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.
 

Lap leader charts[edit]

During the GA review of 2015 Mexican Grand Prix, the reviewer Saskoiler suggested a caption to be added for the lap leader chart. I do not really consider this necessary and I also do not know if it is technically possible, so I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, why would we need a caption? The "Lap Leader" title I think makes it clear enough, we'd just be repeating that surely? CDRL102 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested here's the 2015 GA progress box:

29 articles
B-Class article 2015 Formula One season
Good article on hold 2015 Formula One season
Good article 2015 Australian Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Chinese Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Bahrain Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Spanish Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Monaco Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Canadian Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Austrian Grand Prix
Good article 2015 British Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Hungarian Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Belgian Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Italian Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Singapore Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Japanese Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Russian Grand Prix
Good article 2015 United States Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Mexican Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Brazilian Grand Prix
Good article 2015 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
Stub-Class article Ferrari SF15-T
Stub-Class article Force India VJM08
Stub-Class article Lotus E23 Hybrid
Stub-Class article Marussia MR03
Good article nominee McLaren MP4-30
Failed good article nominee Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid
Stub-Class article Red Bull RB11
Stub-Class article Sauber C34
Stub-Class article Toro Rosso STR10
Stub-Class article Williams FW37


Tvx1 14:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I nominated 2015 Formula One season for GA some time ago, but during its review some major concerns were raised. I'm not sure what to make of them, so if anyone wants to weigh in their opinion they can do so here. Tvx1 00:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Another IP to keep an eye on.[edit]

While we're still dealing with an IP disrupting historical articles on F1 cars, a new IP from Singapore has popped op up loading up the infoboxes of F1 Cars of the last two/three season with unnecessary detail. I'm also certain that the person behind the IP operates the users F1foreverf1 and F1W06. All three mainly edit articles on recent F1 cars (mostly Mercedes F1 cars) and on the terminals of Singapore's airport. I have also caught the IP and F1foreverf1 trying to game the system to elevate Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid to GA status.

Disruptive IP now has an account?[edit]

Heads up; these edits are remarkably similar to our long-term IP friend's efforts. A number of them are to pages IP has edited (etc.) previously and the new pages started bear the trademark grammar/punc/caps/tense errors. Eagleash (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly the IP. The account has moved a Draft created by the IP into mainspace. It think it's time for a WP:SPI. I believe you still have a list of all the IP's used by our friend? Tvx1 20:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I do. Not sure whether SPI will achieve anything. The fact that he (somehow) used/uses a different IP every time he edits in itself is probably not a ground for complaint. Having said that, I do not know how he did/does that. There can't possibly be that many internet cafes or libraries etc. in the areas involved. He is up to more than 120 different IPs as of yesterday. Eagleash (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
They simply use two dynamic IP ranges. That's why it changes frequently. The IP has gamed the system through creating a draft while logged off and then logging in and moving the draft to mainspace. That's the exact definition of "abusing multiple accounts" and is sufficient for a WP:SPI Tvx1 09:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
What he did was copy and paste the draft into mainspace, causing all sorts of history problems which have thankfully been sorted out and a message left on his TP appropriately. The draft existed before he created the account so it may be a stretch to suggest that he gamed by creating whilst logged off and then logged in deliberately to move it. I think he's savvy enough to realise it could be done that way (and to his advantage) but he has absolutely no concept of any guidelines whatsoever. However, if you wish to file SPI, I'm sure no-one here will object very much! Eagleash (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Former IP boy has been extremely busy in the last few days. A lot of the re-directs and categories he had declined as an IP, he's now creating himself. Multiple sub-standard articles on non-notable cars also. Eagleash (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And now apparently he's given up on Formula 1 and moved to the World Endurance Championship. Ford Chip Ganassi Racing is his latest creation from draftspace, along with Template:Ford Chip Ganassi Racing. Both of which apparently need to be completely separate from Chip Ganassi Racing and Template:Chip Ganassi Racing?

And, god no, Template:WikiProject WEC...? The359 (Talk) 05:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Today he re-visited an old 'battleground' by removing vast chunks from Frank Williams Racing Cars and attempting to create Wolf-Williams Racing for the umpteenth time. No discussion no edit summaries... Eagleash (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Which tense?[edit]

A recent edit of mine was reverted with the summary: Project standard makes this past tense - the car is no longer in competition; any concerns, bring it up at WT:F1.

As "is" seems to be more grammatically correct to me, I looked through the project docs for verification. I could not find any mention there of tense for this, so I looked at other article for precedents. I found that for the last five years worth of cars; all Ferrari car articles use "is", four Force Indias use "is", one McLaren uses "is", three Mercedes use "is", all Red Bulls use "is", three Saubers use "is", all Toro Rossos use "is" and two Williams use "is". That is, 28 out of 40 cars use "is". I guess the precedent is "is". Any views? -- de Facto (talk). 06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say that should be "is" because it still IS an F1 car, just because it is not currently competing does not mean it is no longer an F1 car. -- MetalDylan (talk). 08:10, 23 May 2016 (BST)
Sounds like a philosophical question to me. I would opt for "was". Two reasons: 1) No actual model of the car might still be around, then it definitely was. 2) Cars from past seasons are not technically still F1 cars, since the F1 regulations have changed since then. They would not be allowed to race anymore. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Some time ago now I brought up a similar question at the Teahouse in respect of (road) cars & motorcycles. The response was that 'is' would be correct as examples still exist (& it is unlikely to be demonstrated otherwise). I.e. "The 'Manufacturer' xxx 'is' a motorcycle 'produced by' from 19XX to 'XX." Eagleash (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, we had a similar discussion in 2007(!) although I'm not sure a solid consensus was reached. DH85868993 (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the overwhelming majority of car articles, they use past tense once the car stops competing. They are, in effect, treated the same way as a road-going model that has gone out of production. While the car continues to exist, the use of "is" further implies that the car continues to compete.
You will also pardon my cynicism, but this was a single edit made by an editor with a documented history of disruptive editing. It came at the same time as an edit to the Red Bull Racing article that misrepresented the content of the article. Why was the edit only made to the MP4-30 article? Why was there no attempt to apply these edits to other, similar articles? Why was there no attempt to start a discussion considering that the edit was such a fundamental change with widespread implications for the WikiProject? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's not make this grammar point personal, let's concentrate on the issue. The reasons I changed it are:
  1. Because it is the only car (except for the Mercedes which uses a different construct) of its generation that uses the past tense. See the others: Ferrari SF15-T, Force India VJM08, Force India VJM08, Lotus E23 Hybrid, Marussia MR03, Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid, Red Bull RB11, Sauber C34, Toro Rosso STR10, Williams FW37.
  2. Because, as a creator of, and a contributor to, many, many British production car articles, I've rarely come across the "was" case, and where I have, I have changed it to "is". Examples of cars long out of production: Mini, BMC ADO16, Austin Maxi, Austin Ambassador, Austin Montego, Austin Maestro, Morris Marina, Morris Oxford, Jaguar E-Type.
-- de Facto (talk). 06:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@DeFacto: To be fair, I believe the only reason why the McLaren article is the only one with "was" is because it is the only article being well kept, thanks to Prisonermonkeys. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Did we come to a consensus here? I feel that every so often we have these discussions here and in the end, some people say their opinion but we do not really come to any conclusion... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You could always post a request for closure.Tvx1 13:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have recently come across MOS:TENSE in the manual of style and it advises: "By default, write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued." One example it gives is: "The PDP-10 is a discontinued mainframe computer family." Perhaps we should follow the MOS guidelines here and write something like: "The McLaren MP4-30 is a 2015-season Formula One racing car...". With MOS supporting the "present tense" case, I believe we need to have a strong rationale if we are to ignore that guidance - and I don't think we have seen one yet. -- de Facto (talk). 06:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Historical race results at formula1.com[edit]

FYI, it looks as though formula1.com have finally restored the historical race results to their website. For example, the results for the 1950 British Grand Prix may be found at: http://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/1950/races/94/great-britain/race-result.html DH85868993 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike Beuttler/1972 French Grand Prix[edit]

Sources differ regarding whether Mike Beuttler was classified as 19th or "Retired" at the 1972 French Grand Prix. Editors are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:1972 French Grand Prix#Beuttler. DH85868993 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Nico Rosberg[edit]

We have a couple of editors putting "Finnish" in the nationality area of the infobox, and removing the note directing people to the talk page discussions. Please keep an eye on this. Britmax (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have filed a SPI for this. Tvx1 16:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I had to go back to the real world for a while and was playing with 3RR. Britmax (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

2015 Malaysian Grand Prix[edit]

2015 Malaysian Grand Prix has been nominated for community reassessment regarding its GA status. The reassessment page can be found here. Tvx1 18:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

2017 Formula One season[edit]

I seen mess after IP edits so Renault is missing now. Eurohunter (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Renault was never included in the first place. Consensus holds that we only add teams when we have details of their future plans—drivers, engine, chassis, etc. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)