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.

Aston Martin F1 article[edit]

During the recent rumors of Force India changing its name to "Aston Martin Racing" next year I noticed there isn't any article that features Aston's past Formula One participation so I'm wondering if the creation of a Aston Martin in Formula One article would be beneficial during this time even if the Force India deal doesn't go through. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a motorsport section in the Aston Martin page, which isn't really up to very much. Aston Martin don't really have a great F1 heritage but do have a strong competition history generally, particularly sports cars. Perhaps the page could be Aston Martin in motorsport, like Maserati. Eagleash (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
A problem may be that the team will be known as Aston Martin Racing, which exists but solely covers the entity created by Prodrive and Aston Martin. Should Formula One results be on this page? And if they are on this page, how does this affect pre-2004 results when Aston Martin Racing did not exist? The359 (Talk) 18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should wait and see whether they will take over the team, and if they do what they call it, before claiming there are problems. Tvx1 18:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Aston Martin Racing is a joint effort with Prodrive, and I think it would be best to keep them separate as that organisation would likely have nothing to do with a F1 team, only the name would be the same. We do need an article for Aston Martin's racing history in sports cars and otherwise, which is woefully uncovered at present, so Aston Martin in motorsport should definitely be created regardless. If there is an Aston Martin team in F1 next year, then perhaps it might warrant having an Aston Martin in Formula One article, but as it stands their effort in the 50s doesn't really warrant being separated from their other racing activities. QueenCake (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
A possible option would be to create the Aston Martin in motorsport article and merge the Aston Martin Racing one into it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't do much work on team articles, but it seems to me that the best thing to do would be to follow our own precedent: when Mercedes returned in 2010, we considered them to be a continuation of the team that raced in the 1950s.

But I would wait to see what the FIA does first in terms of how they recognise the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't decide to go by that precedent or not because we don't know in which capacity Aston Martin will enter the sport. Will they be a true works team, like Ferrari and Mercedes, or will their name simply be used in a sponsorship kind of way, like Marussia, Caterham, Lotus and Spyker (to name of few)? Note that we don't use the XXXX in Formula One for any of those latter four teams. And talking about precedents, we have never considered Lotus a continuation of the original Team Lotus when they returned twice during the last five years, even when in 2011 there was team called Team Lotus. Tvx1 17:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, we do know that they will not be a works team, at least not in 2016. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
No, at the moment all we have are guesses from Autosport, Joe Saward and others. Encyclopedias are not news services or fan blogs, and are written past tense, so can we wait until we have something definite to talk about before wasting all this time?. Pyrope 18:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Tvx1 20:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that the logic behind it is to come to an agreement in advance because people feel that it may be a substantial change, so that if it does go ahead, we're all in agreement and can make the changes quickly rather than trying to play catch up when the changes are made and a dozen people go in a dozen different direction. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The reason I brought this up was because I wanted to make users aware of possible improvements to articles concerning Aston Martin, If Force India is rebranded Aston Martin then it should be placed in a shared article with Astons previous F1 activities similar to how we have the Mercedes and Renault articles. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Well...... Mercedes and Renault returned as works teams, Aston Martin is probably not. So there's a difference. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they arnt a works team, if the team uses the constructor name "Aston Martin" and potentially the same company is behind it then its a no brainer, if we go by that logic then the 2010-2011 seasons should be taken off the Renault article. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No, It is NOT that simple. Again we have three different articles on three clearly different constructors who all simply used the same Lotus constructor name. The difference with the Renault situation in 2010-2011 is that the new owner, Genii capital, of the exact same team kept operating it from the exact same base with mostly the same people under the exact same constructor name. Similarly to Renault themselves taking over Benetton in 2000 and running under the exact same identity as before the takeover for two entire seasons. Tvx1 17:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it's just not as simple as that. Like I said before, the key factor is whether they will return as true works team or whether the team will carry their name in a sponsorship kind of way. I will recall again that we didn't consider either of the returned Lotus teams (even the one that was called Team Lotus just like the original) a return of the original one and thus we don't mention them in the original Lotus' article. As long as nothing has been announced on the capacity in which the Aston Martin name will return it simply is a useless effort and a waste of everybody's time to try to decide on a course of action. Tvx1 16:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's just do what we always do and see what the FIA considers the team to be (assuming it happens). While I understand the concerns around the Lotus situation, the last thing we want is a repeat of the Manor Marussia situation where we pretty much invented a new team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Worse, we outright invented a new constructor. :-) Tvx1 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to wait and see what the FIA and FOM recognize them as if it does happen, just to also mention that some sources include that the Mercedes engine will also be rebranded as Mercedes-Benz own 5% of Aston, including a potential technical partnership with the car company but of course we cant act on those rumors until they are confirmed, I'm only trying to help out and get things sorted early so don't get angry at me guys. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
So what do you expect us to do? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Counting of race victories[edit]

Hey everyone! I noticed that the March Engineering article gives their race victory number as three, two achieved by the March team and one by Tyrrell Racing driving a March chassis. However, that victory, the 1970 Spanish Grand Prix, is also counted in the Tyrell article's infobox as a victory for Tyrell. I wonder, shouldn't it just count for one of the two, not both? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was a victory for the Tyrrell team and it was a victory for a March chassis, so it seems reasonable (to me) for it to be counted in both articles. Perhaps March Engineering needs two infoboxes, separately detailing their achievements as a team and as a constructor, like Tyrrell Racing has. DH85868993 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll get to it tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Feel free to check if I've done everything correctly :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

IP editor yet again[edit]

Back again (after a 2 week block) here & here yesterday. Starting templates in talk-pages again but otherwise I've not had time to look through all his edits today. Do we need to have templates for Token and Amon Racing? Eagleash (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He's undone the re-direct of Rebaque HR100 to Rebaque and added content to the page. I think the re-direct was right, car doesn't need it's own page. Ditto with the Token RJ02. Eagleash (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI, Rebaque HR100 and Token RJ02 have been turned back into redirects and Template:Chris Amon Racing has been nominated for deletion. Editors are welcome to express any views they may have on the proposed deletion of the template at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
After removing the Amon template for deletion notice three times. There is now another 2 week block. Eagleash (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Heads up...Right on cue, shortly after the block ended IP ed. returned yesterday here. Eagleash (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Project members may be interested in this recently-created article: Renault Energy F1 V6 Turbo. DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

TheriusRooney strikes again, creating an article solely for stats creep. I dont know if the article is really salvagable, is the engine relevant enough to need an article? We have very few engine articles. The359 (Talk) 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I think it could be, if we are willing to put the work into it. With its lacklustre performance over the past two seasons and the tensions between Red Bull and Renault, there is definitely enough there for quite some prose. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
One fundamental question, never mind the stats (which are a WP:BADIDEA if ever I saw one), is: does this article even pass WP:GNG? There are no sources I can find that aren't either simple reportage of the republish-the-press-release type or similar, or originate with Renault themselves. Also, there is something funny about the article that I can't quite put my finger on. It reads like a copyvio, but I can't find any direct source. However, many of the facts included in the technical data are not in the two sources provided which indicates that there is at least one other source out there that has not been cited. Why? Pyrope 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI: copyvios at Stirling Moss[edit]

Wholesale copy-paste copyvios at the Stirling Moss article [1] [2] by a user who ignores warnings---eyes needed there please, and also probably admin action. Writegeist (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

New Userboxes[edit]

Note: These have only been created for drivers who are signed to 'stable' teams next season Holdenman05 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

LH44 This user is a fan of Lewis Hamilton
NR6 This user is a fan of Nico Rosberg
SV5 This user is a fan of Sebastian Vettel
KR7 This user is a fan of Kimi Räikkönen
FM19 This user is a fan of Felipe Massa
VB77 This user is a fan of Valtteri Bottas
DR3 This user is a fan of Daniel Ricciardo
DK26 This user is a fan of Daniil Kvyat
ME9 This user is a fan of Marcus Ericsson
FN12 This user is a fan of Felipe Nasr
FA14 This user is a fan of Fernando Alonso
JB22 This user is a fan of Jenson Button

Jac Nelleman[edit]

FYI, I've started a discussion about the correct spelling of this driver's surname at Talk:Jac Nelleman#Nelleman or Nellemann?. DH85868993 (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Racing team templates (Formula 1, maybe others)[edit]


I'm curious as to why the racing team templates such as Template:Scuderia Ferrari, Template:Williams etc don't use the built-in group/list layout that make similar "Navbox" templates easier to use, i.e. with sections that are easier to see, especially on first sight or at a glance. Is it because no-one's volunteered to do this? If so, I volunteer to start working through them. (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the F1 project. If you feel your ideas have been ignored, please don't, but (on the assumption that both of the above posts are from the same editor) it would probably be best if you created a 'proper' wiki account so that you can join the project and make it easier for other editors to communicate with you. In cases like these, when changes are suggested to multiple articles it is usually best to wait for a consensus before proceeding. (And the project may be suspicious of those who edit from IP addresses...especially if there is more than one IP). Eagleash (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I didn't feel that my suggestion was being ignored, I just took finding no response after a few days to mean no consensus against it. I also thought it'd be okay to make a start without setting up an account. I'm willing to continue, but it sounds/looks like I shouldn't. (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Your edits made them worse and more difficult to use -->Typ932 T·C 17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you find the other "Navbox" templates in the encyclopedia worse and more difficult to use than these ones? (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Tables (maybe for the last time?)[edit]

Hey everyone, I have raised this issue repeatedly, but so far no consensus was reached. I urge to finally go back to using the old wikitables again. The matter was also raised in the latest F1 GA review, where the reviewer called the small font a possible "accessibility issue". Also, we again see that the new tables are inferior to the old one when looking at the ugly white border around the DSQ for Massa at the current constructors' table. It would be nice if we could agree to doing it the way it was done for years. While both table formats might have their disadvantages, I feel that the Wikitables are certainly the better way to go.

Best regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The small font is independent from the table class. You can perfectly change that font size without having to change the whole table format. Tvx1 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I could. But I could also use the table format that is used on every other article type on Wikipedia and that is serviced if display issues arise. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No, you couldn't actually. Just changing the table class without touching the completely independent font size parameter will not solve the issue reported in that GA review. The change you're campaigning for here is not what was complained about in the GA review. Tvx1 16:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Forget the GA review and the font size matter. The question remains if we should move back to the wikitables. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with changing, but I would like more input before going ahead with it. Tvx1 17:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Me too, this should be a decision made by all of us. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)



Hey guys, I have a question concerning the lap leader template. I first noticed this at 2015 United States Grand Prix but it also appeared at 2003 San Marino Grand Prix: It appears that sometimes there is a pixel-wide of another colour between two race leaders, as at the USGP at lap 20 and at San Marino at lap 15 and 50. How does that happen? I cannot seem to find the error in the values in the template... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see what you mean. The only things I spot on the locations you point out, are the normal lines that distinguish the different colors. I don't see anything out of the ordinary. Maybe you could make a screenshot? Tvx1 23:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a yellow line at lap 20 between Ricciardo and Rosberg that should not be there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No that should be there. It's a grey line, not yellow, and there is such a line separating each pair of colors in these charts. Tvx1 16:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, looks strange to me... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC) copyright violation[edit]

It would appear that the recently relaunched has decided to fill its reference articles on the current Formula One teams by the simple expediency of copying the relevant Wikipedia articles, without correct attribution. Compare for example their team profile of Ferrari and our article. While copying Wikipedia is normally fine, and indeed encouraged, you are required to provide proper attribution as detailed here. I'm not sure there is much we can do about, beyond sending them a message pointing out the legalities, but while they continue to host our content some articles here could be hit by copyright violation notices, in the incorrect assumption that we copied them. Please remain aware of this. QueenCake (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, and highly irresponsibly, as far as we the editors are concerned Wikimedia's official stated position on this can be summarized as "tough shit, you are on your own". I can feel the warm fuzzies starting even now. Wikimedia state many times in their documentation that they regard themselves solely as host to our content, and therefore although they demand that we release stuff on CC licences they are going to do precisely squat to help us enforce them. The only solid advice given is here, and that basically involves sending pro forma letters to the violator; if that doesn't work you send a pro forma letter to the host ISP; if that doesn't work... erm... lawyers? Yup, that's Wikimedia's answer, find yourself a lawyer. Great. Pyrope 21:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, we could at least give them a little shitstorm and all write angry emails and - if available - spread the word around on social media? Try to destroy their reputation in the F1 interested community if they don't stop? Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I started. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
How? Pyrope 07:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Wrote a comment under the article and tweeted about what they are doing, linking to their account name. Maybe if I bring the matter to their attention this way, they'll make the proper changes on their own. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice work. Pyrope 10:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I tweeted about it (via selective tweets also to FB)...@-mentioned that Motor Sport (magazine) might not be pleased. Eagleash (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Good! :) But are and Motor Sport Magazine really related? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
No! That's the point.... (I see you spotted my tweet). Eagleash (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well hopefully someone there will notice and do the right thing! It does rather anger me that some people seem to think it's fine to take our content without any attribution at all, and worse claim it under their own copyright. The Creative Commons licences are deliberately designed to facilitate easy sharing and adaptation while crediting the original authors, so it is not hard to comply. One day, perhaps, the Wikimedia Foundation will put some effort into enforcing the licence they have chosen. QueenCake (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Just spotted that they have open commenting on their Facebook page... Sunlight being the best disinfectant, and all that, I thought I'd start the ball rolling in a nicely visible forum. Pyrope 20:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I followed suit! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Surely we should be contacting directly and not making public posts on social media or comment sections. Its a tad unprofessional to handle things in that manner. The359 (Talk) 21:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no. I'd say it was unprofessional to have ripped off a copyrighted source, and frankly one of these entities is a for-profit corporation run by people earning salaries, and another is a volunteer effort run by people donating their time. I have little to no sympathy for a corporation that profits from theft. Pyrope 22:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Pyrope. Making it public serves two purposes: 1) I believe that it can resolve the matter faster because comes under pressure. 2) It sets an example that it's not something that Wikipedia's community is gonna be standing idly by to. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record: Their Facebook profile is busy posting stuff, but no response to our posts there... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────They're not moving. There's a phone number on their FB page (+1 305-507-8799). Anyone living in the US fancy calling and telling them what they do wrong? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen is American, I believe. Tvx1 16:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Renault in Formula One[edit]

There is a little too much speculation in the Renault in Formula One article for my taste here concerning the 2016 season. Would you agree? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It should be removed. The 2016 team name provided in that article is pure speculation. The takeover has NOT been confirmed and even if goes through, they might just continue the team as Lotus for the time being, just like they themselves did with Benetton 15 years ago. Tvx1 16:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed the section for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

2018 Formula One season[edit]

FYI, 2018 Formula One season (a redirect to Formula One) has been nominated for deletion. Editors are welcome to express any opinions they may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)