Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

F1 results key

It has been proposed that the links to the F1 results table key above every F1 driver, team and car World Championship results table be replaced with a transcluded collapsible template version like this:

the advantage being that with the key expanded, readers can see the key and the table at the same time (which they can't with the current linked key). Is there general support for this idea? (If so, then there are a couple of details to discuss). DH85868993 (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

THis may be a side issue, but why is disqualified black and excluded not black as well? --Falcadore (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I was around when that was decided, but I imagine it was felt that exclusion from the meeting was most similar to the other "non-participations" (DNE, DNA, DNP, WD) and hence assigned a blank background. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't comment anymore, I'll styart that one as a separate discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of it. It's too wide. The current, single-column table works better, and is a reference guide to the table. It works, especially for readers who are not familiar with the colour-coding. I don't see why it needs to be changed and/or collapsed at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not proposing replacing the keys next to the Championship tables in the season summary articles, just the links to the key above the results tables in the F1 driver, team and car articles, like this one:
(key)
Year Entrant Engine Tyres Drivers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Points WCC
2011 Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro Ferrari 056 V8 P AUS MAL CHN TUR ESP MON CAN EUR GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN JPN KOR IND ABU BRA 375 3rd
Alonso 4 6 7 3 5 2 Ret 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 2 5 3 2 4
Massa 7 5 6 11 Ret Ret 6 5 5 5 6 8 6 9 7 6 Ret 5 5
Currently, when readers click the link to see the key, they are taken to the template page, away from the table. With the collapsible template, they can see the key and the table at the same time, like this:
Key
Colour Result Colour Result Colour Result
Gold Winner Red Did not qualify (DNQ)
Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ)		 Blank Did not enter
Silver 2nd place Did not practice (DNP)
Bronze 3rd place Black Disqualified (DSQ) Excluded (EX)
Green Points finish White Did not start (DNS) Did not arrive (DNA)
Blue Non-points finish
Non-classified finish (NC)		 Race cancelled (C) Withdrew entry before the event (WD)
Light blue Practiced only (PO) bold Pole position
Purple Did not finish (Ret) Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards) italics Fastest lap
Year Entrant Engine Tyres Drivers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Points WCC
2011 Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro Ferrari 056 V8 P AUS MAL CHN TUR ESP MON CAN EUR GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN JPN KOR IND ABU BRA 375 3rd
Alonso 4 6 7 3 5 2 Ret 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 2 5 3 2 4
Massa 7 5 6 11 Ret Ret 6 5 5 5 6 8 6 9 7 6 Ret 5 5
The advantage of the multi-column key over the existing single-column one in this position is that it's vertically shorter, increasing the chance of being able to see the whole key and the whole table at the same time. Also note that the multi-column key is narrower than the table. DH85868993 (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
A big improvement, definately prefer the landscape to the portrait for the same reason you outlined. Perhaps substitute "Other" as the column header on the right instead of "Colour". Great work Mighty Antar (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
In favour, it is simpler for the reasons you have stated, and it is overall a good improvement should be implemented on individual driver/constructor pages as you have stated. However, in response to Mighty Antar, I think the column headings are good as they stand. I especially like the idea of the show/ hide feature. Editadam 12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lotus E20 DRN thread

Hello everyone, I thought you might like to know about the dispute resolution noticeboard about the Lotus E20, as there has been a significant amount of discussion about it on this talk page. The noticeboard discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Lotus E20. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of F1Fanatic.co.uk as a source

What are the opinions of those here on whether F1Fanatic.co.uk - "The Formula 1 Blog" - should be regarded as a reliable source for facts related to Formula One. It is a self-proclaimed blog site afterall, and WP:BLOGS is fairly clear about the reliability of such self-published sources. Is there an overriding reason why this one should be exempt? It is being used to support a selection of assertions in some of the articles on this season's F1 cars. Examples include: Williams FW34, Caterham CT01, McLaren MP4-27 and Force India VJM05, amongst other things in this project. -- de Facto (talk). 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Read this article. The website might be a blog, but it does not simply post opinion pieces. It rarely does. It is run by a professional journalist, and if you actually read the articles supplied as sources - for example, this one - you will see that the quality of reporting is very high. Under WP:BLOGS, weblogs are acceptable undercertain conditions. I believe F1 Fanatic fulfils these conditions.
Furthermore, F1 Fanatic is necessary for triangulating articles. If you removed all of the F1 Fanatic references, all we would have is Autosport as a reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
For background information at least F1 Fanatic should be perfectly alright. I would prefer to use other sources in general though, especially for anything possibly contentious, as I don't believe Keith Collantine has written for other publications. QueenCake (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we can almost certainly rely on F1Fanatic to be accurate. But being small, independent and a one-man band, it wouldn't really match the idea of 'a reliable source' - it doesn't have the structure or reputation of a publication such as Autosport or a newspaper, where journalists have certian standards to keep to other than just their own - which is all Keith really has to go by. I think we're okay to use it, but I would refrain from automatically going there first when the same information is available in a more reliable and traditional source. I do certainly appreciate though that it reports on more minor stories that aren't necessarily covered by the 'more reliable' outlets, so it would be more than fine to use it in such circumstances. - mspete93 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't go to F1F first time, every time. I use it as a source to broaden out the reference pool - I'll only use it when the likes of Autosport are running the same thing, but I don't want the article to rely too heavily on Autosport. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

'Team' article names and scope - time for a shake-down?

We have recently been distracted from the more interesting and fulfilling tasks of adding value to the F1 'team' articles by the turmoil caused by recent 'team' restructuring and reorganisations. I believe that this turmoil has resulted, not because some editors are stubborn beyond belief, or because of hidden agendas or editor malice of some description, but because our 'team' article "standards" (for want of a better word) have two fundamental flaws.

These flaws (in my humble opinion) are that, although our 'team' articles are nominally created on a constructor-centric basis (one article per "constructor" name):

1) That they tend to contain, not constructor-centric, but 'team'-centric content (lead, infobox, content emphasis etc., reflecting the current 'team' official name or owner name rather than the "constructor" name).
2) That if the current 'team' owner happens to a company with a previous history in F1 (generally when a major car producer) and they have changed the 'team' "constructor" name to match their own name (and possibly the "constructor" name that they historically used) that the articles are then being cluttered with content that may be relevant to the owner's history in F1, but is not associated with the current 'team' or is incompatible with the history of the current 'team'.

Because of these flaws, these articles cannot readily tolerate the scenario where the 'team' owner or official name changes and the "constructor" name does not, and thus disruption occurs as editors attempt to shoe-horn information in where it doesn't fit or even rename (move) the article.

Examples of current turmoil caused by "flaw 1" can be seen in the Virgin Racing and Team Lotus (2010-11) articles. Both of those 'teams' were renamed by their owners, whilst keeping the same "constructor" name but, because the articles were driven by the 'team' names and not by the constructor names, the new names have caused confusion and disruption (including numerous article moves) to the articles.

An example of "flaw 2" is the Renault F1 article. History and other information which is relevant to Renault (the big car company that had acquired the team) but is not relevant to the actual 'team' that had its "constructor" name changed to "Renault", is contained in that article. This meant that when an ownership change of the 'team' resulted in a change to the 'team's' official name - but "Renault" was retained as the "constructor" name (and thus a new article was not created for the new 'team') that the article continued to contain Renault history that was neither associated with the new owners nor associated with the 'team' (which had its own history independent of Renault's) - and thus confusion and turmoil resulted, even more-so since the new owners later changed the "constructor" name too (to "Lotus") - and thus a new article - Lotus F1 - has now been created - but the first year under new ownership has to stay in the old article because of the "constructor" name!

So what can be done about this? The solution (in my humble opinion) is to basically retain the de-facto policy of one-article-per-constructor, but to:

a) Keep the article names strictly in line with the "constructor" names that they are covering - with a disambiguation term in parentheses (Wiki common practice) if necessary. E.g. "Caterham (F1 constructor)", "Marussia (F1 constructor)", "McLaren", "Virgin (F1 constructor)", "Williams (F1 constructor)", etc.
b) Consider the use of a historic "constructor" name by a 'team' which has been acquired and which has previously operated under other "constructor" names, not as a natural continuation of the original "constructor", but as a new "constructor". E.g. Have two articles "Renault (F1 constructor 1977-1985)" and "Renault (F1 constructor 2002-2011)" to cover the Renault scenarion. Aggregation can occur in an umbrella article - E,g, in "Renault in F1" or in "Renault (F1 constructor)".
c) Keep the content of the articles as constructor-centric. E.g. the leads should follow a pattern similar to: "Virgin is a Formula One constructor..." (this will remain constant despite an owner, sponsor or 'team' name change). Official 'team' names used and dates could follow. The infobox should contain the current and previous official 'team' names and their logos and the current and previous licence nationalities (flags) with dates if appropriate. Try to minimise the amount of stuff that would have to be changed if there was an ownership or name or flag change.
d) Keep history and information associated, not with the present physical 'team' itself currently operating under that "constructor" name, but to the potentially transient current parent company of that 'team' out of the article altogether - a wlink could easily be provided to a more appropriate article for that sort of information. E.g. a "Renault (F1 constructor 2002-2011)" article could say that: "... [[Renault in F1|Renault]] had a controlling interest in the team from 2002 to 2010...", with Renault company specific history etc. in the "Renault in F1" article.

The adoption of a policy along these lines would inevitably involve some serious editing work, but I'm sure that some of the articles could do with a bit of TLC anyway, and it would be an investment from which we should reap benefits in terms of article stability in the future.

Sorry about the length of this, but please don't just dismiss it as just more rubbish to be ignored - I'm sure we all realise that something needs to be done about this - and this is an honest and sincere attempt to offer some ideas that might help to resolve this.

-- de Facto (talk). 12:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

First things first, I'll apologise for the brevity of my reply in response to something you have put a lot of thought and effort into, but my real life time is somewhat restricted right now.
But first and foremost, what we have to account for before anything else is just what do our sources say about these teams? I'm going to focus exclusively on manufacturers here, since that's the main focus, and by and large most sources, be they results archives or just a news report, consider each period of their participation in Formula One as parts of the same constructor. It is essentially the same as teams who used to skip races in the past - instead these teams are skipping decades, but they are still the same "team" and "constructor", even if the staff or location are now different. Checking a few pages for Renault, we see how places consider the old and newer teams the same (a history page here, team profile here stats page there and even the team itself)
The policy has been generally to have a new article for each new constructor - and if a constructor returns then we acknowledge that by continuing the old article. I say generally of course because that isn't always the case, the Lotus situation or the BMW/Sauber pages having the same information. The biggest issue in trying to establish firm guidelines is that the team changes are always unique situations - they do not always follow an immediate new owner/new name/new team formula.
Ultimately, we have to discuss where and when to make the split in cases like Renault, (did they finish in 2009/2010/2011?) but we still have to follow what everyone else considers to be a new team. I have read what your proposals are, but I don't find myself agreeing with having a new article for each "team" as you put it (say Equipe Renault and Renault F1) as well as having a summary "Renault in F1" page. My proposal is really similar to what we have now, but just with a few tweaks:
A) Each constructor gets its own page, as they do now.
B) When it is brought out, we make a new page depending on whether the constructor changes (as we do now).
C) If an entity - and though I am referring to car manufactures, they don't necessarily have to be - returns to Formula One, we carry on the old page as a current team. For car manufacturers we have a "XXX in Formula One" to cover both entrants and engine operations.
These are just my thoughts upon it. QueenCake (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.
I think you may have misunderstood my position though, as you said you didn't agree 'with having a new article for each "team"...'. I wasn't actually advocating that, I was advocating a strict policy of a different article for each "constructor" (even if it transcends 'team' name or ownership changes), with it being completely constructor-centric (with team name changes, dates, etc. covered within it). That would mean the "Renault (F1 constructor 2002-2011)" article scope would be the Enstone team from the 2002 season to the 2011 season (the years its constructor name was "Renault"). That would mean that its scope didn't start until two years after Renault acquired the team (the constructor name remained as "Benetton" for taht period), but covered one year beyond the end of Renault's ownership of the team - so, of course, shouldn't hold information which wasn't directly related to the Enstone team (about other Renault history or other Renault activities, etc.).
You say the sources treat the various incarnations of the constructor name "Renault" as part of the same history - some may do, but we don't necessarily have to follow them. We could follow the sources that treat the 30-year Witney/Enstone team history as a notable single history - such as this one or this one or this one or this one and have a single "The Witney/Enstone F1 team" article documenting all of the team's history from Toleman, through Benetton and Renault to Lotus. Not that I'm advocating that, but just pointing out that we could legitimately choose that scope, rather than the "Renault in F1" scope, as there are sources which support that too.
I still think that "constructor" name should be the unit of measure, and should be strictly applied. That would remove the need to ever rename an article and would mean the lead sentence would not need to be changed with team name or ownership changes, and would allow umbrella articles for car company history, physical team history, aggregated constructor name articles (Renault 1977-85 and 2002-2011), etc. It's a win-win - the best of all worlds I think .
-- de Facto (talk). 23:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for a delayed reply here, I've still got little time for Wikipedia, but I am now rather unsure of what you are proposing. Keeping this brief, but you seem to be completely contradicting yourself now. On one hand, you are saying that we should have the constructor name as the basis for having a new page, but on the other you are arguing that we should have a separate article for Renault 1977-85 and another for 2002-2011. Why, when we should be having articles only for each constructor name? There is nothing different between the two periods, essentially Renault competed for eight years, withdrew for the next 16, then returned again as the same team. The fact that they changed base and took over a team (that they were originally competing against of course!) is irrelevant.
This isn't the same as Lotus, where we have had three pages for the three organisations all using the same constructor name, because in that case each one was a separate entity. Renault is the same organisation that has entered one team, in two different periods, and in my opinion it is much better served to have one page detailing each one of their entries. QueenCake (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No contradictions - one article per constructor is my current view, because I'd say the two Renault eras should be in different articles as, although they use the same constructor name, they are actually two very different constructors indeed. That's not to say that an umbrella article couldn't be constructed to weave them, and Renault's F1 engine activities together. But, whether we treat Renault as one or as two, 'constructor' seems a more logical unit of measure than 'team' - would you agree? -- de Facto (talk). 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that the team/constructor articles should be about teams, not constructors. For example information of Brabham's races with customer Lotuses belongs to the Brabham article (as it is), not to Team Lotus article, even though those cars were Lotuses. I general, I think all F1 operations (racing as a constuctor or as a customer team as well as engine manufacturing, and maybe sponsoring, too) that have been using the same identity, belong to same article. And by identity I mean that the team is considered to be representing certain organization, that may have, or have had, other F1 operations. Once the team is considered to be representing different organization (e.g. team is sold or just renamed), the team's identity changes, and in that case we need create a new article (unless there's an existing article under which that "new" team belongs).
But if we make Renault F1 article a Renault in Formula One article, I wonder whether Lotus Renault GP belongs to that article. 2010's BMW Sauber was similar case, team retained it's name but BMW Sauber section at BMW in Formula One doesn't include 2010 season. I think that should be the case with Renault in 2011, too. I don't think Malaysia '11 was Renault's last podium as a works team, last podium was Belgium '10. Malaysia '11 was the last time Renault-named car was on podium, but it wasn't representing Renault Société Anonyme, it was representing Lotus Renault GP Limited, and the team didn't have the Renault identity.
Anyway, most likely most statistics pages consider Lotus F1 Team as a new team, and consider LRGP as the same team as Renault's team, despite not representing Renault. So, I suggest we have statistics like numbers of GPs, podium finishes, etc. in Renault team's infobox both with and without Lotus Renault GP, as those are usually calculated for a constructor name, not for a team.
Also, even if Caterham is regarded as a separate constructor to Lotus of '10 & '11, I think we could include their '10 and '11 seasons in the Caterham article, if the team themselves publically show they think they're still the same team. --August90 (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry de Facto but I cannot agree that the two Renault eras are in any way separate. It is the same company entering the same team as the same constructor, and really I think we are just going to have to agree that things should remain as they are, with it all on one article, at least for now. I'm kind of confused when you say that constructor names should be used as base for a new article, because that is what I am seeing already - otherwise we wouldn't have new articles for Marussia or Caterham.
And August, as said below it is clear that despite ownership it was still the Renault team, which ultimately means they were still representing Renault SA - even if technically they were not! I do kind of hope the whole discussion has produced something useful in that we can should rename the Renault and Honda pages - at the very least not to have a Renault Sport F1 page. Unless I am missing something there was agreement to have articles named in the "XXX in Formula One" fashion, so I will eventually do that if there's no objection? QueenCake (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
QueenCake, although the owner and the constructor name they used was the same, the teams were two very different teams. The second team (as Toleman) had actually competed against the first team from 1981 to 1985. The articles may be nominally based on 'constructor', but the contents are definitely 'team' based. Even the infobox is for the team, not constructor. Look at what happens when team names change but the constructor name doesn't. If the articles were actually constructor based, they would start "xxx is a F1 constructor..." - and that wouldn't need to be changed (as I've now done with the Renault F1 article) and the infobox would just have to have another name added to a "used by" teams list. If the Caterham article was a constructor articles it would have a name like "Caterham (F1 constructor)" - that's the normal way of disambiguating article names - and start "Caterham is a F1 constructor...", not "Caterham F1 Team is a Malaysian-owned Formula One team..." as it is today (the same goes for the Marussia article). The "xxx F1" names reflect neither the team names nor the constructor names. -- de Facto (talk). 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The thing is though that ultimately the differences you continue to bring up are plain irrelevant. It matters not that the "teams" as you put it (and I think we're getting mixed up over how we define a team) have changed, because every Grand Prix entry bearing the name of Renault has been under the authority of the Renault company, whether or not they were based at Enstone. I'm not one to throw policies around, but its arguably going into original research to declare them as separate constructors. The "Car company in Formula One" names perhaps may not be perfect, but remember their point is to have one page detailing both their periods of entering as a constructor and detailing their engine operations. Having a name like Caterham (F1 constructor) precludes this, as well as being against general naming conventions. They have worked fine for BMW, Lancia and Alfa Romeo. QueenCake (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We're covering a lot of different concepts here - let me try and clarify where I am with them...

  • I certainly now think we need one article per 'constructor' and one 'constructor' (and nothing else to do with the business of the parent company such as engine division activity) per such article. That article may well cover different team names and different owners, but it shouldn't need to be renamed - ever. The ideal name would be the constructor name: "Renault", "Caterham", "Marussia", "Lotus", etc. They would need disambiguating though (for obvious reasons) and the Wiki convention is to put the disambiguator in parentheses (e.g. Tree (data structure), Tree (graph theory), Tree (set theory), Tree (descriptive set theory) and Tree (Unix)).
  • We need a separate article for each company (usually car manufacturers) that has a complex F1 history - with names like 'Renault in F1". That should summarise the various related F1 activities of the company, constuctor actity, engine activity, etc.
  • We could have an article per 'physical' team - e.g. "The Enstone Team", charting their history, changes of ownership, changes of 'constructor' name, etc.

There's probably more too - I'll add it if I remember it - but I've had a long day... -- de Facto (talk).

I categorically disagree on having an article on a physical location, because that really isn't useful, although I do respect that was just an idea. I just do not see any point in having a Renault in F1 article if it is not the main page, the whole purpose of it in my view is to provide the complete information of Renault's involvement in Formula One. Also, naming convention is to only have the disambiguation in parentheses if it is required, which in the majority of cases it is not. QueenCake (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How about ownership and team name. Lumping all of Renault by name wouldn't be a bad idea, but it would make for a huge article. If we made a "Renault in F1" article detailing only the team's non-constructor history, then have an article for Equipe Renault and Renault F1. Since McLaren changed its name from McLaren-Mercedes, does that make it a completely new constructor? Team name changes in the past have had to do with either investors coming onto a team or someone else buying the assets of a team. March to Leyton House, which became March again is where a investor bought into the team and changed the name. For some reason the FIA did not declare them a completely new team. When Andrea Sassetti bought out Coloni, he only bought the cars themselves and not the entries, which made Andrea Moda a new team. Marussia bought out Virgin's stake in the team, similar-ish to that of the previously mentioned March to Leyton House transition, and the Lotus ownership changed the name of the team from LRGP to just Lotus F1. I'm guessing that if someone buys an entry completely from a team, then it is completely new. But how does Formula 1 determine what qualifies as a new team, given that I don't think there's been a situation where a team has changed its name without a major investor comign on.Gaeaman787 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@QueenCake: You said LRGP were still representing Renault SA - even if technically they were not, but I'd say it was exactly the opposite way. They weren't representing Renault SA, people just associated it with Renault SA because of earlier ownership and chassis name. Had there not been a Renault-powered team called Team Lotus, thus having Lotus-Renault cars, I think more people would've talked about Lotus Renault instead of Renault. I'd say Renault SA's involvement with LRGP was somewhere between Group Lotus's involvement in Lotus Racing and GL's involvement with Lotus Renault GP/Lotus F1 Team. GL's involvement in Lotus Racing was just being a licensor plus GL's parent, Proton had one model with Lotus Racing branding. In Enstone team, GL's involvement is larger, the team has significant Lotus Cars branding that Lotus Racing really didn't have. But they're still only a sponsor, Lotus F1 Team can't really be said to be Group Lotus's team, it's just Group Lotus supported team. By the way, why does Lotus F1 Team article says GL own 25 % of the team, to my understand they're just sponsors. Actually, I added "citation needed" there. Anyway, I think Renault SA's involvement in the team was somewhere between those examples of GL's involvement, LRGP had more Renault SA branding than Lotus Racing had GL/Proton branding, yet LRGP was mainly representing GL. So, considering that LRGP continued as Lotus F1 Team, my personal opinion is that already LRGP would belong to Lotus F1 article. But, statistics probably consider new Lotus team's first season to be 2012, so 2011 statistics are probably included in Renault article. So, as a compromise, I could accept including '11 season to Renault article, but that article should mention LRGP wasn't anymore Renault's works team, it was rather representing Group Lotus. And, despite not including 2011 to Lotus F1 Team article, that article should clearly mention that GL's involvement started in 2011 despite Renault chassises. Anyway, QueenCake, I support your idea about moving Renault F1 to Renault in Formula One.

@Gaeaman787: You said McLaren and McLaren Mercedes aren't considered to be separate teams. I think that's because McLaren Mercedes always kept the McLaren identity. In comparision, LRGP didn't retain the Renault SA identity. The years as McLaren Mercedes are part of McLaren's history as F1 team as well as Mercedes history as engine supplier and team shareholder. But LRGP of '11 is only part of Renault SA's history as engine supplier. --August90 (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@Gaeaman787 Lumping all of Renault by name is exactly what we do now, and the article is still rather small. Even if it was expanded it would be perfectly manageable, smaller than Ferrari or McLaren. And on that note, no McLaren have never changed their name. They've stuck sponsors and variations of team on their full name, but they are still and have always been called McLaren. And how does Formula 1 determine what qualifies as a new team? I don't think it does, just makes it up for each and every situation, and we have to follow.
@August90 Like I said it is a technicality, but as they ultimately kept the Renault name they were basically entering cars on Renault's behalf. Perhaps they would of, but I do doubt it they were just a sponsor, regardless they were known as Renault and that is how we have to follow. I do agree it is reasonable to state it was no longer a works team, something that should be stated for 2010 really as well, and clearly saying the involvement of Group Lotus in 2011. The Lotus F1 article is fairly brief at the moment, and it should well be expanded as you said. I think that having the crossover between the two articles is the best way to go forward now.
Finally, changing the name was your idea in the first place ;)

QueenCake (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@QueenCake: I don't see how LRGP entered cars on Renault SA's behalf. Neither Sauber entered BMW Saubers on behalf of BMW in 2010, or Lotus Racing Lotuses on behalf of GL. Renault allowed them to use name Renault, just as BMW permitted the use of BMW Sauber and GL the use of Lotus Racing in 2010. Yet, that's quite small an issue, the main point is that Renault SA, of which the article "Renault in Formula One" would be, was only engine supplier for LRGP but allowed the team to continue with Renault chassis name.
Anyway, if/when we get a consesus that Renault SA's all F1 activities belong to same article, I think we can rename Renault F1 to Renault in Formula and make some changes to the structure of that article. I still think Renault Sport F1 could be left out, as it's an active F1 operation of Renault and we also have the Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines article. --August90 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm I good point I suppose. My argument came from that as Renault let them use the name, they were still entering cars for Renault even if Renault SA had no more involvement on the constructor side. Still as you said, it's a moot point and the situation should be correctly explained on the Renault in Formula One page.
My issue with Renault Sport F1 is that the article is just a copy of the engine section on the Renault page, which being before the company was spun off doesn't need the history to be put into that much detail. Should it be taken out, I don't think it really meets the notability guidelines, especially when the content will be still be duplicated in two articles. I did make the argument that HPE could be merged in to Mercedes as while, but that company was originally the quasi-independent Mercedes-Ilmor, so perhaps we need one and not the other. QueenCake (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My views (which I think are pretty similar to Queencake's):

  • I think it's sensible to split the articles on a "constructor" basis (as we currently do), although I don't think this means the articles need to be strictly constructor-centric (as proposed by de Facto)
  • I think in the vast majority of cases, one article can describe both the team and the constructor, e.g. I think it's fine for Brabham to cover (a) Brabham cars raced by the works team, (b) non-Brabham cars raced by the Brabham team and (c) Brabham cars races by other teams. De Facto is correct that most of the existing articles have a strong "team" focus, so in some cases, we probably need to tweak the wording to de-emphasise the "team" aspect and amplify the "constructor" aspect.
  • Regarding Renault, my preference is to have a single article called "Renault in Formula One" encompassing 1977-1985, 2002-2011 and engine supply. If we must have subarticles for 1977-85 and 2002-2011, I suggest they be named on a "team" basis (e.g. "Equipe Renault" and "Renault F1 Team"), rather than a "constructor" basis (e.g. "Renault (F1 constuctor 1977-85)" and "Renault (F1 constructor 2002-11)") because most(?) external sources consider "Renault the 1977 F1 constructor" and "Renault the 2011 F1 constructor" to be the same thing and aggregate their statistics. Personally I'd prefer Renault Sport F1 to be merged into Renault F1 - it seems odd to me that Red Bull's 2010 engines link to Renault F1 but their 2011 engines link to Renault Sport F1, when they're effectively the same engines, and both called "Renault".
  • For Lotus, I think the current arrangement of three separate articles (Team Lotus, Team Lotus (2010-11) and Lotus F1) is best, and least confusing for non-experts.
  • Finally, all the teams/constructors with "complicated" histories (Renault, Lotus, Mercedes, Alfa Romeo, etc) are slightly different, so there may not be a "one size fits all" solution

DH85868993 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If, or should I say when, Renault F1 article will be renamed as Renault in Formula One, should the introduction section be more about Renault's F1 operations in general, as currently it begins by telling the use history of Renault chassis name. I made an alternative version to my sandbox, which tells more chronologically about Renault's F1 operations. Besides, I support merging Renault Sport F1 with the Renault in F1 article. But, what about redirects "Renault F1", "Equipe Renault", "Renault F1 Team", "Lotus Renault GP"? Should they lead to the Renault in F1 article or to respective sections of the article. --August90 (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The lead of your sandbox version looks good to me. Regarding the redirects, F1-related redirects usually redirect to the whole article (but that doesn't necessarily mean we would have to do the same in this case). Renault F1 would definitely have to redirect to the whole article, since the 1977-85 chassis references, 2002-2011 chassis references and most of the engine references all link there. Equipe Renault, Renault F1 Team and Lotus Renault GP could either redirect to the whole article, or to the relevant sections - I'm not too fussed. Noting that it's probably a bit moot until the article is renamed (although I think it's likely that will happen eventually). DH85868993 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks DH for a bit of endorsement there! I think our views are largely similar, and smaller tweaks to what we have is the best way forward. I do agree that there can't be a "one size fits all" solution, due to the various nature if how teams are acquired and renamed (different organisations, changing names, etc). On the subject of Renault, I was planning to rename the article once the Renault Sport F1 article was merged in, which I was going to do sometime soon when I had the time. We're blacking out tomorrow I see, but in the next few days I'll get round to it if no one else does. QueenCake (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added a {{movenotice}} to Renault F1, to give anyone who might object a chance to have their say. DH85868993 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm broadly in support of DH85868993's bullet-pointed suggestions above (I'm afraid I haven't had time to scour through this entire discussion and make sense of it, but top marks to those that have moved it along). I'm in favour of the Renault in Formula One article, though I too am not keen on any suggestion of sub-articles. As has been proved in recent times there are conflicting views over where the boundaries lie between the different Renault eras. For that reason, I'd rather that anything involving a Renault-badged car was cobbled into the same article, and that remains the single reference point for it. - mspete93 00:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned the redirects to Renault articles, I think Lotus Renault GP is the one needing most redirect to a section, instead of the whole article, as the rest of the article is mainly about Renault SA's F1 activities. So, I added a short introduction to the sandbox version's LRGP section. I also added mention about name change to Lotus F1 Team in that section.
I'm not so sure, if Equipe Renault or Renault F1 Team need similar redirects to respective sections, but maybe links referring to Renault engines could direct to the article's engine section. --August90 (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring for a moment the 2011 Renault engines (which are linked to Renault Sport F1), Renault engines from 1977-2010 are currently linked to Renault F1. This is consistent with other engine manufacturers, where engines are linked to the whole article, rather than an "engine supply" subsection, e.g. Alfa Romeo engines are linked to Alfa Romeo in Formula One, Honda engines are linked to Honda Racing F1, etc. I'm not saying we couldn't change the Renault engine links to link to an "engine supply" subsection of Renault in Formula One, but we'd probably want to consider it as part of a proposal to do it for all engine manufacturers, not just Renault. DH85868993 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I say we go by whoever owned the team. Having a Renault in F1 article is basically just the current one we have. Cutting it up into Equipe Renault will denote the fact that Renault has had a distinct manufacturer history. Or maybe we could have in Renault in F1 article, have links to the main articles (with some summaries) and have the focal point of the article be Renault's time as a engine manufacturer.

Going by whoever owns a team (has there ever been a instance where a team has just changed its name without change in ownership and where the points were counted?) OR does the FIA just not care in this instance and should we just come to a consensus.Gaeaman787 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In reading this debate, I feel some of us are losing sight of something. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a motorsport specific encyclopedia. What we do and write should keep in mind our audience. For instance, Renault. The two Renault Formula One teams should not be separated. While we know they were spearate teams that even lived in different countries, the majority of the world see it as Renault the car maker going Formula One racing. Instead of confusing the audience with a myriad of "for this go here and this go here", both Renault teams can be easily accomodated on one page. It is not completely impossible to write it how it can cover two team.

It is for reasons like this that WP:COMMONNAME exists. Don't get lost in technical correctness if it affects good writing and readability and accessability by the public at large. --Falcadore (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So do we just get rid of the Lotus F1 team page and slap it on the Renault F1 page. Because Renault as a manufacturer is out completely, it's just Lotus F1 now. We should drop the new Lotus F1 team article and move the whole Renault F1 page to the Lotus F1 page. Alot of analysts count the Renault F1 team as the one that bought out Benneton up to the point that Lotus got involved. So theoretically, Renault as a manufacturer ended when Lotus got involved.

@Falcadore Yes we know that Renault fans consider Equipe Renault and Renault F1 as one continuous team. But from an official standpoint about when a team enters F1, they're totally seperate. Let's say you bought out HRT and re-named it Falca Formula, and you kept Narain and Pedro de la Rosa. While those two drivers would still have their points continue, the fact that you bought the team completely and changed it (i.e. license, livery, etc.) means it's a new team to F1. Genii bought some stake in the Renault F1 team a few years ago, then Lotus shared the namespace with Renault as LRGP. Does anyone actually know how the FIA determines what a new team is? Gaeaman787 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Arrows / 1982 South African GP

I'm finding conflicting information over whether the Arrows cars at the 1982 South African Grand Prix were A3s or A4s. FORIX (subscription site), ChicaneF1 and this webpage say "A3" but StatsF1, Autocourse Grand Prix Archive, Mike Lang's Grand Prix! and Kimberley's Grand Prix Team Guide say "A4". Does anyone have a definitive answer or advice on which sources we should follow? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The 1982 Autocourse annual itself, Christopher Hilton's book on the 1982 season, and the Guinness Grand Prix Who's Who all state that the team used A4s for that race. I'll check my Motor Sport archive CD to see if it contains any further information.--Midgrid(talk) 13:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The contemporary Motor Sport race report has both Arrows drivers in A4s as well.--Midgrid(talk) 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Midgrid, was that a Jenks article? Pyrope 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes.--Midgrid(talk) 21:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a significant amount of reliable evidence for A4, so I have updated the one article which says A3 to say A4, so we have internal consistency. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If it was Jenks then that's the sort of detail that he would have made absolutely sure was correct. I know he gave up compiling the chassis numbers in the '70s, but there is no way he would have allowed a car's type to be misidentified. Pyrope 06:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of Mercedes GP

Looking at the Mercedes GP article, I have noticed the following line at the very beginning of the lead:

Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team, the trading name of Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited and formerly known as Mercedes GP Petronas Formula One Team

This makes it quite clear that the team is no longer known as "Mercedes Grand Prix". Nowhere do the words "Grand Prix" appear in the formal title of the team name, and the constructor name is recognised simply as "Mercedes". Even their chassis names have changed, from "Mercedes MGP W(number)" to "Mercedes F1 W(number)". So I think the page should be moved, either to Mercedes AMG (Formula One constructor) (or some variation thereof) or Mercedes F1 Team, since "Formula One Team" is consistent in both formal trading names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Err, can't it be moved to Mercedes in Formula One like we've done to Renault and Honda? - mspete93 11:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say just that. I actually forgot about Mercedes in all the discussion about Renault, but we mentioned moving that page as well. Mercedes in Formula One is simple and consistent with other manufacturers that have entered F1 in separate periods - and we really need to add the information about the 50s team back in. QueenCake (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the "XYZ in Formula One" should be reserved only for car manufacturers that aren't currently constructors in F1, and have had many F1 activities, like Renault and Honda, unlike Toyota. If the car manufacturer currently is a constructor in F1, then we should use the official team name without sponsors, possibly in a simplified form. In Merc's case, we have to consider whether or not AMG is a sponsor name. AMG is not a part of constructor name, but neither AMG is a car marque, AMG's models are Mercedes-Benzes. I think both Prisonermonkeys' proposals are good, depending on whether AMG is considered to be a sponsor or not. But, I think there's no need to hurry up, maybe we can wait to see how media refers to the team. Mercedes GP is still quite good an article name, it tells it's Merc's team that participates GP races. --August90 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Just let's not have an article title with a disambiguator - we're trying to evolve to a system that doesn't use them, aren't we? I don't have a problem with "Mercedes in Formula One" or "Mercedes F1 Team", depending on whether or not it will include the 50s team. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The fact that there isn't anything obvious to call them means there's no real reason why 'Mercedes in Formula One' cannot be used. It needs to include the 1950s - else we're being inconsistent up against Renault and Honda. I can't see them being called 'Mercedes AMG' very much. They'll be commonly referred to as just 'Mercedes' in the same way they have been the last two years. - mspete93 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I tend to favor "Foo in F1" for those not currently (or ever) actual constructors. I'm not thrilled with "Mercedes F1 team", but it beats moving it every time a main sponsor changes. :( TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If we are going to have the 50s team on the page, as we fully should, then naming the article after the current team would really be incorrect. Mercedes in Formula One (or perhaps Mercedes-Benz?) covers both teams simply without facing the possibility of a future name change. QueenCake (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with where the page ultimately ends up, just so long as it's not Mercedes GP, since the team name does not contain the words "Grand Prix" anymore. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes in Formula One is fine with me, too. I think Mercedes F1 team is a bit clumsy. JonCTalk 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
That's why I suggested "Mercedes AMG (Formula One team)" - because the "AMG" has replaced "GP" in the team name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
That looks good to me, but we're supposed to be avoiding disambiguators, by the sounds of things. I don't understand the problem, personally, but there you go. JonCTalk 09:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to use a disambiguator, then simply Mercedes (Formula One) would do the job surely, seeing as 'Mercedes' is what they're commonly referred to? But then Mercedes in Formula One would remove the brackets, and be consistent with other articles. - mspete93 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Mercedes in Formula One wouldn't be consistent with the articles about car manufacturers' active F1 teams. Those "XYZ in Formula One" articles have always been about car manufacturers that currently aren't constructors in F1. I think we just have to decide whether AMG is a sponsor or not. As the former Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines has nowadays AMG in its name, I'd say adding AMG is just part of increasing AMG branding in Merc's motorsports programme. So, I think the best name is Mercedes AMG (Formula One). Another option might be Mercedes AMG F1, as the trading name is Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team, and Wikipedia usually drops sponsor names and "Team" after "F1" (even though I don't like about dropping "Team"). At least the latter wouldn't have brackets. --August90 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I personally think we should be setting the new standard now in having "XYZ in Formula One", regardless of whether or not the car manufacturers are currently active. We don't have to worry about consistency with active manufacturers because the only other manufacturer in the sport (Ferrari) has been continually present since day one, hence no need for this longer name. The problem with a disambiguator is that the guidelines do say to only use one when strictly necessary, and we came to the conclusion in the discussion up the page that most teams have a longer name to use as the page title. QueenCake (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion there are some things not in favour of Mercedes in Formula One. An article with that name would be supposed to concentrate on all Merc's F1 activities, incl. engine supplying and previous McLaren ownership. And, an article with that name wouldn't be supposed to tell short pre-Mercedes history of the Brackley team. The Brackley team's history is part of the current Merc team's history, but not part of Mercedes-Benz's history. In my opinion the article's main focus should be in the current team, that's what most readers are searching for. That's why I don't find Mercedes in Formula One the best option, the title should also refer to the current team, despite that that the article also inludes Merc's early F1 history. --August90 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think if there was an obvious unambiguous thing to call the team then there might be an argument to use their current name, rather than a general overarching name. But there clearly isn't, so... - mspete93 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I could live with Mercedes AMG F1 or Mercedes F1, as they do have "Formula 1 Team" in their name. Perhaps the latter, as AMG isn't part of the constructor name and so I assume is treated as a sponsor. JonCTalk 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we looking for one article to replace Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains, Mercedes GP and a large part of Mercedes-Benz in motorsport? If we are, then we should also consider Daimler in Formula One, Daimler AG being the parent company owning 'Mercedes' brand, to be consistent with the other 'xxx in Formula One' articles. -- de Facto (talk). 08:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What? What on earth are you even on about? You'll find a way to complicate anything, won't you? Renault, Honda, Mercedes. That sounds like consistency to me, and 99.99% of other people I expect! When has 'Daimler' ever competed in Formula 1? Never. - mspete93 18:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I happen to agree with that view. The company is Renault, so it is Daimler, not Mercedes. And so the page should be Daimler. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
If we went down the route of using parent companies, would we also have to have a Fiat in Formula One page, covering half of Ferrari's history and a few years of Alfa? The French and Italian Government-run teams?? Shady middle-eastern business concern? At the very least, let's stick to common names and not confusing half our readers. QueenCake (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Besides, the pages aren't done on ownership (as has been explained on countless occasions now!). If they were, 2011 Renault wouldn't be covered in Renault in Formula One but 2002(?) Benetton would be. - mspete93 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No to any "Daimler F1" articles - that idea is just all kinds of wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, it's unnecessary. As mspete points out, it's a complication that is apparently for the sake of complication. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion about renaming Mercedes GP to Mercedes in Formula One on the talkpage here Talk:Mercedes_GP#Proposed_move, as a help to others who may not be watching this discussion. Please add your opinions on the move there. Thanks QueenCake (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Autosport.com as a source

I've noticed that a lot of the articles in the Formula 1 pages use Autosport.com as a source. Some use Autosport almost exclusively. However, I think that we need to tread very carefully here. Ever since Kimi Raikkonen joined Lotus in November, I have noticed that Autosport have been running a lot of pro-Raikkonen and pro-Lotus stories. There have been accusations that they favoured Group Lotus in the court case with Tony Fernandes, but I never really saw it. This, however, is another matter entirely. Now, I suppose you could argue that Autosport is simply playing up to public interest in Raikkonen's return, and maybe I could believe that, but I think we need to err on the side of caution. Autosport ran a whole host of articles invterviewing the likes of Sebastian Vettel, David Coulthard and Damon Hill about how Raikkonen will succeed, but they ignored Gerhard Berger's comments when Berger said he would not have taken Raikkonen. I just think that we need to be really careful in how we handle this - there have been a lot of pro-Raikkonen stories, and Lotus did sponsor the Autosport International Show last month. There is a potential for some serious bias here, enough to compromise Autosport's reliability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If we're not using Autosport to support POV, and Autosport is not inherently stating a POV, then what is there to look out for? Them having more Raikkonen articles doesn't really affect our ability to present an encyclopedia. The359 (Talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying we should look out for the potential for it to happen, not that it actually is happening. I'm aware that more Raikkonen articles does not skew their credibility - my concern is more about the content of those articles. Like I said, they interviewed half a dozen different people about Raikkonen's return, and all of them gave glowing comments. But they ignored people like Berger, who said they did not think Raikkonen was a good choice for 2012. That, to me, is bias. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
But we, on Wikipedia, say nothing about people's opinions of Raikkonen's return, so why do we can what Autosport does about people's opinions? How exactly would they start biasing facts and news? The359 (Talk) 01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Reliability is more about fact checking and editorial overview, not about POV. There is nothing in Wiki policies to say that a reliable source has to be neutral, just that the facts it reports need to be trustworthy. WP:NPOV deals with POV, and insists that articles must strike a neutral balance between the various of notable (e.g. that of Autosport) POVs expressed. -- de Facto (talk). 07:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Team attribute terminology

The terminology, used in F1 articles, to refer to various attributes of the F1 teams appears to be inconsistent and at odds with that used by the FIA (which may also be inconsistent, of course). We need to review our definitions of these and produce a glossary, or similar (perhaps we already have one in WP:F1, or in another article?). The terms that I believe need clarifying are:

  • Team
  • Team name
  • Full team name
  • Short team name
  • Sponsor name
  • Constructor
  • Constructor name
  • Chassis name
  • Engine name
  • Entrant
  • Make
  • (I'm sure there are more too)

-- de Facto (talk). 07:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

These terms were never in need of clarification until you came along and complicated the matter, as you regularly do. Everyone understood them well enough. And if you don't understand them to the point where you need them clarified, then why are you editing sections of articles that deal with the differences between the names?
Anyway, the team name is the name the team uses to refer to itself. This is usually a formal team name, like "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes". The constructor is the person or organisation that owns the team, and is generally the common name of the team, like "McLaren". The chassis name is the name given to the car by the constructor, and is usually the constructor name plus something to identify it from other cars built by the same constructor, like "McLaren MP4-27". The engine name is the name given to the engine by the organisation that built it, plus something to identify it from other engines built by the same organisation, like "Renault RS27-2012". The rest of the name you listed as needing clarification are -to the best of my knowledge - not used in Wikipedia articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's look at how your definition of "constructor" compares to its use in the articles shall we. You define "constructor" as "the person or organisation that owns the team".
In 2012 Formula One season we have the constructor name of the team named Lotus F1 Team given as Lotus, yet Lotus don't own the team. In the same article, the constructor for the team that Daimler own is given as "Mercedes". So which is incorrect - your definition or the article?
In the 2011 Formula One season article we have the constructor for the "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" team given variously as "McLaren" and "McLaren-Mercedes". Your definiton happens to fit one, but not he other - which is correct?
-- de Facto (talk). 11:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Constructor officially means the following (rule 1.7 as taken from the 2012 Formula One sporting regulations)...

In the case of Formula racing cars, an automobile make is a complete car. When the car manufacturer fits an engine which it does not manufacture, the car shall be considered a hybrid and the name of the engine manufacturer shall be associated with that of the car manufacturer. The name of the car manufacturer must always precede that of the engine manufacturer. Should a hybrid car win a Championship Title, Cup or Trophy, this will be awarded to the manufacturer of the car.

2012 F1 sporting regs

Note the the FIA use the term "automobile make". "Constructor" is an equivalent term that has been in use for longer and is more widely used. So for the "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" team, the constructor would be "McLaren-Mercedes". Readro (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Readro, thanks for that. That looks like a definition of "make" though - where is the confirmation that "constructor" and "make" are the same thing, and if they are; what is just the "McLaren" bit in your example called on its own? -- de Facto (talk). 12:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you'll find confirmation that they are the same thing. We have the Formula One Constructors' Championship, formerly the International Cup for F1 Constructors (Coupe Internationale des Constructeurs Formule 1), which is for what are defined as "makes" above. "McLaren" is just the car manufacturer. Readro (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
McLaren, as well as Lotus, Caterham, and Marussia are chassis names. That's the word FIA used in the press release of '12 name changes. link And in the entry list, constructors are "McLaren Mercedes", "Red Bull Racing Renault" "STR Ferrari, or "Mercedes" (not "Mercedes Mercedes"). --August90 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree there. "McLaren MP4-27" would be a chassis name. "McLaren" is the chassis manufacturer. Readro (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So there isn't even a common understanding of what a "constructor" is. No wonder there is so much apparent inconsistency amongst the F1 articles, and so much squabbling each time someone attempts to rationalise any of it. Let's start then with trying to understand what a constructor is, we currently have two suggestions:

  • The person or organisation that owns the team?
  • The 'make' of the whole car, including the engine?

-- de Facto (talk). 10:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think most people do have an understanding of what these terms mean; but I suspect people are just tired of having extremely long, protracted and frustrating discussions about it. I don't see anyone trying to rationalise anything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Pedantism can be taken too far. --Falcadore (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Pedantry? ;-) Pyrope 14:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the Lotus Renault GP and Marussia Virgin Racing situation is the reason why we talk unncessarily much about trading and constructor names. I take an example from Renault in Formula One article:
For the first two seasons under Renault the team continued to be called "Benetton Formula" and used "Benetton" as their constructor name. In 2002 Renault rebranded the team as the "Renault F1 Team" and started to use "Renault" as its constructor name.
Come on, wouldn't it be enough to have it like this:
For the first two seasons under Renault the team continued to be called Benetton. In 2002 the team was rebranded as Renault.
In my opinion the chassis constructor name is enough in most cases, trading name, or a shortened version of it, should be used only when chassis constructor name can be confused with another company with that name or the team's commonly used name is other than the chassis constructor name, like Brawn GP instead of Brawn. --August90 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Creating race report pages

Hey guys, quick question: how far in advance should we start creating race report pages? I noticed that someone made the 2012 Australian Grand Prix page a month in advance of the event. I've reverted it, because most of the page content was trivia about how long it had been since certain nationalities had been represented by drivers, but it did get me thinking as to when the appropriate time an place for the creation of these pages would be. I can understand making the likes of 2012 United States Grand Prix sooner than other race report pages because it is a new event, but I'm wondering what opinions should be: should we create each race report page a certain amount of time before the next event (for example, as soon as the previous event has finished), or should we simply play it by ear and create each page when we have enough information about the event to justify its existence? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DRS zones on circuit maps

Just a quick idea here: should include a secondary map in each article showing the placement of the DRS zone? I'm thinking it could go in the body of the article rather than the infobox, but a visual representation of the zone would be better than trying to describe it in prose. Even if it is just an insert showing the section of the circuit (with corner numbers to clarify the section), I think it would add a lot to race articles. The only problem is that I can't draw these things myself - I'm hopeless at graphics programs. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If we must it would be better to add it on the map in the infobox, rather than add a separate one that may interfere with the layout on a page, especially if there are already several pictures included on the article. Like you said if you can't do it you'll have to find someone who can, or politely ask the users who made the existing diagrams. I don't particularly mind either way though. QueenCake (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice idea, but one issue is that (as far as I am aware) the DRS zones can change from year to year. Also, DRS zones are specific to F1 - and for the majority of the circuits on the calendar, F1 is not the only major series to go there in a season. Or, just reading your suggestion again, were you suggesting they go in the individual race articles (i.e. 2012 Australian Grand Prix)? - mspete93 16:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking they could just be included in the race reports. Say the DRS zone for Melbourne takes up the front straight - all we would need is a little insert showing the area of the DRS zone, with the detection point, activation point and the actual zone marked on it. I don't think it needs to go in the infobox; we can easily have it floating in the body of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wheel doughnut

FYI, Wheel doughnut has been proposed for deletion. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say let it die. I'm fairly certain BBS and Porsche had this about 30 years before Formula One decided to do it, although the empasis there was more on aerodynamics and less on brake cooling. The359 (Talk) 02:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Send it to Glossary of motorsport terms, it's hardly worth debating. --Falcadore (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Apologies I forget to post a note on here. Redirecting it's a good idea, I'll add my support to Falcadore's comment. QueenCake (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the season pages have very detailed, race by race accounts (although TBH a lot of these need some serious style editing). But the only place one can find the race reports is in a small table at the bottom of the page. Especially when there's a section that summarizes another article, there needs to be a link there in the prose. I just did 90-91-92 but there are many other seasons with the same problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.111.59 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that really neccessary? The season article already have many links to race reports. Race by race stories of the season should not exist in the season article. The season article should describe the whole of the season rather than small bits of it in isolation. --Falcadore (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Team drivers

A decision which impacts upon such categories as Category:Williams Formula One drivers and could see them deleted - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 18#NASCAR_race_team_categories. --Falcadore (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that might be an over reaction. As I read the discussion, people aren't fussed if the teams operated in the top category of their class, if the drivers competed for the majority of a season, and if the team lineups are fairly stable. This is generally true of F1 driver-team relationships so I think the categories are fine. Pyrope 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
And yet all the categories were deleted. While some debated how they wer defined they were ultimately all deleted regardless of scope. --Falcadore (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a fuel field on the team infobox?

I thought I'd bring this up here, as I'm not sure if Template:Infobox F1 team is that followed, but I'm not sure if there is a need to have a separate field for the current fuel supplier to the team in that infobox. It's really a component of the engine (in a very basic way) and not separate like the Chassis, Engine and Tyres, and it seems to me to be unnecessary to include fuel and not things like KERS, ECU, wheels, etc. (Not that I want anything like that included either.) Any thoughts? QueenCake (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be included, as fuel is an important part of the F1 car, and there are many different suppliers. even though it is a component of the engine, there are some teams that use the same engines as one another, but have different fuel suppliers. Even though it is not talked about much, fuel is very much an important part of the F1 car. Editadam 20:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
What about oil, spark plugs, brakes etc.? I'd say leave fuel out as otherwise you can start overcomplicating the infobox very quickly. Readro (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering how much control there is on the fuel, I'd say that the brand of fuel counts very little and makes negligable gains on performance based on how they happen to formulate it. The359 (Talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Maybe back in the 80's when Agip was putting rocket fuel in the cars it was relevant, but for the most part it isn't. In a situation like that where there really was something special about the fuel, just mention it the prose. 74.70.111.59 (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed it. QueenCake (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

EJ-10 nominated for deletion

FYI, EJ-10 (the article about Eddie Jordan's energy drink, not Jordan EJ10 - the article about the F1 car) has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any opinions you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ben Pon

An editor has moved F1 driver Ben Pon's article to Ben Pon (junior) and created a disambiguation page. The only other Ben Pon is the F1 driver's father, who imported VWs to Holland. Pon the racing driver also raced at Le Mans and represented his country at the Olympics, but this editor does not accept that the son is the primary topic. Any thoughts? Apart from the obvious necessity of changing the stupid new title, of course. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if Ben Pon (senior) actually passes WP:BIO. As far as I can tell he was a businessman who owned a car dealership, has a passing notability and a mention here and there; at the very least he's certainly less notable than a race driver who's competed in F1 and Le Mans. Revert the move back at once I'd say. QueenCake (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought - the father's notability is pretty shaky. I would have reverted back but it doesn't seem possible once a disambiguation page has been created. Might need an admin? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah unfortunately we're going to need an admin to get involved. You should be able to list it under Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves, or speedying the dab page under DB6 and then moving Ben Pon Jr back. QueenCake (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that'll give me something to tackle tomorrow. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who would like to, please have your say at Talk:Ben Pon, Jr.#Requested move. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Colours of Template:Hispania Racing F1 Team

I've just noticed that someone has changed the colours of Template:Hispania Racing F1 Team, and it's almost impossible to read. HRT have changed their colour scheme for this year to white and gold, but it's a darker colour than the one used here. I don't really know too much about colour-coding, but I'm hoping someone might be able to review it and adjust it accordingly. Even if this is the exact shade of gold that HRT is using, the template still needs to be readable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've had a go by taking a colour used on their website. Can make it darker if you think it is necessary. - mspete93 12:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that's better. It's readable now. That was my only concern about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Benetton Cheating Allegations in 1994

I put in (sourced by a book) the allegations in the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix article seeing as that is where an "episode" of the allegations started. Basically, it was asked for them to surrender their cars and 3-4 months of haggling over this began. Where should I put this? It's in that article at the moment. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition to F1 driver infobox

An editor has proposed adding a "helmet" field to the F1 driver infobox. Please express any views you may have on the matter atthe template talkpage. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly be in agreement for this, they fascinated me when I first got into F1, and to me they're a driver's signature. The problem is with drivers like Vettel they change all of the ^&$%^&% time. Might be a pain to keep up with. Allypap81 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I like this one, too. The helmet is a shorthand for the driver (& on the game sites I'm on, substitutes for a portrait ;p ). I do wonder about a new pic every time Vettel changes it, tho. 8o (That's only twice during a race, right? ;p ) I also wonder about getting good pics. Also, how far back do we go? I'd be reluctant to have this just for current drivers. (I know, it wasn't a commonplace in the '60s, but...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

2014 Formula One season

2014 Formula One season has been re-created and has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Formula One season (2nd nomination). --Falcadore (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rename of Nico Hülkenberg

Just a heads up; it has been proposed that Nico Hülkenberg be renamed to Nico Hulkenberg. Please express any views you may have on the matter here. Craig(talk) 15:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox former F1 team

{{Infobox former F1 team}} has been nominated for merger with {{Infobox F1 team}}. Please add any views you may have on the matter at the merger discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we oppose this one. The two templates serve their purposes fine and are structured differently from each other, there is really no need to create a larger and more unwieldy infobox when there is nothing wrong with the current ones. QueenCake (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This particular edittor is on a mission of deleting infoboxes at the moment. Also running is Template:Infobox V8 Supercar driver --Falcadore (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable or not?

Hi, just a quick question, I'm going to try and get List of Formula One polesitters to featured standard, and was wondering about the reliability of the StatsF1 site. I can't the info that this site has anywhere else, and is there is no immediate indicator of the site being a reliable source, I was wondering if any members of the project had any info that could confirm whether the site is indeed considered reliable. NapHit (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sortable qualifying table

It may be useful to have an ability to sort the table of results in qualifying. For example, one would want to look at the qualifying order at the end of Part 1, or to compare two drivers from the same team during all the qualifying phases.

I've modified a copy of the existing qualifying table and posted it here as a proof of concept: User:Ximaera/F1_Quals_Table. Please give your opinions on whether this modification could be used as a template, or suggest improvements. What do you think?

(Maybe this was already proposed before, though I haven't still managed to find where and when it could be. Please don't mind in this case.) Ximaera (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concept, however I do not see a point in sorting the drivers' names. Editadam 00:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not as well, I've left it just in case someone could see something that I can't. I've removed sorting from this column. Ximaera (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I like it, but I think we only need a sortable function on the position, Q1, Q2, Q3 and grid columns. The rest are unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
So you don't like a sortable column of constructors? It's a pity. Though it might not solve tasks of a Wikipedia article, it is very convenient to compare results of couple of drivers from a single team through all qualifying phases. and I personally would like this feature. However, if the only way for the sortable table to be accepted is to lose sorting on Constructors' names, I think it's worth it. Ximaera (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems a bit unneccesary. The entire pointof qualifying is to sort the grid into an order. What else is there to know? --Falcadore (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Drivers' supporters often compare their favourite driver with his teammate. For example, in Russia last year about, well, a solid half of forum discussions were about the comparison of Nick Heidfeld, Bruno Senna and Vitaly Petrov in terms of points and qualifying times in all phases on all circuits. It is easier to do such a comparison with this interface. Ximaera (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me explain with an example. Take Malaysian Grand Prix which is in the proof of concept above. After sorting by the constructor names you can easily see that the order of two Lotus drivers on the grid is not a coincidence -- Kimi Raikkonen was faster than Romain Grosjean in each qualifying part. Based on only a single qualifying, you can't tell who of Lotus drivers is faster during the whole season, but it is a valuable information that at the end of the season helps you to decide who has been generally the fastest of them. Current articles provide this information in an unconvenient way. Ximaera (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I understood your point perfectly well, but that level of analysis is well beyond Wikipedia's scope as a general purpose encyclopedia. If this was a motorsport focussed Wikia, sure. But for Wikipedia's less stat obsessed focus... It would be more appropriate in 1960's F1 where there are more than two Lotuses per race.
Also to make the level of comparison you are suggesting is to have sixteen pages open at once to compare across the whole season, and really, who is faster across a whole season is trivia. Points define Formula One, not lap times. --Falcadore (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Points define Formula One (except for 1985-1990 and before 1981), but points can't tell who of Renault drivers was faster in 2011, and points can't tell who was the fastest Ferrari driver in 2009.
But well, after all, this is a matter of two little triangles at the top of one column in a huge table. If you think that sorting on the constructors' names is redundant or totally unnecessary, I wouldn't argue much. How do you think, is there anything else to fix in the template? Ximaera (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Who was 'faster' is a subjective judgement. An opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, removed sorting from this column. Ximaera (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

One minor point which may or may not be important is that sorting by the "Pos" column loses the position of the "107% rule" row in the table. This could perhaps be overcome by applying a hidden sort key to that row. DH85868993 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It was done kind of by design (it would have been less troublesome to fill in the template in old version), now I fixed it and "107% rule" will now keep its place when sorting by the "Pos" and "Grid" columns. Also fixed positioning of "DNQ" entries in the "Grid" column. Check it out, please. Ximaera (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
You can maintain the simplicity of the original version by using a sort key of "22.5" for the "107%" row, like this. DH85868993 (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice idea, thanks. Done. Ximaera (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I could see this being quite useful actually, particularly having a sortable grid column for races like the 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. If it's working fine then I'd say add it in. One more thing to add though, I see having a separate notes column redundant. Just keep the notes where they are now. QueenCake (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. I can add sorting to 2009 Japanese Grand Prix as well if you want to. Ximaera (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rename for Category:Formula One entrants

It has been proposed that Category:Formula One entrants be renamed to Category:Formula One teams. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the CfD discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Championship table section headings

Currently, the sections in the F1 race reports containing the championship tables after the race have headings as follows:

  • 1950-1957 (when there was only a Drivers' Championship): "Drivers' Championship standings after the race"
  • 1958 onwards (Drivers' and Constructors' Championships): "Standings after the race"

I think the heading for 1958 onwards should be "Championship standings after the race". What do others think? If there's consensus for a change, I'm happy to update the articles. DH85868993 (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it makes more sense, and it is more descriptive. Editadam 00:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless you really feel like doing it, I'm gonna do any I come across while updating the tables. Allypap81 (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Be my guest! DH85868993 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Lotus in "xxx Grand Prix" articles

An editor has updated all the "xxx Grand Prix" articles (e.g. British Grand Prix) to mark "Lotus" (linked to Team Lotus) as a current constructor. Given our convention of considering Team Lotus and Lotus F1 to be different entities, is this desirable? If not, then rather than just reverting the changes, should we consider altering the appearance of the text to discourage a recurrence, e.g. rather than just "Lotus", should we change the text to "Lotus (1958-94)" or something like that? Or should we leave the text as "Lotus" but add a wikinote asking editors not to mark it as a current constructor? Or should we just keep reverting it every time it happens (I've already done it a couple of times this year on individual articles). Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it should be removed as a current constructor, because the consensus on Wikipedia is to consider these three teams different. I think we should add a wikinote, to try to reduce future reverts. Editadam 13:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I have unbolded them all and embedded a wikinote. Let's see what happens. DH85868993 (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Championship position "change" in race reports

Hi, I've just noticed that at the bottom of 2012_Malaysian_Grand_Prix there's an extra column on the tables showing championship positions after the race, showing the change in position from last race. Is this necessary? It would be probably something I would do, but I'm not sure whether everyone thinks we really need it. Both Sky and BBC use similar things in their graphics, and it does give some extra info IMO. Allypap81 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with it, it looks better IMO Editadam 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Sky and the BBC might do it, but just they do, it doesn't automatically mean that we shouldn't. I initially added the "change" column to the article because when I looked over the tables at the bottom of the pages last year, they only really indicated what the new championship scores were. And since a championship takes place over the course of 20 races, I thought some way of indicating movements between championship positions (rather than between championship scores) was appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
One factor to consider is whether this information is sufficiently interesting/valuable to warrant the effort required to add it to all 860 WDC race reports. Or is the proposal to only add it to the 2012 race reports? DH85868993 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
To be honest I have no problems doing it, I was (one of) the one(s) who put all of the tables at the bottom of the articles that didn't already have them for consistency. I'd just like to know it's actually wanted before I do all of the reports and then have them reverted! But like Prisonermonkeys says it is useful to see changes in position, especially in the last race of a season where someone has come from 2nd or 3rd to win the title Allypap81 (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I like it. It adds some context to an otherwise skimpy table. If someone is willing to schlep around and add it to other years then fair play to you. Pyrope 12:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea, but not the presentation. It is so much easier to write this in sentence form and it has the added benefit of removing trivia particularly in these early season races where an unsual result has a much bigger impact with only one race in the background to Sepang instead of seventeen.
Please stop trying to tabulate stuff like this and use the occasional sentence. Your fingers won't fall off from additional keystrokes. --Falcadore (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I do normally agree with you, Falcadore, but I think in this case it works better in a table. It takes up less space, avoids very repetitive paragraphs like the one that's now in 2012_Malaysian_Grand_Prix, and is just easier to understand at a glance Allypap81 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I also like it tabulated. (I'd rather it was one table than a "split" one...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It is much simpler to do tabulated, as Trekphiler has said, it is better not to over-complicate things. Editadam 21:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Indication of position unchanged

In the articles Allypap81 has updated so far, "no position change" is indicated by placing "=" in the "Change" column, e.g. here. Are those who support the infomation being presented in tabular form happy with that, or would you prefer "no position change" to be indicated by a "0" in the "Change" column? I'm actually not sure which I prefer, but I thought it was worth asking the question now, before too many articles have been updated. DH85868993 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I find the "0" risks confusion ("0 points scored?"); I'd rather the "=" or "-", which I've seen used in tables elsewhere (not WP specifically) & is IMO clearer at a casual inspection. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives for presenting "position change"

So far I've done up to the 1958 season (see here for an example) but while doing it I've come up with a couple of ideas for improving the presentation. I think the +/-/= works fine to show position change, these ideas are mainly formatting. As the column seems quite wide, I was wondering whether we could find something shorter to put as the header, or even not have a header at all? Also, as the BBC and Sky do, we could colour the positives green and the negatives red to illustrate it a bit more clearly. Let me know what you think of these ideas before I do any more and have to go back and change them! Thanks Allypap81 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think "Change" is OK as a column heading - consider that the heading of the "Points" column in the race result table is quite wide compared to the contents of that column. Do you think there's any chance what readers will misinterpret "Change" as change in points total rather than change in championship position? (I realise that's the purpose of the tooltip, but I'm not sure how frequently readers notice/read the tooltips). If so, one alternative might be to locate the Change column next to the Position column, like this:
Pos Change Driver Points
1 = United Kingdom Stirling Moss 17
2 +4 United Kingdom Mike Hawthorn 14
3 -1 Italy Luigi Musso 12
4 +1 United States Harry Schell 10
5 -2 France Maurice Trintignant 8
(in which case we might not need the tooltip any more?) Another option would be to use arrows to indicate changes, like this:
Pos Change Driver Points
1 ↔ United Kingdom Stirling Moss 17
2 ↑4 United Kingdom Mike Hawthorn 14
3 ↓1 Italy Luigi Musso 12
4 ↑1 United States Harry Schell 10
5 ↓2 France Maurice Trintignant 8
I would not be adverse to colouring positives green and negatives red. DH85868993 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
"I would not be adverse" Nor I (tho I wouldn't be averse, either ;p {That's a very common mistake.}). I do have a concern the colors might make text harder to read, so they'd have to be selected a bit carefully. (I looked at #E52B5 & #8DB600.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I really like the idea of putting the column next to the position column, makes it much clearer, and I do think we can probably do without the header in that case. From a purely aesthetic point of view, I'd like to see the change column to the left of the position column, I just think it looks better that way. Not sure how to leave the first column's header clear though, so I'm just gonna use a placeholder in my preview below. From a speed of editing point of view, I think the +/-/= is easier, as I'm not sure how to get those symbols you've used easily without having to copy/paste them all! So this would be fine for me:
+/- Pos Driver Points
= 1 United Kingdom Stirling Moss 17
+4 2 United Kingdom Mike Hawthorn 14
-1 3 Italy Luigi Musso 12
+1 4 United States Harry Schell 10
-2 5 France Maurice Trintignant 8
This is with the colours TREKphiler suggested, I think they could do with being a lot fainter (and a bit greener in the green's case). Other than that I'd be happy with this. Allypap81 (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's how it looks with arrows (which are available from >Special characters>Symbol in the edit window) and using colours "#ff0000" (red) and "#00ff00" (green). One thing I like about using arrows is that it removes the ambiguity over whether, for example, "+1" means "moved 1 row up in the table" or "Pos value increased by 1" (which equates to moving 1 row down in the table). DH85868993 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
↑↓ Pos Driver Points
↔ 1 United Kingdom Stirling Moss 17
↑4 2 United Kingdom Mike Hawthorn 14
↓1 3 Italy Luigi Musso 12
↑1 4 United States Harry Schell 10
↓2 5 France Maurice Trintignant 8
How about with some icons? I think this looks neater. Readro (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
+/- Pos Driver Points
1 United Kingdom Stirling Moss 17
+4 2 United Kingdom Mike Hawthorn 14
-1 3 Italy Luigi Musso 12
+1 4 United States Harry Schell 10
-2 5 France Maurice Trintignant 8

I do really like the icons, although I'd say we can leave out the + or - in that case. Also to make it a bit easier to read I've aligned the position numbers on the right. Allypap81 (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

+/- Pos Driver Points
1 United Kingdom Stirling Moss 17
4 2 United Kingdom Mike Hawthorn 14
1 3 Italy Luigi Musso 12
1 4 United States Harry Schell 10
2 5 France Maurice Trintignant 8
I'm liking the colored arrows best. It gets at the up/down clearly at a glance, & avoids issues over readablity. (I'd also have agreed, BGs could be fainter. They look different on the colors page...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I also like the coloured arrows like the icons (without the +/-). So the only things left to decide Other issues to revisit are the column heading (which was the original question!) and what (if anything) to put in the column for "no change". If we go with icons, I'd suggest either "" or blank for the column heading and either blank or "" for no change. Note that I think we need at least one of them to be non-blank; otherwise if we have a race where the championship positions are unchanged (e.g. the 1958 Moroccan Grand Prix), we'd have a completely empty column, which would look weird/be potentially confusing. See examples below. DH85868993 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll confess not seeing a big issue with an empty box, but I take the point, a placeholder probably makes sense. I prefer the arrow beside, tho. Also, IMO, putting the position first, then change, is preferable. (I'd illustrate, but I can't keep from buggering the syntax somehow... :( ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Like this?:
Pos ↑↓ Driver Points
1 ↔ United Kingdom Stirling Moss 17
2 ↑4 United Kingdom Mike Hawthorn 14
3 ↓1 Italy Luigi Musso 12
4 ↑1 United States Harry Schell 10
5 ↓2 France Maurice Trintignant 8
DH85868993 (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking colored chevrons, instead. (I do kind of like the "arrows" header, but it's not clear to me what it means; I'd find a +/- clearer.) If the color is giving it too much emphasis (& I'm not seeing that), I have no problem with up/down/neutral ones in black.
And to answer the point raised below, I'm not seeing this as replacing the text by any means. I see the tables as "event at a glance", for people who only want (or need) the stats. The text should obviously cover the events in more detail, & provide the context, & AFAIK, nobody's said otherwise. (I'm certainly not.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Dont in the slightest like the use of colour, particularly as non other colour in in use. It highlights the wrong bit indicating the most important aspect of the table is who moved up or down rather that who was leading the championship, which was the entire point of these tables in the first instance. If it can't work without the green or red then it should no be added at all. It also harks back to an attempt a few years ago to splash all sorts of tables with colour for little real reason, other than it could be done.
But I dont think it should be added anyway as it dilutes the point of the table. How long would it be before green/red arrows are used to indicate whether a driver improved his grid position in the race or not?It is stats creep that does not advance the article any better than superior writing. --Falcadore (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd say this one is pretty much how I'd envisioned it:
Pos Driver Points
1 United Kingdom Stirling Moss 17
4 2 United Kingdom Mike Hawthorn 14
1 3 Italy Luigi Musso 12
1 4 United States Harry Schell 10
2 5 France Maurice Trintignant 8
And to answer Falcadore's points, I think the fact that it's on the edge of the table, rather than sandwiched in the middle somewhere, and the fact the column has no header kind of subconsiously indicate that it's not as important as the rest of the table. As has been said before, it adds a bit more information to a table that doesn't have much to it, and I think it's an easy way to illustrate at a glance how each race affected the championship as a whole. Allypap81 (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Except, it doesn't do that all. Positions in the championship vary greatly in importance throughout the season, these tables up/down arrows don't cover that at all, not even a little bit. A change in position after the second race is near meaningless; after the last race, it is literally season-defining. What these arrows do is demonstrate how the championship was affected, not in the season as a whole, but just how it affected the next few weeks until the next race.
The subject of how each race affects the championship as a whole is supposed to be covered by 1958 Formula One season. That's what the season articles are for. A sentence like:
Hawthorn's win moved him into second in the championship just three points behind Moss. Hawthorn's first win in four years was the foundation that would set up his championship victory. Musso's death also placed Hawthorn firmly in the leadership role at Ferrari and so on and so forth...
does the job of summarising the effect of this race much better because it allows analysis of cause and effect which the table does not do.
We shouldn't be using table to tell stories that prose should. The tables are supposed to be an aid to tne text, not a replacement. --Falcadore (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
And vice versa: IMHO we shouldn't get rid of good and proven infographics just because the information they contain is covered in the tons of TL;DR text on some another page. Tables with coloured chevrons look good and are enough informative to stay and to be added to all Grand Prix articles, because they indeed assist in delivering information that is often requested by the reader anyway: "these race results are great, but how have they affected the championship?" There's nothing wrong with having this data right below the race results. Ximaera (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Except, it is the Wikipedia style preference for text over graphics. Tables are supposed to be an aid to the text, but the text is not an aid to the tables. Even the most basic wikipedia list article can't do without an explanatory sentence. So I don't believe "vice versa" applies. And I don't think it is proven. How would you prove it? --Falcadore (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about usability first of all, though I don't think that Wikipedia rules say anything contradicting to what I wrote above. Tables are supposed to be an aid to the text? Great, and so they are! Tables can't do without an explanatory sentence? Great, write this sentence and leave tables where they are! Rules don't prohibit us from making the tables at all, they just inspire us to make verbose explanation to the table.
If a piece of infographics is used in authoritative relevant periodicals such as BBC over the years now, then I say that it is proven. I doubt there is any scientific basis in usability to prove it better than the common practice does. Ximaera (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Where are these reader requests you're refering to by the way, I've never seen one. --Falcadore (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Reader requests are where readers have got used to place their requests. UNIX programmers call this place "/dev/null". Would you treat acceptance from 6 contributors right on this page as a sign of a request from readers (on the grounds of the fact that contributors are assumed to be readers as well)? Ximaera (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
That isn't what you said. information that is often requested by the reader anyway. There are no such requests are there?
Per WP:NOTSTATS, per the five pillars, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of statistics arrayed with some pretty graphics. I would suggest fixing the text first before working on the graphics. --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't get what you're writing. "information that is often requested by the reader anyway" means that the reader often searches for this information after reading race results. What do you mean by saying "There are no such requests are there"?
Well, you may go and fix the text instead of suggesting things there. As for now, I see one contributor here ready to deliver this information in graphical form (Allypap81) and zero contributors willing to "fix the text". So it is not a matter of a representation of data, it is a matter of such data being present in articles at all. I think it should be present.
And, for the record, if you go and fix the text, so that there will be "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader", then WP:NOTSTATS will not apply. By the way, per WP:NOTSTATS should we remove List of Formula One driver records article? It is nothing else but an excessive listing of statistics arrayed with some pretty graphics without any verbose explanation. If you ask me, I'd say that these "pretty graphics" are just self-explanatory, but you appear to treat the word "self-explanatory" differently from me. Ximaera (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I've obviously misunderstood something, because that's not what request means in anything I've come across. And I assume you've done a headcount to come up with that zero? --Falcadore (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
HTTP Request. Sorry, my English couldn't be as perfect as yours. I guess it is a professional jargon which might not be understood outside the profession.
And, you recently haven't expressed doubts about the importance of position change being present in any Grand Prix article. So it seems like we can find a consensus: coloured chevrons for now and a possible non-zero army of contributors filling the articles with sufficient text. Despite the fact that these imaginary contributors, for example, haven't still found any time in 8 years to write a few words about 1965 French Grand Prix, there's no way we can prove that they won't do it at some point in the future, so we can pick up coloured tables and wait for better times. Ximaera (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a possible non-zero, and I and I'm sure those others who do also, would appreciate some help from the army of tablophiles in this Wikiproject who believe the world communicates in jargon, bullet points and alphanumerics. Just because a task is large is not a good reason for not attempting it, and credit to User:Allypap81 for attemting his/her vision, however much I may disagree with the priorities of it.
You are not refuting my arguments with a table are you? We should use the same language in the articles that we use on the talk pages. Whether you choose to believe it or not, it remains how the world communicates. --Falcadore (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
We'd better stop now, because it looks like you do not understand what I'm writing, and you seem to disrespect WP:Civility, so it's just a waste of time. Let someone else decide, which one of us is right. Ximaera (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the coloured chevrons look and work best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Prisonermonkeys. Editadam 23:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Ximaera (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't do both, the graphics help for an at-a-glance explanation, the text will help to explain it in detail. I'm not sure any of us think it's an either/or situation, so I'll keep doing the graphics as per the consensus we appear to have reached, and Falcadore, you can update the text in the articles if you like. Allypap81 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That's what I'm talking about. Ximaera (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Me, too. AFAIK, nobody's said there should be no text, but if there's none, or little, at least the info is presented somehow. Moreover, if there are editors with sources who are bugged by the lack of detail in mere tabulation, maybe it'll get 'em to write it up. :) (I live in hope. :) ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That is my sincere hope also User:Trekphiler. I too once was someone obsessed with tabulation over explanation. It took time to unlearn. Not that is hasn't been useful, but the journey from one to the other has been most rewarding and seen publication in places I'd never thought possible. --Falcadore (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
When I came up with the idea of the position change column, I never intended it to replace prose explaining everything. It was intended to compliment the text, which I think it does quite nicely. However, I'm finding it harder and harder to write race reports, particularly in detailing all of the important events of the race without repeating myself or straying from the rules of Wikipedia. I might need help with that in future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Tooltips

I notice that in the 2012 F1 race reports, tooltips have been added to the "Pos", "No." and "Grid" column headings in the qualifying table and the "Pos" and "No." column headings in the race results table. (The tooltips are "Qualifying position", "Car number", "Final grid position", "Position" and "Car number" respectively). Do we think this is a good thing? If so, would we like to see it replicated in the race reports for all the other seasons? Discuss. DH85868993 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say they're pretty self-explanatory to be honest, not sure it really adds much to add these tooltips. Allypap81 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
They are for the common reader who may not necessarily be a Formula One, or even a Motorsports fan. There's no reason not to include them, really. The359 (Talk) 19:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed 359. We should never assume something is self-explanatory. --Falcadore (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The Tooltips were my doing. I noticed that there were a lot of abbreviations in columns, and that if the headings of those columns were to be expanded, then they would be the widest part of that column. So I thought that using Tooltips would explain the abbreviations, but keep the columns nice and tight. I do it to just about every motorsports page I find. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Pit Stops in tables

It just came into my head there, but in the Race table of the Grand Prix pages, could we also put the number of Pit Stops? Just an idea. So for example, the top 4 from the 2012 Chinese Grand Prix:

Pos. No. Driver Constructor Laps Time/Retired Grid Pit stops Points
1 8 Germany Nico Rosberg Mercedes 56 1:36.26.929 1 No. of Pit stops 25
2 3 United Kingdom Jenson Button McLaren-Mercedes 56 +20.626 5 No. of Pit stops 18
3 4 United Kingdom Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 56 +26.012 7 No. of Pit stops 15
4 2 Australia Mark Webber Red Bull-Renault 56 +27.924 6 No. of Pit stops 12

Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No... too much information, we are not a stats site. Besides, without explaining why the pitstops were made, eg routine, penalties or mechanical problems - the information is not very helpful and possibly misleading. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly what I mean by stats creep in the coloured arrows debate. No by any means, this level of detail is against Wikipedia's mandate. This website is not about statistics saturation. There are many other websites out there for this level of detail, Wikipedia should not be about copying that information. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a motorsport statistics fan website. Perhaps you need to review the Five pillars of Wikipedia? --Falcadore (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

List of female Formula One drivers

An editor keeps adding test drivers to this list and it could do with a few people helping out, if anyone has the time. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the see also section really need a list of drivers who have never even attempted to race F1? --Falcadore (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
No. I do fail to see why that's there, and I'm for removing it if that's the consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd also support removing the links to individual driver articles from the "See also" section. I'd probably leave the links to the two list articles though. DH85868993 (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd take 'em out, too. There are how many who didn't even race open-wheel? And none, AFAICT, in F1. (Much as it hurts me to delete Danica. :( ;p) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Done, leaving the two lists as DH said. Danica never felt a thing ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thx for being gentle. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix winners

There is an option that you can sort the table by first and last wins. However, the sortable method is year and race name. Therefore, the five new winners of 1982 are listed as de Angelis (Austria), Alboreto (Caesars Palace), Tambay (Germany), Patrese (Monaco) and Rosberg (Switzerland). Going by the order they actually won, it should be Patrese, Tambay, de Angelis, Rosberg and Alboreto. The same applies to polesitter list as well.

I tried something which I thought would work but it didn't work so I reverted it back. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters that the races aren't in strict chronological order; I think the fact that they are grouped by year is good enough. DH85868993 (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Qualifying Table

Instead of the Qualifying box saying Part One/Two/Three, could it be Q1, Q2 and Q3, which is more appropriate to F1 rather than "Parts" as F1, BBC and Sky call them "Qualifying (session number)", not "Parts (session number)". Dontforgetthisone (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's clearer to general interest readers exactly what is meant if you call them "Part One/Two/Three". Q1, Q2 and Q3 are more ambiguous. Readro (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
If they are called Q1, Q2 and Q3 in the coverage that's what we call them. Making up our own titles is original research. Britmax (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree on this one, "Q1/2/3" looks far more appropriate to this sport. A general interest reader may be curious anyway about what Part 1 (2, 3) is for, because he doesn't know what knock-out qualifying format is and why it is used. I had already tested this on my girlfriend (clever, but clearly not an F1 fan), it took me about 3 attempts to explain current qualifying rules clear to her, and using "Part 1" instead of "Q1" hadn't made the explanation much better.
A tooltip could be used as a clarification for "Q1" and so on, and we can provide a link to an article describing current qualifying format to make it easier for anyone to understand. Ximaera (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the word 'session' instead of part. For example, in the first session, second session etc, or even: in the first session (Q1), second session (Q2) etc. Bigdon(talk) 21:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes statistics

Could anybody explain me why at the official F1 website www.formula1.com are given the following statistics for Mercedes: number of wins - 1, number of pole positions - 1, number of fastest laps - 0 ?? It is contrary to wikipedia statistics in this article. See http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/190/ On the basis of that, we should correct statistics in this wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.35.240 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, as the scope of the F1 website article (the post-Brawn team) and the scope of the Wikipedia article (Mercedes in F1) are different. There are plenty of other stats sites (e.g. ChicaneF1 or StatsF1) that treat the total history of the marque as a whole. Besides, the formula1.com site has been shown repeatedly to be fairly unreliable, and it isn't an official site for the World Championship (that would belong to the FIA), just the promotor. Pyrope 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Bahrain Grand Prix

Can someone - in fact, I'd like several someones - please take a look at the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix page? I've been writing it almost exclusively (most other editors are only really correcting my dismal spelling or adding links to other languages), and I'm finding it pretty difficult to keep the page up to a decent standard given that the issues are so complex and most of the fans have varying opinions.

I'm actually pretty happy with it so far. I think the article establishes everything that can be established about the protests and the various responses from around the paddock. I don't think there is anything more that can be said without drowning the article in redundancy. I think I've given equal weight to all sides, but with free practice due to begin in a few hours, the focus of the article has to shift to the on-track events. I don't really want to mention the protests any more if it can be helped, barring any major incidents like the Force India petrol bomb.

I have to say, I'm pretty proud of what I've done with it so far - it's one of my better write-ups - and once the race is over, it might even be good enough to become a candidate for a good or a feature article. But before that happens, the article will need to be reviewed, and since 95% of it is me, I think other F1 editors should take a look at it first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Just skimmed through, it looks very well written, one of the projects best written pages in a while now. I think it may be good enough to become a candidate for a good or a feature article as well, assuming the actual report about the cars on track (in Qualifying and the Race) is written half as well. Editadam 14:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't intend to do anything by half measures. Since the race has been so controversial, there's a good chance that people who aren't intimately familiar with the sport will be exposed to it. Apparently the race is a lead story in the UK, and a quick search for "bahrain grand prix" on Google news yields nearly 5,000 articles. So I'm trying to write the race report for people who aren't as intimately familiar with Formula 1 as we are, which means that there will be a higher level of detail. This does include three exta tables in the qualifying report section, summarising who was eliminated and when, largely because there is going to be quite a gap between the qualifying report and the table under qualifying classification. This is the only article I intend to do it in, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Faulty logic, Prisonermonkeys. Every article on Wikipedia should be written for a non-specialist reader. Those tables are overkill, and we need no more detail than would normally go into a race article. Pyrope 12:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd question whether you have gone into too much detail on the protests and pre-race information. Remember this is meant to be background information, and there seems to be more text on this than on entire race reports for other articles. Perhaps it could be cut down somewhat, although this is so unprecedented I'm not sure what the right balance would be. Still it's better to have too much information than too little at least - a large article can be edited down by anyone quite easily, but a short one requires research and time to write. My two pennies anyway. QueenCake (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, there, both on the amount of attention & the unusual nature of it. Compare the objections to adding Kyalami? I imagine there was some protest there, which might offer some sense how to do it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I put South Africa '85 in the "see also" section is because there is a parallel between the events. The British government is currently calling for the British drivers to boycott Bahrain. In 1985, the French government applied pressure to French drivers and teams to boycott the race (which they did). That similarity is more than enough to justify its inclusion under the "see also" section.
As for comparisons to Turkey '06, it is equally-valid, if not moreso. One of the major complaints by the protesters is that the government is using the race for political purposes. The FIA's statutes dictate that the race is not to be used for political gain by anyone. Turkey '06 is the most-recent example (the only other one I can think of being Jerez '97) where the organisers made a political display out of the event. References supplied in the section criticise the FIA for not observing their own stautes in Bahrain, but a recount of what happened in Turkey is necessary to highlight why those criticisms are being made because it is an example of the rules being enforced. Yes, it takes a step back from the article to give some exposition on the subject, but that exposition is necessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean it should be removed entire, just trimmed a bit. How much is a matter of balance & judgment (& as we write, recentism will tend to give it more weight than history will, IMO). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
What should be trimmed out? It's already pretty Spartan. It recounts the incident (someone was introduced as "President of Northern Cyprus"), the fine ($5 million), the reasons for that fine (Turkey is the only country that recognises Northern Cyprus as a nation), the precedent for that fine (the FIA statues), and substantiated by a quote from an FIA spokesperson. It then goes on to detail why people think the "UNIF1ED" campaign violates this precedent, and that the FIA is refusing to comment on it.
You want to argue recentism? That's fine. But while the incident might have happened six years ago and can hardly be described as recent, it is the most-recent example of the sport being used for a political statement. Details of the Turkish GP incident are needed to understand why the FIA is being questioned over their failure to do something about the Bahraini government's accused politicisation of the race. Removing content from this section would be the same as trying to explain why Flavio Briatore was banned from the sport without explaining what happened in Singapore in 2008. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of tyre ranges in 2012 and 2011 races

Since official FOM graphics depict this, shouldn't it be included? Spa-Franks (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The available tyres for a race should already be included on the individual race reports. QueenCake (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Team Lotus navbox?

An editor has questioned whether Team Lotus needs its own navbox, i.e. in addition to the existing Template:Lotus. Please express any views you may have on the matter at Template talk:Lotus#The Colin Chapman Team Lotus Navbox. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pole Position (moved from Talk:Formula One)

On the Drivers and constructors standings on the Formula one season pages there seem to be a constant adding of a bold P after each pole position driver which is only present between the qualifying and the race. One user claimed it was customary to do so. The information is already available in the race summaries. Pole position does not give any additional points and does not change where a driver is in the standings. As such it is superfluous, meaningless, duplication of information and is wholly not needed in the standings tables.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Would like that practice stopped. --Falcadore (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
How do we go about making it known that this practice is undesirable?--Jimjames1989 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I suspect it is to remind the editor filling in the results that the polesitter's result should be in bold. Is it really such a problem? And this discussion is in entirely the wrong place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
As pole position has no affect on the championship standings, there's no need for a P to be placed there. Yes, the bold is nice for knowing who scored poles over the season, but it is not information that needs to be made immediately available before the race results are even posted. It adds nothing informative as one can easily see who scored pole position in the chart just a scroll above. The359 (Talk) 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. --Falcadore (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It is an issue as it is information which is just being duplicated as its already in the race summary table, there are no points given for pole and does not affect a person’s position in the standings. The P is not easily understood. What next we have a F in the tables during the race the driver currently doing the fastest lap of the race. The information is clearly contentious or the discussion would not have been started and there would not be multiple editors removing its addition.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"The information is clearly contentious or the discussion would not have been started" - in other words, "I don't like it therefore it's contentious". Regardless of the way this discussion is going, you are not supposed to enforce your preference via edit-warring just because you think you are right. You can see multiple editors are re-adding it - you are really not helping here. Be aware that removing it again will put you in violation of WP:3RR. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Duplication of information is hardly unusual in this article - it's full of it. The P is hard to understand? What else might it mean? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The P could mean Pits, and if the article is full of duplication isn't that a good reason to start toning down some one the duplication especially this unnecessary and very short lived piece of repetitive information.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Why would it mean "pits"? And no, not really - I think it's of such low importance compared to problems elsewhere in the article that to start edit-warring over it is unjustified - in fact, edit-warring over anything is unjustifed. My main issue is that whatever the consensus reached, we should retain the (long-term) status quo until that consensus is reached. A discussion held on the talk page of a totally unconnected article, where only one other editor saw it, has no bearing on anything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently you are the only user here arguing in favour its retention. Also why would it mean Pole? It is just being assumed it will be interpreted as Pole; which is a form of implied understanding from all users which limits the accessibility of the article to those who have no prior knowledge of the subject. There also seems to be a distraction agenda going on here to discuss the process of "it was posted in the wrong place" "it’s not actually worthy of being discussed" "the previous discussion was limited". Are all a distraction; We have had you me and The359 contributing and from the original posting of the discussion Falcadore. This is clearly an issue and it is beginning to sound like stop discussing this because I like it and therefor I want it to stay. Also if this is only a minor issue with regards to duplication, then that it may be but you have to start somewhere with fixing a problem.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Until this discussion has been in the correct place for a reasonable length of time, it doesn't matter at all how many people are in favour of it or against it. I don't really like your idea of a "distraction agenda" - I'm sure you're assuming good faith here. One quote ("it’s not actually worthy of being discussed") you seem to be attributing to me (or someone else) hasn't been said at all, maybe you'd like to strike it. Nobody has said that this discussion doesn't need to be held. This discussion has been ongoing here for a little over an hour, and you appear to be claiming it's over already. Regardless of the outcome, a reasonable length of time will be allowed before any consensus can be said to be reached. Also, if you want to make any other suggestions about reducing duplication in this article, you now know to make those suggestions here, rather than some other random place, and to wait for a consensus to be reached before implementing them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record none of the above are drect quotes. It is simply the feeling being given off by your comtruibutions.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about any feeling you get from my contributions - just engage with what I'm actually saying. FYI, I'm not overly bothered about whether the P is kept or not. I'm erring on the side of keeping it as you can see, but we'll do this properly regardless of the outcome. If you're so sure everyone will want to get rid of it, then there's nothing to worry about, no? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No that would be making assumptions and prejudging the outcome.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The P certainly isn't needed, the table is about the race and championships standings, also, the FIA and F1 don't use it so why would it be put here. Another point is that the race is under 24 hours after, and really having a P is just an unnecessary edit. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That would be an argument for removing the bolding from the polesitter's result in that table as well, plus the fastest lap italics. If they should go, then so should the symbols relating to drivers who are classified without finishing the race - they have nothing to do with the championship either, and the FIA don't use them. By those arguments, it's all or nothing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a bit of a non-issue as far as I'm concerned but here's my two cents - as I understand it this "P" is only present between the Saturday and the Sunday of a race weekend, so isn't it kind of pointless putting it there anyway, as we know it'll only be there for about 24 hours? Pole is still of note though so I definitely would say we should keep the practice of having the polesitter's result in bold, as it doesn't hinder the casual reader finding out a given driver's position. Allypap81 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd say it's pretty pointless adding the P - especially if it's only remaining in place for less than a day, and really it has no place in a results table when it's not actually a result. However it's such a minor thing if someone insists on adding it, I wouldn't bother to dissuade them. It's just not worth any bad feeling. QueenCake (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A general comment, not aimed at anyone in particular - either the pole is of note in this table, or it isn't. To disallow the pole in the table until after the race is nonsensical - how can it be non-notable between qualifying and the race, yet notable after the race? Either have it from the end of qualifying or don't have it at all, if people feel it has no place in a results table. Just also take out the other stuff that doesn't really have anything to do with a results table - this conversation is typical of the half-baked logic applied lately to the season articles, and others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no issue here about noting who the pole sitter is in the race summary table the problem is including it in the Drivers and Constructors standings tables. As was said the FIA and Formula One don't use so why should we. It is also not there gor more than 24 so it’s a pointless addition to the Drivers and Constructors standings tables.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is there permanently, in bold type. The "P" is neither here nor there, it's the information that it denotes that is the point of this discussion, or should be. As I say, how can it be non-notable between qualifying and the race, yet notable after the race?Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Two points are being missed here, there actual P itself is ambiguous and requires an implied and assumed understanding of what it means from all users including those who are totally without any prior knowledge of Formula One. Secondly the information is meaningless as the addition of the P does not increase the value of information in the table and is already in the race summary table. The bolding of the pole position person is not being questioned for removal it’s the addition of the superfluous P which is rightly being asked to be removed.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, if the P is ambiguous, and nobody has ever complained about it before, then it can be substituted for something less taxing, or an explanation can be put in the key, like everything else. Secondly, the point you are missing is that the "P" and the bolding of the polesitter's race result is the same thing, it's exactly the same piece of information. What you are saying is that you want it there after the race, but not before - why? Why do you think the information is superfluous in this table before the race, but fine to include afterwards? Forgive me if I don't understand the logic there - it's either superfluous information or it isn't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The key alongside the tables makes it pretty clear that the bold mark designates pole position. And a quick check against the results summary will show a correlation between the P, the driver whose name it is marked alongside, and the driver on pole position.
Besides, it's only there for about 24 hours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, there are far more important things to be worrying about than a P that's only there for a very short time.Bigdon128 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
"Either it's notable or it's not". It's not. Read the lap times. Leave this out. It's superfluous & needlessly confusing. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
How is it "needlessly confusing"? As near as I can tell, only one person doesn't understand it. Like I said, the key to the tables makes it quite clear that the bold mark designates the pole-sitter. A comparison between the names with bold marks and the summary table shows a relationship between the person on pole and the person with a bold mark. What is there to be confused about? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
As already said, it could as well refer to "pits". Or "position". Or "passing". Or something else. And it's unnecessary... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And there is no apparent reason for anyone to believe that the P may represent any one of those words. Even someone who is not familiar with Formula 1 and is reading the article for the first time will have no difficulty discerning what it means because of the correlation with the rest of the table. Even then, they would have to be reading the page some in the 25 hours between the end of qualifying and the end of the race. If this was something that was permanently marked in the article, then perhaps I could understand your cocnerns. But, as it stands, it is perhaps the most temporary thing in the article: once, every two weeks, a single character appears in the article for no more than a day. It is perhaps the least-important item that you could argue about, and your entire argument relies entirely on what could happen in that space of 25 hours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The assumption it will be interpreted as Pole is just that an assumption with no evidence to suggest it will be interpreted as pole any more than the other possible meanings suggested. "It is only there for 24 hours" is one of the biggest arguments for ending this practice of adding this nonsensical and worthless piece e of information to a table which deals with cold hard facts of how the race itself was run. Those tables are nothing to do with the practice sessions or qualifying sessions they are to do with the race results itself. Here is a scenario, a driver qualifies on Pole, but then has a gearbox change so is demoted 5 places. Is the person who finished first in qualifying listed as with this P or the person who was second? There could also be appeals against this decision to demote the driver. The Constructors and Drivers’ standings deal with what actually happen during the race, the driver who actually starts from Pole is the one which gets bolded in the table. This is not necessarily the same as the person who came top in the Saturday time sheets. As as clearly been demonstrated here there is a lot if implied understanding from some users that all users will be able to easily access all of the meaning of this. The point which is also being horribly missed here is that the driver in Pole position is already listed in the race summary table. The main points here are simple; firstly what’s the point of its addition as it is pretty meaningless to keep on adding this. Secondly, what does the P actually mean to the wholly uneducated and unfamiliar user? Thirdly it is a duplication of information and the duplication of information needs to be started to be tackled from somewhere. Also if this is so minor why is there such a vociferous set of arguing to keep this piece of minor craft if it is as has been said so minor and not worth having this discussion, what’s the actual value of the inclusion of this information besides I like it and it helps others when doing the race results to remember to bold the pole sitter. Both of which are not encyclopaedic reasons for retention. The biggest argument against and the most encyclopaedic is that the information being added is confusing, to those with little to no previous knowledge of the subject matter and claiming its obvious is false as what may be obvious to a long standing and well versed individual will most certainly not be the same as the ley novice to the subject. --Jimjames1989 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The more and more you argue this, and the more and more fervently you argue it, the more and more I wonder why you are so intent on changing the single most transient aspect of the entire article. Like I said, it is a single character that only appears on the page for 25 hours at most. Why is it so important to you that we change this? Why is this the issue that the editors of WP:F1 should be addressing before all others? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Like Prisonermonkeys, I find the persistence of the arguments to temporarily disallow this piece of information from this table totally bizarre. Jimjames1989, you say this is a "nonsensical and worthless piece of information", yet you are happy to retain it in this table after the race, despite all your protests of duplication of information. Either explain why on earth you think that's a sensible way forward, or we're going to have trouble reaching any kind of conclusion here. Is it really just the form that the information takes between qualifying and the race, i.e. the "P"? Your scenario about the fastest driver in qualifying not being on pole is a red herring. Either a penalty is given beforehand, in which case we immediately know whether it affects the pole driver or not; or a penalty is given afterwards (very rare) in which case the pole driver can be changed. The complaint about people not understanding what "P" means is a spurious one - but if we accept it, then we can think of another way to display the information. You clearly believe the information is notable (and so does everyone else here) because nobody is advocating removing the bold type from the polesitter's results in this table. So, given that none of us has a problem with the information - why is there a call to remove it for 24 hours? We have three options:
  • 1. Leave it as it is with the "P" in place for the polesitter.
  • 2. Change the "P" for some other way to mark the polesitter between qualifying and the race, or put it in the key.
  • 3. Remove the polesitter information from the results table, i.e. remove the bold type, which would inevitably mean the subsequent removal of the fastest lap italics etc.
I don't have a major preference for any of those three, but there is no other option that retains any logic. 11:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer the 1st option (the current method). It is the way we have been doing it forever, and there is absolutely no problem with the system, and I see no reason to change anything about it. Editadam 17:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It has to be either option 2 or 3 as option 1 has been described as so flawed and unworkable. I am in favour of option 3 as the Fastest lap and the Pole position do not give any points and do not affect the standings in any way only points scored and race positions affect the standings and those are at the end of the day standings tables, not commentary tables on every little piece of detail which occurred in the races. Also just because something has "been done forever" is a really weak argument to keep a practice going and ignores the clear problems with the current way its done, as outlined above.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
My personal objection is to the letter "P". This a table collating race positions. "P" is not a race position. The rest doesn't matter, it's a misrepresentation. It's sticking an apple into a crate of oranges and saying but "look, it's still a fruit". Add the bolding when the race position is known, but not before please. It doesn't matter a damn that it is "Just for 24 hours", it's doing it at all. --Falcadore (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Forbidding an indicator of the polesitter until after the race, just because some people don't like the way it's done, is ludicrous. People will be adding it anyway unless an alternative is decided upon, like they did this weekend. I suspect people aren't going to go for removal of the bolding altogether, but it seems some people do have a problem with the "P", because it's so "flawed and unworkable" and presents such "clear problems", like it's the biggest problem with this article. Oh, the P-manity. If option 2 is something people might want, can they suggest an alternative to the "P", please? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not just because I don't like it. I gave you a reason. This table is a colation of race results. "P" is not a race result. It is an incredibly simple argument to understand. Whether you agree or refute, it it's a long way from ludicrous. --Falcadore (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am fully aware of that. Thing is, there's a whole bunch of other stuff in that table that is also not a race result, yet people, including you, don't seem to have a problem with that. It's the incongruity of people's arguments that is taxing me a little; I'm sticking with ludicrous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily a fan of that but then again we can have an entire table of a drivers F1 results (actually titled results) when they've never participated in a race other than one practice session as a third driver, there is plenty of incongruity to go around. This, to me is very clear. Bolding or italics add to a result but the number takes a very clear precedence. Without the number the bold P assumes an importance incongruous with the function of the table. --Falcadore (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what third driver tables (not titled results) have to do with this (apart from the fact that some arguments against them are as illogical as some arguments against the mighty P), but yes, this WikiProject is full of stuff that we don't need. But anyway, OK, that's the first argument here that's made sense. So, given that the "P" is infra dig for some, what do we replace it with? IPs and others will always want to add it after qualifying ends. In the absence of any other suggestion despite requests for one, I suggest a hidden ''' ''' marker, so that the information is there and the race result can be inserted easily after the race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't replace it with anything, you simply remove it. If it is repeatedly added by anon’s, you do exactly what you did to me, revert the edits and place warnings on their talk pages. Then do what I did and initiate a discussion or direct them to this discussion. It’s a pretty simple procedure and not the vision you present of uncontrollable anarchy over users adding this no matter what’s agreed to here.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you want it removed because it's useless information, or because of the way that information is displayed? If it's the former, you've yet to explain why you're happy to keep such useless information after the race. If it's the latter, you won't have a problem with the invisible note, will you? And the idea is to avoid edit warring and revert problems, not encourage them because you want to temporarily remove information. It would be worth providing an alternative for the "P" to explain to those less-experienced users why this piece of information is suddenly being removed for 24 hours. What really pisses me off about this kind of thing is that we currently have every race article for the past 7 or 8 years being vandalised by floating IPs on a daily basis, and it's left to three of us to fix it (that is uncontrollable anarchy) - while twice as many people are whinging about something as insignificant as a temporary "P" in a table. That's a symptom of why this Project doesn't work all that well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
♠This is beginning to sound like one of the silliest arguments I've seen.
♠For the record, I don't object to crediting the polesitter in some fashion, just not the "P", temporary or otherwise. Once quals are over, bolding or italics to mark quickest lap is merited (if not essential), & since it'll be at the top of the chart anyhow, no other indicator is really needed, is it? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
You remove it because it unneccessary. The P is replaced under present editing practices with the race position, so as an alternative behavior, don't add the P. We never used to do it in years past. No other grid positions are indicated, so instead of doing it... don't do it. If you so badly need a replacement strategy, you replace frivalous action with no action. --Falcadore (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I think it is time to wrap this discussion up or it could drag on forever and a day, with no conclusions drawn due to one very vociferous contributor. It is getting abundantly clear the majority of the arguments here which have conveyed numerous reasons; some more detailed than others, but all more in-depth than "I don't like it", are in favour of some form of removal of the P in the Drivers and Constructors standings tables. There needs to now be a moving of the discussion to a close. Currently the majority of users are in favour of removing the P from being included in the standings tables. Most of the recent arguments put forward by Bretonbanquet are increasingly devoid of policy and are all process and an implication that they are part of a tiny group who do everything on these articles and it will make their lives impossible, if we dare make this change, let alone discuss it. That files in the face of Wikipedia ownership policies and diverts away from the policy of the issue at hand. --Jimjames1989 (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please also note before you jump up and down and set your hair on fire Bretonbanquet it's fair comment and not a personal attack on you or your editing.--09:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

6 Votes to remove the P, 3 votes to keep it. Nightenbelle Nightenbelle (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't a vote: there's a bit of policy for JimJames1989. Secondly, I'm beginning to grow tired of the apparent, and familiar, personal nature of some of JimJames1989's comments. With that in mind, I suggest we leave this debate for a day or two and see what happens in the meantime. I'm sure something else will crop up in a day or two. There's no GP for three weeks and there is no hurry to implement anything, and maybe one or two other people will have their say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, policy is established by consensus, not popularity. Sounds like a good idea to me. --Falcadore (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Concensus, sorry I should have worded my post better. However- I was attempting to help, I'm now going to back out and let ya'll return to your debate over a letter, since obviously you really didn't want comments and help- you just want to keep arguing. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It helps Bretonbanquet to actually aim policy complaints and policy links, at the correct individual as I never claimed this to be a vote. I was simply pointing out your comments are once again all process and no substance. Just as the personalised nature of your comments which are purely aimed at myself and show that there was no reading of who posted the comment. The point of this discussion is to see if placing who’s in pole position in the constructors and drivers standings tables, is what should be done. The discussions have so far shown a serious amount a well-reasoned discussion that there addition should be discontinued. The retention side is not a lot more than, "it’s been done forever" "It will be impossible to implement as anons will just add it and it will make my editing a misery". Which are not actual reasons to retain continuing something. This has become too personalised but only because some users have decided not to actually discuss the issue and to focus instead on process, "such as this discussion was started in the wrong place". All of which do not go to actually resolving the discussions. I also agree with the cooling off period.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I read it just fine - it was you who asked for policy, hence I aimed my bit of policy at you. I'll point out that I am the only editor here who has suggested a compromise (which you have flatly ignored), since you have accused me of not discussing the issue and focussing on process... but OK, we'll have a cooling-off period, and we'll see who's here in a few days. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah so we know now the user who added the timed but unsigned post.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I hope you don't mean me - if you can find any edit I've ever made at 8.35am (when I am in my car driving to work) then I'd be interested to see it. What did this mystery post say? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm confused. What are you talking about? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My 2c: Personally I'd prefer it if none of the current-season-related articles (e.g. 2012 Formula One season, all the driver/team/car articles, {{Latest F1GP}} and all the lists, etc) were updated until after the race. But I accept that there are other editors who like to see the articles updated as soon as new information becomes available. I can happily tolerate the addition of a couple of bold "P"s to the championship tables for the 24 hours leading up to each race (and with due respect to those editors who have expressed a contrary opinion, I think it's pretty obvious what the bold "P" indicates - the key next to the table clearly says "bold = pole position"), especially if the alternative is spending the 24 hours before each race constantly reverting good-faith edits by IP editors who are unaware that the convention of the past 12(?) months has been changed mid-season. DH85868993 (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to borrow DH's 2¢ (those are Australian, they're worth more than Canadian) and throw them in the can a second time. I think the above just about summarised my position too. Pyrope 12:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Supplemental

User:Jimjames1989 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Lucy-marie, a known vandal and multiple sockpuppeteer. Some might remember her as the editor who spent several weeks disruptively arguing about flags on this page a while back. I had a strong suspicion of some kind of duplicity when I looked at JimJames1989's history, which is the only reason I have been protracting this argument to such a ridiculous degree, and I apologise for wasting anyone's time if they feel it was wasted. I was drawing a blank as to the true identity of the editor, but User:Pyrope figured it out, and an admin has reached the same conclusion. So, apologies for producing this lengthy and at times, bizarre debate about nothing more than a P.

Hopefully we can conclude the debate quickly and simply, one way or the other. I'm going to more or less duck out of the discussion (I've rambled enough already), but I'll say I am in favour of keeping the P, but I am not going to argue at all if the consensus is to junk it. I totally agree with DH's wish that the articles could just be updated after the race - that would be great, but as he says, it's unlikely to happen. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm well that's a shame, I never do get why people want to disrupt this place so much. Shame you had to spend so much time on it!
I haven't had time to really join on this debate, but I would suggest as a conclusion that we just allow editors to add the P should they wish to update it after every qualifying session. Although I have the opinion that it looks out of place on a race results table, and that it would be better to update every article after the race, it's simpler and really not harmful to keep it in once it's been added. QueenCake (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I can agree that although I believe the bolded P is jumping the gun and useless, it would be too much of a hassle to combat it. The359 (Talk) 22:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
QueenCake, I remember Lucy from an episode about this time last year where she was removing large amounds of text from the 2012 season article - namely the stuff about the return of the USGP - as "speculative" because it might not happen and we couldn't prove that it would. Come to think of it, this P is exactly the kind of thing she would argue.
Anyway, my stance remains the same. This is totally transient. The P is in the article for no more than 25 hours, and there is a correlation between the field it appears in and the pole-sitter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The amount of time it sits there is completely irrelevant to the discussion it should be pointed out. "Oh but it is only going to be here an X amount of time" not only is not a valid defence, it also underlines the relative lack of importance of it being there in the first instance. --Falcadore (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

CotA circuit map

Overnight, the organisers in Austin have released an aerial shot of the circuit after they laid some test asphalt. And I cannot help but notice that it looks very different to the image used for the Circuit of the Americas page. For one, Turn 2 now looks longer and smoother than that shown in the article. And Turns 3 and 4 appears to have been removed. The image posted on Formula 1.com shows something else altogether; Turn 2 is smoother, Turns 3 and 4 are intact, and Turns 8 and 9 appear to be much tighter than in the image on the article page. I'm trying to find anything and everything that I can on any changes to the layout, but so far, I'm coming up with nothing. What is apparent to me is that the image on the CotA article is no longer accurate, and so needs to be changed - but which image do we use? The way I see it, there are three options:

  1. Keep the current image. There is no evidence that the circuit layout has actually been changed.
  2. Re-draw the image, based on the one posted on Formula1.com.
  3. Remove the image altogether, pending further progress on the circuit construction (once the first layer of tarmac goes down, the layout is pretty much set in stone).

Right now, I think the best way forward is to re-draw the image based on what is posted at Formula1.com, seeing as how it is the sport's website, and therefore the most-accurate source available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the aerial photo throws some things off due to the area designated for run-off not being clearly seperated from what is the actual circuit. A look at the map on Formula One shows that the layout of the runoff in Turns 3 and 4 gives the effect that the turn is eliminated and replaced with a smooth straight. As for Turn 2, my guess based on the actual photo is that it is actually a decreasing radius turn, but again, the runoff area does not give it a good read.
I do however agree that Turn 9 has changed and is much tighter. That is the only thing I would suggest changing on our SVG image. The359 (Talk) 05:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Turn 2 has changed as well. It looks like a right-hand kink in the article image, but the image on Formula1.com looks a lot more gentle. And I think that is suppored by the aerial photo.
Also, I'd suggest re-orienting the circuit image (in fact, I'd do it to all of them if it's possible) to face north. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The circuit maps should be oriented so as to best fill a 3:2 portrait format box. That way they display best in infoboxes, where they are dominantly used. North should be shown by use of a proper north arrow (not a red arrowhead), and there should be a proper, logical scale bar showing both metric and imperial units. Pyrope 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I think there are several maps that could be re-oriented. Albert Park, Barcelona, Monaco, Montreal, Valencia, Hockenheim, Monza, Singapore, Suzuka, Sochi and the Nürburgring could all be rotated a little bit to better fill out the 3:2 portrait box. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think trying to divine an accurate map plan from an oblique and perspective photograph of a building site is a fool's errand. It won't be more than a couple of months until the thing is finished properly. The map on the F1.com site, the map at the CotA site, the recent photos, and the original press release all show something subtly different. Let's not go guessing which may turn out to be right. Pyrope 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Team Lotus Navbox

The Team Lotus Navbox needs editing help by adding the teams cars formula one cars formula two and so on. Me12356 (talk) 10:58, 03 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent circuit maps

Branching off from the above discussion on the CotA circuit map, I think we need to take a look at some of the circuit maps used on various race pages. A lot of them are really quite inconsistent in terms of size, content and design. Compare, for example, Buddh International Circuit with Korean International Circuit, and you will see that they are wildly different. Others, like the Bahrain International Circuit show even more detail, with sectors and the circuit length. Others, like the Marina Bay Street Circuit look totally incomplete, particularly when held up against other street circuit maps like the Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit (and others, like the Phoenix and Detroit circuits, don't even appear clearly on the List of Formula One circuits page).

So I think we should have a look at this. The circuit maps should be uniform - the same size, of the same proportions, and with the same content (where applicable; street circuits will probably have have more content than permanent circuits). Personally, I like the style of the Buddh International Circuit best. It's large, it's clear and it contains no unnecessary information. I know it's asking a lot - especially since I have no skill in graphics programs - but I think we need to redo a lot of the maps, even if we just limit it to current and future circuits. It's an issue that I've had for a while, and I think it's high time we addressed it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Cooper Grand Prix results

Hi, I've just finished completing the list of privately entered Cooper Grand Prix results, and as has kindly been pointed out by User:QueenCake, it's got quite large and cumbersome. In fact it's now larger than some of the lists of the teams here, so it should probably get its own page at Cooper Grand Prix Results. Anyone have any objections? Allypap81 (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No objection here. DH85868993 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I would personally like to see it broken up by team as "Cooper" never competed for team results. Constructor's terminology broke it up by engine combination. For example, Cooper-Climax competed against Cooper-BRM and Cooper-Bristol and Cooper-Maserati etc in constructor's championships and prior to 1958 there were no team pointscores so it creates a false impression that the varied Coopers competed as a whole.
My objection is that there is no real over-arching collective of Cooper results. It's like collecting Manchester United and Machester City results together in a single table. There is a relationship (both Geographic and by competing league), but the tabulation creates of false impression of the reality. --Falcadore (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It could be considered WP:Original research if it not compiled for a notable reason. --Falcadore (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
That is true, but Lotus (-Climax, -BRM, -Ford etc.), Brabham (-Climax, -Repco, -Ford etc.), McLaren (-Ford, -BRM, -Alfa Romeo etc.) and many others have also had the same chassis with different engines competing against each other, and those results are collated. Also "Cooper Car Company" was in fact an entrant from 1953 to 1968, so they did compete for team results. Allypap81 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
No, they didn't. There never has been a "team" championship, just the drivers' and constructors'. A Cooper-Climax result for the works team was worth just as much as an equivalent result for a Cooper-Climax entered by Rob Walker or Yeoman Credit, or whoever. I think you ought to take a look at the format used for the Cooper T51 article. This has a much more justifiable organisational structure (although I would prefer that Yeoman Credit and other Climax-engined runners weren't split from the works and Walker result, for the reason I gave above). I can see the justification of collating all results for Cooper chassis, but as Falcadore says you do need to distinguish between the different engine variants. The fact that other constructors have this bizarre hiving-off of the works results from the customer results, and don't respect the engine differences, doesn't mean that we need to perpetuate the errors. Pyrope 14:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I admit I was loathe to use the word "team" because of previous discussions, and only used it to refer to what Falcadore was referring to. Obviously, here we both mean constructor, and as has been pointed out this means that Cooper-Climax is distinct from Cooper-BRM, for example. Since I've not been here too long I assumed the current format of constructor results pages was satisfactory. As it is, whatever we choose to do for this needs to be done for all other pages here for consistency. As Pyrope says, Cooper T51 gives a good structure, but that is split by entrant rather than by constructor (which would be 'chassis'-'engine'), which is what Falcadore suggested. Clearly we need to be consistent, so our options seem to be:
  • Create the Cooper page as per current constructor pages
  • Create the Cooper page and split it and the other constructor pages by constructor (by which we mean 'chassis'-'engine', i.e. the criteria for counting towards the Constructor's Championship)
  • Create the Cooper page and split it and the other constructor pages by entrant, like it is at Cooper T51.
My personal preference would be for the last option, as in my opinion the entrant is more important than the engine, and if we did split by engine it would mean splitting up the works team's results, which just wouldn't look right I don't think. Allypap81 (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
That's ok. All too often what happens is that somebody does something and people don't really notice. Or those that contribute to a discussion miss pertinent points. Or simply that opinions change over time. As far as your proposals go I think moving the tables to a separate page is the first step. The tables are just too large for inclusion on the main Cooper page, and they can be worked on further at the new page. I'm not so sure about your preference for the last option though. What are important are the make (chassis constructor + engine constructor) results and the standings in the WCC, and before 1980 there really wasn't anything special about a works entry as far as the championship was concerned (they did get guaranteed starts so their #1 and sometimes #2 drivers didn't have to worry about qualifying, and they likely got better start and finish money, though). Taking the Lotus Grand Prix results page as an example, the daft thing here is that Stirling Moss scored well over half of the Lotus-Climax WCC points in both 1960 and 1961, yet all those points are currently credited to the works-entered cars in the table. Similarly, Cooper's third in the WCC in 1958 was largely thanks to the Walker cars and not the efforts of the works squad. I know people have come to equate entrants and constructors in recent times, but they were definitely distinct in Cooper's time. Pyrope 18:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, well I've now created the page and put a link in the main Cooper article, so we can now decide how it needs to be. If I'm honest I don't really have an objection to these kinds of tables being split by chassis with engine constructor, as you say it means that all results that contributed to the Constructors' Championship are collated appropriately. My preference for the entrant option was mainly down to ease of editing, and I think it's slightly easier to see at a glance. But like I say I'd be OK for it to be by engine supplier. Allypap81 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid in its currnt form I am going to have to nominate for its deletion because it displays blatantly false results. For example: in 1968 you've stated Cooper finished 14th in 1968 when nobody finished 14th in 1968, and while Cooper-BRM finished 7th you have indicated that Cooper-Alfa Romeo and Cooper-Maserati contributed to the same pointscore which is patently false. The 1958 season results says Cooper finished third but does not display all the results that contributed to Cooper-Climax finishing third, specifically Cooper's victories in the 1958 Argentinian Grand Prix and the 1958 Monaco Grand Prix.
It is fundamentally flawed and inaccurate, demonstrating you do not have a sufficient understanding of Formula One to be creating such articles and needs to be taken down immediately. --Falcadore (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

After giving this some consideration, my thoughts are:

  • it's reasonable for Wikipedia to collate all the World Championship results for a particular chassis manufacturer, and
  • given that the FIA awards constructors' points to "chassis-engine" combinations, the tables should be divided by year, then engine, then entrant, then driver.

Here's what 1968 would look like:

Layout 1: "DH's original proposal"
Year Entrant Chassis Engine Tyres Driver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Points WCC
1968 Cooper Car Company T86B
T86C 		BRM 3.0 V12 F
G 		RSA ESP MON BEL NED FRA GBR GER ITA CAN USA MEX 14 7th
United Kingdom Brian Redman 3 Ret
Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti 4 4
Belgium Lucien Bianchi 3 6 Ret Ret NC Ret Ret
United Kingdom Vic Elford 4 Ret Ret Ret 5 Ret 8
France Johnny Servoz-Gavin Ret
United Kingdom Robin Widdows Ret
Cooper Car Company T81B Maserati 3.0 V12 United Kingdom Brian Redman Ret 0 -
T86 Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti Ret
Rob Walker/Jack Durlacher Racing Team T81 F Switzerland Jo Siffert 7
Joakim Bonnier Racing Team T81 G Sweden Joakim Bonnier Ret
John Love T79 Climax 2.8 L4 F South Africa Basil van Rooyen Ret 0 -
1969 Model to show potential year splitting added by Pyrope in a blatant act of parasitism...

Note the thick lines to separate the different chassis-engine combinations. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to get personal Falcadore, with such a large amount of data there's bound to be one or two errors which are easily fixed by people such as you who notice them, that's hardly grounds for deletion. It's clear that you disagreed with the plan for this page, but you were the only one so constructive criticism would be better than questioning another editor's understanding of the subject.
As for DH's suggestions, I think that's pretty much how Pyrope suggested it being and I would say I agree with it, especially the think lines that make things a bit clearer. Allypap81 (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I've just read Falcadore's comments again. On the first one, the table does NOT state that Cooper finished 14th, it clearly states that they had 14 POINTS and finished in 7th. On the second one, you have a point. Clearly Cooper-Maserati, -BRM and -Alfa Romeo should be separate, and that is what DH's suggestion solves. And on the third point, these missing results are in the second table as they were won by private entrants who entered Cooper cars. And again, DH's solution works fine for this, we'd be able to collate all Cooper results by year, then engine, then entrant, meaning we'll have on table instead of two.
The current format IS fundamentally flawed, but so are the other similar pages for other constructors, and that is what this discussion is trying to solve, not to just give up and delete them. Allypap81 (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Quite, DH, I think this is something that, while it needs work, is definitely doable within the source and verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. I like what you suggest very much. I was originally thinking that the engine should come directly after the year (following your logic tree), but after playing with it a bit I can't come up with anything that really works as well. One addition I would make (and I hope you don't mind, but rather than just add a whole extra table I've appended it to the bottom of yours) is for a full width, empty cell to split the years apart. I'm sure there are other methods, but what with the chassis-engine combinations split with a heavy line I thought we needed something to pull the years out a bit. Pyrope 13:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I do think the engine column should (in some way) be moved to between year and entrant, as 1) it is how we are sorting the table, and 2) the method DH suggested makes it slightly difficult to follow the results across from entrant to driver, as there are no horizontal lines in the engine column. Maybe we could have the column have, for example, Cooper-BRM, with BRM 3.0 V12 underneath it? Allypap81 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's what I think Allypap81 is suggesting, plus another variation of my own. Note that in the year I chose (1968), there happened to be only one engine configuration for each engine manufacturer. For other years, there would be multiple configurations for some engine manufacturers. DH85868993 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Layout 2: Engine column between Year and Entrant, per Allypap81's suggestion
Year Engine Entrant Chassis Tyres Driver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Points WCC
1968 Cooper-BRM
BRM 3.0 V12 		Cooper Car Company T86B
T86C 		F
G 		RSA ESP MON BEL NED FRA GBR GER ITA CAN USA MEX 14 7th
United Kingdom Brian Redman 3 Ret
Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti 4 4
Belgium Lucien Bianchi 3 6 Ret Ret NC Ret Ret
United Kingdom Vic Elford 4 Ret Ret Ret 5 Ret 8
France Johnny Servoz-Gavin Ret
United Kingdom Robin Widdows Ret
Cooper-Maserati
Maserati 3.0 V12 		Cooper Car Company T81B United Kingdom Brian Redman Ret 0 -
T86 Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti Ret
Rob Walker/Jack Durlacher Racing Team T81 F Switzerland Jo Siffert 7
Joakim Bonnier Racing Team T81 G Sweden Joakim Bonnier Ret
Cooper-Climax
Climax 2.8 L4 		John Love T79 F South Africa Basil van Rooyen Ret 0 -
1969 Model to show potential year splitting added by Pyrope in a blatant act of parasitism...
Layout 3: Additional "Constructor" column over near the Points/WCC columns
Year Entrant Chassis Engine Tyres Driver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Constructor Points WCC
1968 Cooper Car Company T86B
T86C 		BRM 3.0 V12 F
G 		RSA ESP MON BEL NED FRA GBR GER ITA CAN USA MEX Cooper-BRM 14 7th
United Kingdom Brian Redman 3 Ret
Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti 4 4
Belgium Lucien Bianchi 3 6 Ret Ret NC Ret Ret
United Kingdom Vic Elford 4 Ret Ret Ret 5 Ret 8
France Johnny Servoz-Gavin Ret
United Kingdom Robin Widdows Ret
Cooper Car Company T81B Maserati 3.0 V12 United Kingdom Brian Redman Ret Cooper-Maserati 0 -
T86 Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti Ret
Rob Walker/Jack Durlacher Racing Team T81 F Switzerland Jo Siffert 7
Joakim Bonnier Racing Team T81 G Sweden Joakim Bonnier Ret
John Love T79 Climax 2.8 L4 F South Africa Basil van Rooyen Ret Cooper-Climax 0 -
1969 Model to show potential year splitting added by Pyrope in a blatant act of parasitism...

I must admit when I pointed this out a couple of days ago I didn't think there would be so much of a problem! Still I can understand the issue here and it is for the best that you have been trying to fix them. I find myself preferring the first table, having the entrant/chassis/engine seems a better way of sorting the results, as well as being the standard way of sorting every table we use on here. It does manage to clearly state the results that contributed to each chassis-engine combination, and I would be happy to go forward with that form of table.

One last thing, I think it's best to have the smaller text size of the bottom two tables, as these can get very wide and it's preferable to not have readers have to scroll to access the results. I have no idea why it is smaller however, as far as I can tell they both have text size set at 90%... QueenCake (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Allypap81: I'm sorry you interpreted what I said as a personal attack, but the information presented was flawed and inaccurate and demonstrated either you did not understand the subject or did not care to correct errors created elsewhere and the article should never have been established in that format. It was an entirely truthful analysis. You were given the opportunity to correct before uploading and chose not to. My response was based on that action, not "giving up on the article", but rather the attempt to get you to understand that information should be correct BEFORE uploading rather than after. Any offence you may feel should be understood against the context of uploading an inaccurate table. --Falcadore (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Falcadore, I just didn't like my knowledge of F1 being questioned, that's all. And I know it's no excuse in this case but I didn't do any of the first table, I just copied it across. I admit I should have checked it first. Anyway, as it stands I'm doing the new table in the style of DH's first suggestion in my sandbox and I'm about halfway through, so once I've finished that I'll replace the current tables. And then from there we can tweak it. Allypap81 (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand completely, I'm having my knowledge questioned in another article based it seems entirely on something happenning 16 years later. The lack of relevance in the comparison just stuns me and yet wikipedia's systems are on the side of the other editor. --Falcadore (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Right, I've finally finished the tables, so Cooper Grand Prix results is now up-to-date with the new format. This was actually my first article, so it's quite nice to have finally finished. With the large amount of data, despite my best efforts there may be small mistakes so feel free to correct anything you spot, and thanks for the help so far! Allypap81 (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Throwing in my nickel, here, I'd rather the tables be constructor, entrant, chassis, engine, results. That seems to me the most logical & intuitive arrangement, & the one that seems to be used in the coverage of the subject. If it was entrant, then constructor, I'd have no problem, either. Putting constructor way across the table is pretty strange, to my eye. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Like this?:
Layout 4: Trekphiler's suggestion #1 (constructor, entrant, chassis, engine, results)
Year Constructor Entrant Chassis Engine Tyres Driver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Points WCC
1968 Cooper-BRM Cooper Car Company T86B
T86C 		BRM 3.0 V12 F
G 		RSA ESP MON BEL NED FRA GBR GER ITA CAN USA MEX 14 7th
United Kingdom Brian Redman 3 Ret
Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti 4 4
Belgium Lucien Bianchi 3 6 Ret Ret NC Ret Ret
United Kingdom Vic Elford 4 Ret Ret Ret 5 Ret 8
France Johnny Servoz-Gavin Ret
United Kingdom Robin Widdows Ret
Cooper-Maserati Cooper Car Company T81B Maserati 3.0 V12 United Kingdom Brian Redman Ret 0 -
T86 Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti Ret
Rob Walker/Jack Durlacher Racing Team T81 F Switzerland Jo Siffert 7
Joakim Bonnier Racing Team T81 G Sweden Joakim Bonnier Ret
Cooper-Climax John Love T79 Climax 2.8 L4 F South Africa Basil van Rooyen Ret 0 -
Layout 5: Trekphiler's suggestion #2 (entrant, constructor, chassis, engine, results)
Year Entrant Constructor Chassis Engine Tyres Driver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Points WCC
1968 Cooper Car Company Cooper-BRM T86B
T86C 		BRM 3.0 V12 F
G 		RSA ESP MON BEL NED FRA GBR GER ITA CAN USA MEX 14 7th
United Kingdom Brian Redman 3 Ret
Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti 4 4
Belgium Lucien Bianchi 3 6 Ret Ret NC Ret Ret
United Kingdom Vic Elford 4 Ret Ret Ret 5 Ret 8
France Johnny Servoz-Gavin Ret
United Kingdom Robin Widdows Ret
Cooper Car Company Cooper-Maserati T81B Maserati 3.0 V12 United Kingdom Brian Redman Ret 0 -
T86 Italy Ludovico Scarfiotti Ret
Rob Walker/Jack Durlacher Racing Team T81 F Switzerland Jo Siffert 7
Joakim Bonnier Racing Team T81 G Sweden Joakim Bonnier Ret
John Love Cooper-Climax T79 Climax 2.8 L4 F South Africa Basil van Rooyen Ret 0 -
I'd be happy with Layout 4; I'm not quite as keen on Layout 5. DH85868993 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the idea with having the constructor on the right hand side was so that it was next to the score and position, which just makes it easier to see that information at a glance. I see your point though, it does look a bit out of the way. I wouldn't mind it being moved to Layout 4, to be honest. I don't really have time to do it myself though, I've only just finished the table as it is before the onslaught of exams.
One thing I did think while doing it was about putting flags next to entrants in the table. Is there a reason we don't do that, or would it be a useful addition? Allypap81 (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Either one of those works fine for me. As said, I'm a bit split over which is better, so... My main point against keeping entrant or constructor so far to the right is its seeming separated from the "other half" of the team data, where it seems to belong. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Flags of teams aren't that important. Teams do not compete for Formula One's prizes, so their nationality is never really at issue. Constructors however is a different issue.
This brings up a related issue. In saying the constructors is off to the left and out of the way we've hit upon the problem that perhaps this table is trying to be too many things for too many people. Is it a table for collating the results of Cooper Car Company, or a table for collating the results of Cooper-related Constructors? It should NOT try to be both, the result is the table of bewildering complexity as presented. --Falcadore (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm taking it to mean all entrants who ran Coopers. Do you mean "Team Cooper"? AFAIK (& not really my area), there wasn't one. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
No I mean official entries of the Cooper Car Company. It's either a collection of team results - or a collection of constructor's results. This table seems to be trying to be both, deepening the confusion between Teams and Constructors that Wikip;edia seems to struggle to define correctly. --Falcadore (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the table is trying to do both - it's a collection of constructor results which has "Entrant" as one of the data columns. I suppose we could remove the Entrant column, but I don't see what advantage that offers - the table would still have just as many rows, but the reader loses the information of knowing who each driver's entrant was. DH85868993 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Entrant names in season articles

I'm looking for a bit of clarification with regard to the names of the entrants in the "Teams and drivers" tables in season articles. Today an editor made a few changes to these, and some were correct and others not, so I started to correlate them with the entrant names at Autosport, for consistency. I was also linking the sponsor names to the relevant articles, as we do in driver results tables, since this is the only instance that the sponsor names should be appearing in the season articles. User:The359 then let me know that we generally don't link sponsor names, and I was wondering if that was something we discussed, or not. If we don't link them, why not? There needs to be a fairly good reason why not, since that's what wikilinking is all about. Plus, without the links, it's not clear at all for the layman what these sponsor names are - there's no explanation of what "West", "Orange", "European" "ING" etc actually mean. If there's a good reason, then fine, but I was wondering what the reason is.

Furthermore, for the last few seasons, including the current one, nothing is linked at all in the entrant name. Was this discussed? I suspect not, since User:Abdul Qayyum Ahmad was removing them arbitrarily with no edit summary [1], [2], [3]. We should have a uniform treatment of entrant names across the season articles, preferably one decided via consensus. Thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I unlinked a lot of those sponsor links per the MOS for side-by-side linking, for which the MOS was pretty specific. They are not terribly relelvant to F1 season articles. If the sponsors need to be linked that can happen in the various team articles, where it would be a more relevant search prospect anyway. --Falcadore (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's a link to the August 2011 discussion about linking sponsors. I don't recall there being a discussion about completely delinking entrants in the recent season summary articles. I agree with Bretonbanquet that we should have consistency across the articles. DH85868993 (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't meant we should ignore the MOS. --Falcadore (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
What bugs me the most is the inconsistency. So long as all the articles are the same, I'm not overly bothered. I would say though, that if the sponsor names aren't all that important, then they shouldn't be there at all. To have them there unexplained is not a good situation. If we accept the MOS that says we shouldn't link them, then I'd rather remove the full entrant names altogether than leave these names unlinked and unexplained to the casual reader. They're not, as Falcadore says, terribly relevant in terms of the F1 season anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Inconsistent with... ? --Falcadore (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Other season articles. That's the point I'm making here, they don't all use the same format. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
To clarify/expand my position:
  • I don't mind if the sponsors are individually linked, e.g. [[Marlboro (cigarette)|Marlboro]] [[McLaren|McLaren International]]
  • I also don't mind if the sponsors aren't individually linked (e.g. [[McLaren|Marlboro McLaren International]]). If someone wants to go through all the season summary articles and update them that's fine with me. Further, if someone wants to go through and update all the driver results tables too, that's also fine with me.
  • I think the contents of the entrants column in the season summary articles should be linked. Presumably the rationale for the entrants being completely delinked was the Entrant and Constructor columns linked to the same place, so one of the links was redundant. But I'm not sure I agree with that line of reasoning: a non-expert reader visiting 1985 Formula One season might not be interested in the constructor "McLaren", but might want more information on the entrant "Marlboro McLaren International".
DH85868993 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the sponsors need to be linked. The emphasis of the team and driver table is the team and drivers. Since the constructor column is in bold, that's where the link is. To link in the team column is WP:OVERLINK. And to solely link to sponsors would be jarring and out-of-context. The season article is for things that affect the season. A team can function equally-well with different sponsors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Another issue to consider is what to do when the Entrant and Constructor wouldn't link to the same place, of which there are many instances before 1980 (e.g. Rob Walker Racing Team running Coopers and Lotuses in 1960). I'd argue that in such cases, linking the Entrant is just as important as linking the Constructor. One option would be to link the entrant when it doesn't link to the same place as the constructor. But I still think it's simpler to just always link both. (BTW, why is the Contructor column in bold?) DH85868993 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The season articles (like most F1 articles) fail WP:OVERLINK a dozen times over - that's not really either here or there. DH makes a good point about cases where the entrant and the constructor are different entities - we have to maintain the distinction where there is / was one. No idea why the constructor is in bold - I'm for debolding it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The constructors are in bold for identification purposes - results are credited to that name (and that is the name the are commonly known by). I see no reason why they should not be de-bolded. I agree, there should be links when the entrant and the constructor are not the same, though that applies more to historical articles than current ones.

I still don't think we should be linking to sponsor pages, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Identification purposes? I don't see how that requires bold type. And how do you propose to explain the sponsor names if they're not linked? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Linking the sponsors fails MOS:LINKS. Some of these linking methods are abysmally bad, this is my all-time fave for how not to do linking from 1985 - Canon Williams Honda Team. --Falcadore (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's my second favourite. My favourite came from the Sports Car area Silk Cut Jaguar, which completely uselessly did not link to the relevant racing team but linked to a cigarette brand and the road car manufacturer, thus illustrating perfectly why this method of linking should be avoided. --Falcadore (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is it so important that the sponsor names be linked at all? They're included on the season pages because they are a part of the formal team name. However, they are not linked because the sponsors ultiamtely do not affect the overall season. If Vodafone McLaren Mercedes became AT&T McLaren Mercedes, how is that a meaningful change that affects the season and therefore should be documented? If anything, it should be recorded on the Formula One sponsorship liveries page, since that's where the change takes place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The fact remains that we have terms in the table which are not explained, leaving the casual user with no idea what they mean. If they're not important enough to link, then they're not important enough to be there. Why is the full team name important to the season? This looks like an opportunity to remove a whole column of fluff from these tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Which terms? The name of an entrant is the name the team is using that weekend. It is not unexplained as it links directly to the team. The Gran Premio de España Santander is not run by Santander, it's the Spanish Grand Prix. Contrary to popular opinion, team and constructor are not interchangeable. --Falcadore (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
By terms, I obviously mean sponsor names. Nothing explains what "AT&T" or "West" etc mean, or why those words are in the team name, and they quite patently are not explained. Who the sponsors are is not explained by the link to the team article. It's not even clear that they're sponsors. I'm obviously aware of the difference between teams and constructors. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
You're problem is that you see AT&T WIlliams Grand Prix as four individual words rather than one team name. To follow that logic through to its natural conclusion world be to have links to each letter of A, T and T to indicate how each of the letters represented. West Ham United does not have a seperate link in the middle in order to say the "Ham" represents Hampshire. Alter that perception and you are fine. 2012 Le Mans 24 Hour is one name. Rolex 24 at Daytona does not cease to be the name of the race because of the word "Rolex". NASCAR races have the Sponsor name totally subsumes the race name. Coca-Cola 500. It is somewhat silly to have a separate link just the 500. --Falcadore (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
That is total nonsense, as I suspect you already know. So AT&T doesn't mean anything on its own at all? It's permanently part of the Williams team name and doesn't exist outside Williams? You don't think anyone might reasonably ask, "I wonder why they're called AT&T Williams and not just Williams?" Your West Ham analogy is a total non sequitur; it couldn't be more off the mark. NASCAR events are not the same thing as F1 team names, to state the obvious. You are suggesting that everyone will automatically know that these names are sponsor names and not question why they are there, which is massively presumptious. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it if I believed it to be nonsense. I agree that asking about AT&T is a reasonable question, but I dont think it to be reasonable to ask the season summary articles to explain it. Clicking on a link to AT&T likewise is of no actual help beyond the feelgood of creating a link as there is no explanation on the AT&T Article as the what connection AT&T has with either Williams or Formula One.What would be best is the link to WilliamsF1 which is by far the best place to contain the explanation of AT&T's sponsorship of Williams. It's the most appropriate article to carry the explanation as it's not a direct function of AT&T and explaining all the sports sponsorships mof Formula One in the season articles would be repetitive year to year and give undue weight to a side issue. Don't create a link simply because you can,do it to provide the explanatory content. Linking to a seemingly unrelated telephonic carrier can look like a typo ot a disambig gone wrong. --Falcadore (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
...which would be great, if the Williams article explained who AT&T are, but the fact is that it doesn't. And it won't. And even if it did, it would be buried in the article where nobody could be bothered to find it. There's a huge disconnect between what would be best, and what exists. That's why sponsor names shouldn't be in that table at all, because nobody is going to provide any kind of explanation as to why they are there, what they mean or why they might be significant. Given the amount of sodding tables in the season articles, it's amazing how many of them display useless information, or just repeat something that's already in another table. And given how much of this repeated information is wikilinked on every single occasion (or randomly bolded on some editor's latest whim), it seems odd that some information isn't linked at all. But it really shouldn't be surprising by now, I suppose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't make up for it with hodge-podge editting practices thus creating a situation where someone looking for a team link (which surely is far more likely) might under up in an article which says nothing on the subject. It isn't the role of linking to make each-way bets. The MOS is not a new document, it's concepts weren't arrived at last week. If someone wants so badly to find AT&T then they can type in it into the search option at the top of the page. --Falcadore (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would someone looking for the team click on AT&T? Give people some credit. By those standards wikilinks wouldn't work at all. OK, so no links at all in the entrant column, and no explanation either - no improvement, no benefit - typical WPF1. Make sure to roll that system out back to 1950, won't you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not "That system" it's the Manual of Style for Wikipedia. It's pretty clear on the subject. You're arguing that it's wrong. --Falcadore (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
By "that system" I patently mean delinking the entrants in that column without providing an explanation for the terms within it, as the season articles for the last three years do. It's right there in the previous sentence of what I wrote in my last post. You need to stop twisting what I'm saying. I've now bolded it for the hard-of-understanding. So, you'll be delinking the names in the entrant column back to 1950 or leaving the inconsistency, whichever you like. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've extracted the "bold Constructor column" issue as a separate discussion below. DH85868993 (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles

Hello! Can you added articles Alf Francis, Daniele Coronna, Hans Fouche, Chris Radage, Steve Tarrant, Intertechnique, Elf Masters and more, many missing cars and teams (!)? Eurohunter (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are already on our template for articles to be created...what exactly is the reason for asking a second time...? I'm a little confused by this. The359 (Talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Second time, I forgot! We on polish Wikipedia added some or even over a dozen and more edited on week. On English Wikipedia is failure new articles. Eurohunter (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't understand your comment. Can you please clarify? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
We on polish Wikipedia added some or seven over a dozen and more edited on week. On English Wikipedia is failure new articles, list no edited, we edited this list some every day. You understand? Eurohunter (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Creating a vast swathe of stub articles isn't really an achievement. My own rule of thumb is that a Wikipedia article should be better than the first couple of Google hits on the same subject. For the English language this is actually a fairly high bar as there are many good websites out there dealing with Formula One and motor sport in general. However, for the Polish language perhaps the situation is different (not being able to read Polish, I can't check). Just creating a stub article to fill a gap on Wikipedia isn't that helpful in the grand scheme of things. Pyrope 13:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes yes, we added more articles and edited to GA, FA, List Featured. Go to and international list. On english Wikipedia GA, FA are small. Eurohunter (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if you have enough information to create a decent new article, then the first rule of Wikipedia is to go on and start it, although you will probably want to improve your English first. I don't quite understand your comment about FA/GA, but be aware that standards on the English Wikipedia are generally higher than on other language versions, and of course it is not the only way to measure quality. QueenCake (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia have generally small, GA, FA are small than Polish GA, FA. On Polish and French can be better GA, FA in motorsports than other version Wikipedia. Eurohunter (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sauber results

There's a discussion at Talk:Sauber#Team_results_from_2006-2009_missing about whether or not the results from 2006-2009 (the "BMW Sauber years") should be included in the results table and infobox. You are welcome to add any views you may have on the matter. DH85868993 (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Retired" vandal

Well, as I'm sure many of you have noticed, this vandalism of recent season articles as well as particular Grand Prix articles regarding whether or not certain drivers were classified and what they may or may not have retired for has certainly been going on for a few days now, and it's clear that whoever is behind it is on a non-static IP based in the UK. This makes it impossible to block the vandal, short of blocking their entire ISP (they do seem to all be from the same ISP). I actually do have a wild guess as to who is behind it, but I can't say conclusively at the moment.

However I wonder if it might be prudent to semi-protect all of the recent season articles, as well as some of the particular GP articles that the IPs have been targeting? The359 (Talk) 19:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's starting to look like we might need to do something. As you say, he's unblockable - I tried to get admins interested in this but with no luck. I too have my ideas as to who is behind it, but it's hard to tell for sure. I would be in favour of semi-protecting all the season articles since 2000, and all race articles since at least 2007. I'm not sure if we'll find an admin willing to do it though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
This vandalism has been going on since, at the earliest, 18 April. So it's a couple of weeks at least. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
If this has been going on for two months now, and if the person responsible is known to us, then perhaps we have a case to take to WP:LONG or WP:ABUSE, though I admit that I'm not sure of thee exact criteria for inclusion over there. Especially since the proposed action to counter their edits is to semi-rptect a hundred articles - I get the feeling that if this went ahead, it would only result in them moving to earlier seasons and doing the same. But we'd have to confirm who it was first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I also noticed this with this years lower finishers, like Pic's finish was classified but an account changed it to retired, same with Senna. I think protection should be put up if this is ongoing from this weekends race, I don't think they will go back and re-edit so any pages they have edited should be omitted unless further edits are made. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
They're still at it. What's our next move? DH85868993 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Abuse response. Let's see if anyone there feels like lending their experience. Pyrope 13:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:ABUSE is good. Will be handling it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It will be a IAR case, as the criteria does not exacly allow this, nor does WP:LONG. But I think that is would help. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
As requested, I have left a draft list of the addresses abused at User:Ebe123/F1 Vandal. If anyone else here can add to it please do. Pyrope 02:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so that folks know what's happening, I have just submitted a formal Abuse Report relating to this ongoing vandalism. The report is at Wikipedia:Abuse response/2.30.196.109, so please take a look if you have anything to contribute. Will keep you posted as to how it goes. Pyrope 13:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Valencia flag (moved from Talk:2012 Formula One season)

Currently, the Valencia flag is Spain, but it is the European grand Prix, should the actual flag of the race be used (EU/Europe/Blue flag), or stick with the Spain flag. I would go Europe as that is the flag used by F1 and the FIA for the race. The link below shows it.

http://www.valencia-grand-prix.com/en/1421-eu-valencia/

The official flag for all the others is the national flag NBNK1 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

All of the flags relate to the nation where the circuit is located (because is something that is almost always uncontentious), as per previous discussions. The flags are not directly linked the the name of the race. - mspete93 16:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Europe is not a country, nor is a political organisation, it is a continent. The European Union has a flag, but it is not the European Union Grand Prix. --Falcadore (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't mean to be rude, but then again you wouldn't call yourself "European Union" would you, you would still say "European". Just to let you know I have seen a page or two with the EU flag over the European GP but I don't actually know where they are to change them. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I simply implied the official flag of the race happens to be the EU flag, also the flag of Council of Europe etc, and the Spain flag is not used at the event, and whether as it is the European grand Prix the flag of Europe should be used. many pages on wikipedia use that flag so a discussion is requierd as it should be consistent. Remember the European Grand Prix has not always been in Spain, it used to be in Germany/UK etc, and therefore in the history according to the f1 website, they have officially of won the same race, the European Grand Prix NBNK1 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I agree with NBNK1 because the event is the European Grand Prix, and the EU flag is as close as we can get to a European flag. Also, the race just so happens to have been in a circuit in Spain the last few years, and has been in numerous other locations. It is also, as the link proves, the official flag of the race.
Honestly, I don't really want to use the E.U flag, but to avoid confusion, I don't want to use the Spanish flag again (espcially for a race which doesn't have Spain or Spanish in the title). Perhaps a compromise bewtween both would be the Valencian flag ------------>
Or maybe not... Bigdon128 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It is NOT the official flag of the race simply because Grands Prix don't have official flags. Europe is also not an entity. "As close as we canget" is simply not good enough. Also, we should never use flags purely for illustrative purposes. It is also very well established procedure that we should never use a sub-national flag, like Valencia, for any reason in F1. And even if we could what would you use for the Caesar's Palace Grand Prix? The flag used is the flag of the host nation. This matches up with for examples like the Pau Grand Prix, Albi Grand Prix, Pescara Grand Prix etc etc --Falcadore (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
If we put the Spanish flag to the European GP at Valencia, we should also put the German flag to Luxembourg Grand Prix, the Italian flag to San Marino GP? I don't think it's a good thing. Here's another EU flag (Formula1.com), and here again (FIA.com). 79.51.77.130 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not a good idea to use the flag of the European Union as it is not appropriate for many reasons. The EU represeants a group of European nationa, but does NOT represent all of them. Notably Switzerland, who has hosted the European Grand Prix, is not a member of the European Union. It's like suggestions the flga of the Pacific Community should be used for the Pacific Grand Prix, a ridiculous suggestion as Japan is not a member of the Pacific Community. --Falcadore (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point about Luxembourg/San Marino. I think always using the european/official flag of the race for the European Grand Prix is the only sensible option, if we leave this a the Spain flag, you would have to put the Italian flag on San Marino grand Prix and im not happy at all at that prospectNBNK1 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

This is exactly the reason why the flags are used in the circuit column and not that of the races!!! You're all going against something that was agreed by consensus before. - mspete93 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What you will also find is many articles about it do not follow that rule. It needs reconsidering, not just for this article but more broadly, just because something has got consensus in the past doesn't mean it cant be reconsidered if new people support a different viewpoint, consensus can changeNBNK1 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I agree completely the San Marino Grand Prix should have the Italian flag. Not so the Luxembourg race though as early Luxembourg GPs were actually held in Luxembourg. --Falcadore (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, some Luxembourg Grand Prix's were not held in Luxembourg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Grand_Prix. The argument is not just about the European Grand Prix, but much more broadly, many past articles seem to have random flags give, eg europe/the country hosting it/the country eg San Marino near by NBNK1 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes they were - the 1950s events were held at the Luxembourg Findel. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What im saying is does the flag in the link above need changing to the German flag, a lot of people going against seem to have double standards, one option for race, another for another.NBNK1 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus to use flags to represent the venue was achieved, but it was not fully implemented as it should have been - there's no "double standard", just the usual cock-up. Flags were moved to the circuit column because they represent the venue, and are not just a regurgitation of the event's "official flag". Using flag icons simply to copy an official event flag fails the MOS. There is also the question of the Pacific Grand Prix, as the area represented by the Pacific flag does not include Japan, so the Japanese one is used to represent the host country. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
In my view, San Marino is the only real problem. Luxembourg has hosted its own Grand Prix, not the most recent admittedly, but the point stands. The Korean Grand Prix has the flag of South Korea not an arbitrary "Korean" flag. Pacific is Japan. Caesars Palace is United States as is Dallas and Detriot. Abu Dhabi is the United Arab Emirates. So apart from San Marino they are all good. --Falcadore (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to agree that my comment about the Valencia flag being used was probably quite stupid. I still, however, disagree about the Spanish flag being used instead of the European flag. Your main argument seems to be that the event takes place in Spain, so a spanish flag should be used for the event. Let me point out that the event also takes place within the bounderies of both Europe, and the European Union. The United States flag is used for the Caesers Palace Grand Prix because the event took place in Las Vegas in the United States, in the same way the European Grand Prix takes place in Spain in Europe. Also, like in Spain, they couldn't call it the United States GP because there were multiple events in the country that year. But, unlike in Spain, it is given the flag of a country because the event, by name, was fixed to a single location.
IMO, races like the 1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix or the 1982 Swiss Grand Prix are just completly incorrect with the flags as they are now, but would look stupid with the German and French flags used instead. What I'm suggesting is that we don't use flags at all for these races. Do we really need them? I still think it would be good to have an EU flag for this race, but I'd far prefer none at all than a Spanish one. Bigdon128 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
So you want to use a country national flag for every race except the European? And you don't see that as a double standard?

If you are asking me, no I don't think so, because it has the European Flag as its official flag and the European anthem played before the race, for all the others the national flag in which the race is held is the official flag. hence I don't see a double standard at all.I suppose you could put both the European flag and the Spanish flag together if you really wanted?NBNK1 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)/

Secondly, as Wikipedias primary role is educational, you don't think the educational role of using the flag to indicate actual location rather than something as arbitrary as the event name as worth considering? To suggest it is stupid to consider using the German flag for the Luxembourg grand prix of 1997 is to condone, by extension, finding a picture of a Roman Legionaires helmet for 1982 Caesars Palace Grand Prix. Because that is what you are saying if you want to link the flag to the name of the event rather than alternative criteria. If I see something that does not match my expectations, my first reaction is not to think it is stupid. It is to wonder why it does not match my expectation and then to find out why it does not match my expectation.
Thirdly as pointed out previously, the European Union flag to be used for the European race is as inappropriate as the Pacific Community for the Pacific Grand Prix. Switzerland, a former host of the European Grand Prix is not a member of the European Union. --Falcadore (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, I advocated using the official flags for the Valencia race, which as shown above is the European flag, yes it has many uses, EU/Council of Europe etc, but it is the official flag of the race. In Valencia, the Spanish flag is not flown, neither is the national anthem of Spain is played the European Anthem is played etc, and the blue flag is used. That was all that I was saying, you seem to be getting confusedNBNK1 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC). regarding San Marino grand Prix in the records book, which discussion doesn't really belong here so there inst any consensus to be had, I personally would have no flag at all. In some past cases, you have has a situation where the race is organized by the auto mobile association of one country but is held in another, which i think can also complicate matters, but really, this talk page is about the 2012 season, so talking about Grand Prix of the pacific isn't much use hereNBNK1 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

You can't have different policies for different seasons or eras. It's one size fits all. Forget the official flag of the race - using a flag icon to reflect the official flag of an event like this fails the MOS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it is being discussed here! so it can be!NBNK1 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, so it can be what? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What I presume that we want is when a flag is used on one article, the same flag is used on others? correct?, at the moment if you look at many formula 1 articles, you get different flags all over the place. A previous user has said there is already consensus on the issues. The problem I think, and this is why implementation of that is negligible is that there are many talk pages, and consensus has gone different ways each time. You either use the official flag or the national flag. At the moment it is totally random with from what I see is no consensus either way. take the link below for the 1993 F1 season

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Formula_One_season#Race_Three:_Europe

You have the official San Marino flag for the San Marino Grand Prix (it is of course in Italy). For the European the UK flag is used. this is where i think there is an issue, you either use the official flag, or the use the national flag where the event is held, that's the problem, it should be as you said one size fits all, at the moment I don't think it isNBNK1 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

To address your Falcadore's point, why shouldn't races with different locations from their titles be given different criteria? You then say that "Wikipedias primary role is educational", which I agree with, which is why the first sentence of most of the 800+ race articles state the circuit and the location of the circuit in the first sentence of the article, and also why the circuit and the circuit's location are given on the race calendar table on the season pages. If some-one wanted to know where the race was held, they could find out very easily. The purpose of the flag is purely illustrational, and on all the race articles sits directly next to the race title - which is why I though it would look 'like some-one had made a mistake' (is probably a better way of putting it). I think this would be the case considering the majority of readers are completely unaware of this "alternative criteria", and I still think it would cause more confusion than a flag which I now realise to be incorrect (thanks for pointing out the Switzerland, I honestly hadn't seen it, or considered it before).
This is why I suggested not putting any flag on these race articles, so there is no wrong information, confusion, or repetiton of information already mentioned in the lead, the infobox (assuming there is one) and also the race circuit's article. Basically, you've convinced me not to want an EU flag, but I still don't want a Spanish one (however, I think putting flags next to the circuit location in the race calendar in a season page like this one is acceptable, because, unlike if they next to the race title, there is no confusion to what is meant).
I also agree with NBNK1 that for this situation a consensus should be reached, because I don't think it has been already. Bigdon128 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

To just clarify/comment for probably my final time, im personally not overly concerned about whether the races official flag or national flag is used. I would go official, but im not really that concerned to be honest.

I just think at the moment there is no consensus. Its all well and good to say, its been revisited before and we agreed this. You only have to look a the mix between official/national in the various articles on F1 to see its been difficult to implement and not because of a general cock-up, because the same issues have been raised before on other articles/talk pages and reached different conclusions, hence why there is a mix-up in all the articles as Bretonbanquet agreed with (I think) above. Finally, it could/has been suggested that for many articles where there is only one flag and we are debating what it should be, then why not include both or none (eg. San Marino), is that sensible do you think? Anyway, I will leave it up to you guys to debate and try and sort it outNBNK1 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

No. There have not been umpteen discussions with different conclusions. There was one discussion at WP:F1, where discussions of that type are supposed to be held. It was, if I remember correctly, a fairly clear consensus, but as usual with F1 on Wikipedia, it falls to a very small number of editors to implement the consensus. It's a boring job. Not all articles (not just 864 individual WC race articles, but non-Championship race articles, parent race articles and season articles as well) were dealt with, leaving us with the current situation. There was, if I recall, almost no problem with people reverting the changes that were made, it was simply that the consensus was not fully rolled out. It looks like the San Marino / Italy thing wasn't dealt with at all, for some reason. But that is not to say there was another discussion somewhere where it was decided to use the SM flag. WP:F1 has a lot of grand ideas that don't always reach fruition, due to the enormous number of articles.
There is also the problem that different types of article emply flags in different ways. I'd say a flag above the infobox on a race article serves no real purpose and shouldn't really be there at all - it would be better served in the infobox 'Location' field (if anywhere). Flags in season tables and calendars do serve a purpose, in representing races. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For NBNK1's attention, there are no "official" flags for Grands Prix. I'm not sure where you are misinterpreting that from. Even if the F1 website use flags on their website, it's purely decorative. There never has been an official flag for a Grand Prix. National flags are official to the nation they represent, not to anyone or anything else. And to support Bretonbanquet, the consensus has been reached many many times previously, This topic appears to be debated every six months. I personally disagree with the San Marino Grand Prix but otherwise the flag belongs to the host nation. I suggest you study the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One for guidance on this issue. --Falcadore (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC) If you read the F1 website, it mentions that the official anthem and flag is raised/played before the race, but im not really interested in wasting time studying that point, I would just personally recommend remove the flags from above the infobox on the race articles, but as I said before im not really interested in debating it further, there seem to be many cases supporting the use of the San Marino flag actually, but isn't really relevant to this talk page as I said above, so don't what to discuss that here and argue over examples etc, its not the placeNBNK1 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

I think we should remove the flag from above the infobox on race articles, it may be time consuming, but it will stop people trying to change the flag and starting further disputes like this in the future. After all, as Bretonbanquet says, they don't really have a purpose. Bigdon128 (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I think leaving it at the established consensus is entirely appropriate until such a time as a new consensus is achieved. --Falcadore (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean immediately, or even at all, I was just putting it out there to find out if it could be part of a new consensus, if there is one. Bigdon128 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Then it would be more appropriate to raise the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. --Falcadore (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Should I move this dicussion there then? Bigdon128 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free if you wantNBNK1 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Discussion moved. Bigdon128 (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_38&oldid=1248859785"