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.
 

Proposal for the flag field in F1 infoboxes[edit]

This is a long-running issue, but it should be addressed. I've just had an exchange with an editor who was removing these flags, who made some good suggestions with regard to our flag use in infoboxes which might better satisfy WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Although the most recent discussion resulted in overwhelming support for keeping the flags, we could still make some adjustments to make our flag usage clearer. We should not see our large numbers as an opportunity to ride roughshod over any MOS recommendations.

The editor's comment was as follows: "...you don't really want or need to show the person's nationality with a flag appended but want to display their nationality as shown in FIA F1 Super Licence they hold. So my question would be, why not call a spade a spade? Instead of attaching a flagicon to the name of the country of birth, don't call it Nationality but call it what it really is FIA Super Licence nationality with a flagicon and leave the personal details section with place of birth free of the flagicon, as is usual. To me that might even be just about acceptable to the WP:INFOBOXFLAG enforcers. It would be similar to the Allegiance link and flagicon for a military person, such as we see for Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein that uses the template {{Infobox military person}}."

This seems very reasonable to me, so I propose renaming the nationality field as he suggests, and keeping it separate from birthplace / birthdate details. It is an F1 infobox after all. This would clarify the link to FIA Super Licence#Nationality of drivers, which as he rightly points out, is completely unsourced. That really needs to be fixed.

I'm going on a Wikibreak as of tomorrow, but I was hoping you guys would be able to discuss this and maybe come to a conclusion. It's not a big stretch for us, and it would make things clearer for others. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

At first glance I'd rather have Racing licence nationality. The Super Licence has not always been required to race in F1, but I believe a racing licence has always been required to race. Since some drivers don't race with their actual nationality, but their racing licence nationality (Grosjean, Gachot, etc), I think it would still remain accurate. Plus, it can be used outside of F1 infoboxes, though we'd need to visit WP:MOTORSPORT to do that. GyaroMaguus 13:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I also would prefer the label to be something more like "Racing licence nationality" - it seems a bit incongruous to have a field labelled "Superlicence nationality" in (for example) Ascari's infobox. But apart from that, I'm happy with the general principle. DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the exact wording can be changed to suit us: I like "Racing licence nationality" or something similar. It's less specific and would certainly make more sense historically, and superlicences are always subject to change anyway, as we've seen lately. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree vehemently. This is NOT how a F1 driver's nationality is determined. Quite in the contrary. Article 9.5.2 of the FIA's International Sporting Code states: " All Drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their Licence, participating in any FIA World Championship Competition, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, publications and prize‐giving ceremonies." Thus drivers with a dual nationality like Grosjean, Nico Rosberg en now Max Verstappen simply chose which country they want to represent. I think renaming the field simply to "Sporting nationality" or "Racing nationality" would be a much more adequate description. Tvx1 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what you're disagreeing with. I'm talking about renaming the field, not changing how we determine nationality or anything like that. Are you just objecting to the world "licence" in the field? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm objecting renaming it to "Racing Licence Nationality", because as result of article 9.5.2. there is a possibility that the racing license nationality does not match the nationality a driver uses in F1. That label does not coverer all possibilities. A prime example of this is André Lotterer. Lotterer is actually a German-Belgian dual national who actually has a Belgian racing licence, but opted to represent Germany under article ISC article 9.5.2. Tvx1 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see in any problem in calling it racing nationality. As far as I am concerned, it quite honestly denotes the same information – the nationality that the driver uses to race. The actual nationality is not relevant, just the nationality that the driver uses, and thus the issue that the person Breton was talking to had. As for the passport point, unless we have references on what nationality passport a driver has, we cannot use that specific definition to fill out the parameter. Rather, we have to use things like this (and this) to define the nationality. As a slight note, one thing I do know about German passports is that if you have a German passport, you cannot have another passport. This is why Lotterer is German and races as a German. On an extra note, there is nothing stopping us from filling the parameter with multiple nationalities, but in the way it is done at Bertrand Gachot and potentially to place both German and Belgian nationalities in Lotterer's infobox. In these situations I would source the information, place a note, or simply write something like "German (FIA) · Belgian (holds licence)" (but with a line break). GyaroMaguus 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: upon reading German passport, I learn that a German is allowed to hold both a German and an EU or Swiss passport (as a second passport), but not a not non-EU or non-Swiss one. Since Belgium is in the EU, my initial assumption is technically incorrect. What I believe to be the case is that Lotterer is German, not Belgian, because he is German-born and thus German nationality law places that with higher importance. GyaroMaguus 16:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Erm, No. German nationality law places those who are born and raised in Germany with a higher priority. However Lotterer was raised with his Belgian mom in Nivelles, Belgium (read the source I provided earlier). Anyways since he was born to a German father and a Belgian mother he received both countries nationalities according to both countries' nationality laws. Anyway his Belgiumness should not be added to his F1 Infobox because, because he never represented Belgium during his F1 racing career (as far as I know of). There should be some mention of it in his article though. Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in nationality law, and I didn't read the source. I recall from when I was being taught German in secondary school that a German could only have one passport, the German one, even if they were foreign (in which case they would have to stop using their current one). That was said to the whole class about 6 to 8 years ago, so it is actually quite well remembered on my part. To enhance my point, I read both the passport and nationality law articles and I actually have to assume my final sentence (which I did start with "what I believe"). The information I gleaned about Lotterer was from his WP article, which, as you appear to have seen, literally makes absolutely no mention of his Belgianness. Hence, why I was wrong. GyaroMaguus 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's no that important for this discussion anyway. If you want to have a more in-depth discussion about Lotterer's nationality you can always do so on his article's talk page. What I tried to point here was that there are examples were racing licence nationality does not match the nationality used in F1, and that "racing licence nationality" is therefore in inadequate label for the field.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, I'm up to speed. So are there any objections to "Racing nationality" or further suggestions? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection with either Racing nationality or Sporting nationality. Oh and holding a German passport and a non-EU or non Swiss passport simultaneously is not forbidden, but just restricted. See German nationality law as well.Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I see no difficulty in accepting 2 fields (assuming there are no formatting problems) I.e. Nationality (birth or assumed) and racing licence nationality; BUT to which field would the flagicon then be placed (if at all), presumably the racing licence nationality... or have I missed something here :P. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Like I pointed out, having a racing license nationality field is not a good idea because there are examples, like Lotterer, of F1 Drivers whose nationality in the sport does NOT match their racing licence nationality and because, according to the International Sporting Code, F1 Drivers (as well as drivers who compete in any other FIA World Championship e.g. WRC, WEC, WTCC) retain a passport nationality and not necessarily their racing license nationality. I have no problem however with using more than one nationality field in an infobox. A Nationalit(y)(ies) (legal) field on top and a Racing Nationality field per racing category's section that is included in the infobox. The flags should be used with the Racing nationalities, I think, since these are the flags we will use in our race reports, season reviews, team articles etc. Tvx1 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I've thought about this and in Breton's quote above, we have that military personnel don't have a nationality field, rather, an allegiance – because that is what is important. Here, we should note the "racing nationality", and not a nationality, as that is what is important. To further my example, I picked a musician, Taylor Swift, who is definitively 100% American, and her nationality is not noted, because it isn't important. Though yes, we can keep the flag. We've fought too hard to give it up now. GyaroMaguus 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with "Racing nationality" or "Sporting nationality". Of the two, I have a slight preference for "Racing nationality". DH85868993 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Eagleash, Yes, the flag would go on the "racing nationality" field, not any regular nationality field, although I don't think a regular nationality field would be necessary under these circumstances – in 99% of cases the two would be the same anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As point of interest, changing this field has been discussed before. Tvx1 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Having sifted through many of our drivers articles I noticed there is an important inconsistency in the way the nationality information is included in the info-boxes. Some articles, like the contested Jean-Pierre Beltoise one, show it near the top together with the driver's personal information; while others, like e.g. Sebastian Vettel have it in the Formula One section of their infobox. Should this be made consistent over all the articles? Tvx1 (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel it should be at the top of the box, together with DoB (and death if applicable). All other boxes (F1, bikes, Le Mans etc.) are secondary to this information. Eagleash (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
But that's the whole point - a "Nationality" field at the top of a driver's infobox would seem to describes a driver's "personal" nationality (whatever that means) whereas the "Nationality" field beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading specifically indicates the nationality they raced under in Formula One (which is why the word "Nationality" is linked to the Superlicence article). That's why we're discussing changing the label, to make that more obvious. By rights, all F1 drivers should have their (F1/racing) Nationality listed under the "Formula One World Championship career" heading, but in cases where there's already a Nationality field further up the page and it would be the same (e.g. Beltoise), we tend to leave it out to avoid the appearance of duplicate information. One reason for showing the Nationality beneath the banner rather than above is that we always know what country a driver represented in Formula One, but their "personal" nationality is sometimes less clear. Consider:
  • Bertrand Gachot - raced in F1 as "Belgian" from 1989-91 and "French" from 1992-95. But what would you display at the top of his infobox as his "personal" nationality?: French? Belgian? Luxembourgian (where he was born)? In a 1991 interview, he said "I am not really one nationality. I feel very much a European."
  • Nico Rosberg: Races in F1 as German but holds dual citizenship (German and Finnish)
  • Jochen Rindt: Raced in F1 as Austrian but was born in Germany and had German citizenship
Also, on a more practical level:
  • if you put "Nationality: British" at the top of any Scottish or Northern Irish driver's infobox, you can guarantee someone will change it to "Scottish" or "Northern Irish" as appropriate in a very short amount of time, and
  • a flagicon at the top of an infobox is way more likely to be removed by someone quoting WP:INFOBOXFLAG, than if it is beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading.
DH85868993 (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, didn't explain myself very well. All the points raised above are valid, but nationality is important basic information and should be displayed prominently, (if at all that is). I would mention that in the "deaths in" pages, nationality is displayed as "X"-born "Y" where applicable so maybe something along those lines is a possibility? Then racing nationality in sub-boxes, (and the way it's done on Bertrand Gachot's page seems a reasonable solution (if slightly unwieldy at first sight)). UK is a peculiar problem and always has been. I consider myself English first of all but don't have a problem with being thought of as British. British should refer to the whole of the UK otherwise it becomes politicised (and POV). Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I also didn't read what you wrote properly - I thought you were proposing moving Nationality from beneath the "Formula One Championship career" heading to the top of the infobox in all cases, which is not what you wrote. I'm open to the idea of having "personal" Nationality at the top of the topmost infobox on the page (i.e. near DOB) for all drivers, and only having (racing) Nationality beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading for cases where it is different. However:
  • per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, we probably wouldn't be able to have flagicons in the "top" Nationality field (which doesn't worry me personally, but I know some people are attached to them)
  • it would be a nontrivial amount of work to update the 800 or so F1 driver articles (but WP:NODEADLINE, etc), and
  • we'd have an issue where the F1 infobox is the only infobox on the page (because it doesn't currently support a Nationality field above the "Formula One World Championship" heading), although this could be addressed by converting the F1 infobox into a {{Infobox racing driver}} with an embedded F1 section.
DH85868993 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm coming round to the idea that the original questioner proposed, I think, together with what is proposed immediately above. The infobox could display date & place of birth but not necessarily nationality. Any anomalies could be quickly explained away in the lead which already usually has nationality details in it. E.g. "X"-born "Y" (assumed nationality) racing driver who raced under a "Z" racing licence...with a field in the F1 infobox for "licence nationality" (or "racing licence nationality"), with the flagicon displayed there (or not) once agreement reached. DH85868993 I'd be willing to help out when I could. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
As I have explained twice before, racing licence nationality is NOT the way to go, since there are examples of racing drivers, like André Lotterer, whose racing licence nationality does NOT match the flag they raced under and because the International Sporting Code dictates that F1 drivers (and other FIA World Championships' drivers) retain a passport nationality and NOT their racing licence nationality. Tvx1 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
We could conceivably move the nationality field to the top of the info-boxes as long as we make a clearly distinguished difference from their personal nationalities, for instance by naming the relevant field "Racing nationality" or "Sporting nationality" which is exactly the sort of nationality we are allowed to mention under MOS:SPORTFLAGS.
As for DH85868993 issues with F1 infobox-only articles, surely that can be tackled by editting the template?
P.S. Gachot should have a personal nationality, shouldn't he? Surely he has a legal nationality (i.e. a passport)? Tvx1 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the second para above is pretty much what has been proposed, should it be agreed that a change is necessary. I.e. separating personal and racing nationalities. As far as Gachot is concerned he could quite legitimately use just the EU passport (I think). Eagleash (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a pure EU passport. Any passport from an EU member state still belongs to that member state and the holder will have that member state's nationality. By the way, he has a French passport! Tvx1 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah OK. I've no idea really: I don't even have a UK passport. & it's all a bit off topic now anyway. Eagleash (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Heaving read through WP:INFOBOXFLAG again, I'm not so sure anymore that the proposed change is going to help us satisfy WP:INFOBOXFLAG more than is already the case. After all the guideline gives "sport nationality" as one of the non-exceptions for including a flag in the infobox. The main situation remains that WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a guideline an not a black and white law we must follow. Everything is written in the normative style using "should" an nothing is forbidden by the guideline. This means that if we have a consensus that it's for the betterment of our articles and indeed our entire project to have ONE flag in our info-boxes, which he have now for quite some years, it is our good right to do so. And to be honest, I don't quite agree with some of the opinion-based assertions that are presented as facts in content of INFOBOXFLAG guideline. Tvx1 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reset[edit]

I think the above has been a useful discussion. May I suggest that we take a step back and discuss/decide what nationality-related information we think needs to be displayed in a F1 driver's infobox(es), and once that's agreed then return to discussing the location and labelling of the information, what's the best way/how much effort it might take to update any articles and what other issues may arise? I think the first two questions we need to answer are:

  1. Should an F1 driver's "personal" nationality (e.g. Räikkönen is "Finnish", Vettel is "German" etc) be displayed in an infobox (as currently occurs for Grand Prix motorcycle racers [1], [2], IndyCar drivers [3], [4], [5], [6] and many other non-F1 racing drivers)?
  2. If the nationality under which they raced in Formula One is different to their "personal" nationality, should that also be displayed?

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking Tvx1's good thoughts, this is a tricky one. No matter if drivers have dual citizenship (which by the way since last month is also possible in Germany for non EU citizens: [7]), they will still choose a flag they drive under in Formula One. But they might drive in other categories under a different flag (like Nico Rosberg did, who drove in F3000 under the Finnish one. The regulations of F1 state that you race under your passport nationality. But divers might have 2 or more passports. Here are some thoughts on what we might do:
  1. As is now we should have a section above "Formula One World Championship career" with personal information where we put ALL of the drivers legal nationalities.
  2. Further down in the F1 part we should put "Raced in F1 for" or something around this line. This should NOT be called "Licence nationality" as we found out that the licence does not dictate which flag you race under in F1. This should only apply if the F1 nationality differs from the legal nationality (so leave it if drivers have single citizenship like Michael Schumacher.
  3. In sections about other Formulae or other racing series we might put another nationality info.
For André Lotterer that would mean that under his picture we would have both the German and Belgian flag, but at the bottom F1 section, above "Active years" we would open a new category. For Rosberg that would mean we would have both his citizenships in the personal info, the Finnish one in his F3000 section (there is none yet) and the German one in his F1 section. Contra: There will be a lot of flags in the infoboxes, pro: but they would be correct. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It might look like this for Lotterer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that works well enough. The link to the nationality section of the FIA Super Licence article works well to give a explanation of why the nationality appears twice. I don't think there is problem linking that to pre-Super Licence nationalities. On the other hand, I'm not too sure about having two nationality fields active in situations where we only have one racing competition in the infobox (such as Rosberg), though I'm pretty sure that if I saw that with my eyes that view may change. GyaroMaguus 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The point of my original proposal was to remove flags that show ordinary, non-sporting nationality. Hence the two flags there in Lotterer's infobox under his picture should be removed. The German flag would stay for the F1 infobox. Other series would only show the nationality field if a different nationality was used. Per the MOS, we would have no justification for any flag for basic nationality. Repeating flags in a sporting infobox is unjustifiable and would attract even more drive-by removals of flags than we have now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I have similar concerns. I fail to see how adding more nationality fields and more flags to the info-boxes is going to result in us having less issues with MOS enforces (note that a guideline actually can't be enforced). The question that was raised is should we rename the nationality field in the F1 Infobox? So should we? Bear in mind that WP:INFOBOXFLAG lists "sport nationality" as a non-exception (something I personally disagree with). Tvx1 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-15 F1 Financial Crisis[edit]

I've noticed the recent creation of a 2014-15 F1 Financial Crisis article, concerning the recent financial troubles which have overcome Marussia and Caterham, and various other issues about individual Grands Prix and team finances. It is broadly accurate and well referenced, if rather requiring a complete copyedit. My concern though is whether or not there is a legitimate topic here. While there has been plenty written about the financial state of Formula One in recent months, I have not come across anything that suggests an all-encompassing crisis. This suggests that the article is essentially original research, and indeed another editor has already tagged it as an essay.

I am tempted to send it for deletion, but before I do has anyone got any thoughts on this? QueenCake (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • There's no such thing as a "2014–15 F1 Financial Crisis", as you correctly stated. The article itself is a blatant essay of personal opinion, and has absolutely no place here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Hello, I'm the editor that created the page. My intention was not to create an essay but create an encyclopedic article on the financial crisis of Formula One. Is the title misleading? I would be OK in changing it. You're also welcome in rewriting the article to make it look more encyclopedic. Please keep in touch FordDixon (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I found some more sources verifying the fact that there is a "crisis" in F1, as seen here and here. I think it's a topic well worth expanding on. Again, please keep in touch. FordDixon (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
      • If you are going to call it 2014-15 F1 Financial Crisis, then it has to be specific to the time period, and the time period has to be specifically mentioned in sources. Like, in the headline.
      • Wikipedia does not draw conclusions from multiple sources, like there are lots of team being financial squeezed, there must be a crisis. We report upon the conclusions that others have already made. Creating an article from multiple sources on different subjects and drawing a conclusion is WP:Original research. And that is what F1 editors are concerned about. --Falcadore (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Would a better title be to simply remove the "2014-15" bit in the article title? That would make sense concerning the suggestions you have made. Also, would merging the info to the 2014 Formula One season be a good idea, rather than having its own article? The only problem with that is that it's a bit big to be merged into the 2014 page. Maybe the copyedit that was suggested earlier would solve that problem. FordDixon (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it would not be a better title, because then you've replaced a purely OR title with a totally ambiguous one. Also, the main 2014 page already has most of the actual information that we need. Furthermore, I'm not convinced by how reliable those two sources are... and they're certainly not mainstream ones. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • At the moment, it looks a lot like WP:SYNTHESIS. The issue you're writing is still ongoing, which means you shouldn't derive any conclusions from aggregating topics like you did. Take a look at the references in FISA–FOCA war, and you'll see it references books and not press articles. Which means whoever wrote the Wikipedia article was citing somebody else's research. This isn't an article that should exist here while the supposed crisis is still going on, it needs a proper time distance to be researched independently from Wikipedia. --Pc13 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree as well with the crisis notion. This article is purely based on the storm in a tea cup that arose during last October-November as a reaction to Caterham-Marussia financial troubles. The reason that these two teams got into financial troubles within a short period is pure coincidence resulting from two events. On one side Caterham being sold to a buyer who did not fulfill it's promises, on the other side the Russian automobile company Marussia Motors collapsing living leaving their and Marussia F1's common shareholder Andrey Cheglakov (the F1 team's main backer) without the necessary funds. That the three 2010 entrants all ran into troubles is no surprise either. They were not designed to compete under the financial conditions they eventually were subjected to. When they applied for entry into the sport, they were promised a cost-cap which never materialized. That was going to catch them out sooner rather than later. Now four months later Marussia/Manor have nearly sorted out their problems and two new teams are scheduled to join the sport next season. All in all I feel that there is no need for this article. Tvx1 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started a deletion discussion for this page. Please add any comments on the deletion page. QueenCake (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The article has returned and the recreation of it is under review. Tvx1 05:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello. The re-written article has been incubated in draft space at Draft:F1 financial crisis. We at WikiProject Articles for creation are a little out of our depth in assessing this one. The draft could use expert attention. It could possibly be moved to mainspace (perhaps under a less sensational title) after some editing and discussion. --LukeSurl t c 21:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Races that never happened[edit]

I have noticed that the 2015 season article currently details the circumstances behind races that will not take place: the Korean, Indian and New York races. They appear to have been included on the grounds that they have a contract, but given that they were not held in 2014 and will not be held in 2015, I am bemused as to their inclusion. If they do not feature as part of the season, why is it so important that they are mentioned there? In ten years' time, will it really matter that the Korean GP was on the calendar for six weeks, but never run? Surely that's a detail that is better-suited to the Korean GP article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a short discussion at Talk:2015 Formula One season/Archive 7#Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015 about whether Korea/Gp of A should still be there. I personally think having 1-2 lines on them is fine, they were reasonably notable events, as these were Grands Prix with a contract to race this season, which didn't happen. I also think the German Grand Prix bit should be shortened, but not until when we know for sure if it's on or off. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that if, in ten years time, someone comes across a reference to the "2015 Korean Grand Prix" (of which there are plenty), 2015 Formula One season is one of the two most likely places to which they would go to find information about the race. It also seems that our de facto standard is for season summary articles to mention races which never happened, e.g.
etc
DH85868993 (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Joseph and DH85868993. As long as it is reasonably short, these races should be mentioned in the season article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with them being included either. Tvx1 17:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a big difference between a race being cancelled mid-season as a response to the Le Mans disaster, as was the case in 1955, and a race being dropped from the provisional calendar before the final version is published. If the change impacts the season, then of course it should be included. But I fail to see how races that weren't run in 2014 and won't run in 2015 are in any way relevant to the 2015 season. We might as well list the drivers who didn't race in 2014 and tried to get a seat in 2015, but couldn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, whether there are 20 or 21 races on the 2015 calendar determines whether the teams get 4 or 5 power units for each car.12 So whether or not the Korean, Indian and New York races are run does impact the season. DH85868993 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Except they're not being run at all, so there is no impact in this case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure what the issue is. The Korean Grand Prix was scheduled and has since been cancelled, and was the subject of a little bit of conversation (particularly due to Bernie Ecclestone spouting yet more conflicting rubbish, if I remember correctly). Likewise, it's worth noting that the Indian Grand Prix was officially supposed to happen, but again was shifted. The Grand Prix of America is different; it was never officially confirmed as a 2015 race, whereas the other two were at separate points, and it probably shouldn't be mentioned. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And that's my issue—they have been cancelled. They have no bearing on the 2015 season. I don't think that "they were officially supposed to happen" is enough of a justification. In the case of India, there are multiple contradictory sources claiming that the race was variously supposed to rejoin in 2015 and 2016, making it an open-ended question. And the Korean race was only included on a draft before being removed from the final version.

I think that the standard we should use here is changes from final version one year to final version the next. Anything in between is a detail better suited to the individual race articles, not the season articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can't be covered with one or two sentences. More detailed version belongs, I think, on the pages of the races themselves. --Falcadore (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think there are more than enough users that have stated their support for including this type of information to do so. I understand your opinion, but many more users have stated their preference to include it. As long as we keep it concise and leave the detail of the (failed) negotiations for the Grand Prix's article I have now problem with it. Tvx1 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
But you're giving the same weight to Korea as you are Germany—and the outcome of the German situation will affect the season because it represents a tangible change to the calendar. On the other hand, Korea will not affect the season because it is not taking place. Until now, this hasn't been a problem. We have always included changes on the basis that they had an actual effect on the season. If we continue including details of events that do not happen, the end result will be details of races in France, South Africa and Thailand (among others) that may have an agreement in principle, but never happen. Giving coverage to New Jersey, Korea and India now amounts to RECENTISM. They have no effect on the season, and therefore should not be included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You seem to have missed the historic seasons listed above there... Also, there's a difference between an "agreement in principle", and something initially being on a calendar, but removed (Korea), or were officially sanctioned, but axed before the calendar appeared (India). Certainly, Korea practically has to be mentioned in the article in some form; it was on the official calendar at one point, after all, and I can't see any logical argument for not including that race. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let me take a view on some of PMs issues: firstly, it is notable (because there was substantial media coverage and it could have affected the season) and well sourced. Secondly, the Korean GP was officially on the provisional calendar and the GP of America's contract runs into 2015 and well beyond, as does India's, so they have been removed (by choice or by force), so something happened. Thirdly, something not happening ≠ something not worthy of inclusion (rather, something not relevant = something not worthy of inclusion). Fourthly, something that has no bearing on 2015 ≠ something not worthy of inclusion (again, rather, something that has no relevance on 2015 = not worthy of inclusion, and there is definitely relevance). Fifthly, we should be giving the same weight to both Korea and Germany, as both could have been on the calendar. Webber's retirement from F1 at the end of 2013 got mentioned in 2014 despite him having equivalent relevance. The horse was already dead over a month ago put the goddamn stick down. GyaroMaguus 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
A month ago, the article had mistaken a regulation change for a calendar change and had developed into a news feed by updating every time a story on Manor was run, and had changed the markup in the table without recognising its function and thus rendering parts of it unreadable on mobile devices. So pardon me if I am questioning the wisdom of decisions that were made at the same time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
What's that problem with the table markup? Tvx1 00:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed now. As are the other issues. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
But what was it? Tvx1 02:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The nowraps were removed, and while a linebreak was put in place for the time being, the table got an overhaul. I saw someone mention something about needing to change the coding between 2014 and 2015 to recreate the effect of the 2014 table in 2015, so that might have had something to do with it. Probably because the appearance of the site in mobile browsers - especially tables - has been overhauled in the last six weeks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, WP:Recentism is, as I have pointed out to you before, an essay (≠policy, ≠ guideline) and one that doesn't even take a major no-no position. So hardly a concern. Tvx1 23:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But it doesn't mean that you take a major yes-yes position. The season articles aren't written just for the season in question. They fit into the broader context of Formula 1 seasons, which is why we have contextual links between articles. I have always felt that articles should be written with one eye on what they will look like when the season has finished and the page stops being regularly edits. When that happens, what will be the significance of the Korean GP being on the calendar for five weeks? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

F1 car results tables[edit]

It's been brought to my attention that the results tables for the 2013 and 2014 F1 cars, e.g. the one for Lotus E21:

Year Entrant Engine Tyres Drivers Grands Prix Points WCC
AUS MAL CHN BHR ESP MON CAN GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN KOR JPN IND ABU USA BRA
2013 Lotus F1 Team Renault RS27-2013 P Kimi Räikkönen 1 7 2 2 2 10 9 5 2 2 Ret 11 3 2 5 7 Ret 315 4th
Heikki Kovalainen 14 14
Romain Grosjean 10 6 9 3 Ret Ret 13 19† 3 6 8 8 Ret 3 3 3 4 2 Ret

do not conform to the project standard format as documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Tables#Car results table:

Year Team Engine Tyres Drivers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Points WCC
2008 Ferrari Ferrari V8 B AUS MAL BHR ESP TUR MON CAN FRA GBR GER HUN EUR BEL ITA SIN JPN CHN BRA 172 1st
Räikkönen 8 1 2 1 3 9 Ret 2 4 6 3 Ret 18 9 15 3 3 3
Massa Ret Ret 1 2 1 3 5 1 13 3 17 1 1 6 13 7 2 1

(notice that the round numbers have been replaced by "Grands Prix" and the race abbreviations have been included in the header row). What do we want to do?:

  • Change the 2013 and 2014 cars to match the standard format?
  • Update the standard format to match the 2013 and 2014 cars and go and update the 500-odd other F1 car articles to match?
  • Leave things as they are?
  • Something else?

Points to note:

  • including the race abbreviations in the header row doesn't work for cars which are used for multiple seasons (because the races change from year to year), and
  • almost all other motorsport (not just F1) results tables (driver results, team results, etc) list round numbers across the top - see Jean Alesi#Racing record, Tyrrell Grand Prix results as examples

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I think we should ditch the one rule fits all idea. Our guidelines even present two variants than can be used. I think we should amend them so that they more closely match the needs. So a one year version and a multiple year/chassis variants version. The one race version should look more like the following one instead of the one in use for 2013&2014. Tvx1 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Year Entrant Engine Tyres Drivers 1
BHR
2
AUS
3
MAL
4
CHN
5
ESP
6
MON
7
TUR
8
CAN
9
EUR
10
GBR
11
GER
12
HUN
13
BEL
14
ITA
15
SIN
16
JPN
17
KOR
18
BRA
19
ABU
Points WCC
2010 BMW Sauber F1 Team Ferrari 056 V8 B de la Rosa Ret 12 DNS Ret Ret Ret 11 Ret 12 Ret 14 7 11 14 44 8th
Heidfeld Ret 8 9 17 11
Kobayashi Ret Ret Ret Ret 12 Ret 10 Ret 7 6 11 9 8 Ret Ret 7 8 10 14
Of course this applies as well for drivers and constructors which have competed in only one season (e.g. Brawn GP, Spyker, Kevin Magnussen,...). By the way shouldn't we discuss this at WT:F1/Tables? Tvx1 23:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I started the discussion here for maximum visibility - I'm not sure how many people have Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables on their watchlist. DH85868993 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I much prefer the original version of the table. The new one which is being used makes the table much more bulky, and aesthetically I don't like the one Tvx1 just created. QueenCake (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The reason why the first table shown above is so bulky is because that one has three drivers as opposed to two in the other examples. Tvx1 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No. The reason for the additional bulk is the inclusion of a drivers first name, forcing it to wrap onto a second line. --Falcadore (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That can easily be solved by either putting a nowrap around the driver names or by removing the first names. None of which are issues with the fundamental design of the table. And I can easily make my table look more faithful to the old one. Tvx1 19:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Year Entrant Engine Tyres Drivers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Points WCC
BHR AUS MAL CHN ESP MON TUR CAN EUR GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN JPN KOR BRA ABU
2010 BMW Sauber F1 Team Ferrari 056 V8 B de la Rosa Ret 12 DNS Ret Ret Ret 11 Ret 12 Ret 14 7 11 14 44 8th
Heidfeld Ret 8 9 17 11
Kobayashi Ret Ret Ret Ret 12 Ret 10 Ret 7 6 11 9 8 Ret Ret 7 8 10 14

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Speaking personally, and somewhat as one of the folk who was involved in setting the "original" style (not that it was our first, we used to have a black-and-white version), I think the new format is great. The numbers don't really mean anything to someone who doesn't know much about racing seasons, and having "Grands Prix" up there as a proper title makes much more sense. There is absolutely no extra bulk in this format than the one we have been living with for the better part of a decade (using full names vs. surnames only has never been truly standardized). Most modern cars are only used for one season so the repeated header issue doesn't and isn't likely to arise, and even where it will (and does for older cars) adding exactly the same syntax as we have been for the subsequent years will work fine. You could use the "!" shorthand to set them as title boxes, but I reckon that's personal choice. After seeing this new format somewhere a couple of years ago (I forget where, but I don't claim that it was my invention!) I tried implementing a multi-year version at March 701 just to see, and I think it works. It has certainly been the stable version there for two years now with no complaints, and I put that down to its self-explanatory format. Pyrope 19:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is a fourth way to present our tables. An example can be found at Volkswagen Polo R WRC#In detail. That way would allow us to save space while removing the need to even have different "one-year" and "multiple years" versions. Tvx1 02:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that version saves space, actually quite opposite. Each event abbreviation is repeated for each driver, making the table much taller than it needs to be. For example, the 2013 results are eight lines high whereas this would be four lines using the method above and at March 701. The 2014 results, also at eight lines in the Polo WRC example, would only be five lines high using the March 701 model. Pyrope 18:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Manor F1 Team article[edit]

I think that a separate article should be created under the name of "Manor F1" for (Manor-Marussia) just like Virgin Racing and Marussia F1 have separate articles from Manor Motorsport, we also shouldn't include the teams results with Marussia's as the team is identified as "Manor" even though the teams constructor name is still "Marussia" it can be compared back to 2010 when Sauber still had to compete under the "BMW Sauber" even though the team was independent and was mass identified as just "Sauber" this is the exactly same situation. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't create anything until they actually race. Also, I don't see why Manor F1 needs to be separate from Manor Motorsport. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessarily "exactly the same" as the BMW Sauber precedent. Currently their constructor name is still, like the previous three years, Marussia. It seems more like the change from Midland to Spyker Midland in 2006, or from this team's history Virgin to Marussia Virgin. So for it looks like the FIA is going to continue crediting the results to Marussia, so would should follow that practice. But at the end of the we don't know for sure yet. It's best to wait and see until say their car is revealed or the entry list for the Australian Grand Prix is published. Tvx1 20:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
On this subject, I have notice that someone has been changing Marussia to be "Manor" in the 2015 driver table, adding a note that they are officially called "Marussia". This is completely unacceptable—we must create the table in such a way that it represents the grid as the FIA recognises it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Constructors' column in the Signed teams and drivers table[edit]

Can anybody explain why we highlight constructor's section, using "!" instead of "|"? The table looks easier to read when the constructors are left-aligned. Cybervoron (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I proposed in May 2012 that the columns should be de-bolded but there was no consensus at that time for that to occur (the discussion got a bit sidetracked from whether or not the column should be bold to a discussion about the distinction between constructors and makes). Which is not to say that the issue shouldn't be discussed again now. For the record, I'm still in favour of the columns being de-bolded. DH85868993 (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I would be against de-bolding them. It might not be as relevant nowadays, but in seasons from the 60's, 70's or 80's, you can often not tell the constructor from the team name. So it's nice to have a visual incentive to tell me where to look at. As for Cybervoron's initial question, I feel very unemotional about that. But when in doubt I'd say leave it as it is (as long as it's the same in every table). What bugs me a lot more is that the teams and drivers section is not at the same position in all the season articles. Someone should give them all a consistent content order. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
But we are already highlight the difference between them by wiki-linking only constructors' column, while previously both teams' and constructors' columns were wiki-linked. So what's the point for this now? Cybervoron (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Zwerg Nase, you have a good point there. Tvx1 18:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Driver results legend template[edit]

I have proposed a slight change over at Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2#Did not participate. Having seen that the last activity on the talk page there was in 2012, I have reached out to you here for your comments and opinions, which would be greatly welcome. Thanks. Twirlypen (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Matrix colours for the colour-blind[edit]

This started as a discussion as part of the above point raised by Twirlypen, but I have spun it out into its own discussion so as not to distract from that topic.

I have some concerns about the use of some colours in the results matrices, in particular blue (non-points) and purple (retired). People who are red/blue colour-blind may have trouble distinguishing between them; I am red/green colour-blind myself, and that's bad enough, so I can't begin to imagine what it's like for the red/blue among us. The full discussion is here:

Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2#For colour-blind people

Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Which colors would you propose? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a detailed description and explanation in the link provided... Twirlypen (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful to expand this to WP:MOTOR. The style of the template and its colors is used well beyond the sphere of F1 on Wikipedia. It would make no sense to change the colors of one and not the rest. The359 (Talk) 09:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of GP Update as a source[edit]

Lately I have noticed the increased usage of the GP Update website as a source in articles, but I feel that it is no longer appropriate to do so in light of the current van der Garde situation. GP Update has an inherent pro-Dutch bias, which I feel means that it fails WP:RS. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How exactly are they biased? I mean, being a Dutch-based website would lend them to be a bit more in touch with Dutch topics (what few there are in F1), but how exactly are they "pro" anything? If they report the news just like any other website, how are they not NPOV? Would you consider Autosport to be pro-British simply because that's what they inherently cover better? The359 (Talk) 06:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I try to use a process of triangulation in establishing the usefulness of sources. If a story is run from three sources owned by different publications, I can be confident that it is reliable. But I have noticed that GP Update runs pro-Dutch stories that I cannot triangulate, and when I can, I can only trace them back to rumour and speculation.
I am trying to find specific examples of it now, but I find that they are no better than those Spanish sources claiming Alonso would move to Ferrari in 2010 as early as March 2009. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
A website that states rumors does not inherently make the entire website unreliable. We don't have a ban on Spanish sources in F1 articles, we simply warn not to use them to report rumors. The359 (Talk) 07:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
What then, do you call it when that source reports "news" that is really a press release from the driver trying to keep his name in the sport? It happened all last year - every time Max Verstappen or Robin Frijns rated a mention, Giedo van der Garde's name would come up like clockwork. It was obvious that he or his people were the source.
I'm not saying that GP Update shouldn't be used, but that when the same story is run by another source, then that other source should be used. I find it extremely questionable as a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, the GP Update logo has appeared on cars before as a personal sponsor of drivers. I would seriously question how they can maintain reliability when they are financially backing a driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
If the same story is run by another source, why does it matter what source it comes from? If the story has no bias, if the story is neutral, if the stories are identical, the specific source it comes from should not matter. And news websites copy press releases all the time. I'd take a wild stab in the dark and say they probably copy press releases that don't involve VDG as well.
How exactly is GP Update *un*reliable? Mentioning rumors (and stating them as rumors) and copying press releases is not unreliable. What facts have they made errors on, what point of view are they presenting? Being Dutch and having articles on Dutch drivers is not a point of view. The359 (Talk) 08:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources are either reliable or unreliable. You cannot try to judge every single article on individual reliability when you know that the source itself is compromised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is an incredible waste considering the proper avenue for disputing RS has been provided to you. Please use it if you're serious about your dispute. Twirlypen (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We know the source is compromised? Do share.

By the way, are we no longer going to use Autosport then? They do promote the McLaren Autosport BRDC Award which grants drivers money and F1 tests, and the award is co-sponsored by McLaren. CNN is clearly an unreliable source as well for sponsoring Caterham and McLaren. Sauber is sponsored by Sports Media Group who own formel1.de and motorsport-total.com.

And here's your helmet. Christijan Albers sponsored by F1Racing.net, which is now GPUpdate.net. And also Tiago Monteiro, because he's pro-Dutch, right? The359 (Talk) 09:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, the problem is deeper than I anticipated. We should not be using sources with such a connection to any driver or team because it is a conflict of interest between the two. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(Copy/paste) Until you raise (AND RESOLVE) this issue at the appropriate noticeboard, GP Update can and will continue to be used. Twirlypen (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I have noted something on the 2015 talk page. I will simply bring my words over here. I believe we should avoid using sources with obvious COI. So, for example, we don't report on VDG via GPUpdate, but we can using other sources, because, no matter how reliable the sources are, there will be an inherent bias. However, GPUpdate remains valid as a source. This is because they don't have COI with everyone. If I recall correctly, Autosport have a COI with a team, I believe Lotus. So, assuming that my memory serves me correctly as to it being Lotus, we simply use other sources (which, of course, exist in abundance) to report on Lotus. Of course, we shall continue to source from Autosport, because we know that they are a reliable source. We can probably make a WikiProject subpage on the matter. GyaroMaguus 11:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sources are not either reliable or unreliable. Autosport is a reliable source for motorsport - but it would not be a reliable source for particle physics. Likewise, the Royal Society of Chemistry are a reliable source for chemistry things, but would be useless for Formula One. GyaroMaguus' comment hits the nail on the head. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I beg to differ there. There's no hint of bias whatsoever in the contested story. I don't think it's right to assume an inherent bias in a source just because they're from a certain country. Doing that would corrupt our neutral point of view regarding which sources to use and would ultimately lead us to advertising particular sources. I'm sure we can easily spot bias in stories and thus can determine whether they can be trusted or not. How much asking is to read and if in doubt compare sources? Tvx1 17:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There are certain circumstances where the nationality of a source would constitute a COI, but those are very unlikely to crop up for this Wikiproject. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course all my comments are made in the context of this WikiProject. Tvx1 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

After giving the site a critical look, I fail to see anything that suggests GPUpdate should be considered an unreliable source. It appears to be a professional organisation, with its own news generation (although there are no identified writers, which could suggest the content is syndicated, I cannot find the same articles on other sites) and editorial control. In general, GPUpdate is a reliable source.

On the particular issue of its reliability in relation to Giedo van der Garde, I again do not see anything to suggest GPUpdate is unreliable. I have not come across any current relationship between VDG and GPUpdate, and the former one does not immediately disqualify the site by itself, neither is there anything to suggest there is a bias or unreliability on the site in relation to Dutch motorsport topics. QueenCake (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive sock on the loose[edit]

Just so everyone is aware, there is a disruptive sock on the loose. He showed up two days ago as "Tvx11" and started vandalising articles Tvx1 had edited. He got blocked, but has since reappeared under a new name and is trying to stir up trouble on the 2015 talk page. He is clearly someone who has been watching discussions and project activity; he may or may not be DeFacto or Lucy-Marie. The admin who blocked the Tvx11 account cautioned that he could become a recurring problem because trying to imitate another editor is a very specific behaviour and is not typical of short-term or first-time socks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


GA nominations[edit]

Dear all, after what I felt was a successful peer review I have submitted 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix as a GA nominee. Help would be appreciated! I also saw that Z105space nominated 2000 Hungarian Grand Prix. So two chances to add to our GA tally! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • And one further point, if anyone will be willing to contribute to the FA nomination of the 2000 Belgian Grand Prix, I welcome all feedback whether positive or negative and it would really benefit the achievements of this WikiProject. Z105space (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Teams' results articles[edit]

I noticed a separate article was created for Manor's Grand Prix results. I thought we had achieved consensus not to create these articles unless a team had competed for certain amount of seasons resulting in results tables become impractically big in the team's main article? So why was this created then? Tvx1 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Worth asking User:Speedy Question Mark before the inevitable merge/deletion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
You can certainly try asking him, but he never responds. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I just merged it into Manor. We all know the consensus. QueenCake (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A similar article currently exists for Lotus F1 team. Tvx1 14:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Excessive numbers column[edit]

I strongly oppose to the numbers column in the drivers' standings, because it's a excessive information that we already have in a teams and drivers section. Also it unreasonably increases width of a table and creates a precedent to adding them everywhere (this previously was a problem in the racing record tables). Cybervoron (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In effect, almost all the result tables in the constructors' and articles have had these numbers added as a result of this. Tvx1 05:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably, we don't needed a detailed constructor's standings at all, as it duplicates driver's standings and gives absolutely nothing to an article. I see no reason why it can't be just the same table as in the Grand Prix report articles (but including all constructors, of course). Cybervoron (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Drivers and Constructors Championships are two independent championships. The order can be quite different. Tvx1 06:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a reason for keeping a table where the same results are differ only by the order of the rows. If you need to pick out individual race result you can use drivers' standings. The only thing for what we need constructor's standings are constructors' points. Cybervoron (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a case as prior to 2014 the race number belonged to the car so the race number could be used to describe at what point a driver moved to another racig team, but now that race number belong to the driver the is no point in having the numbers in the points standings as the drivers number does not change anymore when moving to another team. --Falcadore (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It depends on what kind of driver you're talking about. If you're talking about one who started the season with a team and picked a career number and changes team midseason, than no the number wouldn't change. If you're talking about a driver who replaces a regular driver for one race and is allocated a temporary number, who then goes on to replace another driver from another team later in the season, (s)he would get a different number because different teams are allocated different replacement numbers. Tvx1 02:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Side issue. --Falcadore (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Renault factory team[edit]

It's been reported that Renault are considering a return to full "factory team" status by purchasing either Toro Rosso, Force India or Sauber, but "if" they do purchase one of these teams their will be some conflicting information on the Renault in Formula One article, take note that it says "last name: Benetton Formula" and "Next name: Lotus F1 Team" due to the old Renault team being formally Benetton and subsequently Lotus, that would need to be changed due to a new team competing for Renault. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

These parameters should simply be removed. It already conflicts as it is, since Renault has already had a factory team on two occasions. Tvx1 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It was something DeFacto added, for whatever reason best known to themselves. I'd scrap them. Too much potential for inaccuracy. QueenCake (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, those should be taken out. "Previous name" suggests before the first Renault team, so before 1977, which is obviously nonsense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Numbers table[edit]

I had some free time today, so I made a table listing driver numbers. I realize as this is the second season under this format, there wouldn't be much use or even a place for it in this project right now, but I think something along the sorts might be useful in a few years. You can view it here. Let me know what you all think. Twirlypen (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! You forgot Adrian Sutil though. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and good catch! Yeah, I'm not looking for its immediate inclusion, seeing as currently there are only 4 drivers occupying 50-99. This may be useful in the coming years as a stand-alone chart as more drivers race in Formula One. But regardless, it's far too long to be included in any article. Speaking of Sutil, any idea what he is up to these days? I can't seem to find recent news on him on a quick Google search. Twirlypen (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
In December he was contemplating WEC, but was also considering taking a sabbatical. [8] Fun fact: He seems to also have had a valid contract with Sauber for 2015. What a mess... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I knew something very fishy was afoot when both van der Garde and Sutil nearly simultaneously interjected with their 2015 claims after Sauber announced their new lineup in October. But [this] seems to suggest that Sutil may have breached his contract. I could not read the full article. Twirlypen (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Kaltenborn -- referring at the time to the sport generally -- reportedly said in Austin early this month that "contracts in F1 are worth nothing." Famous last words? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah OK Monisha, tell that to Peter Sauber when he inevitably has to pay 3 drivers premium, raceday money to drive 2 cars right after getting zero points for the first time in team history. Twirlypen (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well at least she will be able to comfort him with the fact that they score more points in this year's Australian GP alone than during the entire previous season. Tvx1 12:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
And, as one commenter pointed out, being the most successful team this week wearing a Chelsea badge... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Ha! While that's true, unless each event pays prize money, Sauber won't see a single penny from those points until next year. She's still costing the team a lot of unnecessary money that's already stretched thin. Twirlypen (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the practice numbers have changed this season, as Raffaele Marciello drove number 36 in today's free practice, which was a Force India number last year. See here: [9] Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase — that's because the test driver numbers are assigned to the teams, not the drivers. They're based on whatever two sequential numbers are still available after the personal numbers are allocated. The first two available are #15 and #16, then #23 and #24. Any numbers that were used last year, but not this year (like Magnussen) will be set aside in case those drivers return in 2016, but if they do not, then those numbers will go back into rotation in 2017.
The catch this year is that Stevens is using #28 and Verstappen #33, both of which were reserve numbers last year (Ferrari had #28 and McLaren #33). So now those two numbers cannot be used, and the numbers #29 and #32 taken out of rotation because they're not paired up.
By my (admittedly very crude) estimation, these are the combinations of numbers given to teams for third cars:
  1. 15 and #16
  2. 23 and #24
  3. 30 and #31
  4. 34 and #35
  5. 36 and #37
  6. 38 and #39
  7. 40 and #41
  8. 42 and #43
  9. 45 and #46
  10. 47 and #48
Sauber had #36 and #37 last year and have kept them this year, so it looks like the numbers are assigned to the team until one (or both) gets taken by a full-time driver, in which case they get pushed back to the first available combination. It's confusing, but I can't see how it would work any other way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase, 36 was a Sauber number last year just as much as this year. Where did you get it was a Force India number? Tvx1 09:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
In another similar discussion, it was deduced (assumed?) that practice numbers were assigned by results of the 2013 WCC final standings. Thus, Red Bull got the first pair of available numbers (15 and 16), Mercedes got the next available pair (23 and 24), Ferrari got third (29 and 30), and so on. Given that none of this has actually been verified, that is nonetheless the calculation I used when constructing the table. Given that, #36 should have gone to Force India (36 and 37), as Sauber would have gotten the pair of numbers after FI (38 and 39). For the sake of keeping my sandbox as tidy and up to date as possible, I simply swapped Force India and Sauber's practice numbers as a quick fix. Twirlypen (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing information[edit]

I find no information in Wikipedia about why Williams did not replace Valtteri Bottas with a reserve driver at the Australian GP. Shouldn't this be explained somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.77.222 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that for eligibilty to replace a driver during saturday or sunday of the weekend, the replacing driver must be entered for the weekend andmust haven driven during a saturday session. Tvx1 06:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renault's Grand Prix tally[edit]

Should the 19 Grand Prix that the team entered as "Lotus Renault GP" be separated or distinguished from the "Equipe Renault" and "Renault F1 Team" Grand Prix tally, as the team wasn't a factory effort in 2011 and was a privateer, have it distinguished from the tally similar to how the Sauber/BMW Sauber tally is. Also I'm questioning if that tally is correct because I've looked on many different stat websites and most of different numbers; 300, 303, and 304 races. Check out the www.renaultf1.com website and it shows that Renault itself doesn't include 2011. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC}

No it should not be counted for Renault. Tvx1 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the 2011 races should be included in Renault's total, with no separation/distinction, for the following reasons:
  • the cars were still called "Renaults" and continued the Renault chassis numbering scheme ("Rxx")
  • by my recollection, the team was still very much considered "the Renault team" (as opposed to the contemporary "Lotus team")
  • for consistency with external sources such as FORIX and StatsF1. (The 300/303/304 discrepancy is due to the fact that some sites (e.g. FORIX) count races started whereas we count races entered. On that basis, our number should probably be 303 - we probably shouldn't count the 1985 South African GP, where Renault's entries were withdrawn).
The situation is slightly different to Sauber/BMW Sauber, where the chassis make changed (from "Sauber" to "BMW Sauber" and then back). DH85868993 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
And how will you justify is crediting the those results to them while they themselves don't credit them to themselves? Tvx1 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
They were "Renault" cars, so the races count for Renault's tally. We had an exhaustive discussion over this issue a couple of years ago. QueenCake (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The "Renault" constructor name was still used because another team was already using the "Lotus" name at that time, the team itself wasn't Renault it was a separate company "LRGP Ltd." which was owned fully by Genii Capital, you can compare it to the Manor/Marussia issue the team is initially "Manor" but it's constructor is still "Marussia" due to contractual issues, To sum it all up the team competing under the "Renault" name in 2011 wasn't competing as a Renault factory team so the results shouldn't count towards the factory teams tally as Renault themselves even the F1 community don't count 2011 as a Renault factory team year. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Need help identifying car[edit]

Can anyone identify the car in this image: File:Benetton B195 2.jpg? Despite the image's name and the sign in front of the car, I'm pretty sure it's not a B195 - both the airbox opening and the lower element of the rear wing are the wrong shape. Until recently, the image was in the Benetton B195 article with the caption "B190 with B195 livery on display in Sinsheim,Germany.", but I'm not convinced it's a B190 either. I'd like to identify the car so the image name can be corrected. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As you can see here under "Massive issue with pretty much a whole museum's collection of "F1 cars"", this is not an unknown problem. I guess it is a different Benneton with a 1995 livery or maybe even a complete bogus car. The museum does not really care, they simply put them on display with whatever the provider tells them... We should simply not use any pictures from that exhibition unless we can say for sure it is really the car it claims it is. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This is indeed a Benetton B190. Albeit with a different nosecone. Tvx1 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Formula One engines[edit]

An IP editor keeps editing Formula One engines#World Championship Grand Prix wins by engine manufacturer, changing Ferrari's tally from 222 to 217 and adding Lancia to the table with a tally of 5. (Presumably the 5 races in dispute are Ferrari's 5 wins in 1956 with the Ferrari D50). FORIX, StatsF1 and ChicaneF1 all credit Ferrari engines with 222 wins and Lancia engines with none. I've started a discussion at Talk:Formula One engines#Lancia/Ferrari in 1956 - I'd appreciate some input there so a consensus can be established. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

IP adding inaccurate info[edit]

We have an IP adding inaccurate information at random to articles. Heads up, chaps. Britmax (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Country codes for tables[edit]

I had noticed that we use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes for a vast majority of the countries in our results tables to link to various Grands Prix. I also noticed that there are instances where this isn't the case, as follows (ISO code in parenthesis):

MON being used for Monaco (instead of MCO) Monaco
POR for Portugal (PRT) Portugal
GER for Germany (DEU) Germany
MAL for Malaysia (MYS) Malaysia
SIN for Singapore (SGP) Singapore
NED for Netherlands (NLD) Netherlands
SUI for Switzerland (CHE) Switzerland
MOR for Morocco (MAR) Morocco
RSA for South Africa (ZFA fails to produce a flag)

Races named after cities or broad areas would be unaffected by this proposal, such as DET for Detroit or EUR for European. Same would go for the European, Pacific, US West Grands Prix, among others. Do we have a set standard of codes we should be using (with exception to ZFA, since it doesn't work) and, if not, should we? Twirlypen (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the list of country codes we use, along with links to the various discussions over the years which led to the list. The basic conclusion was that since we have races which don't have ISO 3166 codes, we shouldn't feel compelled to use ISO 3166 codes where they do exist, if another abbreviation is more intuitive (e.g. "MAL" insread of "MYS"). DH85868993 (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, I wasn't sure if we had a standard. Glad I asked before I jumped the gun on the early years. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Twirlypen (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Max Verstappen[edit]

If anyone would like to weigh in at Talk:Max Verstappen in a very tedious discussion about the flag shown in the infobox, please do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Podiums in F1 car infoboxes[edit]

The recent addition of a "Podiums" field to {{Infobox racing car}} has led to some toing-and-froing at Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid and Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid over:

  • whether the field should be used, and
  • if it is used, whether it should contain the number of individual podium finishes the car scored (e.g. 31 for Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid), or whether it should contain the number of races in which the car scored one or more podium finishes (e.g. 19 for Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid).

Opinions? DH85868993 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)