Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

I see this proposal is still lingering around without having produced some results so far. So, I'm going to make a different proposal. What if we rename the contested field to country? That would be similar to for instance how tennis players are dealt with and would simply allow us to put the countr(y)(ies) they represented during their career, while doing away with the more ambiguous term nationality. Any thoughts? Tvx1 13:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Persondata has been officially deprecated[edit]

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of Formula One drivers and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve accurate data. Here are two examples of Wikidata profiles for notable Formula One drivers: Alain Prost and Jackie Stewart. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 19, 2015[edit]

A summary of a Featured Article on Formula One racing will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that you guys would like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, Dank! Twirlypen (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Manor/Australian Grand Prix[edit]

There's been some to-ing and fro-ing over the "Debut" and "Races" fields in the infoboxes of Roberto Merhi, Will Stevens and Manor Motorsport (i.e. regarding whether or not the 2015 Australian Grand Prix should be counted). It's always been my understanding that the "Debut" field identifies the first race entered and likewise the "Races" field indicates number of races entered, and on that basis, the 2015 Australian Grand Prix should be included, as Merhi, Stevens and Manor were entered for that race. Other opinions? DH85868993 (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. As an indication of how other sites are handling this issue, FORIX lists Stevens as having 8 presences (i.e. including AUS15, remembering that he had 1 race in 2014), ChicaneF1 credits Stevens with 8 "Races contested" but formula1.com shows Stevens with 7 Grands Prix entered.

Of the three sources presented, only the FOM one has the authority to credit results. Forix is, literally speaking, correct though, as Stevens was present in Austrlia. But that's not the criterium we use. I don't think we can genuinly claim a driver made his/her debut by just running around in the team garage all weekend. So the Australian GP should not be counted. Tvx1 14:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
We regularly discount F1.com due to its long history of inaccuracy. I'm in agreement with DH85868993 in taking the debut and race fields as races entered, which should mean we count the Australian GP for Manor and their drivers, even if they did not drive the car all weekend. QueenCake (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I say they should be classes as having entered but not started, which is what happened. GyaroMaguus 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The team was there with most if not all their equipment. They just did not take to the circuit.
Wiktionary defines debut as: A performer's first-time performance to the public.
Miriam-Webster defines debut as: the first time an actor, musician, athlete, etc., does something in public or for the public
DNP, whether it be Did Not Practice or Did Not Participate, it defines Mehri as having NOT done anything.
There was no performance in Australia. Debut therefore was at Malaysia. --Falcadore (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On the 2015 article, in the teams & drivers table, we list that Manor did not participate in Australia. However, on the team's article, we list their first race as 2015 Australia. Again, on the main 2015 season page, the drivers are listed as participating in rounds 2-7, yet on Merhi's page, his first race was again listed as 2015 Australia.

I have tried to unify the information overall, from the team page to the drivers to the templates we use for stats, but some of the articles are getting reverted so instead of bringing it up on individual talk pages, I was going to raise the issue here, but it has already been brought up. Manor was on the event entry list. Aside from showing up, they did not participate in any portion of the event all weekend. The FIA even punished the team for not participating. As such, I feel their first event should be the first one they actually took part in, 2015 Malaysia. But if concensus goes against my opinion, the information should be unified across all of our articles. Twirlypen (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have the exact same opinion as Twirlypen here. Tvx1 22:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
FORIX is correct, as an entry counts as a presence unless they DNA, as we have always counted it - until recently apparently. That's what people get for making things up, like "DNP", which is a typical Wikipedia fudge. The Manor cars were entered and DNQ. It doesn't matter why, and why it matters to some people whether they turned a wheel or not, I have no idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Whatever we decide to use, my main point is that all of the info is correct. As it stands right now, some of our articles reflect round1 as their first race, while others reflect round 2. Twirlypen (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
If it were kept simple, people wouldn't revert it. The more options we have, the more differences of opinion we have. Reduce the options (by getting rid of things like DNP) and reduce the arguments and the potential for inconsistency. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
So what are we agreeing to here? Did 2015 Australia include Manor or not? If so, we need to reflect it on every related article. If Manor is included in 2015 Australia, then so are their drivers. 2015 would need to show this in the "rounds" column. If we are NOT including them in 2015 Australia, then every Manor related article needs to reflect that as well. We can't have different stats criteria for drivers & teams. That also serves only to add confusion. Such as Manor being counted as participating simply for having their name typed on a piece of paper, but drivers not being counted until they drive the car. Drivers are part of the team, thus if the team is counted as entered, so should the drivers, and vice versa if they are not counted. Twirlypen (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Forix is correct in their count only through their own defenition of "presences". Manor, Stevens and Merhi were present. However, Forix does not have any authority to make up criteria. If we would follow their vision, we would have to put Roberto Merhi's debut as the 2014 Italian Grand Prix. We use the official definitions and they are supported by the FOM figures. Tvx1 01:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No we wouldn't – Forix make perfectly clear that Merhi was not entered for that race, just for Friday practice. You say Forix (Autosport) don't have any "authority" to make up criteria, well, nor do anyone else. Unless you count FOM, which, as we know, make a regular point of getting it wrong. We have reliable sources for a reason, and Forix is one. A very reliable one. The sad fact is that, even with all the best sources in the world available to us, we can't get it right because it can't be kept simple. We do have different criteria across the range of articles because we're woefully inconsistent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Small interruption to proceedings to say amen to Bretonbanquet - as a relatively new Wiki contributor, I am flabbergasted by the inconsistency especially in the Season reviews, considering it's usually the same authors involved CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What sort of nonsense is that. Of course there is an authority that can make up the criteria. The rules of the sport are formulated and governed by someone. To put a very simple question, where's your proof that FOM is undoubtedly wrong, and that Forix is undisputedly right. I'm really getting enough of this insistence that Forix is the "holy grail" of F1 results and cannot possibly make a mistake ever. Tvx1 12:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the FIA or FOM's definition of a presence? If you want proof that FOM screw things up, then you've clearly never looked at it in any detail. I don't think many people here need extra proof. Forix occasionally differs from other sources, but I don't think I've ever found a mistake in it. It's Autosport, they're hardly amateurs or newbies. OK, you carry on using FOM as the unquestionable source and people will carry on asking why the articles are inconsistent and/or wrong. Once upon a time, years ago, these articles made sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't want proof that FOM screw up. I want proof that this particular figure by FOM is wrong. I want that because our general consensus is that any FOM figure that is not disproven by other sources can be considered reliable. Now then, bring that proof it's wrong. The only arguments I have found against the FOM figure is that some just don't like it. I don't want the FIA or FOM definition of a presence either. We are not discussing whether or not Manor and Merhi were present. We know that they were. We're discussing whether they made their debut at the Australian GP. Being present≠taking part in the Grand Prix. Tvx1 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That response is why there's no point in having this conversation. You ask for proof when there are sources available – you just don't like them. You want FOM everywhere, and it's just not reliable enough. You don't see the irony in saying I "don't like" FOM. There's no point in discussing it because very few of us have three weeks or a month to dick around getting annoyed about it. I'm aware that all this stuff used to be accurate and now it's not; it's too much effort to try and fix under the current circumstances. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia's policies on sourcing that say we have to prioritise "official" sources over those of reliable third parties. Indeed, if anything we are encouraged to avoid primary sources because of the potential for vested interests. Case in point: Bernie did not want Manor to compete at the beginning of this season, and would benefit financially if they were not deemed not to participate. It's perfectly possible FOM excised Manor from their results for their own reasons. Or perhaps it was just their typical inaccuracy, as demonstrated by the numerous issues brought up on these pages over the years.
While looking up the race classification on the FIA's website, I notice that Fernando Alonso has been credited with a "DNF". Which I'm sure would have been received with some surprise by our Fred, who was otherwise engaged on the beaches of Asturias. Is that enough proof of why we rely on sources such as FORIX? QueenCake (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Very good point indeed about Manor and Bernie. And that FIA link – that results table is utterly useless. Not only is Alonso inexplicably listed when he wasn't even entered, Bottas gets a DNF when he didn't even start, and Magnussen isn't there at all. Gee, let's use that source; it's official, after all... Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This has never been about prioritizing a certain source just because they're official. This is about proving that that particular figure they published is wrong. And arguments like "they have been inaccurate in the past' just don't work. So please stop being cynical and for once answer the question. Note for the third time that Forix uses a different criterium. They count presences of teams/drivers. That's not what DH85868993 originally asked. They asked when Manor and Merhi made their debut, not the first time they were present as a team/race driver. Tvx1 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you've managed to miss or ignore the source QueenCake presented. That is clearly the FIA screwing up, as they list Alonso as retiring from a race he didn't even enter. Thus, the source is not credible, and that's the sort of thing you're relying on. I'm not sure, personally, which race counts as their debut... but the obvious failure of that source right above is a huge discrediting factor in any of the related primary sources - particularly as there is definitely a potential vested interest, as has already been mentioned. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Nobody has to prove anything is wrong just because you're asking, or for any other reason. As far as I am concerned at least, I agree with DH85868993 and QueenCake in that Manor made their debut in Australia. Forix concurs, and as it is a reliable source, that's good enough for me. Trying to make distinctions about whether Manor's actions constitute a debut is futile, probably original research and (should be) beyond the scope of the tables we draw up. It just lays Wikipedia open for inconsistency. Manor were there, that's a debut. DNP is a crock. Some disagree and I can see why, but that's my point of view, although I suspect we're going to hang this discussion on "proving FOM wrong", rather than consensus-building. If that's the case, there's little point in going any further. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not just because "I'm asking", it's because the consensus is that FOM figures are to be considered okay if the figure in question is not disproven by other sources. So I'm just asking for the consensus to be put in practice. I'm still not convinced why we would should only consider Forix and ignore all the rest. There are others that disagree with them as well. Stats F1 puts Merhi's debut in 2014 and his first race as the 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix. It's not all that back and white crystal clear as you claim. I did not go on about the FIA source, because I never mentioned that in my argument in the first place. If we're going to to talk consensus building, so far I see you and QueenCake insisting that debut was Australia on the merit of, in Twirlypen's words, having their name printed on a paper; myself, Falcadore and Twirlypen stating that it should be Malaysia, DH85868993 as OP leaning towards Australia but open for other opinions and Lukeno94 not being sure which one it should be. So it doesn't see there is a clear agreement for either side. Tvx1 22:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you everyone for your input into the discussion. It highlights why I think whether or not a driver/team is entered for a race is the simplest/best criterion to use throughout Wikipedia (i.e. Debut/Last race/Races infobox fields and also the "Rounds" column in the season summary articles). It's usually clear-cut whether or not a driver/team was entered for a race and would avoid debates over the exact meaning of less-well-defined terms like "presences" or races "contested". If we think the meaning of the infobox fields might be unclear to readers, we can always change the label (e.g. we could change "Debut" to "First race entered"), or add a tooltip, as was done here. DH85868993 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The use of vague terms does help in adding confusion to the discussion as DH points out. If we are going by races entered, then yes, it should be Australia. But then that same criteria should also apply to the drivers as well and the 2015 season teams and drivers table. But, if we go with debut, then it would be Malaysia. My opinion lies with the latter, to the point that if concensus goes with Australia, that a footnote be added that Manor took no part in the event and were punished by the FIA for their actions, or lack thereof. But mostly, I just want the information to be uniformly reflected across all of the articles. Twirlypen (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
As I think has been nicely demonstrated above, Debut is the vague term that is causing most of the trouble. It means one thing to one person, and another to another. Oh, and by the way, the FIA didn't punish Manor for their actions in Australia. They were cleared of any wrongdoing by the stewards. I don't know where you got that idea from. Bernie threw a tantrum and allegedly withheld transport costs, but that's an FOM personal decision and not a statute infringement. Pyrope 00:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, it could not be proven that Manor made no attempt to qualify. They said they'd tried to get their cars running, and failed to do so. Bernie has his own ideas, but then he never liked the team anyway, and he's not the FIA. I really don't know why Wikipedia feels the need to make a distinction between those who DNQ because they were too slow and those who DNQ because they couldn't get their cars running ("DNP"). The result is the same, and no distinction should be made. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the Manor Motorsports article and Roberto Merhi's article directly contradicts each other - and will continue to do so until we agree one way or the other. At this point I really don't care what criteria we use to define when Manor debuted, so long as the content of the articles doesn't DIRECTLY CONTRADICT ITSELF! How on Earth can we say that Manor debuted at Australia and then at the same time say their driver debuted at Malaysia?? If we are using the entry list to justify Manor debuting in Australia, the same criteria MUST apply to Merhi - he was on the entry list as well - and he showed up as well. Right now we are basically telling readers that Manor showed up in Australia - with full intentions of racing according to this discussion - without drivers. Twirlypen (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course it will be made consistent. Once we have decided which way to go. At the moment though, the opinions are divided roughly 50-50 for either side, with another few contributors being neutral. Tvx1 14:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, have we come to a resolution on this? I won't idly have conflicting information remain much longer. Twirlypen (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you summarize your proposal succinctly and then we'll see whether it is supportable? Pyrope 04:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether we decide their debut is Australia or Malaysia is irrelevant to me at this point. My proposal is that all of the information on the various articles gets consistant right now. We can't have Manor Motorsports say one thing, and the rounds table on the 2015 season article say another thing, and Roberto Merhi's page say another for the 3-4 weeks while we drag our feet around in the mud over what "debut" means. I propose we put it at Australia while this gets hashed out for probably yet another 3-4 weeks, and if it comes then that their debut is Malaysia, we can change everything then as well. As long as everything is consistant right now. Twirlypen (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If I understand Twirlypen's proposal correctly, it would involve the following:
In which case, I support the proposal. DH85868993 (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, at least while we debate still. Everything can be changed later if concensus swings the other way. Seeing mismatching information, especially when we know it doesn't match, just makes me cringe. Twirlypen (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
DH's summary seems fine for now. However, consistency is based on having a protocol against which future decisions can be measured. I agree that it is good to aim for, but as things stand (and bearing in mind WP:V) if someone puts up a reliable 'debut' source on the Merhi page that says Australia, while someone else puts up a reliable 'debut' source on the Manor page that says Malaysia, then you don't really have any basis for 'correcting' them right now. Whether or not you cringe is largely irrelevant. In my view, based on the above discussion, the encyclopedia needs to do away with the ambiguous notion of a 'debut' (and a somewhat slangy term it is) and simply report 'first entry', 'first start' or something else that is easy to define. In short, let's not discuss what debut means. Let's try and do things encyclopedically and report straight facts. Pyrope 06:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I would support changing the label in the F1 team infobox from "Debut" to "First race" (i.e. to match the driver infobox), acknowledging that "First entry" or "First start" would be even better/clearer, per Pyrope's comment above. DH85868993 (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. Twirlypen (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at all the above comments, I feel "first race" is still to vague and therefore I can't support that. I prefer to support "First entry" as that is the most clear, indisputable one. First start would be fine as well. On the same note I would like propose to rename the "Races" field to "Entries". That way, any ambiguity the field currently carries is removed. Tvx1 13:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Tvx1, your recent edit to the 2015 article, updating the round column on the notion that "everyone is in Austria," provides a very strong argument that Manor Marussia SHOULD have 1-8 in their boxes. After all, they were in Australia. Not doing a damn thing towards the event, but they were there nonetheless. Twirlypen (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That's just a personal wording I have used for ages. That has nothing to do with the rules or what happened at Australia. Tvx1 08:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Because there is no clear objection to unifying the information while this inevitably gets forgotten about and swept under the rug, I have done just that. Twirlypen (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, as a concession, I added a tooltip to the Rounds column in the 2015 article stating that it's rounds entered, not necessarily rounds participated. Thoughts? Twirlypen (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Following some updates to {{Infobox F1 driver}} a week ago, the driver infoboxes now have fields labelled "Entries", "First entry" and "Last race" and the team infoboxes have fields labelled "Races competed", "Debut" and "Latest race". Personally I would prefer both infoboxes to have fields labelled "Races", "First race" (with a tooltop of "First race entered") and "Latest race" (with a tooltip of "Latest race entered"), although I'd also be happy with "Last race" instead of "Latest race". Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
If think we should opt for labels that are as unambiguous as possible so as to prevent editing from casual readers/editors, who are no so much aware of the project's convention, and subsequent reverting by the project's members. Therefore I don't think "debut" is a good idea. That will always be open for interpretation. I don't think changing unambiguous labels to ambiguous labels with a necessary tooltip is an improvement either. All in all I think "Entries", "First entry" and "Last/Latest entry" for both infoboxes is the most unambiguous option available. Both "Last entry" and "Latest entry" should be an available option as using "Last" for active drivers can create confusing for our readers, while it is ok to use that version for retired/deceased drivers. Tvx1 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I've boldly updated {{Infobox F1 team}} and both Tvx1 and I have updated {{Infobox F1 driver}}, so the fields in the driver infobox are now labelled "Entries", "First entry" and "Last entry" ("Latest entry" for current drivers) and the fields in the team infobox are now labelled "Races entered", "First entry" and "Last entry" ("Latest entry" for current teams). I went with "Races entered" rather than "Entries" for the team infobox to avoid ambiguity over whether it means "number of races entered" or "number of individual cars entered". I'd probably slightly prefer the labels in both infoboxes to read "Races entered", "First race entered" and "Last/Latest race entered" but I can live with the current labels if that's what everyone else wants. DH85868993 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Separate Manor F1 article[edit]

I would like to propose separating the information of Manor's Formula One participation onto a separate article, the information on Manor's Formula Renault and Formula Three participation should remain on "Manor Motorsport", Virgin Racing and Marussia F1 have their own separate articles even when both those teams were operated by "Manor", also the article will eventually overflow meaning another article is needed. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Looking at the redirect's history, I see that this was tried before, but re-merged with Manor Motorsports for reasons unknown. Twirlypen (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed also considering the different entities behind each team iteration. Good luck! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe this article should be titled "Manor Marussia". GyaroMaguus 11:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd also support having a separate article for Manor's 2015 F1 activities. I'd be happy with "Manor Marussia" as the title. DH85868993 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The article could either be titled "Manor F1" or "Manor Marussia" but "Manor F1" seems more suitable for the long term if the team continue into 2016 they will most likely drop "Marussia" from their name but "Manor Marussia" could always be easily changed. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Until such time that they actually do become Manor F1, we cannot call them that as per WP:OR. Manor Marussia is, for now, the only suitable location. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
So is this move going to happen then? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to split the articles. What's the difference between Manor Motorsport and Manor F1? It's the same racing team, and unlike Virgin Racing and Marussia F1 has the same identity and ownership. QueenCake (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The same difference as McLaren Technology Group and McLaren Honda, I guess. Tvx1 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Splitting out the 2015 activities would also address the current situation where the table at Manor Motorsport#Results shows Manor as competing in F1 from 2010 to 2015, but Manor Motorsport#Complete Formula One World Championship results only lists 2015, which seems a bit odd to me. DH85868993 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with Tvx1 on their analogy. MTG is a broadly-based engineering and technology group that owns a racing team. Manor is a racing team that competes in a number of different series. Manor seems more like Equipe Ligier in that sense. Ligier is a simpler case, as so far as I know they never ran a team on behalf of anyone else. Another useful F1 analogy might be made with Tyrrell. The Tyrrell Racing Organisation was established in the late 1950s, but mostly concentrated on lesser formulae until 1968. In that year the team entered Formula One, but not as Tyrrell. For their first two seasons they were Matra International, with Matra works support and funding. Only for the 1970 season, when Matra insisted on their using the V12 engine to maintain the works support, did they break off and race under their own name. Despite these two identities we list all their F1 results under Tyrrell, because that's how the vast majority of reliable sources treat them. As ever, what I'd like to see in these debates are positions established by sources, not by what people here think or feel. I'm not fussed whether the 2015 F1 Manor entries are split out or not, but please could we try and use some evidence-based decision making? Pyrope 22:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see any point in keeping the information together because when Manor Motorsport had intention to enter Formula One in 2009 they created a separate entity called "Manor Grand Prix" which was a spin off company that competed as "Virgin Racing/Marussia Virgin Racing" later "Marussia F1" due to sponsorship and stake holder reasons, the company under the name "Manor Motorsport" which competed in Formula Renault and Formula Three is a separate but connected company to "Manor Grand Prix Racing" which is currently running in Formula One as "Manor Marussia F1 Team" that is one of the biggest and most valid reasons why "Manor Marussia" should be separated and given its own article. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Matra International was a distinct corporate entity from Tyrrell Racing, and similarly World Wide Racing (that ran the Lotus cars in Italy in the early 1970s when ACBC was scared of being arrested over Rindt's death) was distinct from Team Lotus. However, despite what Companies House says, we don't distinguish them here because most reliable sources don't distinguish. As far as how the Manor team themselves regard their continuity, to paraphrase from the History section on their website "Manor has a strong heritage in motor racing – formed in 1990 by John Booth ... Manor secured entry to the highest echelon of motor sport for the start of the 2010 season. In February 2015 ... Manor emerged from administration and is now participating in the 2015 FIA FORMULA 1 World Championship'". That's only their opinion, of course, but it is one line of hard evidence as to the relationship between Manor Motorsport and the F1 entry. Formula1.com gives the history of Manor Marussia as beginning in 2010, when "After lower formulae success, Manor Motorsport join F1 as Virgin" and, following many tribulations and a name change or two, "Undeterred, their determination unabated, they return afresh for 2015". One entity, traced through from Manor Motorsport's initial entry to today's Manor Marussia. Looking at other articles in Autosport and elsewhere, even during the brief period where Manor Grand Prix was under Russian ownership, the F1 outfit was certainly operated as an integral part of the wider Manor edifice, with personnel sharing and coordination occurring between Marussia F1 and the Manor FR2.0 and GP3 teams. In contrast, there are an awful lot of external sources who treat the Manor Marussia team as a continuation of the 2014 Marussia team, using phrases along the lines of "the team will use their 2014 car for the first half of the 2015 season", and similar. That being said, the team is apparently dominantly known simply as "Manor" to all and sundry, so that marks a break. Pyrope 19:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Possibly part of the problem we are having here is an apparent desire on the part of many editors for one, single solution. As the discussion shows, it just 'ain't that simple. How about making the Manor Motorsport page an overview of all Manor's motosport activities, with large sections on their F3, FR2.0, GP3 and GP2 entries, and this year's F1 entry, but also including summary information on the 2010-2014 seasons? We would maintain separate detailed articles on the Virgin and Marussia time periods (linked to using the {{Main}} template) which would each include 'their' race results. The Manor Motorsports article results (or separate page, if and when it is needed) will include all years from 2010 on, but with adequate footnotes and links to provide information on the public face of the team. After all, Virgin was only ever a sponsor, in much the same way that the 1970s Politoys and Iso-Marlboro cars were only ever Frank Williams Racing Cars with different frocks on. Incidentally, Politoys and Iso chassis results are listed at the FWRC page only. Just a thought, and another route to consider that would allow full use of all the viewpoints taken in reliable sources Pyrope 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The Manor Motorsport article would serve as a central hub article (if my wording makes sense) with all the information on Formula Renault, Formula Three and GP3. Obviously have a overview of the different F1 team identities like we have currently and have it more detailed on the separate team articles "Virgin Racing 2010 season to 2011 season", "Marussia F1 2012 season to 2014 season" and "Manor Marussia 2015 season onwards" Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Somewhat that way, yes. Excepting that, so far as I can see with comparison to reliable sources, we have one of two choices for this season's entity: 1) treat is as a continuation of last year's team on last year's page (e.g. numerous press references to them using their 2014 car for the first half of this season, etc.); 2) treat them as a reversion to Manor Motorsport running the team under their own name (e.g. Manor's own press materials) and keep the info contiguous with the lesser formulae data. I don't see much evidence that a wholly free-standing article is justifiable. Pyrope 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
It is our good right to create a standalone article for their F1 activities if we think that would make it clearer for our readers. Having separate articles does not automatically mean we claim them to be independent entities. Tvx1 00:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Having already said that I'd support splitting the 2015 activities out into a separate article, I'd also support their inclusion at Marussia F1, per our general principle of grouping results by chassis make (the 2015 cars are still identified as "Marussias" in the official results). And yes, I'm aware that "one size doesn't necessarily fit all", but I believe this is one of the options open to us in this particular instance. DH85868993 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A separate article would be preferable for the readers as the "Manor Marussia" team is identified as separate from it's former identity as "Marussia F1", their are many sources referring to the team as just "Manor", similar to the 2010 season when BMW Sauber was identified as just "Sauber" by the team themselves, fans, pundits also including many other sources. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The current cars (MR03B) are still Marussias because that's the team would constructed them. However we don't yet what the actual 2015 car (to be introduced later in the season) will be named, so I'd prefer to wait to make decisions based on chassis makes until they have introduced their actual 2015 car. Tvx1 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems like a majority of users want a separate article created and the facts seems to point towards it being a better solution, so should the article be created under the title "Manor Marussia". Speedy Question (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for mobile tables[edit]

In case anyone is interested, I have launched a proposal to change the style of the mobile tables to make them match the desktop skin's tables more in response to a number of readability issues that were reported within this project in recent moths. In case anyone wants to weigh in their opinion for either side of the argument, you can do so here. Thanks, Tvx1 15:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about Today's Featured Article[edit]

Complaint is at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_the_summary_of_today.27s_or_tomorrow.27s_featured_article, they say the tyres had problems in previous races. Please reply either here or there. - Dank (push to talk) 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 driver's 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)