Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)

Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, notability seems pretty simple - if the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" it is notable. The guidelines will have to say what is almost certainly notable as opposed to what isn't. For example, I don't think we can say all drivers in xxxx series are not-notable because there's occasionally an exception to the rule with someone who at a low level receives a lot of coverage. We could give criteria for topics we definitely know will meet the notability guidelines e.g. every F1 race will have a race report in Autosport, Autocar and Auto Express magazines as well as at GrandPrix.com and other major F1 websites so it will meet the significant coverage in reliable independent sources criteria. Similarly all F1 drivers will have features on these websites and in the specialist magazines so are notable. But to be honest, this has all been pretty much established already. AlexJ 23:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hans Ruesch the dead grand prix driver

Terrible headline, but Hans Ruesch raced in grand prixs before F1's formation. Should he get the "Former motorsports driver" template on his page? Guroadrunner 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who drove an 8C in anger in period has my respect! I'd say he deserves it. Pyrope 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Renault RS27

I'm planning to propose Renault RS27 for deletion. Any objections? DH85868993 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

None. Ironic really, considering the remarks about notability above. To be provided with something so obviously crufty so soon! Pyrope 15:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me. It made me laugh though :) Bretonbanquet 15:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

None. I'd never think we'd ever see an article on an engine! Davnel03 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Porsche 3512 on the To-Do list? The359 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, stumped me a bit when I saw that. But Cosworth DFV has an article, and I think that goes a lot of the way to demonstrating how relative notability works. The DFV is famous as an entity in and of itself. Pyrope 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can significantly improve it with their sterling knowledge of that particular engine, then give it the chop, because I've never seen such a feeble excuse for an article! ;-) ;-) Lra drama 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty (or rather very annoyed....

Because of this. I'm unhappy with the decision. Sorry if this comes accross as stubborn, but I'm rather annoyed right about now. Davnel03 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right to be annoyed with the decision. It is a fine article in my opinion. Although I do think the whole discussion got a bit childish and out-of-hand and didn't help with the outcome. Lra drama 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion did get a bit out of hand before the nomination started, but that wasn't my problem. I just improved the article, unfortunately other users, without naming who exactly, decided that some things, including the FA candidate was a "joke" without taking it too seriously. My saying: You work hard, reference properly, you reap the reward; or; you mess around and get literally no where, and in this case, the FAC got no where, as the article is missing a star in the top right hand corner. And that's no fault of my own. Davnel03 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are spelling mistakes, i.e. "aggresive", "hydralic", You really need to watch out for things like that before nominating. Readro 20:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Readro, why wasn't that brought up in the FAC? Davnel03 07:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC

Because I have only read the article since you started this discussion. Readro 10:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't really nominate an article for FA just to find out what other people think to improve it. It should run through Peer Review first. The359 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, FAC is not a first stop peer review process, and GA is a weak system, as we have already found out lately. My principal complaint with this article is that the prose is a mess. It lacks a coherent narative thread, and really could use an awful lot of work trying to make it flow a little. It doesn't come close to being "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" as required for FA. It really shouldn't have been relisted without significant improvement. Pyrope 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a point I have raised with Davnel03 before. Too many articles are being rushed to FAC. Most of them in a very poor condition to be generous. Mark83 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, we'd much rather have one quality article that someone has taken the time and properly gone through all procedures with, rather then just boosting our count of FA and GA articles for the project. The359 01:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did go through the proceedures. It's not compulsory to do a Peer Review, is it? Davnel03 07:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the smart thing to do. FAC's are supposed to be presented on the assumption that they are thoroughly read over and corrected. FAC is not for you to submit decent work and expect them to tell you how to make it FA. The same applies to GA. The359 07:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So many of you are saying Peer review? Here we go. I look forward to you comments on the article (that's if you have any seeing as i completed the comments in the FAC). Davnel03 07:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You most certainly did not. There is one glaring comment that the article "requires a re-write to the extent that I don't think the prose is currently good enough for GA, let alone FA" which stands out as being incomplete. See my comments on the PR page. Pyrope 12:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The user in question never said any specific points, they just said "the prose". By the way all the comments before the restart I completed. Davnel03 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Specific points? How can you be specific about an entire article? This process is called "peer review" not "please rewrite this article". Pyrope 12:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Davnel, your attitude here is a bit much. It's a good well referenced article, but it's not 'brilliant'. The article failed because no-one felt it was good enough to support. Before the restart it was 2 Support and 4 Oppose and after the restart there were no supports. One of the supporters added some issues with the article after the restart perhaps because of your slightly aggressive comments towards him. In fact I think part of the fail was due to your attitude during the FAC process - it's no good getting all defensive and hostile when someone comments, you've got to grit your teeth and do everything you can to accommodate their suggestions. They are the only ones who can decide when they believe their concerns have been addressed so my suggestion would be to stop using Done after each comment. Instead state what you've done to address their concerns and word it so you're inviting them to say if they think it's a good enough solution. Go easy on the WP:F1 references. Wikiprojects support articles, but don't own them or dictate how things are done. Wikipedia's editors that do that. The best thing to do is show (via a link) where consensus was reached on doing something a certain way. This carries more weight than saying "WP:F1 do things this way" and is more likely to be satisfactory to the reviewer. Finally (and it's been said many times before) don't go straight to FAC/GAC. Have someone copyedit the article first. Every minor niggle picked up at this stage is one less thing for the article to be flagged up on. For a FAC, I'd recommend running it through a PR first as well (again everything picked up here is one less thing to object to at FAC). I'll leave some comments at the PR now it's up and running (yes I do have some). AlexJ 10:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've addressed the issues raised so far. Davnel03 09:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Negative, you've addressed one example of one of the points raised (citations). AlexJ 09:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I'll do that bit now. I've done the rest of them now. BTW, 2007 Canadian Grand Prix is a FAC candidate. Davnel03 10:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

- - - I've added it to the to-do box. Guroadrunner

I should make comment since I posted on the 2nd FAC. Also, it appears like Raul restarted it, not Davnel. Mind I didn't want to make it sound like I was taking the mick on anyone, but if it fails the first time around, it does not logically correlate that if no-one gives comment that it is an automatic pass, which was what my main thing was. Guroadrunner 11:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Embassy Hill

Hill (constructor) was recently moved to Embassy Hill with an explanation of "per Google results". What do people think of this change? How intrinsic was "Embassy" to the team? Or was it just a sponsor? Should the name of the article be reverted to Hill (constructor)? (or something else, e.g. Hill (Formula One) or Hill (auto racing) or Hill (racing team))? DH85868993 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 'per Google' has much to do with it. Isn't the general idea not to move pages unless there's a need to. Having said that, Hill (constructor) was wrong, as the team was I think only a constructor in its final year, using cars from other constructors before that. I'm not a big fan of including sponsor names in article names (Because sponsors change - albeit that's a theoretical point here :)). Was 'Embassy Hill' the official name of the entrant, and was this the case for each year of the team's existence? If the answer to those two questions is yes, I guess the move should stick. If the answer to either of them is 'no', then perhaps it should go to 'Hill (racing team)' or similar. Other views? 4u1e 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hill (constructor) is wrong, just as Embassy Hill is. The entrant name was either Embassy Racing or Embassy Racing with Graham Hill, never Embassy Hill or simply Hill. Pyrop e 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope. It was wrong before, and it's wrong now. We should move it to something else. I don't agree with having the sponsor name in the title of the article, even though it was always a part of the title of the team. Personally I'd go with Hill (racing team) as a generic coverall title, with a redirect from Embassy Racing and Embassy Racing with Graham Hill. Bretonbanquet 18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Hill (racing team) too, with redirects as described above. DH85868993 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree here. The sponsor should not be included in the team name, unless they are the owner. Hill's team was merely backed by Embassy. Readro 18:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also all for Hill (racing team), with redirects from Embassy Hill. The359 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All I know is this spurred my attention and I've been looking around to add sources and info for the page. I'm Building a team results page at the moment to plug in to the page. Thanks folks – Guroadrunner 03:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but we're quite happy for, say, Benetton to appear in the name of the team, aren't we? On the basis that that really was the name of the team, and it never changed. If Embassy Racing was what it was always called, then shouldn't that be the name of the article? I emphatically don't want to go down the route of renaming articles things like Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, or whatever they're supposed to be, but in a limited number of cases the sponsor name really is the name of the team. 4u1e 10:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tricky. Benetton was actually owned and run by the Benetton family, it wasn't a simple sponsorship deal. That is why they remained Benetton long after they had ditched the "United Colors of..." branding. On the other hand, while Footwork Arrows has a page that is distinct from the main Arrows page, I'm fairly sure that that was just a case of providing the funding. I think that, in this case, the Embassy name is a fairly integral part of the team's identity. As NGH himself put it: "as I had been approached to become the ambassador of motor sport to help promote it internationally, it seemed obvious that I ought to have an embassy to work from." Pyrop e 10:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The team was not owned by Embassy,it was just a sponsorship deal. You say it is integral to the identity of the team, but that is only because Embassy was the title sponsor for every year of the team's existence. It wouldn't be the first time that a race team's name wasn't included in the name on the official entry list - in 1970 Brabham ran Rolf Stommelen in a car entered by "Auto Motor und Sport", deferring to the sponsor's name over their own. I think that the chassis being called a Hill is more telling - it suggests that the team is known as Hill but is being entered as Embassy Racing due to a sponsorship deal. Readro 10:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also possible that the name of the team (the organisation, the company?) really was 'Embassy Hill', even if Embassy didn't own it. If it was just a title sponsorship deal, then I agree, Embassy Hill shouldn't be the name. I have to admit, examples of teams named after a company, but not owned by it don't exactly spring to mind.... 4u1e 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to throw MasterCard Lola on the pile as well as it clearly is the same situation. Readro 13:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And in which camp does Eifelland sit? – Ian Dalziel 14:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

LEC Refrigeration Racing is another which springs to my mind. Although owned by the boss's son, there was never a link between LEC and the F1 squad apart from the money flow. I have to say that, in this case, I think that Embassy is sufficiently important to the team's identity to be included in the article name. Pyrop e 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Graham_Hill#Formula_One_World_Championship_results

To spur off on this, Hill drove for the Embassy Hill team, but in his results table, it says he raced for Shadow in 1973 and then Lola in 1974/75. This directly contrasts with how we do it now (full team name, and sponsor – i.e. Benson & Hedges Jordan-Ford). Should it be changed to Embassy Hill Racing for those entries ? Guroadrunner 03:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The older tables showed chassis make as "team". He drove customer Lola and Shadow chassis for the Embassy Racing team. There never was an "Embassy Hill" team. Pyrop e 04:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I am guessing because he was a privateer, these entries should not be added to Shadow Racing Cars, right? He was a privateer entry. – Guroadrunner 04:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends how you want to go about it. I think at that time, points scored by privateer cars would still have counted towards the constructors total, so if you want a complete set of results for Shadow the constructor, then they should be in there. If you only want them for Shadow the team, then you don't need them, although they may not match official statistics on points scored by Shadow. 4u1e 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary literature either refers to Embassy Racing with Graham Hill Formula 1 team or Embassy Racing for short. The cars are usually described as Embassy Hill whatever e.g Embassy Hill GH1, Embassy Hill Lola T371. Mighty Antar 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC) It became Embassy Hill Racing after Hill's retirement in 1975. Mighty Antar 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 4ule, the points need to be added to Shadow or Lola's totals. You have to remember that constructor and race team were two very distinct terms pre-1980. Pyrop e 13:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Team results table added

I've plopped the table in, and also expanded Embassy Hill (or, Hill (constructor) ) . The table still needs work to get all of the seasons combined, though (when you see it you'll know what I mean). Thanks to Pyrope for helping work on the table. Guroadrunner 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 07:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DH. Looking at the code, it's an "!" mark that somehow makes a new table row – didn't know that. Learned something then :-) – Guroadrunner 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the "|-" that creates the new table row, I added "!" in front of the Year values to make them bold, in the mistaken belief that this was part of the standard table format - but it's not, so I've reverted it. Thanks! DH85868993 03:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Francois_cevert.jpg under deletion threat

See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_September_17#Image:Francois_cevert.jpg

This is an image added by R. Dikeman, who sometimes has put up his own racing images released into free licenses.

It also is the only image of Cevert's face on the page – and fits into fair use because he is dead.

Table Asthetics

Which table is the easier to read version in your opinion and not the technically superior version

Well firstly, everyone here is aware of the differences between the old table and the new one which we all agreed upon, so maybe we can take the tables off this page. I think this is a no-brainer anwyay, the old table doesn't have enough information on it. There are no links to chassis, making all the individual car articles less accessible, and on occasions when a driver switched teams mid-season it's not clear enough which team he drove for in which race. The old tables annoy me to hell because they don't explain things sufficiently. Whether something is aesthetically pleasing is completely irrelevant. It's about information. Do we only have expanded tables when they look nice? Before I get irate, let's hear from other people and close this argument. Bretonbanquet 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The top one is probably easier to read as it provides an at-a-glance view of what car/team the driver was taking part with. There's too much potential for having to flick around to asterisked footnotes with the other style. I guess that also makes it the superior one to use. AlexJ 23:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I do have to wonder, based on the second table, if the Chassis and engine information is really necessary. Seems a bit too indepth and just takes up space. The359 23:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? So why have you been constructing tables showing chassis and engine configurations for every car that ever entered a Le Mans race? A large part of a driver's career record is the specific type of car they drove, and for whom. That's why any driver worth their salt keeps a very detailed log book. As for linking them from the team page, define "team". A blinkered, neophyte view is that constructor, entrant and racing organisation are one and the same entity, which they most certainly are not. Take a look at Lola's chequered F1 career. Their first car, the Mk4, was a customer chassis for the Reg Parnell organisation, but was entered under the Bowmaker-Yeoman aegis. Which of those would be the single "team" entry. The word team is wooly and imprecise, and can't cope with the nuanced constructor/privateer structure which existed in F1 pre-1980. I would have thought that your interest in sports cars would have highlighted that to you a hundred times over. Just think of the multiple "Ford" entries at Le Mans in the mid-1960s, or the Salzberg-JWA Porsche 917 rivalry of half a decade later. All were organisations running the same cars, but with their own identities and methods of working. As we are once again about to enter a season in which customer chassis are to be permitted, it simply does not make sense to remove information that only takes a little more room than the "simple" older tables.

As a second point, what happens when a driver switches organisations in mid-season? Perhaps two or three times in a few cases. And even when a driver doesn't change "team", what about the difference in performance which often accompanied a new chassis or engine (for better or worse...)? The newer tables provide a concise overview of a driver's career, which would otherwise have to be incorporated in a terminally boring "wot I dun on mi hollydayz" prose section. I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Bretonb's habit of rowspanning the engine entries, as I do feel that it clutters the table and makes it harder to read across rows, but to argue that you should include a table that contains inaccurate, and in some cases plain incorrect information, just because it is marginally easier to read (and it is only marginal), is daft. Pyrop e 08:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Was just a spur of the moment idea, nevermind. The359 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people are writing articles about chassis.. it seems rather ridiculous if we don't link to them anywhere. I'm pretty much speechless. Bretonbanquet 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking them from the team results seems more logical to me then the drivers results. They're already linked from the season results pages as well. The359 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't this brought up before a few of us spent months expanding the tables? Are you suggesting reverting hundreds of articles? In any case, I think the results mean very little unless you can see what car a driver was actually driving, particularly in the days when drivers drive for non-works teams. We've been through all this. This was discussed over and over before it was implemented. Where is the sense in changing it all back? Bretonbanquet 00:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pyrope has explained everything better than I could, as usual. Regarding his point about rowspanning the engine entries, I wasn't aware anyone had an issue with that. We can discuss it if anyone wants to. I just thought that removing repeated information made it less cluttered rather than more so. If people would prefer it the other way we can do that, I have no problem with that. Bretonbanquet 09:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wherer did this conversation come from?? Aksi,m this is a pain dealing with how big this got by adding table cde and no I am not going to fix the typos in this message n/c my computer is incredibly slowed by this. But still what caused this discussion? – Guroadrunner 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought so too. The conversation came from an unregistered editor who didn't like the way I expanded the Michael Schumacher table. His comment is at the top, unsigned. Bretonbanquet 09:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

REMOVED THE SCHUMI RESULTS TABLE – NEED TO ARCHIVE PAGE Guroadrunner 07:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

Right, the peer review for the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix has ended. Firstly, many, many thanks to the people that put comments on the PR (Pyrope, RoyalBroil, Alex etc.). The article is currently in the middle of a "look-over" by Awadewit, so thanks to him for doing that. So, you might be trying to guess what's next? Yes, you probably know the next thing which I'm going to write. But, before I head there (yes FA), I was wondering whether anyone could, like what's recently been going on with Brabham BT19, put any in-depth comments on the talkpage, to try and help me improve the article. I'm probably not going to nominate it again for FA until the New Year as a whole load of yearbooks and stuff like that come out round Christmas (one of which I'll be buying), so hopefully I can also improve the article using that. :) Davnel03 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter - BeL1EveR has offered to copy-edit the article, seeing as this topic is pretty low on other peoples agenda at the current moment. Davnel03 20:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lotus photo identification

Found photos of this car on Flickr under Creative Commons, on display at the Japanese Grand Prix. A Mario Andretti John Player Special Lotus, there are a few nice shots of it. Figured I'd get positive identification before I uploaded them. No shots of the car in the background (F2/F3?) unfortunately. The359 01:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a Lotus 77. Readro 09:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Definately a 77, a late-spec one. Recessed nosecone, half-length angled sidepods. Probably the car which Andretti won the '76 Japanese GP with. --Lec CRP1 10:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On blowing up one of the pictures, the car in the background is a Kojima KE007. The359 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fastest lap average speed

There are numerous race report articles which have the fastest lap details listed in both the infobox and the Notes section near the end of the article. The only thing that has stopped me removing the details from the Notes section (i.e. as "duplicate information") is the fact that the Notes section specifies the average speed of the fastest lap, which isn't listed in the infobox. How should we handle this? Do we care about the average speed of the fastest lap? Should we add it to the infobox (as an optional field)? Thoughts? DH85868993 05:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, average speed of a race is commonly used if it's on an oval course. For F1 races, the time is more often quoted and that's probably what should be displayed. I wouldn't be against putting av. speed in infobox if that's what other think, but I'm not sure it's needed. Either way, I don't see why it's duplicated in the trivia section and infobox. AlexJ 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cancelled 1955 events

According to the 1955 Formula One season article, four events were cancelled after the 1955 Le Mans disaster. I was wondering if anyone had any information on which four races were cancelled, since it would be noteworthy for the article. I assume the Swiss Grand Prix, French Grand Prix, and German Grand Prix were three of the races, but I have no verification at the moment. The359 00:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The cancelled races were the French, German, Spanish and Swiss Grands Prix (source: Mike Lang's Grand Prix!). I've updated the article with this information. DH85868993 12:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

SENNA

can we try to move up senna to mfeatured status???--hello????? 12:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Manual of style for race reports

I'm working on the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix at the moment, with a view to making it an example of how to do a featured race article for a non-controversial event (insofar as it's difficult to use 2005 United States Grand Prix or 1994 San Marino Grand Prix as examples). This is the first time that I've taken a front seat on copy-editing an actual race article, and I'm in a little bit of a dilemma.

I believe the current MoS policy is that driver's full names should only be used at the first occurance in the article. However, I think the article would be more readable if this rule was adapted slightly; in the race section one duplication should be allowed for readability purposes (N.B. I'm not proposing a driver is wikilinked twice, just that his full name is allowed to be used once more). I thought the best course of action was to ask here, rather than on the article's talk page, as any decision should be applied consistently (unless of course the outcome is for the editor to decide in each case ;) ). BeL1EveR 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember that the MoS, while giving guidance for best practice, is not a hard-and-fast set of rules (desipte what some editors appear to believe). While I would agree that a name should only be linked once, to save on clutter, if you think that the reader would benefit from repeating a driver's forename then do it. Pyrop e 07:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll use a bit of common sense and see how it goes (this was more a case of seeing if there are good reasons not to that I hadn't considered). My main concern is that as you say, many editors consider following the MoS to be a requirement for a good article. BeL1EveR 18:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

I was thinking of making a change for the infoboxes in race articles. Instead of having the circuit map in the infobox, couldn't we have the promotional poster for the race in the infobox (note, all promotional posters are on StatsF1)? Opinions? Davnel03 09:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a layout of the circuit personally. The posters are nice, but would seem to fail fair use. – Guroadrunner 07:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Posters would add nothing factual to the article and as such would not be enough to claim fair use. Readro 09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And the circuit map is more useful, I reckon. 4u1e 11:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Free image requests

User:David Gerard has been adding the "no free image - do you own one?" image ([Image:Replace this image male.svg]) to lots of biography articles which don't currently have images. Of the F1 driver articles, so far he's hit Kenny Acheson and Philippe Alliot. I'm assuming that in the fullness of time, he will hit more. A couple of questions:

Are we happy to have the "no free image" image in F1 driver articles?
If so, do we want them placed in the infobox? (if so, we might need to specifically ask User:David Gerard to put them there - he did for Kenny Acheson, but not for Philippe Alliot).

Thoughts? DH85868993 04:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't like them, an article can be fine on its own without a picture, so there's no need to "advertise" for one with a silly picture. I have a feeling that adding the template doesn't help gain pictures any more than having nothing. The359 05:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This was a widespread copy and paste job shoddily done. ~~I have requested person to fix these image placements for harmonizing the sh** right. I will be taking this to RFC if not fixed representing myself seeking a mass revert and penalties.~~ – Guroadrunner (had a bad day and this garbage pushed me over the edge)

The bad period is over, so I striked out my angry writings Guroadrunner 06:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the problem with infoboxes is that a lot of pages have them without a line in them for images (the other problem is that your infobox box doesn't appear to have a way to manualy define the size of the image).Geni 16:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton article in the news

For those interested, it appears that a Mercedes employee vandalised the article, and the company has started an investigation. And I thought the silly season was over...--Diniz (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, hhmmm... I wonder who told them. Davnel03 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm definitely going to be using the word penalizated more often... Pyrop e 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Seem Wikipedia's getting a bit of media coverage in Formula One terms, first the trademark issue now this? Wonder if Ernham's prediction will come true and Michael Schumacher will sue us over his article? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Playing detective, I just googled 'Penalizated' and saw someone has used it in a forum post bashing LH on the Daily Mirror website. [1] Coincidence? I think not - MercBenz should try and find out the registration details from the website operators. AlexJ 23:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

For those wanting to take bets

I know this is a bit non-Encyclopedic, but I figured some people would like this. A website which allows you to play out every possible Championship outcome based on the results in Brazil. Linky. What's amazing is that some ties in points in the championship could result in a tie-breaker of who has the most 5th place finishes over the season! The359 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the thing (and what would happen anyway) if Raikkonen gets 2nd, Alonso gets 4th and Hamilton gets 8th, Raikkonen will win the title on virtue of wins! Anyway, I can't see it ending in a tie-breaker, but with the unpredicable weather in Interlagos, you just never know. Please, rain! Davnel03 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mighty interesting permutations. Guroadrunner 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WDC Classification

Does anyone know when drivers who had been classified in races but did not score points began to be included in the WDC standings? They were not at first, and they are now, so when did it change? FORIX is down, so I can't check. Someone is editing driver articles to show that if a driver finished 16th or something in a race in 1958, he was classified in the WDC, which isn't true. All the WDC articles for each year also need to reflect this, as we should show the standings as they were listed at the time, not as they would be lsited now under today's conventions. Bretonbanquet 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, are we showing drivers who were not listed in the WDC standings as "NC" or are we just leaving a dash? For example, Winkelhock this year. My understanding is that a driver isn't "Not classified", rather he just isn't on the list, in which case "NC" is not appropriate. You can be "NC" in a race, but not a Championship. Am I right or wrong? Does anyone care? Bretonbanquet 17:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Forix shows drivers with no points in the standings from 2000 onwards. Don't know if that was when the system changed though. Readro 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

FA nominee

After a thorough peer review and a copy-edit, I have opted to nominate 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix for FA status for a second time. This is almost certainly the route I should of taken before. I will learn from my mistake here in the future. Instead of going straight from GA to FAC, I will head to PR in between. Anyway, the FAC discussion is here. Thanks, Davnel03 08:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like some constructive comments on the article instead of getting "blanked", as I have in the past with this article. Davnel03 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a little unfair Davnel - you've had extensive constructive comments from Pyrope and AlexJ in the past, among others. 4u1e 11:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wet races

I noticed that in recent MotoGP seasons, wet races were marked in the table with the light blue background, like here in 2006 table. Opinions, could we do the same in F1? I can find list of wet races so that's not a problem. BleuDXXXIV 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

MotoGP signals when a race is declared wet - it used to be stopped and then restarted, and now under flag-to-flag rules they wave a flag to signal when the race is declared wet and the riders can switch to their spare wet bikes. In F1 it's up to the teams to decide when they consider a race wet (except I think when we're within T-5 at the start). Is a light shower when just one or two backmarkers gamble on switching to wet tyres a wet race? Or is it only wet if all the teams decide to go for wets? AlexJ 18:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Venezuelan Grand Prix

I just happened across the Venezuelan Grand Prix article. I know there were various Venezuelan GPs for sports cars and I think for bikes, but this seems to be about a future F1 event. Anyone heard of it? Google suggests not. 4u1e 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Computer says no. Well, actually a Autosport search says no. Hoax - AFD. Goodbye. Davnel03 17:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair enough article, but only as an article about the circuit. There is no Venezuelan Grand Prix, yet, or indeed, there may well never be one. Retitle it after the circuit and get rid of the POV, it's fair enough, I think. Bretonbanquet 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit - that is, of course, providing this circuit is actually being built, and it's not a total fabrication... Bretonbanquet 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can find very little about ENTRUSTS (the financial backers, supposedly owned by Bernie Ecclestone) or any talk of a race track in Margarita Island, Venezuela. I find it hard to believe no F1 news site will have picked up on this story if it's true. I'm tagging it with an unverified and then if nothing comes up in a week or so I'll put it to AFD. AlexJ 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This. See STOP PRESS line. Davnel03 21:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but does that necessarily mean that the circuit will be built and a grand prix be held there? It says "with the news ... that a circuit will be built shortly" Eddie6705 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be a ploy on behalf of the property developer to help their sales along. That's not necessarily what it is but I'd rather see something that's from a neutral party. Readro 21:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if they are building a circuit, the article should be under the Circuit name, not the "Venezuelan Grand Prix", and can it really be called notable if it hasn't even been built yet? The359 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Guess what the property developers source is? [2] Yep, Wikipedia. This is not a reliable source as it simply will reference something that references our unreferenced article. AlexJ 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So this is AfD, surely? No evidence that the thing exists - and possibly not notable even if there were. 4u1e 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Even its not the best thing to do, I've AFD'd it as 4u1e suggested. Davnel03 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Spyker F1 to be renamed Force India F1 for 2008

Just confirmed. Do we create a new page for Force India as it's a seperate name, or do we just move the Spyker page to Force India? At the moment, I've put Force India F1 redirecting to Spyker F1, but shouldn't it be a completely seperate page? Davnel03 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous convention has been to start a new page. See Toleman >> Benetton Formula >> Renault F1 or Stewart Grand Prix >> Jaguar Racing >> Red Bull Racing. Pyrop e 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not confirmed. This is what Mallya wants to call the team, but it has not been agreed by the other teams or the FIA yet. Given that Spyker are suing Aguri and Toro Rosso, it is by no means certain that they'll allow Spyker to make the changes they want to make. Bretonbanquet 15:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As Pyrope mentioned above, yes, I think we should start a new page. A new identity is basically a new outfit with their own way of operating, if you get me, so by all means this should be an entirely new article. Lra drama 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the name is not confirmed, I'd say wait. The359 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, hold fire until they have all the right signatures. It will suffice as a redirect to Spyker until then. Pyrop e 19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just had to redirect Force India too, which was a article just created. Davnel03 09:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps better to undo the redirect - people are starting to re-write the Spyker article as Team Force India F1 (which technically isn't confirmed yet, afaik), which is not what we want. 4u1e 09:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now Spyker F1 has been MOVED to Force India F1. Now we have problems. :( Davnel03 11:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is why we exist... The move isn't justified as yet. Needs reversion. Pyrop e 12:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved back. Might want to put in a request for it to be Move Protected. Davnel03 12:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a request seeing as I've had to revert another move. Davnel03 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope. Since the name is not official yet, a redirect to Spyker F1 is the best option. When the name becomes official, Force India should become a separate article. The article Spyker F1 outlines the team that was active during the 2007 season, and that was not Force India. The sequence that Pyrope has mentioned for Red Bull and Renault should also apply to this new team: Jordan Grand Prix > Midland F1 Racing > Spyker F1 > <name of new team>. Aec·is·away ^talk 15:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we put Spyer related articles (including 2008 Formula One season) on our watchlists as IP's will undoubtedly (sp?) try and revert our edits. Davnel03 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links in templates

During the past 24 hours, KocjoBot has added "sl" interwiki links to a number of F1-related (and non-F1-related) templates. The interwiki links have incorrectly been added into the body of the template, instead of into a <noinclude> clause, which means that the links will be included in any article which transcludes the template. I've asked the bot owner to fix them up. DH85868993 02:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've already done a few. It takes about ten seconds each, so I might as well complete them... Pyrop e 07:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pyrope. The bot owner fixed the few you didn't do. DH85868993 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Roland Ratzenberger 1994 SMR GP (DNS or DNQ)

Hi, there,

actually, my question is which Qualifying roles/limitations there were during the 1994 season. Formula1.com says that it was "DNQ" for Roland, in Wikipedia there is a "DNS". At this race, Belmondo did not qualify, but if you say Roland did not start, you say that he did qualify for that race.

I believe that there was the 107 % role (what would fit to the "DNQ" from formula1.com), but is it right? If so, it would've to be changed in several lists. Is there any information here on Wikipedia?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotterstedt (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember from working on 1994 San Marino Grand Prix a lap Roland has done earlier in the session would have been sufficient for him to qualify for the race. I'll check this is the case, and if so DNS is correct. AlexJ 18:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Ratzenberger had posted the 26th fastest time and therefore took the final spot on the grid. In 1994 the grid was limited to 26 starters. The 107% rule was not introduced until the 1996 season. Following Roland's fatal crash, Belmondo was not promoted to 26th and did not therefore start. Instead the 26th space was left blank as can be seen from the caption on the TV broadcast. Formula1.com is wrong in this particular case. AlexJ 18:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Super License

I only just noticed the Super License article and this got me thinking, at the time of Ide's little debacle, I recall it being mentioned that it was the first time a license had been revoked. I was wondering if anyone knew whether this was true or false off hand? I have been searching for some kind of source either way and coming up bone dry. Narson 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

According to his book, Perry McCarthy had his Super License taken off him but this was due to the fact it shouldn't have been issued to him in the first place. I'm not sure if that counts as it being revoked. AlexJ 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes exactly, McCarthy had his revoked, but he hadn't actually turned a wheel at that point let alone raced, and as you say, he shouldn't have had a licence in the first place as he had not fulfilled the necessary criteria.

I'm pretty sure Senna had his licence revoked in 89 after that contretemps with Prost, but it was returned to him before the next race. If this is true, Ide is in good company... Bretonbanquet 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT Conflict:Also, Senna had his licence effectively revoked following the end of 1989 season crash with Prost. [3] Again this was for partially political reasons and it was restored before the start of the 1990 season. (Edit:Beaten to it!) AlexJ 23:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So Ide's was the first 'functional' license revokation (In that it stopped him racing and he was already an active driver)? Interesting. Thanks chaps. (And possibly chapettes) Narson 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Force India Article

I have created an article for Force India F1 Team, however this is seperate to Spyker F1's article. User:Shellene 24th October 10:06

Actually, you might want to see this discussion from just a few days ago, where the project discussed waiting to create a page because the name is not actually confirmed. The359 09:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You also seem to have created Two Seperate templates for some reason, as well as modified other templates. Quite frankly, this page should once again be redirected to Spyker F1 until we have some confirmation on the team name, and the templates should be done away with as well until then. The359 09:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the team name has been confirmed by Vijay Mallya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellene (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussion above, the other teams as well as the FIA must approve any name change. This has obviously not occured yet, so it is entirely possible that Vijay Mallya will not be able to change the name of his team, although this is highly unlikely. Still, we can only use what is confirmed, not what we think will happen. The359 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the article. It is right that it is separate from the Spyker article, as we discussed before. And the article can be renamed if the name changes in the close-season, that should be no problem. Lra drama 10:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The name has now been confirmed (see bbc.co.uk/sport) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellene (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The name that has been confirmed is "Force India Formula One" or "Force India F1" for short (according to BBC and Autosport sources). There is no "Team" in the official title, so the new page needs moving over the redirect. I would actually suggest, in line with Wikipedia's "common names" policy, that it actually ought to be located at simply Force India as that is what it will be (already is, in many cases) commonly known as. Pyrop e 10:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have poked at the article, as it was full of weird crystal balling, added some cites. As to the move, I would say it should be at Force India and I would be bold and move it, but I imagine that would bork some redirects, so I'll let someone with cool tools handle that. Meanwhile I'm going to dive back into the back marker and fiddle. Narson 11:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As its currently at an incorrect name, I've requested Force India be deleted to make room for a move to that page and once its deleted I'll move the page over and fiddle with double redirects now I've worked out how. Narson 11:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice someone beat me too it yesterday. Kudos ;) Narson 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Race Report infoboxes

I just came across {{Grand Prix Mini Report}} which is used on nine race reports (7 F1 races and 2 pre-F1 GP races). I think it was designed to be used for minor GP races, however in the majority of it's uses, {{F1 race report infobox}} is the correct infobox. The remaining two races should/could use {{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} instead (which seems to contain the same fields but in the familiar layout). Before I replace the infoboxes, are there any other reasons I may have missed for {{Grand Prix Mini Report}} to be saved? AlexJ 09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can see. If a race is significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is significant enough to use a proper infobox. Pyrop e 09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved all the (traditional) F1WC events to the correct infobox. Bit stuck at what to do with 1950 and 1956 Indianapolis 500. They were both F1WC events so {{F1 race report infobox}} is one option, but they didn't have much in common with the rest of the championship and the Indy 500 is an event in it's own right so perhaps {{Infobox Indy500}} is the more appropriate box?

One template taken out, how about two more?

{{Infobox Grand Prix race report |Type = F1 |Country = United Kingdom |Grand Prix = British |Official name = - |Date = July 17 |Year = 1954 |Race_No = 5 |Season_No = 9 |Location = [[Silverstone Circuit]], [[Northamptonshire]] |Course = Permanent racing facility |Course_mi = 0 |Course_km = 0 |Distance_laps = 0 |Distance_mi = 0 |Distance_km = 0 |Weather = - |Pole_Driver = [[Juan Manuel Fangio]] |Pole_Team = [[Mercedes]] |Pole_Time = 1'45 |Pole_Country = Argentina |Fast_Time = 1'50 |Fast_Driver = [[Alberto Ascari]] |Fast_Team = [[Maserati]] |Fast_Country = Italy |Fast_Shared_Driver = [[Jean Behra]] |Fast_Shared_Team = [[Gordini]] |Fast_Shared_Country = France |Fast_Shared_Driver2 = [[Juan Manuel Fangio]] |Fast_Shared_Team2 = [[Mercedes]] |Fast_Shared_Country2 = Argentina |Fast_Shared_Driver3 = [[Jose Froilan Gonzalez]] |Fast_Shared_Team3 = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |Fast_Shared_Country3 = Argentina |Fast_Shared_Driver4 = [[Mike Hawthorn]] |Fast_Shared_Team4 = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |Fast_Shared_Country4 = United Kingdom |Fast_Shared_Driver5 = [[Onofre Marimon]] |Fast_Shared_Team5 = [[Maserati]] |Fast_Shared_Country5 = Argentina |First_Driver = [[Jose Froilan Gonzalez]] |First_Team = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |First_Country = Argentina |Second_Driver = [[Mike Hawthorn]] |Second_Country= United Kingdom |Second_Team = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |Third_Driver = [[Onofre Marimon]] |Third_Team = [[Maserati]] |Third_Country = Argentina }} Bit of a long one, but please do read at least the first & last paragraph.

Having worked with the three race report infoboxes today ({{Infobox Grand Prix race report}}, {{F1 race report infobox}} and {{EC race report infobox}}, I'm of the opinion that a combined template may be preferable.

Woah, I hear you say. They work perfectly well as they are, you just pick the appropriate one and off you go. However, I believe there are a few flaws in the current setup. From experience, some editors try to adapt the 'wrong' template to their needs, when a more suitable one exists. Someone might, for example, copy-and-paste an instance of {{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} into a 2000 Formula One race. This will almost work, except for a red link at the top to "2000 Grand Prix Season". Someone comes along later and realises the wrong template is used so switches {{Infobox Grand Prix race report for {{F1 race report infobox - the result is the top line is fixed but there are now other problems.

The flag code for example is done differently in F1 and GP&EC. The former requires the name of the country, the latter two the file name. Other inconsistencies have crept in due to having to maintain three templates, for example Fastest lap & Grid are wikilinked in F1 but not in the other two. Features have also been added to some templates and not others. F1 has the ability to add a scheduled race distance where a race is cut short. The others don't have this, but do have the ability to represent shared drivers and two people having the fastest lap. Despite car sharing occurring in early F1 days, this can't be shown in the F1 template. Having a combined template would mean having just one place to update.

Would a combined template be able to incorporate all the permutations required by the three different types of event? Having tested out a WIP combined template with several different race types here, it does work and with fairly good documentation will be no more difficult to implement than the present templates.

How feasible is it to convert all the current uses of the previous templates to the new usage? All F1 infoboxes (by far the most used of the three) can be converted easily by a Robot find-and-replacing a few parameter names. The other two require a bit of manual input to get them to work (mainly down to the flag problem) but there are less than 50 of these in use at the moment. Doing the change now will be easier than in the future.

Obviously, this is a pretty big change so I'd like as many people's opinions on the suggestion as possible. AlexJ 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The confusion over what was available is one reason why I recently created Category:Race report infoboxes, so I can well-appreciate your point. Some of the confusion may have arisen as the GP and EC boxes were completely uncategorised and were therefore invisible to a novice editor. If you think that a combined box would be easy to use then by all means create one. Pyrop e 08:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also support a combined infobox - perhaps retaining the "Infobox Grand Prix race report" name? One point to consider is how the box will handle the 7(!) drivers who shared fastest lap at the 1954 British GP. I appreciate the difficulty with shared fastest laps, since they can involve different constructors, whereas shared 1st, 2nd or 3rd places only involve a single constructor. DH85868993 08:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current F1 box caters for 1 FL driver. The current GP and EC do a little better with 2 slots. However the template can is easily expanded and can now support 7 drivers as can be seen on the right. Field names are now a bit messy so I'll look at making them nicer. AlexJ 09:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of categorisation. The templates are my creation, for pre-World Championship Grands Prix, so that would be my fault. I would much prefer a combined infobox. Readro 13:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's 3 positives so far, so I'll press ahead with preparations. The plan is to keep use Grand Prix in the template name (as that's common in the three uses). If we're happy to keep {{{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} then I'll go along with that. I'll give it another day for any objections to be expressed and then go ahead with the changes. AlexJ 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing I've noticed - All three templates automatically adds on Grand Prix to the end of the title at present. However not all races have have Grand Prix after their titles (e.g. Coppa Acerbo and BRDC International Trophy). Looking at these articles, another very similar but slightly different template is used - Generic race report infobox. Should I look at the feasibility of merging this in with the template as well with a switch that doesn't add Grand Prix? AlexJ 12:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

{{{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} is the new template to be used for all Grand Prix events - Some basic documentation and cut-and-pastes has been provided but please feel free to help improve on that. I need to ensure all features in the F1 and EC infoboxes have been included, then I'll get them converted to this new one as well. Could I ask that any new F1 articles use {{{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} from now on. Any problems, please let me know. Thanks, AlexJ 12:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

{{{EC race report infobox}} is up for deletion as a result of the above changes. AlexJ 17:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Result of above was delete. And now {{F1 race report infobox}} is up for deletion. AlexJ 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fastest Lap on Lap X

I've just noticed that {{F1 race report infobox}} used to display the lap number on which the fastest lap was recorded, but {{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} does not. Do we want that functionality restored? Note that it's not exactly trivial, since if multiple drivers shared the fastest lap time, then they are likely to have set them on different laps. DH85868993 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting spot - it was always intended to include everything the F1 box had, the documentation even makes note of the appropriate Fast_lap field. Not quite sure why it wasn't included, but providing there are no objections I'll have a look at putting it back in. AlexJ 11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Championship position in teams infobox

I'm wondering how relevant it is to list the 2006 WCC position in the infobox in F1 team articles. Aren't readers likely to be more interested in the team's position in the 2007 championship? I also note that it's inconsistent with the driver articles, where the infobox displays the 2007 Championship position. Thoughts? DH85868993 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Overtaken by events. Following the Brazilian GP, the infoboxes for all the team articles have been updated to show the 2007 WCC position. DH85868993 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Ret / DNS"

This is just an idea, and feel free to shoot me down in flames if you want. I would like to clear up the ambiguity and confusion in results tables over drivers that started a Grand Prix which was then stopped and restarted without them for whatever reason. So did they start the race or not? We recently had issues over the Mike Thackwell and Derek Daly articles, and there is a similar question with the restart of the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, with Ricardo Rosset, Mika Salo etc. Is it a good idea to represent this in the driver results tables with a separate colour? As it stands, some instances show "Ret", others "DNS", and in many cases I think it's misleading, or at least not as informative as it should be. In any case, quite a few editors have drawn attention to it.

I am thinking maybe of showing them as "DNS" but in yellow instead of white, with a * and a footnote to describe what happened. Is this a good idea, or just further clutter? Maybe a different format - a "Ret / DNS", or a different colour? Does anyone else care? Will it be a case of no-one objecting until after I spend weeks working on it, then people come out and say they hate it? :) Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to categorise DNFs into different groups and therefore colours, e.g. (a) Failed to take the parade lap, (b) Failed to take start, (c) Retired during a race which was restarted, and so on. I'd like to help more, but I've just started university, so time is short!--Diniz (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The confusion only relates to having the information in shorthand on a results table. The competition rules are clear, a driver can't retire from a race that hasn't officialy started, so in those rare instances where a race starts without the participation of a driver who has qualified, it should be "DNS" in the drivers table with a footnote to explain the precise circumstances where this is felt necessary. If further explanation is needed this should appear in the specific race report and the footnote refer readers to that. Different colours only mean something if you can be bothered to look up what the all the different colours mean. Mighty Antar 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is to list the result as DNS or Ret (as appropriate - see below), using the standard background colour, but with an explanatory footnote. As a precursor, I think we need to arrive at an "agreed result" (i.e. DNS or Ret) for each individual case. With all due respect to Mighty Antar, I don't think it's as simple as saying it should be "DNS" in all cases - Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, so if all reliable sources list a driver's result as "Ret", then I believe that's what Wikipedia needs to say as well, even if we, personally, think it should actually be "DNS". Here is a list of all the WDC Races (that I could think of) where there is/could be dispute over whether drivers Retired or Non-Started, and the results as documented at Forix, formula1.com and www.gpracing.192. If we proceed along the "agreed result" route, then I'd recommend making this list a subpage of the Project, so that if someone comes along later and changes one of the results, we can revert it, using the "agreed result" as justification. DH85868993 02:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the usual rule which is used nowadays: DNS when you retire on the warm-up lap (including pitting on the warm-up lap to retire, like 2005 US GP), DNF when you retire on the first start of restarted race. Example of Ronnie Peterson and Riccardo Paletti show this. It would not make sense to put DNS for a driver who was killed in the race. BleuDXXXIV 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to DH85868993 for pointing out the source of confusion in the results tables, these sites may be easily verifiable, but they are very much secondary sources for checking official results published long before their respective web-pages were established. The regulations have, for as long as I can recall dictated that if a race is stopped with less than two laps completed then that part of the race is declared null and void and the race starts again as if nothing has happened. Thus a driver unable to make the new race start is automatically declared a DNS. If the race is stopped after 2 laps then its a DNF. Thus the official classification published in the case of Ronnie Peterson for the 1978 Italian Grand Prix was DNS because the race had not started. I'd suggest Autosport or Motor Sport magazines would be more accurate source for these more historical results. While not as accessable as the net, they are (or were for the periods concerned) regarded as the most authoritative source. Mighty Antar 19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources DH used is Forix, which is Autosport's Results and Statistics service. AlexJ 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What Mighty Antar says is all very well, and he's not the first person to say it, but the facts are that there are no official results for us to use, we are not supposed to interpret FIA rules to obtain our own little set of results, and the various sources disagree with each other. www.formula1.com is, as far as I know, the closest we get to official results, and their data do not agree with the rules as set out above by Mighty Antar. So therein lies our problem. Which is why I suggested the coverall "Ret / DNS" designtaion in the first place, to remove confusion which will undoubtedly ensue if we are not careful. Bretonbanquet 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat, find the relevant contemporary copies of the magazines I mentioned where the reports were compiled by reputable journalists who received copies of official results from the stewards of the meeting and you'll find a lot more accurate information than that rehashed for the web-sites where I bet there are lenghty disclaimers against typographical errors and inaccuracies in their data. It might even be an idea to email the web-sites concerned and point out mistakes for them to check so that this issue can be settled. Mighty Antar 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, being realistic for a moment, I don't suppose anyone here has copies of Motor Sport from the 70s and 80s. You're quite right, those would be very good reliable sources, but we don't have them, which is a bit of an obstacle. We have f1.com, FORIX and the usual suspects. Until someone turns up with the relevant publications, we can arrive at a compromise. Bretonbanquet 22:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1970s and 1980s copies of Motor Sport and Autosport magazine are available[here] if anyone wants to take up the mantle. Mighty Antar 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Qualifying results

That is a big question, should qualifying results influenced by penalty that drivers cater? That is nonsense to have a qualifying results influenced by penalty, reorganized the table once they have penalty WHILE we have start grid in the race table. It seems something duplicate only.

I think the qualifying should NOT influenced by the penalty, while the drivers who finished in the top 3 but cater a penalty still appear in the the press conference, what I'm remember. It should stay what original. BUT we can have a note in the race table WHY those drivers were demoted from original grid. Comments? --Aleen f1 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential FAC

I've been working extensively on 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix over the last few days. It was a featured article candidate here, and I was pretty scathing of it. So as a matter of principle when asked to help I was more than happy to. However there are no non-controversial featured race articles, so to an extent I'm working in the dark.

Anyway, I've reviewed the article as neutrally as I can against the FA criteria, but would like some extra input. In particular I'd like to see if people here think the prose is good enough to pass 1(a), and whether there are any other omissions that I haven't considered. Many thanks. BeL1EveR 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By "non-controversial race articles" I guess you mean FA articles that major on the race itself, and not one particular incident during that race? A couple of points that immediately come to mind: The article makes a big point of the white stripes, but still doesn't really explain why they're important (What is the significance of 'softer tyres'? I know, but most readers won't), and they are not mentioned after the 'pre race' section. What part, if any, did the different tyre compounds play in the race? The writing can still be improved (imho) but I'd make sure you've got all the content you want before worrying too much about tweaking it further.

Open question: How much detail should a 'normal' race article go into? A good race report in Autosport etc normally covers the main story of the race in significant detail, but also includes a fairly chunky section summarising the races of all the drivers (e.g. 'Button drove a steady race from 17th on the grid to finish 12th after an uneventful run'). Is content on the minor placings required on Wikipedia (in theory a general purpose encyclopedia)? 4u1e 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Grand Prix era drivers have their pre-F1 major GP victories listed?

So, I'm building a results table for Hermann Lang at User:Guroadrunner/Lang, and I got to thinking: this guy won a lot in Grand Prix racing; should we have an inclusive list of victories for drivers like this? – Guroadrunner 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess implemented this exact idea at Tazio_Nuvolari#Major_victories. So I'll see if I can whip up something for Lang, Muller and Rosemeyer. If there's anyone else, list them below. Guroadrunner 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify something, under no circumstances was Hermann Lang the 1939 champion. On points Müller is the champion. The season was originally supposed to include a fifth race, which could not take place due to the outbreak of war. The AIACR couldn't meet because of the war and Lang was declared champion by the Nazis when they had absolutely no authority to do so. Unfortunately, this factual error has been stated in several books and has propagated - Lang himself allowed the myth to propagate. Readro 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They should have two results lists - one for pre-F1 victories and one for F1 victories, so they can be told apart. I do think pre-F1 results should be included, because otherwise, we're missing out a part of those people's careers, which an encyclopedia shouldn't really do. But they should be separated. Lra drama 16:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're a Lang denier. I understand the circumstances caused by the war, but he was given the title despite not actually being the winner. I believe Muller and Lang should have asterisks to explain. Guroadrunner 22:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

However, thank you for fixing the results table to conform to the right way it's supposed to look - I wasn't sure how to do it and this is helpful. Guroadrunner 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

He was given the title by people without the authority to do so. He was very well regarded by the Nazis as he was from a working class background and was a Mercedes-Benz driver. He was also an officer.

Only the AIACR had the authority to declare the champion. It would be the same as if war broke out now and the Japanese motorsport authority declared Takuma Sato the 2007 champion - that would never be taken seriously and Wikipedia would never contemplate listing Sato as a champion. We're dealing with historical fact and the fact is that Muller was champion on points, which is the only way that the championship could have been decided. Muller should be listed as the champion and there should be an explanatory section in Lang's article. Readro 08:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

True, Lang got the title largely from within the Nazi German sporting authority, which didn't have the authority that AIACR did. But that's how the chips fell, is my understanding. I would call it disputed. Also, the last race of the season got cancelled because of the war so no-one was exactly crowned champion, as I understand it.

However, I agree that all of the articles relating to the 1939 championship should asterisk Lang and discuss the controversy. However, I come from the belief that we should asterisk them as both the disputed champion. Admittedly, it's a belief I arrived at a few days ago when I read all about the pre-war years, but I see some logical points to saying Lang is a disputed champion. Guroadrunner 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that AIACR were planning on changing the points system for 1939 and it was this new system the Nazis used to crown Lang the champion. However nowhere was it written that new system had been brought into use so others believed the old system to be in place which would have made Muller champion. It's just one of those historical events that doesn't neatly fit into the box. Technically there is no champion as AIACR didn't announce a winner, but history tells that Muller would have been champion under the scoring system that was believed to be used, while Lang was crowned champion by the German motorsport authority. It's best to describe it as disputed in my opinion. AlexJ 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There were discussions about changing the points system but no change ever occurred. Interestingly, the points that Lang was quoted as having by the Nazis do not tally with either of the points systems. In modern times do we wait for the FIA to announce that someone is champion before stating such? No, we go by the points system. In no way was Lang the champion. Lang was "declared" champion purely as a piece of political propaganda. If say the Italian national authority declared Fisichella the champion, would Wikipedia state that Fisichella was champion? No! The championship is decided on the points system, not on who has the most political allies. The Mercedes-Benz museum has even removed from their Silver Arrows exhibit the statement on their wall about Lang being the 1939 champion. The controversy should be mentioned in the relevant pages, but Lang should not be listed as a champion or even as a disputed champion. Wikipedia deals in facts, not politics. Lang was second. Readro 13:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably the most correct solution would be to list no champion (with appropriate explanatory text), since, as far as I'm aware, the body with the authority to declare the champion (the AIACR) never did, and we don't know for sure which points system was in force. Having said that, I think the best (most informative) solution is to list both drivers as disputed champion (with appropriate explanatory text). I think it would be just as incorrect to identify Müller as undisputed champion as it would be to say Lang was. DH85868993 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Instances of Mercedes-Benz in early races

Should they be directed to Mercedes-Benz, or Mercedes-Benz in motorsport? I ask because Ferrari redirects to Scuderia Ferrari, and similarly the Mercedes team was a racing offshoot of the main manufacturer. Guroadrunner 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz in motorsport does contain info about their early races so I guess that's the most logical place to link to. AlexJ 20:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As things currently stand, Mercedes-Benz in motorsport is probably the best place to link to. To date, I'd held off updating the links, pending the possible creation of a Mercedes-Benz in Formula One article, per this discussion. DH85868993 02:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

BMW Sauber F1.08

A stub article on BMW's presumed chassis next year, the F1.08. All of the stats in the infobox are assumptions, and there is pretty much no text outside of the actual article. Delete it per WP:CRYSTAL? The359 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's built but not ready for primetime. This will be a strange recommendation – take everything on the F1.08 article and hide it on the F1.07 page using  tags (or, preferably, somebody's sandbox). It's already built, so no reason to burn that work. It just doesn't belong on the mainspace yet. Guroadrunner 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't belong on the F1.07 page, sandbox is pretty much it. Besides, how much work is there really? Most of it appears copied from the F1.07 page anyway. The359 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It serves no encyclopedic purpose in its current form, and we won't be able to expand it until around March next year (and then only if anyone is inclined to write about the car, rather than just listing the sponsors and the race results!). The content is entirely speculative, there are no facts to report as yet, so it really should go. 4u1e 11:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Negative! The article is not a crystal balling article. There is a source stating that this chassis would be used in 2008. However, there is no such information about the chassis. That's why we need to keep that stub. Raymond Giggs 12:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you delete that... well... you have to rebuilt the article - it is troublesome! Raymond Giggs 12:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not very troublesome, surely? Just cut and paste the infobox across from F1.07 - which is all that has been done here anyway. The only fact in the article is that the type number will be F1.08. That's not really enough to build an article on. What's the rush? 4u1e 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article is "not" crystal balling, then I'd like to see your sources that confirm that the F1.08, which does not yet exist, will have a suspension setup as described in the infobox, as well as Petronas fuel, a BMW Sauber "QSG" gearbox, and other such bits that might not be on the car next year because of some new innovation. You even assumed the Portugeuese and Suomi Wikipedias would have F1.08 articles by retaining the Wikilinks from the F1.07 page. No articles exist on those Wikis.

I'm being WP:BOLD and merely redirecting the article to BMW Sauber. Anyone who wants to recreate this in March can figure out how to do it in five minutes. The359 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? I think that you don't know what is called crystal ball. The name of the chassis is confirmed. I believe that you are talking about the name of the chassis is also crystal balling. (If you don't know the source has been placed on the Wikipedia, you should quit editing.) What I mean is, leave that stub there, just to put some main information. Raymond Giggs 11:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep the chassis name has been confirmed. Some of the info in the infobox is crystal balling. I suggest just remove the information that has not yet been confirmed. I've also reverted your edit, The 359. More information, won't be revealed in March, but in January at the launch of the new car. The redirect hasn't been discussed, until the redirect in question has been discussed, the page is no longer redirecting to the BMW Sauber page. Davnel03 14:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what Crystal Ball is. Every statistic in the box on that page is Crystal Ball, because the car does not exist and you do not know what sort of layout or technology will be in place on the call. Yes, it is established that the car will be called F1.08. However, that does NOT mean it deserves an article just to tell us the name. The name is already listed on 2008 Formula One season, as with several other established chassis. None of the others have a page dedicated to them yet, because it's just foolish and jumping the gun. I am turning the page back to a redirect (much better then simply deleting it) because the ONLY text that can legitimatelly be placed on the page is "The BMW Sauber F1.08 is BMW Sauber's planned car for the 2008 season." And that's just not worthy of an article at the moment. Consensus was that the article does not belong right now, so reverting my redirect was uncalled for. The359 17:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said (typed?) The359. There is far to much speculaive cruft in futire articles already, without completely inventine car details. Pyrop e 10:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbanzano has now done the same thing by creating McLaren MP4-23. I've deleted the text again and redirected it to McLaren. The359 19:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI....

I suggest we put Kimi Raikkonen, Lewis Hamilton and 2007 Formula One season on our watchlists; they are already being targeted by IPs and other registered users. Davnel03 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a possibility of more trouble and sweeping changes. Nico Rosberg, Robert Kubica, and Nick Heidfeld's cars have apparently failed post-race technical inspection for fuel irregularities. This could change the championship. The359 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Source. Should we put in a request for Raikkonen to be pulled from ITN on the main page? AlexJ 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd wait. Technically, he hasn't won it yet, since the Race Results have not been posted by the FIA, but I think we can hold off until there is something more certain. The359 21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be ongoing, apparently. Stewards made a decision not to change the results, but now McLaren is appealing this decision. The359 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading that, it appears that McLaren are not aiming for any change in the race results, just clarification of how the stewards could be so useless. It would appear that Kimi will remain champ. Pyrop e 07:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the BBC report. IF they do appeal, then do we need to put next to the Brazilian GP results "pending appeal" or something? Davnel03 09:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Formula One circuits

What do people think about the recently updated format for {{Formula One circuits}}?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Formula_One_circuits&oldid=166179957
Personally, I prefer the old format, which is consistent with most (all?) of the other "circuits" templates, e.g. {{ALMS circuits}}, {{Champ Car tracks}}, etc. DH85868993 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The original certainly seems much easier to read and understand, in my opinion. The359 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur with comments, revert it to the old one. The new one is less easy to work out. Guroadrunner 02:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not useful and not pretty. Pyrop e 07:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with The 359. The original version would be clearer to understand for people not interested in formula one to see the circuits. Also, shouldn't it be updated to show the 2008 season circuits in the same way the {{Formula One teams}} template has. Eddie6705 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it to the old format. Re updates for 2008 - see subsequent discussion. DH85868993 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I upset your scheme. I thought I'd make the template comply with what appears to be the standard kind of Navbox format across the encyclopedia. Maybe this is something worth considering. Sardanaphalus 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments below in relation to the one above, you appear to contradict yourself. On the one hand you argue that you wanted to "make the template comply with what appears to be the standard kind of Navbox", and on the other you state that you are only aiming for consistency among F1 boxes. However, a quick skim through the vast majority of motorsport-, and certainly F1-related, boxes reveals that they are all pretty similar. Team navboxes mostly follow the "centrally aligned, personnel > drivers > cars" structure, while the infobox formats are consistent with width and presentation issues across the entire WP:Motorsport remit. My suspicion of coordination is due to the fact that, within a couple of days, three separate editors have started making bold, unconsidered, unhelpful and undiscussed major changes to previusly dormant templates. It just seems odd. Pyrop e 10:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I may be contradicting myself; I'm not sure but don't think I am. I guess all I mean is that a template using unaligned subheadings and chunky dividers doesn't look too good here. A template that also features a jumble of unaligned flagicons, however, looks even worse. Just one person's opinion. Once again, sorry that I seem to've been too bold. Sardanaphalus 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside: there seems to be an attack of the uniformists on navboxes at the moment. Never mind that the "usual" format and colouring are simultaneously clumsy and dull, "everything must be the same" seems to be the rallying cry. I have already tried to fend of some of the raptors at {{Scuderia Ferrari}}, but I get the impression that someone out there is coordinating this. Pyrop e 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any coordinated "attack" by "uniformists", but, as a pair of new eyes here, I'd say the F1-related templates could certainly benefit from some sort of consistency in presentation - e.g. some use (large) bullets as dividers, some use vertical lines, etc; some align their subheadings, some have them unaligned; and so on. Unless, I guess, those minding the F1 area don't want or think consistency (not uniformity) is worthwhile. Sardanaphalus 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sardanaphalus, whilst I appreciate your "pair of new eyes" and the concept of being bold, it might have been a good idea to discuss some of your proposed changes here before implementing them. For example, your changes to {{Former F1 driver}}, whilst probably OK in their own right (although, personally, I think they make the template look a little cramped), mean the look of the template is now inconsistent with {{Le Mans drivers}} and {{Former Grand Prix motorcycle rider}}, with which it is often "stacked" - see John Surtees as an example. DH85868993 09:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm still pretty new (but being bold as advised) and this WikiProject is my introduction to the concept. Bringing my eyes to bear on the Former F1 driver template again, I see what you mean, so I'll increase the line-spacing a little. I'll also amend Le Mans drivers and the Former motorcycle template accordingly, unless this will perturb you or anyone else..? Thanks for your message. Sardanaphalus 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would hold off. While being bold is suggested and encouraged at times, does not makes its use helpful at all times. These templates are used on a large number of pages, and their layout was discussed as a whole for WikiProject:Motorsport in an attempt to bring them in line with one another, not just on WikiProject:F1. Changing layouts of templates that affect a large number of pages should be discussed first, and not be changed on the fly under the mask of being bold. Your suggestion and input as to how these templates can be changed is welcomed, but simply changing them without informing anyone seems to be causing more harm than good. The359 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the quick response. Doesn't holding off mean I should revert the Former F1 driver and Former F1 team templates? If so, I'll do so, but hope some people have noticed that, for information spread across more than one line, the narrower line-spacing is more effective at keeping it together rather than each line looking like a new entry (if you see what I mean). Sardanaphalus 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We were working on new standardised driver infobox designs at WP:MOTOR a little while back. I'll try and find out where we got to there. AlexJ 10:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's wpf1 Archive 10 gone?

Archives 10, 11 and 12 appear to be blanked or gone?? I have no clue what happened though. Guroadrunner 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think User:KyleRGiggs is trying to set up a bot to automatically archive this page. One of the temporary(?) side-effects is that the contents of Archives 10, 11 and 12 have been restored to this page - notice the very old discussions at the top of the page and that the page is currently 500K in size. DH85868993 03:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we need a bot when people were doing a good enough job of making archives manually. The359 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not especially fussed whether future archiving is done manually or automatically. But I am keen to see Archives 10, 11 and 12 restored to their former state, since I (and probably others) have made links to the archived discussions they contained. DH85868993 04:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also making this talk page a pain to load every time. The359 04:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needed an archive. But 21 days is far too rapid! Plenty of our discussions can get reignited after longer time periods than that, especially as there are only usually two races in such a time period. I did ask the aforementioned used to discuss his propsed changes with us first, bue he ignored me and then left a rather sarcastic comment on my userpage. Not chuffed is an understatement. Pyrop e 07:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to apologize to all of the contributors. What I wanna do is to archive the talk page into 205kbs, just it. Raymond Giggs 09:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I pulled the bot off – I've pulled the bot off. I don't know who put it on, but it seemed like taking a Bold Move and remove it was the right thing to do. So, there. Guroadrunner 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope the bot paid cash. Ok, so KRG had a point about the page size, and we need to archive more often, but how to do that without arbitrary size or age limits? Significant discussions ought to remain up for reference and familiarisation reasons, until their content becomes an ingrained part of WP:F1 protocol, but brief discussion on smaller matters could be archived after just a week or so. My preference would be that we retain the hands-on, human approach, but that we try and give ourselves a kick in the pant more often, to get it done. I know it's dully and fiddly to weed out the wheat and chaff, but I'll step up now and again so long as others fel the same way? Pyrop e 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the manual approach is the right way to go. If a discussion appears to have run it's course then perhaps after a week it can be archived straight away, rather than waiting and archiving a bunch of topics at once. AlexJ 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup - manual is the way to go. 4u1e 17:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Updates to templates for 2008

I notice that the 2007 teams and drivers in {{Formula One teams}} have already been replaced with the 2008 ones. Personally, I think this is a bit premature - I think the 2007 teams and drivers are still a lot more "current" than the 2008 ones. I'd recommend retaining the 2007 information in the template until at least the end of the calendar year. Note that I'd be quite happy for the template to contain the 2008 information in addition to the 2007 data. I'd also apply the same logic to other templates, e.g. {{Formula One circuits}}. Thoughts? DH85868993 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean with showing the 2007 and 2008 constructors and drivers in one template. as with Formula One Circuits. But wouldn't it just be repeating most of the template. However, if there is a suitable way of showing both, i would endorse it. Eddie6705 16:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The other problem with 2008 is we are guessing car numbers. For example, will McLaren be ranked below Prodrive? Being a unique case which the rulebook doesn't cover means we won't know until the FIA publish the entry list. I suggest we stick with 2007 for now. AlexJ 22:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

...and there is plenty of doubt that Prodrive will actually be there! Pyrop e 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the 2007 info back into {{Formula One teams}}, so it now contains both the 2007 and 2008 details, with no car numbers specified for 2008. DH85868993 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of your fine Wikiproject, but I have been poking at the F1 articles and my gut instinct is that driver numbers should wait for the teams/FIA to announce them (Which hasn't been done yet unless someone knows better?) so I've been reverting such changes. Does the wikiproject most involved have a view? Narson 14:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the project as a whole, but I'm in agreement with you on this. It is far too soon to start guesstimating car numbers for next year. We don't know what will become of McLaren, the fuel appeal may yet be upheld, and Prodrive may or may not be in the running (depeding on MoU rulings). Pyrop e 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also some inconsistency in the driver infoboxes with respect to car numbers - some still have the 2007 car numbers, while for other drivers the car numbers have been removed. I'd recommend retaining the 2007 car numbers for now. DH85868993 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Navbox formatting

Hi all. Some questions have lately been raised with regard to the formatting of {{Scuderia Ferrari}}, which go to the very heart of how we as a project deal with navbox formatting and style. Please see the discussion at the template's talk page for an update on the issues and, so that we can bring everyone with an interest together, leave comments here. Cheers. Pyrop e 14:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blue writing on a blue background ({{Williams}}) or blue writing on a red background ({{Scuderia Ferrari}}) is poor design and an accessibility worry. While I understand the idea of getting the template to stand out it is important that we don't abandon good and appropriate design style. An alternative should be sort, or the navboxes should use the standard formatting. violet/riga (t) 19:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea of using the colours of each constructor on the templates, it's very original, but sometimes this makes some text hard to read (namely the edit/hide links). In fact I've used an accessibility tool to check colour contrast [4] and templates like {{Scuderia Ferrari}}, {{Williams}} or {{BMW Sauber}} didn't pass the tests. {{Renault F1}} or {{Honda F1}} are OK. I think a possible solution is to use the colours of the title (constructor's name) also in those links. It is possible to set the colour of the [hide] link using "titlestyle = color:white;", but I don't know how to change the VDE links. I'll ask in the talk page of {{navbox}}. If I discover how to change this, do you agree with this accessibility improvement? Best regards —surueña 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with having templates in different colors. Standards don't mean required. I also have no problem reading any of the mentioned F1 templates. The359 20:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you might not but others do and others think it is bad design style to have clashing colours for background and text. violet/riga (t) 20:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted opinions? The359 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really - it's an accessibility issue that we should try and fix and I was asking for your ideas. violet/riga (t) 20:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And I believe it is fairly accessible. At most, some slight change to the existing colors would more then fix any issue with be able to see VDE. The359 20:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion The359. But if those VDE and [hide] links were in other colour they will be more accessible. Do you have anything against this specific change? Cheers —surueña 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If the VDE/Hide things can be changed, then I have no problem whatsoever. It solves everyone's problems. The359 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if they can be. If they can't then, as these are purely minor editorial links, I really don't think that butchering useful colourschemes is the way to go. These are navbox templates, for navigation use. So long as that information is accessible to all then they serve their purpose. Pyrop e 11:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable drivers

What is the current inclusion criteria for "notable drivers"? Looking at the Ferrari template there are some that I wouldn't really think are important in the history of the team. She we look at an "X wins OR Y years" criteria? violet/riga (t) 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

comment copied from {{Scuderia Ferrari}}: Inclusion criteria would be a good thing, but I have a feeling that the criteria would have to be determined on a team-by-team basis and would be debated long into the night. For a long-established team such as Ferrari you might argue that only World Championship-winners were sufficiently notable. But where would that leave Gilles Villeneuve? Ok, so we widen it to "drivers who are commonly associated with Ferrari". But that is subjective, how do you comply with WP:V? Ok, so make it "drivers who have won more than x races for Ferrari". But what about von Trips? He only won two races (fewer than Irvine) and his best WC ranking was only second (as was Irvine's) yet he is absolutely associated with the Prancing Horse. See how difficult this gets? Pyrop e 14:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Further to the "x wins or y years" proposal: Again we have a problem whereby some widely notable Ferrari drivers would probably fail. You argued previously that Eddie Irvine was not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. He drove for the Scuderia for three years and won four races. This is in contrast to René Arnoux, who only competed for just over two years, winning three times. However, I can't think of many F1 followers who would argue that Arnoux is not a notable Ferrari driver. His qualifying performances are still talked about today, and his verve, wit and attitude marked him out from the crowd and chimed perfectly with the Italian team's persona at the time. How do you quantify verve? Pyrop e 11:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to confuse a notable F1 driver with notable [team] driver. We also need to be aware of the layout of the template - including too many people makes it more difficult to read the list. violet/riga (t) 11:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but my point is that Arnoux is often seen as the quintissential turbo-era Ferrari driver. He was certainly notable in relation to other teams as well, but he deserves a place in Ferrari's history. Pyrop e 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We could possibly come up with a guideline, but not a rule, I think. The criteria are going to be different for different teams. Possibly along these lines:

Notable drivers for a team may include drivers from the following categories:

Drivers who won a world championship - for any team, not just the team in question. (i.e. Damon Hill is a notable driver for Arrows.)
Drivers who won a race for that team - for teams with many winning drivers (i.e. Ferrari) not all winning drivers may be notable.
Drivers with an especially strong link to a specific team, examples might include Pierluigi Martini for Minardi and Gilles Villeneuve for Scuderia Ferrari. This would not usually include simply driving for a long time for the team.
Drivers who are especially notable in their own right, for reasons other than world championships or wins. (i.e. Roland Ratzenberger for Simtek). Normal Wikipedia notability criteria do not apply here (otherwise all drivers are notable!), the notability must be exceptional.
Not all teams have notable drivers. Sorry. (i.e. Spyker F1)
Common sense trumps all other guidelines!

That mixes up the concepts of 'notable team drivers' and 'notable drivers', deliberately. Such guidelines may help people's thinking, but you can't make them into rules - it's too fluid a concept. 4u1e 12:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, from the list on the Ferrari template, I'd drop Irvine, Barrichello and Tambay (not really notable in a Ferrari context) and consider dropping Alboreto, Berger and Bandini (similar reasons). I would add Giancarlo Baghetti though, as he made his own little footnote in F1 history in a Ferrari. 4u1e 13:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report

Too big! This takes up a large proportion of even a 16:9 display. The text should be smaller as per most infoboxes, e.g. Template:Infobox Company & Template:Infobox Aircraft and this should also allow us to narrow it. Mark83 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What's a 16:9 display.

Let me put it this way: it works fine on 800 x 600 resolution, which is what a lot of people are working with. Guroadrunner 04:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 800 x 600 is the standard. At the very least, 1024 x 768 (which I happen to be running). I agree that the box does cause some problems, especially if an article does not have a lot of text. It clashes with the race results table, forcing it to be shrunk in width and breaking each line into multiple rows. 2003 Australian Grand Prix is a good example at this resolution. The359 05:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The race results clash is down to lack of text in the article which would push it down far enough to not overlap (unless at a very high resolution). This can be avoided by adding {{clear}} just above the results table. As for the width, I found when viewed at 800x600 (the lowest resolution used practically, except on mobile devices) when combined with a two paragraph lead, it doesn't go down further than the TOC box. For 1024... and larger resolutions it doesn't go much further than the first section, and takes up less than a third of the screen. For a widescreen display, it would be even of the width of the screen taken up. However, it would be possible to reduce the size. Take a look at User:AlexJ/Sandbox7 for examples of shrunk GP race report infoboxes and see if you think it's an improvement. AlexJ 10:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you are trying to get at Mark83, but I think Alex's examples show why the format evolved in the way that it has. Possible text wrapping problms in the results table (which can be solved) is replaced by forced wrapping in the infobox. We either need to reformat the infobox to avoid having driver and team appearing on the same line (which would then cause the table's length to grow enormously), reduce the font size (in the manner of {{Infobox Football biography}}) or make sure that the {{-}} tag is used where needed. Pyrop e 10:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been putting {{clear}} in anytime I see the overlap. Guroadrunner 22:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it works the same as {{-}} Pyrop e 13:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Macca fine confirmed

Just a general note that McLaren's fine has been set as "a sum in excess of $50million" after effective prize money has been deducted from the $100million dollar fine. The money will go towards establishing the "FIA Development Fund" - a fund to promote the development of safer motor sport worldwide. Source. Probably quite a few articles that need updating to reflect this. AlexJ 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Font-size etc used for results tables in drivers' articles

Hi – Would anyone be perturbed if I began to reduce the font-size used for drivers' results tables by a notch (e.g. by 5% to 90%) and reduce the horizontal space used in these tables by combining the Engine/Chassis columns? Here's an example of what I have in mind (Juan Montoya's CART results):

Year	Team	Chassis Engine	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	Rnk	Pts
1999	Ganassi	Reynard Honda	MIA 10	MOT 13	LBH 1	NAZ 1	RIO 1	GAT 11	MIL 10	POR 2	CLE 1	ROA 13	TOR Ret	MIC 2	DET 17	MDO 1	CHI 1	VAN 1	LAG 8	HOU 25	SUR Ret	FON 4	1st	212
2000	Ganassi	Lola Toyota	MIA Ret	LBH Ret	RIO Ret	MOT 7	NAZ 4	MIL 1	DET 18	POR Ret	CLE 6	TOR Ret	MIC 1	CHI 12	MDO Ret	ROA Ret	VAN Ret	LAG 6	GAT 1	HOU 2	SUR 24	FON 10	9th	126

in place of:

Yr	Team	Chassis	Engine	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	Rank	Points
1999	Ganassi	Reynard	Honda	MIA 10	MOT 13	LBH 1	NAZ 1	RIO 1	GAT 11	MIL 10	POR 2	CLE 1	ROA 13	TOR Ret	MIC 2	DET 17	MDO 1	CHI 1	VAN 1	LAG 8	HOU 25	SUR Ret	FON 4	1st	212
2000	Ganassi	Lola	Toyota	MIA Ret	LBH Ret	RIO Ret	MOT 7	NAZ 4	MIL 1	DET 18	POR Ret	CLE 6	TOR Ret	MIC 1	CHI 12	MDO Ret	ROA Ret	VAN Ret	LAG 6	GAT 1	HOU 2	SUR 24	FON 10	9th	126

The smaller size means these kinds of tables are more likely to be viewable in their entirety on a smaller screen (800x600) or if a browser window isn't using the entire width of a larger screen. Sardanaphalus 23:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed the width of results tables in the past and I think we've pretty much accepted that they won't fit on a 800x600 screen. IMHO, it would be a lot of effort (there are over 700 F1 driver articles) for not much gain. DH85868993 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not something a bot could accomplish? Sardanaphalus 04:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Ouch! Reading that on a 800 x 600 screen really hurts my eyes – text too small. Did you try looking at this at that resolution? Way too small! The current box is fine. Guroadrunner 08:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Guroad. Too much of a squash. Davnel03 09:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed about the font size change, but combining the chassis and engine details is far too limiting. Pyrop e 13:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps not 800x600 but the next one up (1024x7something). Here, on a 1152x864 screen with a Firefox browser filling the screen but including a 2.5" sidebar, Montoya's results (and most F1 drivers' results) spill off the righthand side but don't if the slightly smaller font is used - such an improvement. Perhaps an option to notch font-sizes up/down could be included at the top/bottom of each table?

As to limiting the chassis/engine setails by combining them, I don't understand. In the Montoya example, no information has been lost and closely related information appears closer together; in the other example I've seen, the only "loss" would be prefixes/suffixes to teams' names (e.g. "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" -> "McLaren", "Scuderia Ferrari" -> Ferrari", etc). Sardanaphalus 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You have brought an IndyCar table to an F1 discussion, don't expect it to fully explain your point of view! Go and take a look at a few F1 boxes and you'll notice that in quite a few cases a single chassis was run with a variety of engines (the distictions between which are well-handled in the present format, but which couldn't be shown using your propsed one) and that by losing the "prefixes" (actually, intrinsic parts of an entrant's identity) you oversimplify and obfuscate entrant information. Pyrop e 12:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Montoya's CART results suggest the more compact format can apply outside F1 as well. I believe this kind of format can answer your concerns (with the exception of the sponsor prefixes; see below):

Year	Team	Chassis Engine	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	Pts	Rnk
1971	March	April 711 Bloggs DFV V8	RSA	ESP	MON	NED	FRA	GBR	GER	AUT Ret	ITA	CAN	USA					0	-
1972	March	April 711 Doe Engine V8	ARG 11	RSA 7														0	-
		April 721X Doe Engine V8			ESP Ret	MON 16	BEL 12
		April 721G Cosworth DFV V8						FRA Ret	GBR 9	GER Ret	AUT 10	ITA 13	CAN DSQ	USA NC
1973	BRM	BRM P160C BRM V12	ARG Ret	BRA 8														18th	2
		BRM P160D BRM V12			RSA Ret
		BRM P160D BRM V12				ESP Ret	BEL 5	MON Ret	SWE 13	FRA 9	GBR 12	NED Ret	GER Ret	AUT DNS	ITA Ret	CAN Ret	USA Ret

As this would be a table appearing in an article about a driver, anyone interested to discover his/her team's sponsor/s for a particular year could visit the team's article, where using the official full name would seem more relevant. In case you think otherwise, I'm suggest these amendments as I reckon it follows the spirit of the neat abbreviation system used for the races themselves (three-letter IDs and coded backgrounds). Sardanaphalus 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative format, re-enlarging team name and race columns but further reducing the Chassis/Engine font-size (driver article):

Year	Team	Chassis Engine	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	Pts	Rnk
1971	March	April 711 Bloggs DFV V8	RSA	ESP	MON	NED	FRA	GBR	GER	AUT Ret	ITA	CAN	USA					0	-
1972	March	April 711 Doe Engine V8	ARG 11	RSA 7														0	-
		April 721X Doe Engine V8			ESP Ret	MON 16	BEL 12
		April 721G Cosworth DFV V8						FRA Ret	GBR 9	GER Ret	AUT 10	ITA 13	CAN DSQ	USA NC
1973	BRM	BRM P160C BRM V12	ARG Ret	BRA 8														18th	2
		BRM P160D BRM V12			RSA Ret
		BRM P160D BRM V12				ESP Ret	BEL 5	MON Ret	SWE 13	FRA 9	GBR 12	NED Ret	GER Ret	AUT DNS	ITA Ret	CAN Ret	USA Ret

So is that a works March or a privateer? Cos you can't tell from that table, and yes, it really does matter. These tables have been messed about so much, I've given up on them. Removing information from the tables is nuts. And the font is too small, in my humble opinion. Bretonbanquet 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that by using an abbreviated name rather than the full entrant name, we lose information. Fine perhaps for modern entries where constructor=team but in older races it would be unclear what was meant. I don't see what's wrong with the current situation. AlexJ 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's only the modern tables that don't fit on the screen, all the 1950s-80s tables fit, as far as I know. So what's the problem with them? Bretonbanquet 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

None, probably, apart from wide line spacing, a cosmetic detail that catches my non-specialist eye as the rest of the table design (save widths) seems good. You could distinguish between works/privateer in various ways, e.g. background (white or grey) and/or by link and/or by small "P" beside, and/or... But I think I'm beginning to empathize with Bretonbanquet's giving-up on these kinds of tables. Ditto templates such as the team templates that feature subheadings lost beside lists and/or jumbles of flags. Sardanaphalus 22:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Late comment, but you can't use any of the methods you suggest to identify privateers, because they don't tell you which privateers - four or five teams entered Brabhams in the mid-1960s, for example. Also, it's not quite a distinction between constructors and privateers - I'm sure we could uncover a team which entered both its own and others chassis in a single season (Tyrrell, Penske?). 4u1e 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1024x724 is a pretty standard size but people need larger monitors and good eyes to work with that resolution. On 14" monitors, you really need 800 x 600. Why limit accessibility?

Why indeed - hence my suggestions. Have you tried printing a few of the pages whose tables spill off the edge? Perhaps an option to notch font-sizes up/down could be included at the top/bottom of each table? Sardanaphalus 03:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The pages are primarily for internet viewing, When printing, they fit fine under landscape mode. I'll reiterate: there's no point in making the boxes small to the point of being hard to read for users with small monitors. Guroadrunner 03:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Which I guess is fine if you don't mind landscape mode. Is an option to notch font-sizes up/down possible at the top/bottom of each table? Sardanaphalus 04:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "losing" the team names – those are the official team names. This year, the Ferrari team is Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro. McLaren is Vodafone McLaren Mercedes. These are the factual entry names of the teams. To fudge them is not a good idea. Guroadrunner 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the official names weren't mentioned within each team's article. Elsewhere, however - especially in tables where space is more likely to be at a premium - why not? My memory of recent F1 commentary I've heard is that Ferrari is called "Ferrari", McLaren "McLaren", etc. I don't have the link to hand, but I also recall reading something about Wikipedia favoring commonplace names over official names. Sardanaphalus 03:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: Are you arguing this to favor changing the names, or to favor shrinking the tables to unreadable levels? Guroadrunner 03:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither, I think. It's for the sake of the line-wrapping the full names can cause and unnecessary increase in space used by these tables. Sorry if that isn't clear. I guess I find it a pity that this and the above problem remain in tables that otherwise feature neat design, abbreviation and use of background colors. Sardanaphalus 04:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Background colour for NC results

The two "motor racing results legend" templates are currently inconsistent with regard to the background colour for "NC" (Not Classified) results. {{F1 driver results legend 2}} (which is used by the majority of F1 articles) specifies it as blue, whereas {{F1 driver results legend}} (which is used by a minority of F1 articles, but also lots of non-F1 articles) specifies it as purple. What's the best course of action? Note that {{F1 driver results legend 2}} has some F1-specific content (Friday test drivers), which makes it unsuitable for use in non-F1 articles. DH85868993 03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest turning all the NC colours to blue as specified in the F1 criteria, regardless of the F1-specific content, which simply won't be used in non-F1 articles. But the categories that do match, e.g. NC, Ret, etc should all be the same colour. Blue. Lra drama 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"NC" is a non-points finish, not a retirement, so those two should be separate colours, which is how they are in {{F1 driver results legend 2}}. This template is used for all F1 driver article results tables, whereas the other template is used for all sorts of results tables. Naturally, if enough people decide otherwise, it'll all get changed again. Bretonbanquet 10:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer that NC be blue. It does signify that the car was still running at the end of the race, which is a distinctly better outcome than Ret. Pyrop e 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Retired also has various rule connotations that means it should not be in the same colour as 'finished outside the points'. The ability to change an engine is a pretty good advantage, especially as it has the potential to set you up to be on a fresh engine for a deciding race. (though not as big an advantage for Hamilton as it seemed. Engine with no gear box is not overly useful) Narson 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

F1 about to lose featured status

The Formula One Featured Article Review will likely conclude shortly by removing the article's Featured Status. Basically it needs more inline citations. I don't disagree with the criticism, but have found it difficult to easily cite such a broad article - can anyone help? Cheers. 4u1e 11:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to get on it but I don't have excellent sources. Just semi-good sources. Guroadrunner 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm finding is that the ones I have are far too specific for the task in hand :( 4u1e 08:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that it needs so many inline citations. According to the MoS, inline citation only needs to be applied for direct quotations and material that is likely to be challenged. As 4u1e states, this is a broad article and as such contains only a limited volume of such material. Sure quotations need citation to ensure that the quote is used verbatim and not taken out of context, and detailed dates and specific regulations, facts and statistics also need citing, but broad statements about the set-up of F1 do not. Pyrop e 12:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2005 USGP delisting

Also 2005 United States Grand Prix could be on the verge of delisting. Davnel03 17:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why write this with surprise in the tone - you personally listed it for FAR? Guroadrunner 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2005 US GP shouldn't be, as I fixed the only two (very easy to fix, btw) problems raised. 4u1e 08:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what is this all about Davnel? Would it not have been more constructive to actually do something about them instead of listing it for FAR and walking away? Pyrop e 12:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The two issues, both minor ones to be perfectly honest which could have been raised at WP:F1 first before taking the rather extreme step of going to FAR, have been fixed and some other small improvements made to improve the prose. It definitely didn't need taking to the second stage of delisting. AlexJ 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The FAR/FARC process seems to have broken down slightly there - my understanding is that given that the two problems raised initially were both rapidly fixed in FAR, it should never have proceeded to FARC. <shrug> 4u1e 19:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked at the FAR/C talk page and it seems likely that the FAR passed to FARC because the original nominator never came back to say whether or not they were happy with the changes I had made. It might be an idea to keep an eye on any such nominations you make, Davnel. Cheers. 4u1e 14:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Several things. Pyrope, I never just walked away and let you pick up the pieces, I legitimatelly had no access to the internet on either Saturday or the vast majority of Sunday. I also have been keeping a very good eye on the FAR's of both 2005 USA and Formula One. In my view, USA will probably be kept as FA, but unless anything dramatic is done with the Formula One article, I believe it should indeed be delisted. And Pyrope, comments like that drive me away from this project. On that note, I will no longer be participating with this project as much as I used to. I will still make the odd comment on this page, but my participation in this project is coming to an end. I'll still be a member, but won't be editing many articles related to Formula One. Cheers, Davnel03 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what surprises people Davnel, is that you may have kept an eye on the two nominations, but you did not comment on the FAR/C review, or edit the articles, after the original nominations about 6 weeks ago. This is not to do with whether or not you had access to the internet last weekend. The F1 article is a slightly more complicated case, but I fixed the issues you raised regarding the 2005 USGP two days after you posted them, but you have not commented either way on the changes. Because you did not comment, user:Marskell assumed that you felt the 2005 USGP was still unsuitable for FA and therefore transferred it to FARC. It's not the end of world, but it would have helped if the eye you were keeping on the articles had been a little more visible. 4u1e 19:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Davnel, as you yourself pointed out, you nominated the F1 article in September! And as I stated at the review, what exactly is it that makes you so sure that Formula One should be delisted? It is an interesting, informative, well-written and -researched article, about a subject of extremely broad interest, that is just missing a very few cites (most of which have now been rectified by 4u1e and others, not you). This is starting to look petty and vindictive, just because people don't jump to edit each article as and when you so demand. Pyrop e 11:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Davnel, "Would it not have been more constructive to actually do something about them instead of listing it for FAR and walking away" is a very fair question, not something which you should be offended about. If you disagree say so/explain.Mark83 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Mark83. However, there are a significant amount of problems in the article:

- The return of racing (1950–1958) - One citation needed tag.
The rest of the sections in the "History" part are unsourced:
- The formation of the Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA) in 1979 set off the FISA-FOCA war, during which FISA and its president Jean-Marie Balestre clashed repeatedly with the Formula One Constructors Association over television profits and technical regulations. - Unsourced.
- Third paragraph of "Big business" section: However, many observers felt that the ban on driver aids was a ban in name only as the FIA did not have the technology or the methods to eliminate these features from competition. - Unsourced.
Bottom three pagraphs of "Racing and strategy" section - Unsourced.
"Drivers and constructors", "Grand Prix" and "Circuits" sections unsourced (one ref only).
"Future of Formula One" section - unsourced. Quote:
- FIA President Max Mosley believes F1 must focus on efficiency to stay technologically relevant in the automotive industry as well as keep the public excited about F1 technology. - Source?

There are problems in the article which need to be rectified. Football (soccer) recently was up for FAR. Look at it was like before, with several paragraphs unsourced. Look at it now, with those paragraphs sourced. The same needs to happen with the Formula One, because if it doesn't, the chances of it being delisted are significantly high. Davnel03 18:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree there are still problems. Thanks for giving a few examples, if you want to slap a few {{cn}} tags on the article on the things that you find questionable/unverified I'll work on finding references for them. Cheers. Mark83 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a load of tags. Don't take it as an insult, but hopefully this will help edge out referencing problems now that others know where the problems lie. Pyrope's comment seemed to suggest that he thought the article is very good. In my view, a good article should be fully referenced - not with several sections unreferenced. Davnel03 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal talk:Formula One/Management of selected articles

Is the above page inactive? If so, I really think we could try and revive the page. Davnel03 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(An edit on Wikipedia!?) Personally I think that we should removed all the nominations and start all over again. This page has potential as it has proved in the past.--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Skully. I was looking at this forlorn area after I ended up there from Juan Manuel Fangio. Clear the slate and it could have a revival. Guroadrunner 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts: Firstly, someone really needs to push the process - it sort of worked for a bit when I did so a while back - Monaco Grand Prix is the best example from that period. (I don't intend to try and run the process again, though - I'm not conscientious or consistent enough in my Wikipedia habits!) Secondly, it needs a deadline and a firm aim: one month and GA quality worked fairly well. If the desired article hasn't reached the right standard by the deadline (whatever that is) then move on to a new one. Don't let the exercise drag on. 4u1e 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Hi Phill! 4u1e 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Formula One Group

I started the F1 company pages SLEC Holdings, Formula One Management, Formula One Administration, Allsport Management, Alpha Prema and Formula One Holdings. However the duplication between them was immense or else they were just stubs. Given that, and the fact that CVC has integrated them quite a bit since its purchase, I have merged the above articles into SLEC Holdings and renamed it Formula One Group.

The history of how F1 developed commercially is now available in one place instead of fragmented over many articles. The history still needs expanded, however it will be much easier now. Mark83 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks better having all the information in the same place. I believe it's mostly due to tax dodging that there are so many different companies rather than combining them all, and as they're all interconnected I can't see a problem covering them all in one article. One thing, the "Sweeping curves device" - that refers to the animation shown on the TV broadcast at T-5minutes right? Perhaps it can be better explained as the name is a bit cryptic (I think it's called an ident, although Wikipedia's page on idents refers only to their usage in identifying TV channels). AlexJ 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the support. You know what made me combine them? Like I said I created the articles in question, and looking through them I was confused! That's pretty bad! And yes the complicated structure was either tax dodging or Bernie's method of making sure he was about the only one who knew what was going on before CVC put it onto a straighter path. As for the "Sweeping curves device" – an encyclopedia shouldn't really guess, but it unmistakeably refers to the animation shortly before the formation lap. What do you think of keeping 'sweeping curves device' in quotes but following it with "the ident shown before Grands Prix" or some variation, e.g. "the ident shown on television broadcasts before Grands Prix". etc. Mark83 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: sweeping curves. I would recommend wording it "the animated ident shown on television broadcasts before the start of the Grands Prix" (italics indicate rewording). I can see the sweeping curves but it happens 28 minutes into the start of the Grand Prix show but still before the start of the Grand Prix race. Guroadrunner 06:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's played out exactly five minutes before the cars set out on the formation lap. Hence why ITV, for example, know exactly when to come back from adverts in time to catch the sequence. Not sure I can find a ref for that other than the TV broadcasts themselves. AlexJ 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing article

Could you start an article on the Aussie driver Andrew Miedecke thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you'd be better off asking the Touring Cars taskforce or Australian motorsport really, he hasn't driven in F1 to the best of my knowledge. Pyrop e 17:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Australia, revisited

A while back (in Archive 10 I think) there was a discussion prompted by DH about which track map to use for the Adelaide circuit, as we now have two in use.

With this in mind, there are still Aussie GP's without the trackmap/infobox in place and things didn't come to a conclusive decision.

The discussions sort of petered out, but here is what I'm proposing:

I'll add the trackmap and infobox to all the GPs. Info will be based mostly from information at 1994 Australian Grand Prix, which I can confirm from the Grand Prix II game manual (yeah, kinda sad).
- Concession: But I don't know if the Adelaide track layout changed at all between 1985 to 1995. I will assume they didn't, based off my studies.
The race event poster for 1985 Australian Grand Prix stays, unless somsone more regulatory-minded catches it and tags it for violation of fair use.
A goal to increase the size of all the non-summarized Adelaide Grand Prixs.

Any thoughts? Guroadrunner 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Motor Racing Circuits Database shows that the Adelaide circuit was the same every year. The short circuit was introduced in 1999, but mostly used for V8 Supercars use. When the American Le Mans Series ran in 2000, they returned to the long Grand Prix circuit. The359 21:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Formula 1 families

This is just a thought that crossed my mind while seeing the Formula One template. Would it be a nice idea to create an article about Formula 1 'families'? A kind of timeline about the likes of Graham & Damon Hill, Gilles & Jacques Villeneuve, Michael & Ralf Schumacher, Pedro & Ricardo Rodríguez etc. Unfortunally I don't have much resources for such an article myself. Just thought I share this with you guys. Paul Klein —Preceding comment was added at 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You should take a look at User:Aecis/List of family relations in auto racing. Unfortunately it is only a work in progress at the moment.--Diniz (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:F1 driver results legend 2

Lotterstedt has changed the template pretty seriously... I'm past caring enough to argue about it, but someone here might. Bretonbanquet 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Diff. Davnel03 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I understand the rationale behind the changes - to clarify the circumstances surrounding a driver's non-start or retirement. But I wonder if we aren't starting to drift into the realms of original research? Most of the sources I'm familiar with list results as just "DNQ" or "DNS" or "Ret(ired)" or "WD", not "WD/DNQ" or "WD/DNS" or "WD/Ret", etc. DH85868993 13:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed DH, although if a source can be provided all well and good. My concern is that, for most drivers, if one of these exceptional circumastances arises, it really ought to be noted in the text, so a lengthy abbreviation(!) is a waste of space. Besides, how do you define "withdrawn"? Cars can be withdrawn for a number of reasons: driver injury; mechanical failure; withdrawal of the whole team; driver retirement (Stewart and Lauda for example); contractual disputes, and so on. Further, if a driver practiced and then didn't even try qualifying, we already have the option of using "PO" (practiced only). Pyrop e 14:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if you actually use the term WD you also have to explain it in a more detailed way. I don't think that it equals to "original research", because it's crucial for several statistics/tables here at W (for example how many starts a driver has actually made).

Template:Formula One teams

Tombag recently added a table to the {{Formula One teams}} template with a list of drivers who are in contention for 2008 drives, but are not confirmed in specific seats (Fernando Alonso, Heikki Kovalainen and so on). I removed this table on the basis that for 2007, the template was in effect restarted after the 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix, with the gaps being filled in as new deals between drivers and teams were confirmed. I also think it is too subjective to include a list of drivers who could potentially be driving in F1 next year, even if some of them are obvious. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?--Diniz (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

While it was highly speculatory, personally I liked it. I can see how unsigned drivers from 2007 (Alonso, Kovalainen) without signed rides for 2008 are effective additions, but anyone else is just speculatory. Guroadrunner 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point, though the only person I would remove from my list is Karthikeyan since I read elsewhere that Mallya is not prioritising an Indian driver, seems odd since the team is named Force India but never mind. For this it should be noted that any drivers listed must be documented via news reports or interviews. Paffett and de la Rosa for instance have no evidence signalling that they could acquire a drive, however there is several sources showing that Glock and Piquet Jr are looking at obtaining a drive.

Imagine the existing table as a semi-completed puzzle and this new list as the box with the remaining pieces. It's a bad analogy but the point is it's handy to see who's left to slot in, even if some are ultimately from... Another puzzle?

Cheers to Diniz for helping me put this idea forward as well. Tombag 15:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a viewpoint concerning this?--Diniz (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a bit unnecessary. The teams usually confirm drivers a month or two after the end of the season (ok, sometimes they leave it to just before but that is rare, at least at the moment). It is short term speculation that is likely more trouble than its value. Narson 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Narson - it's not really something I see as important because it will all be rectified in a month or two. This year is unique in that a 2xWDC has appeared on the market following the end of the season, and so drives that would usually be confirmed prior to the final round are still TBD. If anything, my suggestion would have been to stick with last seasons template for a while (until December/January perhaps). AlexJ 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I favour the template containing both the 2007 and 2008 drivers and teams for the time being. It seems odd to me that Alonso, who drove in 2007 and will almost certainly drive in 2008, doesn't have the template included in his article simply because he doesn't have a confirmed seat for 2008 yet. Incidentally, the template was recently renamed from {{Formula One teams}} to {{2008 Formula One teams}} - I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not. DH85868993 01:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Formula One no longer a featured article, demoted to B-Class status

Cross posted to WP:MOTOR

The Formula One FAR has ended, with the article being delisted, as the required improvements were not made to the article. Davnel03 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly is the article B-Class instead of at least A? The359 21:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The class system does my head in, because it goes Stub, Start, B-Class, GA, A-Class, FA. Therefore assuming an article is more than a stub and has not gone through any nominations, it must either be a Start class or a B class article. For an article to reach A-class it must be in excess of GA standard, (not necessarily nominated for GA, but as it would be ahead of the standard required, most people would go through the process). After GA most people aim for FA, leaving A-Class as near useless while article that aren't at the GA standard but aren't little more than a stub (most of WP's useful articles) are rated B-Class. AlexJ 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class." from here. Seems to me that even though this article hasn't ever gone through the GA process, it should at least be A-class. I imagine it'd fairly easily pass GA as well. The359 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To bring up a point brought up in the WP:MOTOR discussion, I do have to question the claim by Davnel that it is "not [his] fault if no action was taken". You are obviously a daily editor of Formula One articles, and have created many GA and FA status articles. I cannot help but ask why, as an experienced and knowledgable Formula One editor who is experienced in providing citations to bring articles to FA status, you did nothing to actually improve the article yourself? In fact, looking through the history of Formula One, the only edits you've made to the page were the additions of citation and referencing templates. If you were so adament that this page was not worthy of FA status that it needed to be tagged and put into FAR, why didn't you, who had more then enough ability, do something to fix it in the first place?

I know that the rest of us didn't do very much either, although some people did attempt to make improvements to the article. However I really have to think it's uncalled for to claim that you are not at fault when you did as little as everyone else. The359 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into a blame thing. If the article wasn't up to FA standard, and no-one seems to be arguing very hard that it was, then it should have been demoted. I agree that this is not the most efficient way of improving the article and I'd rather not start from here, but now we're here let's concentrate on getting it back up again. <broken record>I'd suggest going through GA and Peer Review on the way, just because I find that getting more views is helpful.</broken record> 4u1e 13:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the fact that the article was demoted, I certainly have no arguement about it and do not argue either that not much was done to improve it (although there was some work, thankfully). My problem was merely the statement attempting to evade blame. The359 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

_______

I'll say my piece and continue on with my life, as should all. The standards for an FA appear to have raised. Look at how many citations are found on today's FA, the Borat movie.; The interest in improving the Formula One article has a purpose. Perhaps putting it up for FAR was worthwhile. However, it seems like a slap to the WikiProject from the aloof method of listing it from a WikiProject member. Basic case of well-meaning attempt implemented very poorly.
Criticism and analysis

Use of bureaucratic "editor speak" - the WP:MOTOR post simply said "F1 up for FAR". No explanation what a FAR is. Recommend saying "the FAR will delist the article from being a Featured Article".
A key sticking point was citation – the article was referenced well but not in the specific citation format. So yeah someone prod me into building a "easy citation tool". Bug me on my talk page!
Tony's comments in the F.A.R. appeared centered in bureaucratic speak. I've contacted him for help deciphering.
Since the person who put the article up for FAR is a F1 WikiProject member, was the FAR complemented with attempts to improve the article?

-- Guroadrunner 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the benefit of continuing the post-mortem. It's entirely irrelevant to promoting the article back to FA. Mark83 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly. The359, please don't attempt to blame me for this. It's not my fault no one else from this project improved the article is it? I shouldn't be blamed. I'm, as stated earlier, no longer going to be as active here as what I used to be due to other commitments. Arguing solves nothing. Here is a copy-paste of the problems I stated earlier with the article:

Except your statement was that since none of us did anything to improve the article, that you were not to blame for it being demoted. Yet you yourself did nothing to improve it either, so you are just as equally to blame as any of us. It's foolish to sit here and claim that it is the fault of everyone but you just because you were the one who nominated it. If you hadn't of made that statement, everything would have been fine, there'd be no attempt to lay blame on anyone in particular. But attempting to evade blame is uncalled for. The359 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

- The return of racing (1950–1958) - One citation needed tag.
The rest of the sections in the "History" part are unsourced:
- The formation of the Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA) in 1979 set off the FISA-FOCA war, during which FISA and its president Jean-Marie Balestre clashed repeatedly with the Formula One Constructors Association over television profits and technical regulations. - Unsourced.
- Third paragraph of "Big business" section: However, many observers felt that the ban on driver aids was a ban in name only as the FIA did not have the technology or the methods to eliminate these features from competition. - Unsourced.
Bottom three pagraphs of "Racing and strategy" section - Unsourced.
"Drivers and constructors", "Grand Prix" and "Circuits" sections unsourced (one ref only).
"Future of Formula One" section - unsourced. Quote:
- FIA President Max Mosley believes F1 must focus on efficiency to stay technologically relevant in the automotive industry as well as keep the public excited about F1 technology. - Source?

What I suggest you do is look for sources to back these points up. The only way it will pass GA is with sufficient sourcing, which the article currently does not have. Thanks, Davnel03 16:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up these specific points. Giving clear-cut places to fix is quite helpful in getting this article back up to at least GA (if not FA).

Side note: should we consider going through a peer review soon to generate more? Guroadrunner 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity and before we start going through processes again, are you or anyone else planning to attempt to work on the article and see it through to whatever status it may reach? The359 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not sure. With that in mind, perhaps some advancement needs to be done before going through a PR. The reason I recommended it is because it lets people pick the article apart and garner a lot of detailed feedback, which I didn't think necessarily happened with the FAR.

From an only part-time F1 contributor, I have to ask, what is preventing the article from immediately being put in for GA status, or identification of what must be acquired for GA status if the nomination fails? --Chr.K. 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going for bold before caps! Can everybody who's putting so much effort into chatting here please put at least as much effort into improving the article? e.g. first priority - many "citations needed" tags. Thank you!. Mark83 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Deflection" article

I'm beginning to see the word "deflection" in a number of Formula One car articles recently, don't get me wrong I have no problem with using the word, it's just that they aren't wiki-linked to a article about deflection or another article that explains the theory of deflection within the article.

I don't mind doing an article on this, once I get some formal references for it, but I was wondering if I could get some community help with this article and also if there is the exsistence (sp? Sorry, University FireFox doesn't have a spell checker) of an explanation on Wikipedia or if people feel that there isn't a need for an article. Thanks.--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deflection#Automotive is a single strange sentence. Guroadrunner 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

An article on this subject would be nice. I'm sorry I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to be of any help writing it. John Anderson 11:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deflection in most engineering terms, and this includes F1 terms as well, simply means "movement induced by loading, from a point of rest". The "automotive" use given in the Deflection article is cobblers; people also talk about deflection in tyres, suspension components, chassis members, drivetrain, etc. etc. etc. The engineering definition, given above this "single strange sentence" (nice use of aliteration there!), is accurate and aposite for F1 uses. No need for a separate article. Pyrop e 11:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I suppose a simple linking to that article would be sufficient. John Anderson 11:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed page moves

I propose the following page moves:

Thoughts? DH85868993 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My 2½p: Go for it, I prefer your constructions. Pyrop e 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Feels like unnecessary work to me, even if it's not much of a job. However, I'm not opposed, either article name is good enough for me. Do as you like. John Anderson 11:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved. DH85868993 14:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You should fix all the links to the article names, to finish the move properly. Especially the links in templates, such as {{Formula One}}. John Anderson 09:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Done (except user and talk pages). DH85868993 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice. John Anderson 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

F1 tyre records

The list of F1 tyre records, which previously existed in both List of Formula One records and Tyres in Formula One has been removed from List of Formula One records (it has been replaced by a cross-reference to the table in Tyres in Formula One). Personally, I would have done it the other way around, to keep all the records in the one spot. Thoughts? DH85868993 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. They aren't really records (as in, the xest of whatever), but are actually statistics. I see no harm in them being located with the other tyre information. Pyrop e 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the current list they are listed in order of most wins. Perhaps a simpler list of just number of wins, number of points and number of championships could be used in the record list, with a link pointing to the tyre page for more extensive statistics. John Anderson 11:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition of 2008 results to driver and team results tables

Over the past few days, I've reverted the addition of "2008" rows to the results tables in a couple of articles. Is there consensus that it's too early to start adding "2008" rows to results tables yet and/or that they should be added to all relevant driver/team articles at the same time? DH85868993 01:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand people's need to add stuff like this before it's even slightly useful. I guess those additions (unlike guessed driver lineups and car numbers!) don't cause too much trouble either, so perhaps don't make work for yourself by removing them? 4u1e 11:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In one of the articles, the "2008" row was "blank", but in the other, the information in the "2008" row was a copy of the information in the "2007" row. So, faced with a choice of fixing (i.e. blanking) it, or deleting it, I went for the easier option. One good reason not to add "2008" rows yet is that we haven't yet agreed a country code for the Singapore GP (see below). DH85868993 01:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In the case of duplication (i.e. introduction of false data) I agree completely with removing it. I was just trying to save you work, honest! 4u1e (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:F1 standard country code for Singapore GP

I propose "SIN". Any objections/alternatives? DH85868993 01:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's slightly clearer than the ISO code (SGP). AlexJ 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How about SNG? Guroadrunner 23:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I recall the discussion before, but I'm not sure if I participated at all. What exactly was the reasoning for not using the ISO 3-letter codes? The359 03:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One reason was that we have "non-country" races which therefore don't have ISO 3-letter codes, e.g. "US West GP", "US East GP", "Pacific GP", "European GP", "Pescara GP", etc. Here's a link to the previous discussion. DH85868993 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at the official list, besides the obvious exceptions for GPs not named after countries and the East/West thing, every other GP abbreviation uses the ISO codes, so I see no reason we shouldn't continue to use the ISO standard for country names and use SGP. The359 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate - there are 9 races where our abbreviation differs from the ISO code (Dutch, German, Malaysian, Monaco, Moroccan, Portuguese, San Marino, South African and Swiss). DH85868993 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Put it to a vote like last time? I prefer SIN. - MTC 06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As do I. The presence of the letters "GP" in the ISO abbreviation could cause abiguosity in our sport! Pyrop e 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the ISO codes are appropriate at all. Let's stick to the codes we already have. If we should change this and follow some international standard for country codes, it should rather be the national codes for land vehicles. John Anderson 09:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are they inappropriate? Personally I'd prefer it if the ISO codes were used and exceptions used only for Grands Prix not named after countries. Readro (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Take Malaysia as an example. Our current abbreviation MAL is pretty clear and obvious as to what the country is (at least for as long as there isn't a Malta GP). The ISO code however is MYS which isn't obvious at all to me. Swiss GP - SUI (based on the fairly widespread French name) or CHE (based on the Latin name)? The ISO codes have to support some 190-odd countries where as we're only interested in the 30 or so that have held F1GP's. Therefore I think we're better off with our own adapted system. AlexJ (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But if we're linking the abbreviation and displaying the flag then there shouldn't be any confusion. Using ISO codes would also avoid a debate whenever a new country code is required. Consistency is good and using non-ISO codes is overcomplicating things. Readro (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, one problem with ISO codes is that they're not what the FIA uses, and they don't exist for some of the races. Why not use whatever the FIA use? 4u1e (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Roughly 20% of Grands Prix don't have an ISO code associated with them. The FIA's codes have been made as and when they're needed, resulting in some early GP's having 1 letter codes (e.g. I - Italy, E - Spain, D - Germany, J - Japan). Interestingly, out of the 9 country codes that don't follow the ISO system on WP, only 2 of those don't follow the IOC system. The IOC code for Singapore is SIN, which has the most support on here so far. AlexJ (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the IOC country codes look a better bet. Why don't we use these for all GP's named after countries? Readro (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) My main objection to any change from our current list is the amount of effort it would take to update all the existing tables, for (IMO) little benefit - there are nearly 800 driver articles which would need to be checked and/or updated, plus all the team, car and season summary articles. DH85868993 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Right with DH on that one - and I bet he's the only one who'd go to the effort to do them. Let's not re-open the discussion on all the other codes. SIN is fine. SNG is fine. SGP is fine. Whatever the FIA end up using is fine. SIN's got most votes, let's go with that. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviation	Support
SIN	DH85868993, AlexJ, MTC, Pyrope, Davnel03, John Anderson
SNG	Guroadrunner
SGP (= ISO)	The359, Readro

Inter-season testing information

Already we have seen some inter-season testing times added to and removed from the Michael Schumacher article. I propose that any inter-season testing information considered worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia should be added into a new section within the 2008 Formula One season article (and then that section can/should be deleted once the new season starts). An alternative would be to create a dedicated article for the 2007-2008 inter-season testing information, which could/should then be deleted once the new season starts. (From memory, that's what happened between 2006 and 2007). Thoughts? DH85868993 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone attempted to create a seperate article prior to 2007, which was deleted. I believe the consensus was that, with testing not actually being a competition, race, or affecting any sort of outcomes in the sport itself, that it was not notable enough to include all but brief mentions of which cars performed well in the off season and which did not. The359 03:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is my recollection too. As this is all the 2008 information that we have currently it can go into the 2008 article, but to give any real credance to it is daft. As cars are not required to run within WC regulations at test sessions, times are pretty meaningless. Pyrop e 10:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be a cynic and say let's make Formula One back to GA status before we go off and make something about mere test sessions. I also agree with Pyrope's rationale on how testing may not have validity as an indicator of anything. Guroadrunner 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We need to stop discussing about monir issues, and get articles back to the highest possible level. I left a load of {{citationneeded}} templates on the article, so people need to start finding sources to back up the points. Davnel03 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding speculative races to List of F1 GP

An anon is adding increasingly speculative lists of F1 GP to the article List of Formula One Grands Prix. When it was 2009, I was going to leave it, but they've started adding 2010 to 2012 now. Is it just me, or is this largely pointless, given the changeable nature of these things? 4u1e (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon working from user:86.146.183.94 and user:86.134.128.188, so far. I suppose relevant wiki-guideline would be WP:CRYSTAL. 4u1e (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My vote is to remove them - not only is the full list of events that will consist the championship not known, the order in which they will be raced is definitely not known. I'd argue they don't belong in the xxxx Formula One season articles as well. AlexJ (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with your last statement. Only confirmed grands prix or current one should be used in the 2010 and 2011 season articles.Eddie6705 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

With the current climate in F1, unless they are confirmed then they are a guess and so do not belong on Wikipedia. We are not a forum. If they are note cited, deletion is the only proper option. Pyrop e 14:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep deleting if they reappear then. I mean, it's not as if we haven't got plenty of articles on real things, things that actually exist, that need work. <shrug> 4u1e (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Last front engine F1 car

Looking at referencing stuff for the Formula One article, I thought the easiest way to reference the statement that by 1961 everyone was using mid-engined cars would just be to find a statement that the last front-engined car to compete in the world championship was in 1960. By my reckoning this was the Scarab at the last race of the 1960 season (Ferrari don't seem to have competed at the 1960 United States Grand Prix) and the 1961 Ferguson P99 didn't enter any championship events. I can't seem to find a convenient ref to this effect, though. Have I got the wrong car, and does anyone know of a convenient source? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite naming the last front engine car, but http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/cooper.htm states that "Ferrari, the last front-engined runner, began to experiment with a rear- mounted engine in 1960 and by 1961 the entire F1 field would be rear-engined." AlexJ (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - that'll do the job nicely. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, P99 it was, in the 1961 British Grand Prix. Try this for a ref. Hope that helps! Pyrop e 16:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ach - so it was. Must have skimmed over it. Which, annoyingly, means the statement needs to be qualified. Thanks again. 4u1e (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Formula One

As a result of the recent progress on the Formula One article, I've added more fact tags and stuff. You guys are doing a very good job sourcing these things. This article will almost certainly get back to GA status, and hopefully back to FA. Well done! Dav nel 03 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Davnel - there's something a little off about your attitude to this. Please consider contributing something to the referencing of the article other than slapping {{fact}} tags on it. The stuff I did this afternoon you can do just as easily as I can. 4u1e (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So we're sure this is Pierluigi Martini right?

On the description of Image:Luca Badoer Minardi 1994.jpg it says it is actually Pierluigi Martini. I found out how to rename it ( link to WP:MCQ ), but I just want to make sure this is correct. Guroadrunner (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's Martini. Readro (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, working on moving everything here: [5]

To use this new image: Image:Pierluigi Martini 1994 Minardi.jpg

Done! – all Luca Badoer images changed to Pierluigi Martini image, and old image up for deletion - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Luca_Badoer_Minardi_1994.jpg. I feel all accomplished and stuff. The weird thing are the pages that use the Badoer image on their Badoer page, because now they have a totally irrelevant Martini image on them. :-S --Guroadrunner (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher - Test Driver?

This has been brought up on the 2008 Formula One season page, especially with many editors believing that anyone who drivers a team car is classified as a test driver. However, I recall consensus here was that a driver had to be employed by a team in the role as official test driver and performing tests on setups and such on the car.

So the question is, Michael Schumacher is employed by Ferrari, has been actually performing setup tests for the improvement of the team, but does not have an official position on the team as test driver, although his actual position in the team has never been declared. So, with our criteria, should Schumacher be listed as a Ferrari test driver? The359 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, IMO. He appears to be a tad more senior in the organisation than that. I mean, if Jean Todt had got into an F1 car and driven it around the track (Boy, that /is/ an amusing mental image) we wouldn't call him a test driver :) What he did was a test drive but it appears to not be the whole of what he does. Narson (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Although Michael has taken part in some setup tests, he wont be travelling to every grand prix and running tests. Also, as Narson states, he is employed by Ferrari for a number of reasons and as they have him onboard, they may as well use him to test the car. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that every test driver travels to the GPs, just the team's designated Third Driver. The359 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Schumacher was at most of the grand prixs in the last half of the season, I believe. Though yes, don't imagine most test drivers get the perks he does (Seems he can decide how involved he wants to be, he gets quite a nice retainer as well, I thought? Race car driver style salary?). Test driver seems like an over simplification...I think I heard the term 'Technical Advisor' used at one point in the season. Does anyone have a source for what Ferrari call him? Beyond 'Love of our life, chicken of our chickens'? Narson (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"(Schumacher) is testing in his capacity as Ferrari technical adviser" - BBC Sport [6] AlexJ (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Prodrive 2008 or not

Recent edits to the 2008 Formula One season is stating Prodrive as not entering the 2008 season and there is a reference from f1-live saying this. I've looked on BBC Sport, the F1 official website, ITV F1 and autosport and i can't find anything about it. Is the story in f1-live true? Eddie6705 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is this (which anyone is welcome to correct): Prodrive were hoping to run customer McLaren-Mercedes MP4-23s because the general thinking was this was to be permitted by the new Concorde Agreement which expires next month. However objections have been raised, notably from Williams who have gone to the FIA court of appeal to prevent customer cars. Given this uncertainty Prodrive, McLaren or both have got cold feet until the issue is resolved. Ecclestone has thrown a few comments in which commentators have taken to mean the customer car idea is dead. As ever, F1 politics aren't simple. Mark83 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think (but can't remember where I saw it) that Prodrive have now said that they won't now enter next year - even if the Concorde Agreement issue is sorted out. If someone can turn up that reference, then Prodrive could be removed from the entry list for next year's championship. Regardless of this I don't agree with the edits some have made to delete the whole of the content of the Prodrive F1 article itself: I suggest the existing content should largely stay, modified and updated to the effect that the project is on the shelf for now (McLaren don't have much luck with this satellite team thing do they? Is this the second or third failed attempt?!). Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, they still hold the contract on the last spot on the grid don't they? They might get an entry together for 09, but pro-drive were trying to do it on the cheap, so, it might be a case of a part owned team coming from this. Though, if they are not going to allow customer cars, this means Super Aguri and Torro Rosso will have to stay as they are, I know they were talking of switching to customer status to avoid all the constant legal challenges to their cars from the other back runners...hrm. Prodrive are still notable anyway, so the article should stay. Only 12 companies have a F1 grid slots. Narson (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

4u1e you may have seen it on the Autosport website here [7]. Kelpin (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, BBC has them withdrawing from the 2008 grid too now (Plus McLaren upping the ante in the second spygate) Narson (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A1 Grand Prix

The F1-related articles are all well maintained and up-to-date, thanks to this WikiProject. The same can't be said for articles relating to A1 Grand Prix. The article 2007-08 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, Malaysia for instance hasn't seen any updates, even though the race will start in a few hours. The information can't be added to the infobox, because it uses the qualifying structure of the previous seasons. A lot of A1 GP drivers and seat holders do not have a Wikipedia article yet. Should we at WP:F1 adopt the articles relating to A1 GP, to get them up to scratch? Or should a WikiProject A1 Grand Prix be created? Or is this a matter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport? A ecis^Brievenbus 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix. Their status should be brought up with them, or WP:Motorsport. The359 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. This would indeed be within the scope of WikiProject A1 Grand Prix, not within the scope of WP:F1. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a WP:A1GP. I'm a member and I've updated malaysian race with new template but, indeed, after race. Progression isn't fast because of few membership really active. - Rollof1 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Privateer team descriptons....

The 1961 Monaco Grand Prix race info box lists Stirling Moss's team as Lotus-Climax, but he drove for the privateers Rob Walker Racing Team. Which team description is more accurate for the infobox? Does this question make any sense? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your question makes sense. Despite the fact that the template fields are called "xxx_team", convention is to populate them with the constructor (chassis+engine) - have a look at 1960 United States Grand Prix, which was also won by by Moss in Rob Walker's Lotus. DH85868993 (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now changed it. :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Qualifying tables

Over the past few days, an anonymous IP editor has added separate "1st Qualifying" and "2nd Qualifying" tables to some of the 1989 and 1990 race reports, e.g. 1990 Canadian Grand Prix. Personally I'd prefer a single qualifying table with the drivers listed in grid order, like we have for the 2007 races. The table could still show the times for each session, like this:

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Q1	Q2
1	27	Ayrton Senna	McLaren-Honda	1:20.399	1:19.415
2	28	Gerhard Berger	McLaren-Honda	1:20.465	1:21.302
3	1	Alain Prost	Ferrari	1:21.826	1:20.826
4	19	Alessandro Nannini	Benetton-Ford	1:21.302	1:25.115

(the time in bold indicates which time counted for the grid). I also think this format will be more efficient than separate tables for earlier races which had 3 or even 4 qualifying sessions. What do others think? DH85868993 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because as I understand it there was not much of a difference between Q1 and Q2, I like your method much better in explaining the final grid of the race. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, at the '90 CDN GP page, I have added a "status" box to the Pre-Qualifying and a note about what it is, for the less initiated. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, I remember writing that race summary off of a YouTube highlights video, although I think it was an FIA Review tape. How would I organize YouTube material that into a Wikipedia source? Guroadrunner (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't really because the material is probably put on YouTube without the owner's permission, making it an "illegal reference" because it breaks copyright laws. At least I think that's one of the problems with citing YouTube.--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed several users/bots systematically removing YouTube references from Wikipedia articles due to copyright problems. I can use my 1990-1991 AUTOCOURSE annual to cite the article, but it'll have to wait until I get home from uni!--Diniz (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I considered similar thing. I think DH85868993's idea is very good but my idea is also good because it can see both session's classification. I don't have a conclusion at the moment.--60.38.235.91 (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One solution would be to add sortable "Q1 Pos" and "Q2 Pos" columns and make the "(Grid) Pos" column also sortable, like this:

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Q1 Pos	Q1 Time	Q2 Pos	Q2 Time
1	27	Ayrton Senna	McLaren-Honda	1	1:20.399	1	1:19.415
2	28	Gerhard Berger	McLaren-Honda	2	1:20.465	3	1:21.302
3	1	Alain Prost	Ferrari	4	1:21.826	2	1:20.826
4	19	Alessandro Nannini	Benetton-Ford	3	1:21.302	4	1:25.115

although personally I think that's overkill, and it's also not consistent with the 2006-2007 qualifying tables. Another alternative would be to not have the QPos columns but to make the QTime columns sortable:

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Q1 Time	Q2 Time
1	27	Ayrton Senna	McLaren-Honda	1:20.399	1:19.415
2	28	Gerhard Berger	McLaren-Honda	1:20.465	1:21.302
3	1	Alain Prost	Ferrari	1:21.826	1:20.826
4	19	Alessandro Nannini	Benetton-Ford	1:21.302	1:25.115

which would give almost the same effect, although you'd have to count the rows to find what position a driver scored in a particular session and the sorting wouldn't work properly if a driver recorded a weird time like 10:05.139, or if they didn't set a time. DH85868993 (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the latter one is very good. we should go with it.--60.38.235.91 (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's great DH, go with that. Nice work. Pyrop e 14:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest a final column with the overall pole position time and then the gaps back to the other drivers? It could be more helpful in determining the gaps between drivers and the spread of the grid instead of using absolute times.--Diniz (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea. It probably makes sense to maintain some sort of consistency between races where we do have individual session times and those where we don't. Most of the races where we have qualifying times but not individual session times look like this (from 1991 Japanese Grand Prix):

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Lap	Gap
1	2	Gerhard Berger	McLaren-Honda	1:34.700	-
2	1	Ayrton Senna	McLaren-Honda	1:34.898	+0.198
3	5	Nigel Mansell	Williams-Renault	1:34.922	+0.222
4	27	Alain Prost	Ferrari	1:36.670	+1.970

so how about this for races where we do have individual session times:

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Q1 Time	Q2 Time	Gap
1	27	Ayrton Senna	McLaren-Honda	1:20.399	1:19.415	-
2	28	Gerhard Berger	McLaren-Honda	1:20.465	1:21.302	+1.050
3	1	Alain Prost	Ferrari	1:21.826	1:20.826	+1.411
4	19	Alessandro Nannini	Benetton-Ford	1:21.302	1:25.115	+1.887

i.e. what Diniz suggested but without the pole time at the top of the column. Also, what do we favour for column titles? For the tables where we don't have individual session times, I'd recommend "Time" rather than "Lap" (although "Lap" is what most of the existing tables say). For the tables where we do have session times, alternatives for "Q1 Time", "Q2 Time" would include "Q1", "Q2" and "Session 1", "Session 2". For reference, the column titles for the 2007 qualifying tables are "Part 1", "Part 2" and "Part 3". Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While I'm here - are we happy with using bold to indicate each driver's best/qualifying time? Noting that in the 2007 qualifying tables, bold indicates the fastest time in the whole session. I'm happy with bold, but I thought it's better to ask the question now rather than later. One alternative would be to use italics to indicate each driver's fastest time. DH85868993 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with both the second table and the use of bold text.--Diniz (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy photo in Force India

Looks like someone has hacked the watermarked section of an image off and claimed the photo is self made and it has been put into the Force India article. However, I am no expert on the ruels about this, can someone else check it out? Picture added: [8] and then the original: [9] Narson (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah obvious copyvio - good spot. I've added the tags to get it removed and pulled it out of the article. AlexJ (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm dubious of any claim that a photo is 'self made' when it is of a moving F1 car, getting them in focus and unblurred must be one hell of a skill. Narson (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite being pretty useless with a camera, I've managed a couple of acceptable motion shots, although with me it's more luck than skill. The giveaway in most cases with 'self-made' claims is usually the lack of a hi-res version. AlexJ (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Past Qualifying formats

The 1961 Monaco Grand Prix article contains this statement: "21 cars showed up for the first race of the new 1.5-liter formula. The five "works" teams were guaranteed two spots each on the grid and Moss and Trintignant were in as past winners. That left nine drivers to fight over four spots. One spot did open up when Ireland, who would have qualified 10th, crashed in the tunnel and broke his leg."

Before I wikify it, how true is this as a guide to past qualifying formats? Were drivers given grid positions as past winners? and were Works teams gifted grid spots? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The above description is accurate for Monaco 1961 (confirmed by Volume 1 of Mike Lang's Grand Prix!). Back in those pre-FOCA/Bernie days, race organisers could make up whatever rules they liked - if teams didn't like them, they didn't have to enter. However, in terms of Championship races, as far as I'm aware, these sort of "special qualifying rules" were pretty much unique to Monaco. Lang identifies 5 occasions on which the Monaco organisers imposed their own special "local rules":

In 1950, the first two rows of the grid were based on times set on the first day
In 1955, the front row of the grid was based on times set on the first day
In 1962, grid positions were guaranteed for works teams and past winners, as described above (Presumably this was intended as an encouragement for the works teams to enter and actually have their new cars ready in time for this, the first Championship race of the new 1.5 litre Formula)
In 1962, grid positions were guaranteed for works teams, but not past winners
In 1963, grid positions were guaranteed for past winners and World Champions (although this proved incidental, as only 16 cars turned up to vie for the 16 available grid positions anyway)

The Monaco GP has always been a bit "special". Even as late as the early '90s, when all the other races had qualifying on Friday and Saturday and 26 starters, Monaco had qualifying on Thursday and Saturday (so they could reopen the roads to normal traffic on Friday), and only 20 starters. DH85868993 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and work out a cite for the above book. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one:

<ref name="LangVol1P180">{{cite book |last=Lang |first=Mike |title=Grand Prix! Vol 1 |publisher=Haynes Publishing Group |date=1981 |pages=p180 |isbn=0-85429-276-4}}</ref>.

For future reference, I have "boilerplate" references to all 4 volumes of the series here. DH85868993 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Time format updates to race report articles

You may have noticed hundreds (literally) of F1 race report articles being updated in the past few hours. In case anyone was wondering what brought this about, I submitted a request for a bot to update all the race and lap times in the F1 race reports to the standard format as agreed a while back at WP:MOTOR. – DH85868993 (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2011 formula one article

Hi guys! Theres a problem with the 2011 Formula One season article. In the section were it says unconfirmed grand prix (new or returning) there have been an referenced addings to this section. I have put a secret message in but that did not stop vandals adding silly grand prixs. This is something we have to watch for.Pattav2 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kinda weird. If anything unreferenced is added to 2008 Formula One season, it is removed immediately. However, for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 season articles, it seems as though anyone can add (or delete or rearrange) whatever they like with no references at all! DH85868993 (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Standings After Grand Prix sections revisited yet again

Despite the project deciding a couple of times (here and here) that these sections aren't needed, it seems that we have at least one anonymous IP editor who is very keen to see them included (to the point where if you delete the sections, they will put them back. Unfortunately, their IP address keeps changing, so it's very difficult to discuss the matter with them). If we must have these sections, can we at least define a standard format? Currently there are a variety of different formats in different articles (included in a separate page so as not to corrupt the TOC of this page). Personally I'd go for:

"Standings after Grand Prix" either a level 2 or 3 heading (I don't really care which)
having the word "Drivers" above the driver list (I think it looks weird having a heading for one table but not the other)
only listing the top 6 in the drivers table and top 3 in the constructors table.

Thoughts? DH85868993 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't include them, regardless of what an anonymous user wants. No reason to change consensus because of one person. It may be a pain in the ass to have to redelete, but we have to do it anyway for various other pages. The359 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Recently, many of the "<country> Grand Prix" articles have had flags added to the Winner, Pole position and Fastest lap sections of the infobox, e.g. this recent edit to British Grand Prix. Do we think these flags add value to the article? Or is this a case of using flags as decoration, which WP:FLAG counsels against. Note that I'm not against having flags in F1 articles; I just think we should set some rules for where we do and don't want them. Please discuss. DH85868993 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I fear someone will come along and complain about WP:FLAG because they won't understand we use them for information. However, I'd say flags in the race infobox is overkill and tacky-looking. Get them out of there. Guroadrunner 11:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Plus they're just more ground for people to start arguing that Eddie Irvine is Irish, Nico Rosberg is Finnish etc etc. Flags seem to set people off that way. 4u1e 14:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that being a bit much. Didn't someone try and tag the name section of Force India F1 with an India flag the other week? Flags can be informative....providing they arn't splattered all over the place like a blind man with no arms trying to pee. Narson 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Vivid. Thanks. :( 4u1e 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone has gone around adding flags to the 'base' of the F1 teams which I have reverted, really, I don't think people need a flag to know that the UK is in the UK. Maybe we should come up with some F1 MOS for flag useage, if one doesn't already exist? Narson (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could pull together a MoS (not just for flags, but all the other stuff as well!), just to stop us going round some of the same loops again. DH was looking at it at one point, but I don't think he ever wrote it all down anywhere. DH? 4u1e (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think all we have recorded at the moment is: Conventions and Standard table formats. DH85868993 (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a very good start. 4u1e (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Plus there's the example race report, but I think that probably doesn't get used (note that it has a "2005-style" qualifying table) - I think people create new race reports by just copying an existing one. DH85868993 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the example race report has the notes section which we're trying to phase out (Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. - WP:TRIV) AlexJ (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Toro Rosso STR3

Seems like it's a load of crytal balling to me. Should I be bold and redirect to Scuderia Toro Rosso? Dav nel 03 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's already been done to Renault R28 and BMW Sauber F1.08 and a few others. All changed to redirects until the cars are actually launched. The359 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Good catch. 4u1e 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was bold for you Davnel and put it into a redirect. If anyone complains, I will be sure to blame one of you :) Narson 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge third driver to test driver

Oh no what's this guy on about now?

I'd like to open up discussing a merger of third driver with test driver. I'll admit that I dashed off the test driver article quickly, but I think that third driver wouldn't necessarily stand on its own as a notable article because it is so sport-centric, but it definitely can stand well at the test driver article. Third drivers are a form of test drivers. What do you think about merging? Guroadrunner (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I say: do it. John Anderson 11:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Likelyhood of increased IP vandalism

We are probably going to have a bit more IP vandalism over the next few days as the whole FIA not punishing Renault (and finding them guilty) thing came out today and they are beating the dead horse, uh, I mean McLaren tommorow. Narson (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2012 Formula One season

I have just stumbled across this article that was newly created. The speculated race schedule is exactly the same as the 2011 season article, and most of it looks like it has been copied from the 2001 article. Is there any need for an article on a season so far in the future? Eddie6705 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Kill it. There are no rule changes or announced schedule changes for 2012 as of yet, so there's nothing to really report. The359 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Formula One season. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Autocourse

If someone already has this year's annual, please can you confirm this edit. My copy's still on order!--Diniz (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Pyrop e 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Diniz (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fields from template:F1 race

An anonymous IP editor has recently removed the Most_wins_driver, Most_wins_constructor, Circuit_length_mi and Race_length_mi fields from template:F1 race, and then updated all the "<country> Grand Prix" (e.g. South African Grand Prix) articles to match. Was this discussed anywhere first? DH85868993 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I'd rather have that information included myself. Readro (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Readro on this. John Anderson 12:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

FIA v. The Sunday Times

The FIA have launched legal action over a Martin Brundle article in the Sunday Times in which he suggested the Federation was guilty of a McLaren "witch hunt". Brundle's column on 10 December 2007 is a response and is a pretty remarkable bitch slap against the FIA.[10] The issue is very interesting regarding governance of F1 and possibly needs mentioning in a lot of articles. Mark83 (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good read, thanks for pointing it out. God this really is a farce, think we can 'liberate' the Churchill AVRE from Duxford and remove the FIA building in paris so they will just shut up and leave us all to enjoy the actual sport? Narson (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm.. thats double standards?

The World Motor Sport Council finds McLaren to be in breach the International Sporting Code for possessing confidential Ferrari information. They impose no penalty because of insufficient evidence that this affected the championship.
At an Extraordinary General Meeting of the World Motorsport Council, Renault are found to be guilty of breaching Article 151c of the International Sporting Code. They are not punished because an affect on the Championship cannot be established.

This is just a sad Brit, former McLaren driver and a new McLarens PR, who stil didn't get over the fact that Hamilton lost the title he already had in his pocket. Nothing really notable unless he can proove the witch hunt in court.--Sporti (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem - not the place for nationalistic arguments, guys. Thanks Mark for pointing out the development in a neutral way. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes not the place for nationalistic arguments. However on Sporti's "facts" - he's a former Benetton/Renault driver as well so I'm unclear how there's bias in that respect, I'm unaware of him holding any position in the McLaren PR department, and he openly criticised McLaren/Hamilton for letting the title slip from their hands. Did you read the entire article or just the headline! Finally "nothing really notable"??? The FIA taking a major newspaper and a high profile commentator to court is not notable? Mark83 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up at the spygate article talk page requesting comment a little while back but I guess people missed it. The case is quite amusing considering it's News Corp the FIA will be taking on, the same News Corp that own several F1 broadcast outlets (Speed Channel, Star Sports etc.) Anyway, I think it deserves a section in the spygate article, others agree?AlexJ (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think it should. In which case do we need a current legal case tag on the article? Dav nel 03 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbers are creeping back in

Numbers are creeping back into several articles now the driver line up is nearly cemented, I wondered if there is acctually any confirmation from the FIA? (And this seems wrong as someone seems to be claiming McLaren will have 22 and 23, which stradles two teams allocation). What is the view, is there some info I don't know about here? Narson (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any confirmation on news sites, but Forix has the numbers for 2008 listed, maybe that counts as confirmation. McLaren will be #22 and #23 though, like Super Aguri were last season. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

22 and 23 does not straddle allocations because the number 13 is omitted in the numbering system. Readro (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Interesting, I never knew that O.o Informative! :) And McLaren get the worst garages too, correct? Narson (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The pit lanes are arranged in championship order, from the pit entrance to exit. So McLaren would get the last pit box before the pit exit, while Ferrari gets the first pit box from the pit entrance. The359 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I just seem to recall that means fewer garages at some of the circuits where the pitlanes are tight (Canada for a start) for the lower end teams. Might be an interesting effect. I will have to go through and find out whether anyone in the media has mentioned that. Narson (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

ITV interviewed Mike Gascoyne (Spyker Tech. Director) at one point during the season who mentioned the smaller number of garages down the end of the pitlane, and speculated on how this would affect McLaren. AlexJ (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Personnel links in F1 team templates

I've recently added links to the team founder and noted personnel into the templates of several defunct F1 teams, e.g. {{Ligier}}, {{Brabham}} and {{Tyrrell}}. This activity has raised some questions about which I'd appreciate the opinions of others:

When adding such links to templates, should we follow the standard Wikipedia practice(?) of including the template in any article to which it links, e.g. are we happy to include {{Jordan Grand Prix}} in the Eddie Jordan article?
What about people who have been notably involved with numerous teams over the years, e.g. would we be happy for Gérard Ducarouge to include {{Ligier}}, {{Alfa Romeo}} and {{Lotus}}?
To date I've only updated templates for defunct teams. What do people think about the idea of adding a links to former (noted) personnel to the templates for current teams? Personally I think that's OK - with all due respect to Mario Almondo, I think Mauro Forghieri and Ross Brawn are probably more famous for their association with {{Scuderia Ferrari}} than he is.
If we think that's OK, then does that affect our thoughts on the inclusion of templates in linked articles? e.g. would it be confusing if the Ross Brawn article included the templates for former teams {{Scuderia Ferrari}} and {{Benetton Formula}} in addition to his current team ({{Honda F1}})? Personally, I don't think so, as long as he is clearly identified as former personnel in the first two templates.

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank Gardner

User:Installedpear appears to have just decided that Frank Gardner the journalist is more deserving of the page Frank Gardner than Frank Gardner the F1 driver, and has swapped them over, which probably just broke about 100 page links, is this being done by with F1 wikiprojects approval, I ask as Frank Gardner shows up at Ausmotorsport too. --Falcadore (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This article has dozens of links which are now broken. Can't we just restore the driver article to Frank Gardner? Anyone who goes around moving pages without redirecting should be disregarded in my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think between us, User:Cool Hand Luke and I have fixed all the links (in the article namespace). DH85868993 (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary of race reports needed.

I just completed doing race reports for the entire 1991 season as I have the FIA review DVD and could use that for information, but the reports will take a lot of work and I don't have the resources to do reports for any other 1992-1999 races at the moment. I am going to try to start working on 1990 soon. (Senorsoupe (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

The problem is there are so many articles that need doing in the project. There are some 800 race reports, 800 drivers, 100+ constructors... and people work on what interests them. This often means the older race reports get neglected a bit, so it's good to see that you've done the 1991 season. AlexJ (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, but all of them are unreferenced. If you can find sources to back up the reports, that would be superb. Otherwise, they could be removed. Cheers, Dav nel 03^{Sign It, Junior!} 22:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if there is contentious material could they be removed. The problem is that when the race reports were created they were not referenced. Now, one can visit www.formula1.com and double check the results in less than five minutes. In the time it takes for the deletion process, many race report articles could have references added. Readro (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference can occur from FIA DVD review. Is a proper media material .Reference to the DVD or telecast. Guroadrunner (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all that would be needed is to add

{{cite video |title=Formula One Grand Prix Review 1991 | medium = VHS |publisher=Duke Video |date=December 13, 1991}}

under the references heading. In-line citations are not really needed unless you were aiming for a good/featured article. AlexJ (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

About the 1991 race reports: I started adding infoboxes to the articles, but I was having one doubt, what about references? I'm unsure of what to do, just take them out (since there's a link to the official F1 site) or leave them? In the first case, pole time is not included in the official site and becomes unreferenced; in the second case, I'm unsure of where to put references. Any suggestion? Asendoh (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the inline references to AUTOCOURSE to the 1991 race reports. My rationale was that we had a statement "Unless otherwise indicated, all race results come from www.formula1.com", so we needed to provide explicit references for any piece of information which didn't come from there (e.g. pole position, lap on which fastest lap was set, etc). However, following this discussion, I now believe it is sufficient to just provide a "blanket reference" to all the sources from which the information has been derived, e.g. (for the 1991 Canadian Grand Prix):

References

"The Official Formula 1 website". Retrieved 2007-08-08.
Henry, Alan (1991). AUTOCOURSE 1991-92. Hazleton Publishing. pp. pp144-145. ISBN 0-905138-87-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

without the need for explicit inline refs for individual data items. DH85868993 (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley

Has been nominated for GA status by another user. Only probably is that I feel like speedy failing it as I feel the article is no where near GA status. Anyone else here agree; or is it just me? D.M.N. (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If Toyota F1 can fail GA, then this article certainly can. Less references, less pictures, it just isn't a complete picture. I agree with you. Lra drama 12:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it meets GA criteria, but it doesn't meet the speedy fail criteria either (A complete lack of reliable sources OR Obviously non-neutral treatment of a topic OR The article has any cleanup banners, including but not limited to cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced etc. OR The article has been the subject of recent or ongoing edit wars.) so it would have to have a full review with points brought up on why you chose to fail it and where it needs improving etc. AlexJ (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear old Max is number 30 on the list for review at present. As Alex points out, although I'm sure it would be a fail at present, it's not a speedy fail (i.e. you'll need to spend some time reviewing it!). Maybe leave it until it gets to the top of the list, by which time it might be in a fit state. It would have been a speedy fail a few weeks ago, but several people (me included) have beefed it up since then. The nom, for what it's worth, seems to have come from an account created specifically for the purpose of nominating the article. <shrug> Merry Xmas, all! 4u1e (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And over a month later, the article has passed. Feel free to have a further go at it though, some sections are a bit iffy, and I'm sure there must be more to say about Mosley's FIA role outside F1. 4u1e (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! It looks a completely different article. Not perfect but certainly a worthy GA - well done to all those who improved the article. AlexJ (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mostly me, Tommy turrell, the mysterious Fen croft and (unusually) several anons. Plus a good review from Ealdgyth. It could be much better, though. Particularly towards the end of the article. If anyone's got a good handle on the ins and outs of FIA politics over the last 15 years or so, they could certainly make some improvements! 4u1e (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FIA 2008 Entry List

2008 FIA Formula One World Championship Entry List - Numbers and all Drivers Confirmed. (Force India Second Driver will be Confirmed on January 11) - Linczone^Talk^/^Watch 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Aguri have released a statement saying their drivers aren't signed even though there on the list - see [11] (I made the mistake of changing Ant Davidson's page earlier to say he'd been signed for SA before I saw this). Kelpin (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets wait until SA confirm them before we add them - Linczone^Talk^/^Watch 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicolas Todt

Just letting you guys know that this article was created a few hours ago, and quickly had a CSD tag slapped on it. I've since removed the tag and have expanded the article a little. D.M.N. (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Engine changes

We should add to F1 Regulations the rule on engine changes. GoldDragon (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers

You may have noticed the recent creation of Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers. I've started a discussion about this (and another) category at WP:MOTOR. Feel free to contribute your thoughts. DH85868993 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Third driver numbers

Regarding this edit. Do third/test drivers have numbers? Can't remember having seen that before, although I don't pay much attention to them. 4u1e (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen in previous seasons test drivers do have numbers however I'm not sure where this user is getting the information from. I don't know of any 2008 test driver list - Linczone^Talk^/^Watch 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They do have numbers, and I think they're decided from the previous years WMC, starting with #31. Not 100% whether it's the WDC team that gets #31 (like they would #1) or the WMC but further down it's definitely the case. See Image:Sebastian_Vettel_2006_Brazil.jpg car #38 testing for BMW Sauber in 2006, Sauber finished 8th in the 2005 WMC, likewise Image:Alex_Wurz_Canada_2006.jpg shows car #35 testing for Williams in 2006, Williams finished 5th in 2005. Force India will get #40 based on Spyker finishing 10th in last years WDC, so the edit is (probably) correct. AlexJ (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That was back when teams were allowed to run three cars in practice though. For 2007, were third drivers who ran in place of a normal driver in Friday practice running the normal car, or a backup car with a 3X number? The359 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The test drivers were still using the 30+ numbers in 2007 Friday practices, at least according to the official timing.[12] - MTC (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The numbers did start at 31 and were numbered in the same order as the racing drivers only with one number per team. In the old system several bigger teams were not permitted third drivers so while the numbers were allocated from 31, the first number that appeared was 35 as the teams allocated 31-34 were not permitted to field third drivers. I wonder then - will McLaren be allowed to field a third driver (with #41) as they did not finish top four? --Falcadore (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There you go - an education for me, at least! If there's a source for them, or for how they are allocated, then they should go in, I guess. 4u1e (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Formula One fatal accidents

I have made some changes in the current featured list, including adding "circuit" and a by-circuit statistics. Would you find that is better? Raymond Giggs 08:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully a minor point: I've change the RSA flag to the then-current one, since the last SAGP and the deaths all pre-date the current flag. This keeps it in line with the driver articles. If circumstances change, this can of course be reconsidered. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not meant to disagree you, but Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari hosted the San Marino Grand Prix but the circuit is in Italy. So it could be considered putting a San Marino flag. Raymond Giggs 17:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

?! I'm talking about the South African GP (Republic of South Africa, I think). Yes, San Marino should have the San Marino flag, despite being in Italy (imvho). 4u1e (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The San Marino Grand Prix was just a name, like the Swiss Grand Prix or the European Grand Prix or the Luxembourg Grand Prix or the Pacific Grand Prix, created purely so as to avoid confusion over holding two Grands Prix in he same country. I think a marketing label is a silly reason to disobey geography to place the San Marino flag next to Imola (which has once hosted the Italian Grand Prix remember). --Falcadore (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If we are talking about the circuit itself then the flag of the country the circuit is in should be displayed. We don't use the European flag for the Nurburgring, or the Luxembourg flag for that matter. Readro (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Question : Why do we have an image of the current Nurburgring layout on this page when the intended image is the full, old Nurburgring? Guroadrunner (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I couldn't find (or create) an appropriate image, I did have Senna up there once but I thought that it was a little unfair that one driver could have his picture on the list and the others couldn't so I just chose the Nurburgring as it was a circuit fans usually associate fatal accidents with.--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 09:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - doesn't the image show both the old circuit (in grey) and the new one (in black)? Or am I missing something? DH85868993 (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think Guroadrunner's point is that the intended circuit, the full circuit, isn't embolded while the smaller '85 (I think it was 1985 when they started using it anyway) circuit is.--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Williams/McLaren/Ferrari Formula One people

I've recently been considering the usefulness of these categories and have come to the conclusion that they're unnecessary. My rationale is as follows:

In the case of Category:Williams Formula One people and Category:McLaren Formula One people, the only parent category is Category:Formula One people (i.e. there's no Category:Williams or Category:McLaren), and many of the people in these categories are also (legitimately) also included in Category:Formula One people, due to their involvement with other teams.
Category:Ferrari Formula One people is a slightly different case, in that there is a Category:Ferrari people, but again, there's a large degree of overlap.

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk)

I do not think there is any need for all the sub-categories. Category:Formula One people should be enough. Ferrari/McLaren/Williams Formula One people are not needed. Lra drama 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lradrama. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. If there are no dissenting opinions in the next couple of days, I'll transfer the articles out of the categories and CfD them. DH85868993 (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

They're gone. DH85868993 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)