTAs (road traffic accidents). Similarly the term applies to motorsport incidents. Eagleash (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Baku revisited[edit]

Now that we have a provisional calendar for 2016, do we have any more information on the new European Grand Prix? Is its race title "European Grand Prix" or "Baku European Grand Prix"? Do we treat it as a separate article? And while we're at it, how will we represent it in tables—as EUR (Europe), BAK (Baku), AZE (Azerbaijan) or something else like BKE (Baku European)? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FIA lists it as "Baku", not "European", which would lead me to think we should start a new article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd eliminate AZE right away, since it's in no way referred to as Azerbaijan. I feel like those that participated in a much earlier discussion on the event's talk page would feel that it should be EUR since it's just another running of the European Grand Prix, however I could honestly see a case for any of the remaining three choices you've put forth. Twirlypen (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The FIA does list it as "Baku", but I can't find the original document—all I have seen are reproductions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd hold any decision for now. We don't seem to know anything more concrete as of yet. QueenCake (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 season report prose[edit]

Hello all. As I have stated on various talk pages, I intend to rewrite the season report subsections once they are complete, as can be seen in the style of opening rounds which is complete vs middle rounds which is ongoing. However, there has been displeasure even with this method as it may still result in a report that is too long by season's end. For this, I have yet again sandboxed an alternative style, which I invite everyone interested to view here and leave opinions or comments. Again as well, please note that the season is incomplete, so I have taken some liberties with the content. It is merely a demonstration of style that would result in a shorter, broader season coverage. Thanks! Twirlypen (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the sandbox version is way too short to do a season report justice. It does not have to be as detailed as 2012 (a GA), that's what the race reports are for (and I'm doing my best to get all of them to GA), but it can be longer and it should contain some sub-sections. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Three short paragraphs is of course too short, but the idea was to convey an alternative option at style of prose. I proposed the 2012 method of season reporting via my original sandbox and it was largely rejected, which I am fine with, despite a certain assertation that I cannot be reasoned with or have no ability to compromise. The overall big picture here is to tackle these issues now instead of later when the content is already written and established. I truly believe that being proactive, despite some lengthy discussions over what amounts to nothing, has made this season's article unfold a lot nicer than previous seasons. Twirlypen (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The simplest driver table[edit]

I'm going to take this opportunity to spin off a tangent to the above discussion and run with an idea put forward by Bretonbanquet—namely, that team and driver tables are too complex. After looking at the F1 season articles and season articles for other championships, I started wondering: what is the simplest version that we can have?

The table has the current functions:

  1. Team name
  2. Constructor name
  3. Chassis
  4. Engine name
  5. Tyre supplier
  6. Driver number
  7. Driver name
  8. Rounds
  9. FP1 driver number
  10. FP1 driver name

That's ten different things that the table does. Do we really need all of them? Assume for the moment that we have to rebuild the table from scratch—what do we keep? What do we let go?

Casting a really critical eye over it, I think we could reasonably cut the following:

  1. Team name—this column does not really serve any purpose but to give the full team name and sponsors. The information contained is doubled up elsewhere, and we have previously made the case for removing formal titles from the calendar table.
  2. Engine name—we know the name of the engine supplier from the constructor column. The exact name of the engine doesn't really have any bearing on the article, since the modern rules demand that all teams run the same engine model, with very few exceptions. This information would be better suited to the car/engine manufacturer articles.
  3. Tyre supplier—the most recent version of the rules have a single tyre supplier. In years with multiple suppliers, this column would be necessary.
  4. Rounds—ignoring verisimilitude for the moment, this functionality could be performed by prose and the results matrices. If removed, mid-season changes would need some kind of visual representation in the table.
  5. FP1 driver number and FP1 driver name—assuming for the moment that some of the other columns get cut, it gets harder to justify keeping these two around.

And so this:

Team Constructor Chassis Power unit Tyre No. Race drivers Rounds No. Free Practice drivers
Italy Scuderia Ferrari         Ferrari SF15-T Ferrari 059/4 P 5
Germany Sebastian Vettel
Finland Kimi Räikkönen        

Instead becomes this:

Constructor Chassis No. Race drivers
Ferrari SF15-T 5
Germany Sebastian Vettel
Finland Kimi Räikkönen        

Thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems whatsoever with the content of the current driver tables. My big issue is still the fact that the new sort of table used in all F1 articles is crap (since they're not working in Firefox), but no one chips in to that discussion... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a bit of an overreaction to a difficult discussion. The table has worked for years and years without hardly any complaints, so I don't see why we should cut it up that drastically. Although the team name looks to be redundant and the tyre column is not really necessary when there is a sole supplier. But that's all we could sensibly drop. Zwerg Nase, I have filed a phabricator ticket for the table issue. The link is in the section on this matter. They are working on it, so we should be patient now. Tvx1 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Two comments on this: 1) I am sure the sponsors would disagree that the name in redundant. 2) and more importantly: While the name might be less important today, it was been very much so in earlier years. And since we should aim for consistency, we should have a table that can be used effectively for all seasons. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair points. Tvx1 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It would appear more than a little silly that the most prestigious FIA-sanctioned open-wheel series articles would use the simplest table. If there's anything that needs chopped, it'd be the FP drivers, but at the moment I see no reason against it. Twirlypen (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It's repetition that I have the biggest issue with, and since this is the first table in the article, repetition is not a major issue with it. I am abivalent about sponsor names; I agree with Tvx1 about the tyre column – for seasons with only one tyre supplier, a tyre column is redundant; and I would agree with Twirlypen's idea that the FP1 drivers could be moved elsewhere. A short paragraph of text would probably do, or a very simple, small separate table which only included those teams that use third drivers. Since there are never more than a small number of these guys, and a large part of that column is usually empty, I think that column could be dispensed with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly say there are never more than a small number of FP1 drivers. There were 13 of them last year, 11 of them in 2011, 14 of them in 2006 and 13 of them in 2005 to name a few. That's clearly more than a small number. Tvx1 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So remove them from the table and put them in a prose paragraph under the driver changes section.

Still not convinced that the tyre icon is necessary for years were there is one tyre supplier. Likewise the engine name—we know who the engine supplier is and there are no pages for those engines, so that would be better suited to the individual car and engine supplier articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tyre column from the 2015 season article, and moved the FP1 drivers to a prose format. Thoughts?
I am absolutely against having seperate tables for different seasons. They should all be as alike as possible. Therefore I say leave the tyres in there. FP can go elsewhere if need be. But engine needs to stay there! There are articles for some engines and also apart from that it's a vital information, considering how much the speed of the cars depends on engine power. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
PM, despite my recent edits, I believe you're jumping the gun a little here. For my own opinion on the matter, I stated that if anything should go, it should be the FP drivers, but at the moment I see no reason against it. Others have made similar statements without definitively expressing desire for anything to be removed. Tvx1 is making a case for the FP column to remain, as while it may not be a fulfilled column as of yet this season, it has served a purpose in quite a few previous seasons. Zwerg Nase has expressed desire for the table to remain unchanged for the sake of consistancy (an opinion I would side with, if forced to pick). So right now, there is hardly any concensus to change anything right now and the discussion is still relatively fresh. Before I am accused of doing the same thing during the previous discussion, understand that I made my edits after a very long while once it was clear there was a stalemate on a solution. Twirlypen (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not an edit based on CONSENSUS, but on BEBOLD. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a stretch too, considering you started a discussion about it first, presumably with the intent to gain concensus. But I'm not in the mood to argue technicalities. Twirlypen (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I have revised the edits. If you genuinely want to invoke BOLD, you would have done so before ever starting a discussion about it. But you already know there has been a long-standing concensus regarding the table layout. So invoking BOLD is just nonsense. But if BOLD is what you want to push the back of your edits on, consult the second paragraph of that. Twirlypen (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You have two choices: you can stop the ad hominem attacks and contribute, or you can excuse yourself from the discussion until you learn some manners. You have repeatedly and consistently failed to assume good faith in my edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
First off, I have disagreed with many an editor in my time here, probably nearly every regular at one point or another. How is it you that I am the only one unable to find decency with? Second, Dad, don't think that you can send me to my room just because I disagree with how you conduct yourself with your hasty edits. Third, there's a saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Well, we have been fooled four times already. I'm astonished you're allowed back at all, but that is simply a personal opinion. What's that thing about trust? Easy to lose, hard to earn back? Anyway my good faith towards you is a little shaken over the past 8 or 9 months.
I have not and will not revert any edits that aren't pushing a prefered version of an article; something I did NOT do in the previous discussion - as stated earlier, my edits were a COMPROMISE and not a version I directly pushed for by starting a discussion on the matter. You want to remove references that are outdated or superceded by new sources? Fine, be my guest. Want to add legitimate content away from an active discussion you haven't directly started. Hey man, not my article. Go right ahead. Start a discussion with the seemingly sole intention of altering an established concensus without any real new opinions on the matter other than the first sign of a "hmmm, perhaps?" Then yeah, I'll revert that if no one else will. Twirlypen (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
One rule for me, and one rule for you. You happily insist that I should find a consensus before making edits, but you will make edits and insist on keeping them in place before achieving a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
By all means, let's hear how I tried to add the footnotes/legend to the table as a COMPROMISE to a discussion that was at a stalemate. I sound like a broken record - how many times do I have to explain the difference over and over? By the way, you were only okay with the addition of that once YOU added it. But go ahead and twist it around like you were against it's inclusion in any way and I forced it on everyone when you were ONLY against it due to the specific template causing functionality issues. Anyway, I'm not going to get goated into yet another useless discussion about civility with someone that's been banned for over 5 out of the last 9 months. This project was at peace and worked great together until literally 2 hours after your latest ban expired. Twirlypen (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The fact of the matter is: There has been no editwarring while Prisonermonkeys was blocked. There is a lot now. It is preposterous to put any blame on Twirlypen for this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that can bring up my block history as a means of marginalising my contributions regardless of what those contributions are. That's an ad hominem attack if ever there was one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Call it whatever you want. You want to invoke BOLD after the fact during a discussion in which you started as a direct result of failing to get people to see things your way in a previous discussion, and then lay the honus on everyone else to prove you wrong. Don't act like this is the first time you've done this. I've never seen anyone so unwilling to accept concensus when it's not in their favor or preferred way of thinking or having things displayed. Twirlypen (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't give you the right to disregard AGF because it suits you. I've never met anyone who assumes page stability equals a quality article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not just about one article, this is about consistency in the entire project. We should work hard to find one sort of table (both content and technic-wise) that can be used in all articles. What you are doing is searching for a good table for one article that technically suits not everyone but your preferred way of display, which is obviously mobile devices. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Dragging things out so that talk pages push over 200,000 bytes and a single discussion needs multiple subsections just to keep track of everything when things aren't going your way. Ridiculous. But no, there's no chance of any coincidences happening here......... Also, I'm pretty sure I AGF'd when I immediately pointed you to these discussions and, despite previous quarrels, made contributing edits to this very issue because I assumed a new concensus had been formed. Lest I find out upon coming here that literally everyone had a different opinion and new concensus was absolutely nowhere to be found, which is, by definition, the very opposite time to invoke BOLD. So please stop lecturing me about good faith. Twirlypen (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So I should just leave well enough alone because it will keep people happy?

That seems like a terrible idea. Because if I leave well enough alone, the quality of the articles will nosedive. How do I know this? Because I did go back and read the season review for 2015. And while I tried to be diplomatic about it, I think it's time to be blunt: it's bad. Bad enough that there are some sections that should be rewritten, if not scrapped outright. It's simplistic, disjointed and reads like fancruft at times. For some reason, you seem to think that it can achieve FA status, but I think you will be severely disappointed. So given the consistently poor quality of the decisions made here, how can I trust the editors making them to apply any other standard in their decision making elsewhere in the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion seems to be that you know better and you, and only you, can fix everything. Well, you can't. Feel free to suggest alternative prose. But stop messing with the layout without reaching a consensus first. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Why would I bother helping someone who clearly doesn't want it? Not worth my time or energy. As far as I'm concerned, you're on your own in that regard. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you all need to stop this. The three of you could quite easily have been blocked for personal attacks. This leads to absolutely nothing. I stand by original comment that this proposal was born out of overreaction to a difficult discussion higher up on this page. I only said that if something really could be cut what I think it was. Nevertheless I prefer not to cut anything at all. No edits should be made (yet) based on the reactions. This is a change that possibly affects over 100 years worth of season articles. We no to give the project's members much more than 22 hours to allow them to weigh in their opinions what, if anyting at all, should be removed. There is a reason why RFC's have a minimum length of 30 days. The reason why oppose to any changes lies in these decades worth of articles. Even though not everything seems necessary for 2015 season article, all part are necessary on a multitude of articles. I especially realized this when I recently homogenized our season articles on the eighties' season. Many of these articles contain teams using different engine types, tires, chassis, heck... some even used different constructors. All of these columns clearly have their value. And even the 2015 season article provides a strong argument against removing engine type names, since two different types of the Ferrari Power Unit are currently being used. By the way, all our season articles up to the 2000's label the first column as "Entrant". Later it suddenly becomes "Team". Shouldn't we make it all consistently "Entrant". Tvx1 15:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Given my recent contretemps with Tvx1, it's odd that I now find myself agreeing with him. There's no mileage whatsoever in bashing each other. I know Tvx1 has felt that I was bashing him in the past, but I am really only interested in the articles. We really should concentrate on them. There's plenty of time for people to have their say on the table, and all this argument will only serve to put other people off reading it and commenting. Certainly no benefit in diving in and changing the article so fast.
On the point, I'm OK with removing tyre columns for seasons that only had one tyre supplier, as I don't think the range of season articles needs to be exactly the same format across the board. A few minor differences like this don't matter too much, in my opinion. That said, if consensus is to keep things as they are, fine. I agree with Tvx1 about the first column being labelled "Entrant" and I also take his point (way) above about there sometimes being quite a few FP1 drivers. I'd still prefer a separate table or text for them though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's bad. It's, another thing I've had to repeat four or five times, incomplete. Every other editors seems to understand and get this, because I've invited all of them to participate and edit whatever I add. But I get it, eye for an eye, I go after you for editing before concensus is reached on this issue in this discussion, you go after me for something completely unrelated that hasn't even been a problem for anyone. I'm fine with that though. As for the topic at hand, I too am in favor of not altering the table, aside from the minor label issues of Team to Entrant. Twirlypen (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree on that. Let's keep the tables consistent. Maybe the people who edited the season reports for section order can also change their respective reports for the "Entrants" name? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
See? We all have editors we simply just bash heads with at times more than others it seems... I've cooled off and am ready to start the day anew. I'm afraid the previous discussion that spawned this one isn't quite settled yet, though, and to be fair to both separate issues, I don't think it'd be wise to discuss both simultaneously. Twirlypen (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase, that would be you then since you did the 2000s and they started being labeled team from 2005 or 2006. I'll do a check on the 80's but it though they all had entrant already. Tvx1 10:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
All of the 90s are correct. Side note, I'm thinking we should keep the tyres, even if there is a sole supplier for certain seasons. It shows that there was a sole supplier, and a casual reader wouldn't think to assume that if they see a tyre supplier column for one season and not another. Unless, of course, it's mentioned somewhere in the regulation changes or a footnote at the end of the table...... which there are for towards the end of the 90s tables stating what configuration all of the engines were. Twirlypen (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll go through the 2000s! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done 2001-2015 Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done 2016 Tvx1 11:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi's death nominated for WP Main Page: In the News[edit]

Anyone interested in voicing support or opposition may do so here.

RIP Jules Bianchi 1989-2015. A truly dark day for Formula One. Twirlypen (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nomination. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Submission has been added to English WP Main Page. Twirlypen (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi's article[edit]

With Jules Bianchi sadly passing way I think it is time to take a look at his article in view of making a considerable cleanup. IMHO, the detailed dairy of updates on his medical condition is a bit too excessive. Similarly I question whether it is necessary to have such a large amount of prose on the FIA's reaction and the accident panel's fidings. Lastly, I'd think the section on his 2014 season exploits before the Japanese Grand Prix might do with a bit of expansion. It's hardly noticeable at the moment. Any thoughts? Tvx1 09:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The updates (mainly mine) could be cleaned up but not FIA's reaction and findings that followed. They gained a lot of attention and caused some controversy, as in the case of Senna, plus resulted in revised safety measures that would have not arisen but for those findings and reaction. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but is this article the correct place to go in so much detail about that? How did that affect Bianchi's life and career? Wouldn't that be better suited for say... the article on the GP in question? Tvx1 10:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The medical updates are a bit drawn out, considering that there was no real change in condition. But I agree that the FIA investigation and findings are rightly detailed. The entire situation may be deserving of it's own article, but that's just my opinion if we can't agree on what content should and shouldn't remain. Twirlypen (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Short of the status quo, the same FIA material in another appropriate article (its own I'd say, much like Senna has a separate one; I wouldn't favour just adding it to 2014 Japanese GP) could work, cross referenced in Jules' biography article. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to take anything away from the situation, but I'd also be hesitant to fully support a standalone article. Senna was a three-time world champion; Bianchi was a rising star who had 2 career points, and has the unfortunate distinction of being "the next guy..." and nine months worth of coverage preceding his death. Twirlypen (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair comment. Maybe an F1 article on monumental events in the sport BUT... I am sure that would attract a lot of superfluous stuff. My preference remains for leaving the info in Jules' article then. Everything mentioned arose because of his unfortunate crash. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict)Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we remove the sections on the FIA's post-crash activities entirely. I'm suggesting it's trimmed down considerably to what's actually relevant to Bianchi, which is that an accident panel was formed and which findings it made. I mean how relevant is it really to Jules Bianchi when and where they convened, who was in the panel, that a unused proposal was made to airlift stricken F1 cars, how many pages the report contained and so on? Tvx1 11:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The accident review panel and medical updates sections are far too long. They could easily be trimmed down without compromising the article. If anything, a more concise version will be much better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem Tvx1 and all, sounds quite sound and constructive. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I just took 3,000kB out of the review panel section alone. Most of it was better-suited to the 2015 season article, anyway. I'll look at the medical updates later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I had a go at the medical updates. The team's commemorative gestures have been cut back and moved under "Team reaction". CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Just cut another ~5,000kB from the team reaction and medical updates. There was a lot of stuff in there that was very long-winded and quite superfluous at times, and the medical updates section read less like an encyclopaedia article and more like a rolling series of updates and broke NOTNEWS. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Petronas engine links[edit]

Are there any objections to me updating all references to "Petronas" engines (i.e. Sauber's engines from 1997-2005) to point to Sauber Petronas Engineering instead of Petronas (noting that the links from several articles already point there)? DH85868993 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not from me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Not from me either. I actually changed one of these links myself yesterday. I would suggest to use AWB though, because you're looking at updating every season and Grand Prix report article from 1997 until 2005. Tvx1 14:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1: It was your edit that brought the issue to my attention. I am definitely planning to use AWB. If there are no objections within the next 12 hours, I'll make the updates then. DH85868993 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. DH85868993 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Manor Marussia" article[edit]

It was agreed through consensus that a separate article for "Manor Marussia" would be created but so far it hasn't even been thought of since, I would make it myself if I wasn't such a sloppy editor. Speedy Question Mark (talk 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I made a crude start to it using information gathered from the Manor Motorsports article and it's 2015 season section. Whether they can be removed from Manor Motorsport's article, I'll leave to the community. I'm no good at moving sections of tables either.
Also, I made it using the official team name Manor Marussia F1 Team. Twirlypen (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

2010 Korean GP - PR[edit]

I've opened a peer review for the 2010 Korean Grand Prix which can be found here. I intend that the article be brought to FAC in the near future and I welcome all feedback on how it can be improved. Z105space (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Renault "factory" team status[edit]

This issue has been brought up many times but it needs addressing, Lotus Renault GP shouldn't be included as part of Renault's constructors section as it wasn't a Renault factory team it was classed as a privateer with independent ownership. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I still agree. The problem is that on every occasion you raised this (here, here and here), reactions were mixed and were insufficient for a consensus to change. I must note that the rule that is always cited when this raised, that we group results based on the constructor name and car name pattern, is not consistently applied. With the recent Marussia example, we give the team a new article for their activities from 2015 onwards despite the team still being run as Marussia by the new investor(s), the constructor being credited as Marussia in every FIA document [2][3][4][5][6][7] and the team themselves naming the car the Marussia MR03B. We really should start practicing what we preach. Tvx1 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If Renault do someday decide to return as a constructor then it will get a little messy because it will say that they reverted to an engine supplier in 2011 but then the article contradicts that by saying the team continued as factory team; Lotus Renault GP even though it changed ownership and race team status to a privateer, it makes more sense for it to be in it's own little section of the article explaining that it had separate non-factory ownership.Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
SQM, the issue has been addressed - several times, most recently only a couple of months ago (just because no changes were made doesn't mean the issue hasn't been addressed). But as Tvx1 pointed out, on none of those occasions was there consensus for change. My suggestion is to leave it for 6 months and if you still feel the same then, raise the matter again, in case circumstances, or the opinions of others have changed by then - consensus can change. DH85868993 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Actually, upon re-reading the earlier discussions more closely, the issue of where to locate the "Lotus Renault GP" section within the Renault in Formula One article was really only discussed in the most recent discussion (the earlier discussions mainly focussed on which article should contain the info and/or whether 2011 should be included in the Renault in Formula One infobox stats). However, as I said in that most recent discussion, it seems sensible to me that if we include 2011 in the infobox stats (on the basis that the cars were called "Renaults"), then discussion of that season also belongs under the "Constructor" section. DH85868993 (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rossi in 2014 standings[edit]

I feel Rossi should be excluded from the 2014 standings as no where that I can see has him listed. Even the official FIA website - - does not have him placed. CDRL102 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't place him either. We list him as unclassified (without a position). That's is not contradictory to the sources. The discussion that resulted in consensus to include him is here. Tvx1 16:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)