Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 45


Formula 1 driver profiles change

Hi. I notice that in drivers profiles are numbers will be listed again as "2014 number" and i think that need to be change with "Car number" as from this season every driver will have own number and i think that will be more proper if drivers team and car number are listed as in MotoGP driver profiles as "2014 team" to become "Current team" and "2014 car number" to become "Car number". I'm sorry if i listed this on wrong place i'm new in this :) K.belev (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure what you were referring to at first, but after doing some research I found out your concern deals with something that is present in the source code but does not show up (yet) on the actual pages. Anyway, I think it would be best to rename it to Driver Number as it has nothing to do with the cars whatsoever. The drivers choose their preferable numbers and they are approved by the FIA. Furthermore, if a driver swaps teams during a season he/she will take the number along with him/her. Thus the numbers are completely independent from the cars. Tvx1 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd support changing it to "Driver Number" (or just "Number"). DH85868993 (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggested Car number, because it's close to MotoGP driver profiles, but Driver Number is better. K.belev (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The source of this coding is primarily due to the transition between seasons when drivers change teams they then change race numbers, so there would be a 2013 number and 2014 number with only one being visible at a time. While this will largely be no longer the caase, that will not begin until the end of the next season. --Falcadore (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

List of circuits

I've updated the list of circuits to show this season's tracks, although I did not move Russia in from the proposed tracks section. Strangely, I found that the map of Spa was old. SAS1998Talk 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought maybe it's time we update the logo of our Project. After all, it's already eight years old now. Tvx1 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Casimiro de Oliveira

1958 Portuguese Grand Prix lists Casimiro de Oliveira as a non-starter, which is supported by StatsF1 and Grand Prix Guide. But there's no mention of him at, ChicaneF1, FORIX or Does anyone have definitive evidence regarding whether or not he was actually entered for the race? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Silhouet lists him as "Did not arrive". I can't find him anywhere else at the moment, I can't use any of my books to validate his entry at the current time as I am at University. GyaroMaguus 03:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Silhouet very rarely makes mistakes. De Oliveira was given a number, which suggests he certainly entered, but that seemingly is as far as he got. doesn't know it's rear end from its elbow, I've never rated ChicaneF1, oldracingcars often omits really fringe entrants such as this, and so does FORIX. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I should have thought of checking Silhouet. It seems there's suitable evidence that he was actually entered. So now the question is: "DNS" or "DNA". If, as his article claims, he was "not present during the weekend", then it should be "DNA" (per Silhouet) - right? DH85868993 (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
"DNA" seems right to me. It is same terminology used on the 1950 Monaco GP on Silhouet for what is "DNA" on that race's article. GyaroMaguus 13:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I've changed it to DNA. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

1976 British Grand Prix

I noticed that in this article Clay Regazzoni and Jacques Laffite are listed as retired. Instead the got Disqualified after they started in the spare car. I noticed this sentence in particular: Laffite retired on lap 32 and Regazzoni on lap 37 due to suspension problems and low oil pressure respectively, relieving the stewards from having to rule on whether the two were to be disqualified for use of the replacement cars. Even if drivers retire from the race, they will still get Disqualified if they or their team do something illegal. Prize money is also an issue. If you get disqualified you will receive no prize money.

A very reliable source in this matter is Duke’s GRAND PRIX DATA BOOK 1997: This book gives a complete record of all Formula one world Championship races. They also listed Regazzoni and Laffite as Disqualified: C Regazzoni and J Laffite disqualified (after their retirement) for restarting in spare cars. --Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We discussed this in January and the consensus at that time was for them to be shown as "Retired" (noting, however that I believe we were unaware of a source explicitly claiming that they were "disqualified after their retirement"). DH85868993 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Almost all sources say Regazzoni and Laffite were disqualified. Personally, I find that the offical Formula one site is not reliable on historic race reports, because there are a lot off mistakes in race reports or driver results. Sources like this [1] give a complete and reliable image of results from the past. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I've got Griffith's Grand Prix Complete Guide - ISBN 0747537488, which says Race stopped after first-lap crash; Hunt, Laffite and Regazzoni disqualified for technical infringements  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I assume they mean that Hunt, Laffite and Regazzoni got disqualified for disobeying the rules. Laffite and Regazzoni for driving the spare car and Hunt for a different reason. This is also a great source, thank you for your help Rhonjones. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Remember Juan Pablo Montoya? Eje Elgh - Raceography? Gary Brabham? It's back again, this time on Denny Hulme. And the editor concerned just want to revert any changes. --Falcadore (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz's Return to F1 90's.

It says in many articles that Mercedes-Benz returned to Formula One in 1993 but the engines were only called Mercedes in 1994 meaning that they returned in that year and not 1993, I'm pretty confused did they return in 1993 or 1994? They backed Sauber but had no part in it at all apart from a sticker on the engine cover, And if it was 1994 then a lot of articles need to be corrected to stop confusion because it confused me. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't. They had, as you pointed out, a soft return. To minimise the negative impact of a disappointing first year they funded Ilmor's step into F1 with Sauber, but resisted putting their name formally on the engine back twelve months. --Falcadore (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
So Mercedes-Benz only funded Sauber in 1993 and became engine supplier in 1994, So does that technically mean they returned in 1993 or not? (Sorry if I'm coming across dumb its just I want this clarified) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Welll, technically they weren't an engine supplier either. Ilmor Engineering supplied the engines in both 1993 and 1994, Mercedes just funded the stickers. --Falcadore (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio Tunis GP races

I'm a bit concerned that 1932 Tunis Grand Prix and 1933 Tunis Grand Prix are violations of copyright. The entire material appears to be changed little from the source material, even down to the formatting. Any thoughts? --Falcadore (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC).

List of Formula One race edits songs

Is it just me, but is the List of Formula One race edits songs the most trivial F1 article ever attempted? Anyone disagree this should go straight to AFD? --Falcadore (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I accumulated energy and exploded ([2]) when I saw the page. Well, it's at AFD regardless. I'd like more people to participate than just me, Falcadore and Wesley. ZappaOMati 04:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow, how did that page exist for so long without being noticed, and why is it suddenly a swarm of activity? The359 (Talk) 07:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Because nobody imagined such a topic could be created. It was noticed when the author started adding links from the season articles to remove a bot created Orphan tag. See, the bots serve a purpose :P. And AfD's create activity. --Falcadore (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Blog Source

Someone started using Adam Cooper's F1 blog as a source for the article 2015 Formula One season. Do we really want this? Is this considered a reliable source? I would think it fails WP:SPS. Tvx1 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

From the very link you cite: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As Adam Cooper is an established Formula One journalist who has published in many recognised print sources including major daily newspapers, and both weekly and monthly periodicals, it would seem that we can assume his blog is reliable, to a certain point. Of course it should probably not be used for BLP pages, and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", but for run-of-the-mill facts it is probably ok. Pyrope 17:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Grand Prix

Azerbaijan Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment in the deletion discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Any idea...

What File:2001_BMW-Williams_FW23.JPG actually is? Regardless of what the placard says, it's clearly not a FW23; the FW23 did not have those panels over the suspension, the front track is far too wide for a 2001 car, and the rear end isn't even close. The side pods are wrong as well. The paint scheme is correct, albeit possibly a shade or two too light, but that's the only thing that's close. The panels over the suspension appear to come from a FW22, but the front suspension leaves me confused; none of the 1990s Williams used Michelin, and their suspension all appears to be a different shape, whilst the theory of a stretched FW21-style suspension doesn't seem that plausible either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The bodywork is very FW21. You have to go back to a 1990s Williams to get bodywork that uncluttered, certainly with the lack of barge boards and the very clean back end of the engine cover. Looks to me like it might be an FW21 painted like an FW23. An old FW21 pressed into service as a mock up of a FW23. --Falcadore (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting question, I can see your point about it not being an FW23. Front suspension and cockpit opening (the bits it is hardest to cosmetically alter) don't look right for an FW21, though. Cockpit surround, scuttle and suspension pickup points look more like FW19, but someone has obviously had a good go of making the car look a bit different. I'd hazard a guess that the front pushrods aren't real (see this alternative image of the same vehicle) and that would leave the door open for removing the FW19 rockers and retrofitting a smooth cover. In fact, the more I look at it (see the second photo here) the more I reckon this is a cut-and-shut based on an old FW19 (compare the cockpit shapes and the area immediately in front) with an FW23-ish airbox. Quite why they would want to butcher a Championship-winning car into a FW23 I really don't know... Pyrope 20:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Williams move?

Should the Williams F1 article be moved to Williams Racing to coincide with the Williams Martini Racing partnership excluding Martini due to it being a sponsor, because the Williams team look to have dropped the simple Williams F1 banner on most of their property and are now going with Williams Racing, just a thought share your opinion on this if you think this is a good move. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Williams Racing might be good as their Twitter account is now @WilliamsRacing. On the other hand, Williams Grand Prix Engineering might be more accurate, that's been the company name already in the past, Williams (Martini) Racing has been used only since this year. Maybe we can use whatever name they will be using in Bahrain. As alcohol advertising is forbidden there, they will have to drop Martini from the team name in that race. --August90 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
We should go with Williams Racing as Williams Grand Prix Enginering is way to long for an article title in my opinion and its already mentioned at the beginning of the article as the company's official title. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with long names. I'd oppose use of "Williams Racing" as neither the company nor the team has ever been known as that before, and it isn't even their proper name this year. The only reason they've gone that way now is in deference to their title sponsor, whose former involvement with motorsport has almost always taken the form of a "Martini Racing" team, hence the slightly odd construction of the F1 name this year. "Williams Racing" is not a stable name, it is a sponsored name; the team website is still located at and the copyrights are all registered to Williams Grand Prix Engineering. Pyrope 18:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I would oppose any move to Williams Racing right now. That name is sponsorship based, and is not in common usage yet either. Williams Grand Prix Engineering, however, would be a sensible and appropriate title - particularly as the current article encompasses far more than Williams' F1 efforts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
True, Williams Martini Racing is rather a combination of Williams and Martini Racing. If it were Martini Williams Racing, then we could go for Williams Racing. If we consider Williams F1 to be outdated, then Williams Grand Prix Enginering would seem most appropriate. And whatever they will be called in Bahrain would show us the non-Martini-sponsored version of the team name. --August90 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
But isn't Williams Grand Prix Engineering an outdated name as the team itself hasn't used or been branded by that name for years except for official company matters. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It isn't outdated. It is the company's official name, and the argument that it is "too long" doesn't hold any weight, when we have far longer titles elsewhere. clearly states "Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under company number 1297497." Given that the article is not solely on the Formula One team, then either we need to split the Williams Advanced Engineering information out into another article, or change the name to what the main company is using. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
We actually have precedents on how to deal with such a situation. E.G. While McLaren had Vodafone sponsorship, the were described like this:
I can't see why couldn't deal with the Williams situation in the exact same manner, removing the need to move the page all together. Tvx1 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We can definitely deal with it that way. But at the moment, the title is inaccurate - because the article encompasses more than just the racing team. The McLaren articles are split up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, then Williams Grand Prix Engineering is the best option, I feel. Tvx1 (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Tvx1, the need for moving the page arose because the team isn't anymore known as Williams F1 Team, so the article cannot anymore be called Williams F1.
The team have changed the name they use in Twitter to WILLIAMS RACING. But still I wouldn't call that an established name for the team. Also, it doesn't answer two problems mentioned here. That hasn't been the name of the team previously and the article includes also other Williams' business. Williams Grand Prix Engineering is a name that refers to the whole company and has been used during its whole existence. --August90 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
That's why I wrote that I feel the best option is Williams Grand Prix Engineering. I feel this way because the article deals with the entire company, not just the F1 team, and that is effectively the company name. Tvx1 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I would support a move to Williams Grand Prix Engineering. I am not in favour of a move to Williams Racing since, as others have already mentioned, it is neither the full name of the team or the company, and I think it's too soon to claim is as the common name. DH85868993 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've put on official request for moving the page on Talk:Williams F1. Please feel free to post your opinions there. Tvx1 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thai GP?

Thai Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion; is there a non-F1 Thai GP? -- (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No. --Falcadore (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix Podiums

FYI, List of Formula One Grand Prix Podiums has recently been created. DH85868993 (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How pointless. How best to deal with it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
AfD? DH85868993 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
AfD has begun. Comment here please. --Falcadore (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Race report results tables

Since when do we use as a source? It's common knowledge here that it's a basket case of errors. I don't recall any discussion that decided we were going to rely on it. The Australian GP retirements are a case in point, Vettel himself confirming engine failure rather than a more general power unit failure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We have a long, long established precedent that should only be used if no other sources contradict it. Point them to any of the discussions we've had about this in the past, and hopefully they'll see why. QueenCake (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought. It seems to have been used on race reports starting from last season, so unless there was some kind of discussion leading to a consensus to do that, they'll need to be replaced with something reliable. User:Tvx1 is the editor citing in this particular case, so maybe he can post here and explain what the deal is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The deal is that I made the table comply with the cited sources. I did not cite it. You referred to Autosport in your edit summary but did not cite it in the article. Furthermore, the results tables posted on Autosport do not give a retirement explanation at all. Unless you provide us with a source that directly disproves, like User:QueenCake pointed out, there's no reason why whe can't use it for the mentioned article. Tvx1 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You cited it by using it as justification in your edit summary. I didn't even realise the table was sourced until you said that - they never used to be sourced. I'm obviously not talking about the bog standard Autosport site, as that would make me a liar. I'm talking about FORIX/Autosport. The cite is here [3] but you won't be able to see it unless you're a subscriber. I suspect the paper magazine will use the same info when it comes out. We all know is crap. My original question is why is it being used? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it wrong? If not then it surely does not matter. --Falcadore (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It's different. Not radically, but different enough, and should always be considered suspect. There have been more than enough examples of it being wrong to disqualify it. On another note, putting "ERS" as a reason for retirement while making precisely no attempt to explain what it is, is poor. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
re: ERS - very true. --Falcadore (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had fixed that. It looks like someone changed it back, because of the stupid fixation with perfectly mirroring the sources, even when an exaplanation is needed, as is the case here. "ERS" on its own means nothing - it is an abbreviation of "Energy Recovery System". But, noooo, the source says "ERS", so that is what the article must say. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I just put ERS there because that's what it said in the source someone else had put in the article much earlier and a the point of my edit the article was contradicting the sources on which it is based. For you information the one that removed "Energy Recovery System" form the article was Bretonbanquet. I have no problem with writing the abbreviation in full. This is no fixation on literally coyping the source by any means. I'm really getting enough of this unfounded accusations.
Bretonbanquet, you claim that this source from is "a load of crap", but you have yet to provide us the first bit of proof of that. You've provided us with one link to FORIX which is only available to a select group of users having a subscription making it fail WP:Verifiability miserably. Unless you can provide us with a reliable source, like User:QueenCake and User:Falcadore pointed out, that proves the information in the is outright wrong I can see no reason not to use it. By the way I fail to see why it's necessary to make such a fuss and display such an agressive attitude toward other users over something trivial as wether it was a power unit failure or more precise an engine failure (the former of which wouldn't be technically wrong even if it was en engine failure). Tvx1 (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
He doesn't need to provide proof because those of us who have been around Wikipedia for awhile have encountered numerous basic errors in the official website's record keeping. It's sufficiently well known to be common knowledge. He doesn't need to prove anything. It's been proven repeatedly in these pages and if sufficiently motivated I'm sure you can sure look through the talk page archives to find some of the tales that have made us shake our heads. --Falcadore (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Tvx1, a subscription-only site does not fail Verifiability any more than a book or magazine does. Furthermore, FORIX is one of the most reliable sources going, I would generally take its word over any other website.
On the subject of using as a source for modern races, I was previously under the impression that while the result archives were error-strewn, the new results being entered into the site were correct. Perhaps that has to change. For older results tables, I have used as a secondary source, mainly as a prevention against overzealous editors who will change results, even when sourced, on the basis that the "official" site trumps all others. I do hope that makes it obvious that is incorrect and the other reference supports the discrepancy. QueenCake (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I never tried to claim trumps al another sources. I tried to point out that the claim that the race report by used as a source for the mentioned article is a "load of crap" is completely unfounded. There is currently one difference between the and Forix source. The explanation of Vettel's retirement. But Forix stating that it was an engine failure rather than a power unit failure as does, does not make incorrect. It makes FORIX more detailed. The engine is a part of the power unit and therefore an engine failure classifies as a failure in the power unit. The above claim that it does not is similar to stating that a broken cilinder does not classify as an engine failure either. If you prefer to give the more precise explanation that's no problem for me. My only concern was that the article was contradicting its sources provided by a completely unrelated editor and that's why I made my edit. Which source is used eventually is none of my concern as long as it is reliable an not contradicted by all the other reliable sources out there. I'm under the same impression that the reports of current races are reliable as opposed to their reports of older races, specifically those stemming from before the invention of internet, let alone the creation of official Formula One website. So as long as the currents reports are not entirely contradicted by other reliable sources I see no justification for the claim that they are "crap". By the way, just discarding one of two contradicting sources and using the other one instead is a clear cut violation of WP:NPOV. So I suggest we use both and Forix are a reliable source citing Vettel precizing that he had an engine failure, like Bretonbanquet claimed he did. Tvx1 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Bretonbanquet, by claiming that is bog quality and acting like Forix is the "Walhalla" of race reports you are contradicting yourself since both of those sites are published by Haymarket Media Group and thus by the same people. Tvx1 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I actually said the whole site is a load of crap, and I stick by it. Look how they've bastardised the live timing. Skipping through the rest of your post, it sounds like you're OK with FORIX being used as the primary source for race results, and that you've sensibly abandoned your claim that subscription sites "miserably fail WP:V". I'd add that is either a reliable source or it isn't, and if it's not favoured for older races, I wouldn't favour it for recent ones either. Where's the cut-off point? I'm fine with it being used as a back-up if required, as QueenCake outlined.
On the point of engines and power units, they aren't the same thing as I'm sure you now understand. A failure in the ERS-K or ERS-H can cause an engine failure, meaning the ERS is arguably not the actual reason for the car grinding to a halt, even though it was the first thing to break, e.g. Maldonado and Grosjean. Saying "power unit" (like FORIX does) covers all bases. It depends whether we want to give the ultimate reason for the retirement, or the original cause leading to the retirement. For example, Kobayashi had a brake problem which led to him crashing. The cause of his crash was brakes, but the reason for retirement was obviously the collision. and FORIX sometimes differ in these details. We usually give the ultimate cause of retirement simply because in older races, it's often impossible to pin down the original cause for a crash or technical failure or whatever.
Lastly, did I say "bog quality"? Go and look up "bog standard" in a dictionary [4] before claiming I rubbished the quality of Autosport's main site. It just means the basic site, not the advanced one. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Your first sentence shows that you're clearly incapable of making an objective assessment of a source. And that, unfortunately for you, clashes with WP:NPOV. There's indeed no easy way for a cut off point to be made, so the most efficient way to compare the race report you want to use with other reliable sources and if they do not contradict each other at all there's no problem with using the report.
Regarding the Australian Grand Prix can you please make clear which standard you want to be used? On one side you have no problem with Lotus' retirements being described as "power unit" because that "covers all bases", but on the other side you demand that Vettel's retirement is put down as the more specific "engine". That's contradicting and awfully confusing, and we haven't mentioned Hamilton's retirement yet. Tvx1 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Are you saying I'm not allowed to have an opinion? "Unfortunately for me"? Perhaps you could elaborate on that. ~Editors who have an opinion are unfortunate because they clash with WP:NPOV.~ Hilarious, and very familiar. If the race reports don't contradict each other, there's no difference which is used, obviously. You'd never know though, because you don't have access to the FORIX reports.
It's not contradictory at all. I'm wondering if you actually know the difference between an engine and a power unit, per your edit summary here [5]. Lotus' failures were apparently ERS-induced engine failures. Vettel's quote backs up FORIX's assessment that he had an engine failure but had ERS problems as well, not necessarily connected. Hamilton's engine failure was a cylinder, entirely independent of ERS. Don't forget to sign your posts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course you can have an opinion. Everybody has the right to have one. But arguments like "it's a load of crap" or "look how they bastardized live timing" are not what we need to discard sources. Those arguments are emotionally-driven and subjective and therefore fail WP:NPOV. What we need are facts, objective comparisons with other reliable sources that prove the contested source is wrong and "not" just that the other reliable sources are more detailed. Furthermore even if the sources are contradicting there is a guideline telling us to give each side its due weight.
I'm quite bemused that I have to explain your contradiction again. Regarding Lotus' retirements you say "Let's write power unit because that covers everything" and regarding Vettel's retirement you say "We have to write engine because he said so and we have to describe it in exact detail". So I'm going to put the question yet again: Whch standard do you want us to use? Cover-it-all or Highly detailed? Tvx1 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Tvx1: As someone who used to work for FORIX (and Atlas) let me assure you that common ownership does not mean the same people are involved. In fact they are not even in the same country. It's like suggesting Ford of South Africa is running the Belgian Mondeo factory. --Falcadore (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That is very telling! Tvx1 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Those are not arguments but opinions of mine. My argument is as it has always been - that makes too many mistakes. I'm sure you can tell the difference. WP:NPOV concerns articles, not discussion, and people can use whatever criteria they like to make an argument. Likewise WP:DUE concerns undue weight towards fringe arguments in articles, and has nothing to do with anything we're discussing here. You should probably read these guidelines more carefully.
There is no contradiction here because Lotus' failures and that of Vettel were different. They weren't the same fault, so where exactly is the contradiction? Lotus had engine failures through ERS failures. Vettel had an engine failure, apparently not directly caused by ERS. No contradiction. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


I've noticed that the 2007 Formula One season article carries the following notice:

I would improve the article myself, but I'm not sure which statements the notice is referring to. Tvx1 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There are several statements referring to things that will happen, which would have already happened (or not) by now, e.g. the article says that the pit lane entrance at Autódromo José Carlos Pace will be enhanced to improve safety (before the 2007 race). I suggest searching the article for the word "will" (or just reading through all the text and correcting anything that seems outdated). DH85868993 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks! Tvx1 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I have removed them all now. Apparently the rule changes section was not updated to the past tense after the season. There were a few other outside that section as well. Tvx1 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

MH370 and the Malaysian Grand Prix

In the past few days, a small group of editors have been adding details of Flight MH370 to the 2014 Malaysian Grand Prix. Try as I might, I can find no connection between the race and the missing plane, despite their assertation that the race is controversial. So if you see something, please remove it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

All I've read is that given the mood in the country, there's not much enthusiasm for the race. Hardly worth putting in the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe only mention if a source reports low crowd numbers or an unenthusiastic crowd and links it to the flight? (in which case, it'll still only be a sentence in the background section) GyaroMaguus 21:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. The issue is in the way the phrasing suggests that there is some inherent connection between the flight and the race. It is a mix of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, the assumption that because the flight is Malaysian, then it should be mentioned in every article related to Malaysia. I only mention it here because the editors on that article are not responding to any discussion about it, be it on the article talk pages or their own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It's quite funny that one user who keeps inserting the note labelled one of its edits as "see talk page" without contributing to the talk page and the talk page discussion that has taken place asking exactly the opposite. Tvx1 (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Formula One team infoboxes at TFD

Just a heads up that Template:Infobox former F1 team and Template:Infobox F1 team have been considered for merging here. Craig(talk) 16:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ferrari F310B

An editor has suggested that a separate article be created for the Ferrari F310B (i.e. rather than the F310B being covered in the Ferrari F310 article). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Ferrari F310#Seperate article for F310B. DH85868993 (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What is Formula One?

It's been brought to my attention, that the scope of WP:F1 is not well clarified. It says upfront that the scope is all articles to do with Formula One, but I've found an editor removing WP:F1 tags from article talk pages on the understanding that WP:F1 is for the World Championship from 1950 onwards exclusively. Would it be possible to clarify this? --Falcadore (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, that's not exactly what I wrote; I wrote that it was my understanding that the scope of the project was "Formula One races and other races which counted for the WDC" (i.e. including Formula One races held before 1950, non-WDC F1 races held after 1950 and all WDC races whether F1 or not). DH85868993 (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Well the race in question was listed as a Grand Prix in several of the 1930s GP season articles, so why is it not then part of Formula One before 1950? Either the list in the Grand Prix season articles needs to be re-established with non-F1 races removed, or at the very least where Formula One seasons post war and Grand Prix seasons pre-war are not essentially the same terminology. --Falcadore (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's not a Grand Prix; I'm saying it's not a Formula One race. Grand Prix racing started in 1906, but Formula One was not defined until 1946 - see History of Formula One for further information. DH85868993 (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Then adjusted clarification stands as: should everything pre-1946 be ignored? --Falcadore (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say:
  • From 1950 onwards, all F1 races (championship or not) and all WDC races (F1 or not) are within the project's scope
  • All races before 1946 are outside the project's scope
  • From 1946 to 1949, races which were specifically run to Formula One regulations (i.e. max 1.5 litre supercharged/4.5 litre unsupercharged, plus any other applicable regulations) are in scope; races which were run to other regulations, e.g. the pre-war "Grand Prix" formula (max 3.0 litre supercharged/4.5 litre unsupercharged) are not. One problem being that it's sometimes hard to tell just by looking at a results list (which is often all we have) whether a race was a Formula One race or not.
And of course, all articles related to the races within the project's scope (e.g. participating drivers/teams/constructors) are also within the project's scope. DH85868993 (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
And how do we deal with non-formula one World Championship races, like for instance the entire 1953 World Championship and number of editions of the Indianapolis 500? Tvx1 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe they are within the project's scope, as I stated above ("all WDC races", in my first bullet point). DH85868993 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 ongoing penalty system

I think we should provide a "classification" also for remaining licence points for each driver. Since April 2nd, 2014 Bottas, Magnussen and Bianchi were given 2 points out of 12 of penalty during Malaysian GP. When the licence is down to 0 pts, a driver will be disqualified for the next GP, and will return racing with just 7 points. 12 points threshold will be restored after 12 months without further penalties, so the licence could influence also the 2015 season, and so on. What do you think about it? RickyPV89 (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No that's just minutiae. If anyone gets suspended because of it, it can be mentioned in the text. QueenCake (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it was just an idea. Hopefully nobody's going to be DSQ for licence break. RickyPV89 (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think we should have the information. Not necessarily as a table in the individual race articles, but certainly as part of the season article. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
For what purpose? If a driver gets twelve points, he is given a one-race ban. That will be shown in the team and driver table when he gets replaced. There will also be a sub-section explaining mid-season driver changes. That is the best place for this sort of thing. On the other hand, if a driver does not get twelve points, then nothing happens, ans there is no need to include anything in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Medal colors in Formula One season articles

Is there a particular reason why the colors in standings look so awkward? Gold:     , Silver:     , Bronze:     . Those colors look very different from those used in other sports pages (e.g. Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics, 2014 World Figure Skating Championships): Gold:     , Silver:     , Bronze:     . Is there a particular reason for this? --bender235 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, the colours were chosen for maximum readability, noting that most of the time they have text on top of them. For example, it's a lot easier to read text on top of "Formula One bronze":  3  than on "other sports pages bronze"  3 . It should also be noted that these colours are used in many hundreds of articles (not just Formula One articles, but many, many other motorsport articles as well), so changing them would involve an awful lot of effort. DH85868993 (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, changing it is not a big problem given WP:AWB or WP:BOTS. While I don't favour one scheme over the other, I do favor one consistent color scheme throughout Wikipedia. Readability is definitely an issue, but  3  could be fixed to  3 , as is already done with  DSQ . --bender235 (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Another point to consider is that in Formula One (and other motorsport) articles, those colours just represent "1st, 2nd and 3rd place", they don't actually represent "gold, silver and bronze medals" (as they do in Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics and 2014 World Figure Skating Championships). Undoubtedly the choice of colours was inspired by the medal colours, but we could just as easily have chosen green, mauve and blue like WP:TENNIS did for their year-end ranking colours, e.g. in Martina_Navratilova_career_statistics#Career_singles_statistics. DH85868993 (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix winners tables

I note that Formula One circit articles are acquireing tables of Grand Prix winners, duplicating the list of winners at the Grand Prix articles. Is this something we want to see? --Falcadore (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Last time this was discussed (in 2009), the consensus was against such tables. I certainly don't favour their inclusion where the "circuit winners" list exactly matches the corresponding "race winners" list (e.g. a list of winners at Bahrain International Circuit would exactly match the list at Bahrain Grand Prix). I have more sympathy for their inclusion where a circuit has hosted different races over the years, e.g. the Nürburgring has hosted the German Grand Prix, the (standalone) European Grand Prix and the Luxembourg Grand Prix. Having said that, I suspect that maintaining winners lists in a couple of circuit articles will lead their proliferation into other circuit articles, so if maintaining our current convention not to have winners lists in any circuit articles means we don't have to spend time removing them from inappropriate articles and explaining why some circuit articles have them and others don't, then that's fine with me too. DH85868993 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thus far these circuits have had the tables added by User:HoldenV8.
Autódromo Internacional Nelson Piquet
Adelaide Street Circuit
Anderstorp Raceway (there's your duplication of Swedish Grand Prix)
Circuit Paul Ricard
Fuji Speedway
Autódromo do Estoril
Circuito de Jerez
Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez (duplication of Mexican Grand Prix)
It would seem this will shortly grow. --Falcadore (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have notified User:HoldenV8 of this discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't think we need these tables on the Circuit articles. We should act in accordance with the consensus that was achieved five years ago. Bear in mind that many of these circuits have hosted many more series than solely Formula One and if we would include a list of Formula One winners in those articles, we should include lists of all the other series' winners, which would unnecessarily clutter up the articles in question. Tvx1 (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the aforementioned ones, the articles for the following articles contain results list (Formula One and/or others) as well.
Phoenix_street_circuit (I've removed them now)
Zeltweg Air Base
I'm not sure how to deal with those, since the non-Formula One results list are outside of the scope of our WikiProject. Tvx1 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The non-F1 tables were discussed in May last year at WP:MOTOR, but I don't see a clear consensus there, although the discussion did lead to the creation of Brands Hatch race winners, so perhaps that's a suitable solution for those other circuits as well? (Although I would suggest restarting the discussion at WP:MOTOR, rather than just immediately creating a bunch of new articles). DH85868993 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

There has been a long debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season on wether or not remove the official race titles from the season calendar on the Formula one season articles. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: There is currently a case open at DRN in regard to the issue of race titles. [6] --KeithbobTalk 13:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Stefan Grand Prix

Template:Stefan Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Haas Racing Developments

An editor has proposed that Haas Racing Developments (currently a redirect to Stewart-Haas Racing) become a separate article. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 11#Haas Racing Developments. DH85868993 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The redirect has been converted to an article (and renamed to Haas Formula). DH85868993 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Flags in sport articles

The use of flags in sport articles is being discussed again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Proposed_change_to_MOSFLAG_for_sport_articles, in case anyone is interested. DH85868993 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Season articles from earlier seasons

Hi. Most of the F1 season articles from the 50s, 60s, and 70 contain tables with a list of non-championship. However not all of these races were held to Formula One rules (some of the articles even contain world championship races which weren't held to Formula One rules). There's nothing in these tables though making it clear which races were held to which rules. So, I was wondering wether it would be worth considering to add a "class" column of some sorts to be able to convey this information to the readers. Tvx1 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of adding a "Class" column to the Championship race tables (if you were proposing that - I wasn't 100% sure) because:
  • up until 1993, those tables are already quite wide, but more importantly,
  • from 1961 onwards, it would say "Formula One" for every race,
  • from 1950-51 and 1954-60, it would say "Formula One" for every race except the Indy 500, and
  • in 1952 and 1953, it would say "Formula Two" for every race except the Indy 500
and I think those latter two cases are more easily covered using text, e.g. the existing note under the table in 1954 Formula One season: "All championship races were open to cars complying with FIA Formula One regulations with the exception of the Indianapolis 500 which was for cars complying with AAA National Championship regulations."
For the non-Championship race tables, it's my understanding that, apart from 1952 and 1953, those tables are only supposed to list Formula One races (per the lead-in text) so there doesn't to be much point adding a "Class" column to those tables.
For 1952 and 1953, the "Non-championship race results" tables list both F1 and F2 races, so I would not object to a "Class" column being added to those two tables, but I suggest that it may be difficult to find reliable information as to whether a particular race was a "Formula One race" or a "Formula Two race" noting that the races often featured the same drivers, often driving the same cars with different engines fitted. DH85868993 (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This is somewhat a legacy of using the term "Formula One season" for article format instead of devoting the article specifically to the world championship event. But it does link with the format of "Grand Prix season" used prior to F1. Perhaps a case could be made for retitling 52/53 to "Grand Prix season". Plus of course Formula One means different things in different times with domestic championships held in Great Britain, South Africa, Australia and East Germany (amongst others) titled Formula One, even though the regs didn't always match the world championship. And as noted F1 racing continued in 1952, just not for the world championship in a similar way that the old F1 regs continued as the Intercontinental regs in 1961 when F1 dropped to 1.5 litres, eventually morphing into the Tasman regs as the 60s went on, which in turn became Australian Formula 1 in 1971.
For the reasons cited by User:DH85868993, I don't see any real need to change anything. --Falcadore (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
User:DH85868993 did get my proposal right. It is to add a "class" column to the tables. Albeit to the Non-championship races' tables. Which kind of races the championship rounds were is obvious enough from the text so I agree that a change there isn't really necessary. But regarding the non-championship races' tables I think it would be a valuable addition (if not all of the races included were F1, of course) because it's neither obvious from the tables, nor from the text which kind of races they were. Regarding the concerns for the width of the table, it doesn't have to be very wide at all, abbreviations like F1,F2,... could be used
On the other hand, I would not be opposed to renaming the articles that barely deal with F1 races either. Tvx1 (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert La Caze's nationality

Sources disagree regarding Robert La Caze's nationality. I have started a discussion at Talk:Robert La Caze#Nationality. DH85868993 (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Österreichring/A1-Ring/Red Bull Ring - Article

I've had a look over the different race track articles and the one that stands out is the Red Bull Ring as most of the information on that article is outdated and quite messy, the images on that article are all over the place making the sections look quite awkward, so I'm planning a article revamp so if any user here wants to help out or voice their opinion on this matter please respond their comment here. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Historic F1 Championships

Project members may be interested in/able to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MOTOR#Historic_F1_Championships. DH85868993 (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

European Grand Prix

Has the return of the European Grand Prix in 2016 been officially confirmed yet? Because a couple of articles have been updated as though it has and I wanted to know whether I should revert the changes or not. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, there's not even an unreliable message from Bernie. I'd definitely revert all mentions of Azerbaijan until something more concrete comes along. We get at least half a dozen harebrained schemes every year, and most of them come to nothing. QueenCake (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Reverted. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Source? : - Speedy Question Mark (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, that source doesn't say that the race will be called the European Grand Prix, and most reports that do mention the name European Grand Prix, like this one or this one say things like "Azerbaijan claims that it has signed a deal" or "The European Grand Prix will make a return in 2016 according to Azerbaijan's minister of youth and sports". I'd feel more confident if I saw something official from the FIA. DH85868993 (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
If there is something all the provided sources agree upon it's that the contracts for the proposed race haven't been signed yet. As long as that hasn't happened we cannot include it in a table labeled "Grands Prix contracted for XXXX season". Tvx1 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In the past, it has taken an announcement from Bernie Ecclestone and/or FOM to be considered confirmed. After all, Ecclestone is the authority on the calendar, and the only person whom we can be absolutely certain is in a position to confirm a new race. Final confirmation comes from the FIA, but it is Ecclestone who compiles and submits the new calendar for their consideration. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For everyone's information, an Azerbaijani Grand Prix article has recently been created. There does now seem to be some sources quoting Bernie, as reliable as he may be, that a race will be held next year in Baku, but he has provided no further information. Is it easiest just to keep it for the moment based on what sources exist?
It should be noted that even if there are sources supporting a race in Azerbaijan, there are no reliable sources stating it will be titled the European Grand Prix. Any changes on that article should continue to be reverted. (I do have a gut feeling that it would be the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, similar to Monaco, but that can be dealt with later.) QueenCake (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
User:QueenCake, there is an Autosport article used on the 2015 season page that says 2016 start date, and European GP. But it comes from the organisers pending confirmation from Mr. E. It would not surprise me if it was Euro GP - between hosting Eurovision, the European Games, and leading a group of non-EU, ex-Soviet states in lobbying Russia to back down over the Ukraine, Azerbaijan are really trying to sell the idea that they are a European nation, probably to join the EU one day. But I do not have a source for that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Formula One At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Forza Rossa page

Just wanted to let everyone know that a page for Forza Rossa has been created. JohnMcButts (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

...And its gone. GyaroMaguus 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced excess detail for fatalities

This chap [7] is yet again adding what I consider to be excess detail regarding fatal injuries to racing drivers. At the very least the additions are largely unsourced. I would like the opinion of the project on whether I am being too sensitive here. I just think that although we are not censored this is too much detail for a general encyclopedia. Britmax (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

He's well known for it, and I revert him as unsourced in most places I see his edits. It's well beyond the boundaries of taste in my view, and in any case I agree with you, it's excess detail for an encyclopedia. Plus I sense he's made some of it up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Tom Pryce

This article was promoted to FA in 2007 when standards were considerably looser than they are now. It is due to run as TFA on 11 June. There is a need for more citations, especially in the 1974–77: Shadow section. Can any of you help? It would be good to have this looking its best before it appears on the front page. --John (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

New fields added to Template:F1 race report

See Template_talk:F1_race_report#Fastest_average_speed_fields. DH85868993 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Location of Belgian Grand Prix

Numerous of season articles, as well as the Belgian Grand Prix and the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps articles claim the aforementioned circuit to be situated in Spa or even Francorchamps, Spa. This is incorrect however as the town of Francorchamps where the circuit is situated is a part of the municipality of Stavelot and not that of Spa. You can find a [map of the municipal territory of Stavelot] via a link on that page. This should be corrected in the affected articles.

You are right, but I don't think it's a simple fix. I think it's in Stavelot as the result of a reorganisation. It was in Spa, hence the name Spa-Francorchamps. I think the last time I was there there were still village name signs saying Spa. Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Tvx1, I think we might need to approach Spa and Silverstone the same way. Silverstone crosses the border between Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire. The circuit is named for the old airfield, which is in turn named for the town in Northamptonshire. But with the 2010 redevelopment, the start/finish line was moved. As a result, it is now in Buckinghamshire. I understand the argument that we should keep the location as simple as possible, but I think we need to figure out where we start from in cases like these. Should we go from the start/finish line, or base it on how much of the circuit is within each municipality/district/shire/etc.? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article about the Belgian (and any other) track should be precise about its location, historical changes etc. However, all articles referring to it should only use its name and possible generic location without going into details. As with many similar cases (if I remember correctly, only one venue of 2004 Athens Olympics was actually in Athens; most of the major events were held in several municipalities around Athens and at least one venue is 500km away!) the geographical identification of a venue is a convention -- it is not expected to be precise and is usually decided based on how recognizable it is. It doesn't really make any difference for F1 if "Spa-Francorchamps" is in Spa or in Stavelot municipality today. The circuit article may include coordinates, precise maps, historical references, and explain how incorrect Spa is; no other article should bother. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no comparison between Spa-Francorchamps and Silverstone. Not an inch of the Spa-Francorchamps circuit lies on the territory of Spa; It lies entirely on the territory of Stavelot. There is no confusion about that. Writing Spa or Stavelot as the location is not about detail but about providing factually correct information to our readers. Writing Spa is deliberately providing incorrect information and is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies by any means. E.G. the article for the circuit gave the location as Francorchamps, Spa which is factually incorrect. The fact is that nothing of the track lies in Spa, nor has it ever done. An alternate solution in finding a standard for the circuit locations in our locations is the municipality in the official address of the circuit. For Spa this address is Route du Circuit 55, 4970 Francorchamps. As I pointed out Francorchamps is a part of Stavelot, making the municipality where it's located Stavelot. There is no confusion about that. Tvx1 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I included in the lede of the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps a note about the name discrepancy. In my opinion, this is all that has to be done regarding the issue. Even if the circuit is completely within Stavelot, we should continue referring to it using its common name that is, imprecisely, Spa. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that is indeed in a improvement. I would like to point out that I never suggested changing the name. The name of the circuit is Spa-Francorchamps and a circuit's name is completely independent of its location. Sometimes they are named after their location or after a nearby, better-known location, sometimes they aren't (e.g. Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari). My concern was solely about providing the correct location on whichever wikipedia article the actual location, not just the name, is given (e.g. infobox on this circuit's article). Of course, if we refer to the circuit itself we should keep using its common name. Tvx1 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have done more research on the matter and everything that I have found states that the municipality of Francorchamps was already merged entirely into the municipality of Stavelot in 1977 (I know the source is in Dutch, but the information stands. GA means that the existing municipality was merged in its entirety in to another, Lge stands for the Province of Liège, W stands for Walloonia), which was one of a considerable wave of mergers of municipalities that happened in Belgium in 1977. This means that since 1979, when the track was shortened, it has entirely been on the territory of Stavelot. If there are still name signs depicting Spa-Francorchamps they are circuit name signs. The village name signs, like the one you can see to the right of the road here, clearly depict Francorchamps, Stavelot. So it is a rather simple fix after all. Tvx1 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to wiki mark-up

In the past two weeks or so, the mobile version of Wikipedia has gotten some updates. As a result of this, some of the old mark-up parameters no longer work in mobile browsers, specifically the background colours in results table, which now appear as white spaces. I asked about this at WP:VPT, and was advised that the mark-up code bgcolor="#XXXXXX" no longer works for mobiles (and may eventually be phased out for the full site). Instead, the new mark-up is style="background-color:#XXXXXX". I appreciate that applying this to every single article that would require it is perhaps too much to ask; however, during the endless debate over reformatting the team and driver table, one of the things that almost everyone agreed upon was that if there is a way to do things to benefit both mobile and regular readers, then we should absolutely do it. So even if we cannot retroactively apply the new mark-up, can we all please use make a conscious effort to use it from now on? I have updated the 2014 season article to use it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just be careful when changing things to make it slightly better onmobiles you don't accidentally make it worse on desktops. Your recent edit on the 2014 page ended up creating an excessive amount of whitespace and pushed the driver table down the page. As it happens, that table has become ridiculously wide. QueenCake (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
My original plan was to separate FP1 drivers into a separate, collapsible table, like 2014 World Rally Championship season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
And QueenCake back then quite correctly pointed out that there was no consensus to implement that plan. Yet, when that was pointed out to you, you did not initiate an attempt to garner the necessary support from the wider community for your plan. There are enough wikipedia mechanisms available to you to do that. A request for comment seems the best option to me. No-one prevents you from trying that. As I said before, I'm happy with either way to represent them.Tvx1 (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Order of penalties

Starting up a conversation here because a potential issue is brewing over at 2014 Canadian Grand Prix. Kobayashi and Gutierrez got penalties after qualifying, which is represented through the usual means of footnoting. However, there is some debate between User:Tvx1 and myself over the order that these penalties appear. The current version lists Gutierrez's penalties as #1 and #2 and Kobayashi's penalty as #3 because Gutierrez was given the penalties first. However, this has created a situation where footnote #3 appears before footnotes #1 and #2, as Kobayashi started further up the grid than Gutierrez. Tvx1's argument is that penalties should be listed according to when they were issued. However, I feel this has the potential to cause problems, particularly if we get a race with lots of penalties, like the 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. The qualifying table has always shown the final version of the grid, regardless of how many revisions are made. The final "Grid" column is there to show any changes that result from penalties. The order that penalties are applied has no impact on the table, simply because the table shows that final version of the grid. Therefore, listing penalties in the order they are applied makes no sense to me as all it does is list the footnotes out of order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes are a property of a table, not of the data contained therein. Thus footnotes should be listed in the order in which they appear in the table. Pyrope 04:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Readability trumps perception of import. --Falcadore (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
They are listed in numerical order. That's why they have numbers in the first place. And there is a legend for a reason. The order of penalties does affect the grid column. It just didn't do so at Canada. But just because it doesn't apply to one race, we shouldn't drop our consistency between articles. There are races were the order in which penalties were issued directly influenced the grid and thus the grid column in our table. Numbering in the notes sequentially from top to bottom just because PM prefers it that way would create confusion as to why which driver started from which place. Again, there is a nicely sequential list of notes underneath the tables that is a de facto legend and removes any confusion PM claims there could exist. Tvx1 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd tend to say list footnotes for making the most sense with the least difficulty. We're trying to make this for the general reader, & the actual order of issuance isn't, in the final analysis, the issue. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
But it is the issue. Sometimes the grid order is directly affected by the order in which penalties are issued. Marking the notes in the table chronologically is the only way to explain the grid order in such a case. Again, if any confusion does exist in the table, it is removed by the sequential list of notes underneath the table. Tvx1 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No, that's what prose is for. You are trying to make tabulated data do something that it is unsuited to. Footnotes are there to annotate the table. The table is not there to act as a reference for prose text masquerading as footnotes. Pyrope 21:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand the argument that Tvx is trying to make, that in the event of multiple penalties, a driver might be given five places, but effectively lose three because someone else got a penalty. However, Pyrope is correct in pointing out that the footnotes are supplementary information at best. When they appear in the table, all they do is direct the reader's attention to the discrepancy between qualifying position and starting position, with prose to explain it - and that prose can explain whatever we need it to explain. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think, not for the first time, that some editors are attempting to use tables to say things best expressed in sentences within the race report. If footnotes are creating difficulties explaining things, then use the longer form, the most natural form of expression and type it out in sentences instead of trying to accomplish the same goal with increasingly complicated asterixes, footnotes and appendices.
It is an absolute no-brainer. Just have ONE note saying something like "grid position affected by penalties from the previous race", then explain in it proper, easy to understand sentences in the report.
I shake my head over this sort of thing. Tables should only be used to express raw data. Tables are not the be-all and end-all. --Falcadore (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That is a fair proposal if you ask me. As long as the reader can find out why the grid order was like it was and there is consistency between articles, i'm fine with it. The "report" section could work just fine. Tvx1 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems Faldacore was seeing clearer than I. I am embarrassed. :) I also agree with him. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
How about a nice chart instead? :-p Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to make a proposal. Tvx1 (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Nève/Bernard de Dryver/1978 Belgian Grand Prix

We currently have some inconsistency between articles regarding Patrick Nève and Bernard de Dryver's participation in the 1978 Belgian Grand Prix - they are listed as non-prequalifiers in Patrick Nève, Bernard de Dryver and March Grand Prix results but not listed in the race article, season summary article or Ensign Racing. Sources such as ChicaneF1,, StatsF1, ESPN, and Autosport's Nostalgia Forum variously identify them as non-prequalifiers/non-qualifiers/no-shows but other sources such as, FORIX and Mike Lang's Grand Prix! make no mention of them at all (but do mention Rebaque and Merzario as non-prequalifiers). Are the sources which say they were entered for the race sufficient to include them in all the relevant articles (and if so, should they be shown as DNPQ, DNP or DNA)? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the French edition of Autocourse: "in preliminary tests Bernard de Dryver drove the Ensign N177 (MN06) and Patrick Nève the March 781/2". Whether this was the "pre-qualifying" session on the Thursday, I am not sure. Rebaque, Merzario and Lunger failed to get through to official practice, while Giacomelli, Stommelen, Arnoux and Rosberg did make it. Lunger was later allowed in when Tambay pulled out. As far as I know, the race organisers tried to get Neve and de Dryver into this session as a bit of local colour, but Bernie nixed the idea. So I suspect they never ran, but may well have technically been entered for the event by the organisers. I'd go with DNP as they were almost certainly present. It might be worth adding an explanatory note here and there, particularly on the race article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's an entry list with both drivers on it, although little detail. Race numbers though. [8] Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Glitch in race report infobox

Lately I have noticed that there is a glitch in the Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report. The width of the "date" field starts expanding and contracting. It is fine in the bare-bones version added to articles before the race, but once details of qualifying and the race are added, it starts expanding and contracting, and I am unsure of how to fix it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

1949 F1 categories nominated for deletion

FYI, Category:1949 in Formula One and Category:1949 Formula One races have been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Car number columns in results tables

Some of you may have noticed the recent addition of "car number" columns to various F1 team results tables, e.g. EuroBrun. Today I noticed the addition of a "car number" column to a driver results table (Martin_Brundle#Complete_Formula_One_results). I think we should consider whether we want car number columns in driver results tables and, if so, whether we care if some drivers have them and some don't. Noting that none of our standard results table formats include a "car number" column (but also noting that none of the standard tables include driver flagicons, whereas many of the individual results tables in the F1 team/car articles do). DH85868993 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am guessing that this might be a reaction to the inclusion of car numbers in the driver results matrix in the 2014 season article, which were included because of the introduction of custom numbers to try and get the driver and constructor results matrices to gel a little bit more. It is an idea that I think holds merit there, but not in any other context, like the EuroBrun article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we want car numbers in driver results tables. What's the actual point of them? Plus they add mega-clutter, particularly when cars carried different numbers from race to race. I think they should be reverted on sight through lack of consensus. I don't think we need them in team results tables either, but I am less bothered about that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I've now noticed editors making the tables smaller (too small) in order to fit in these extra details like car numbers and flags etc. It might be time to have a discussion about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Formula One drivers from <country> timelines

I've noticed the recent addition of "timeline" tables to Formula One drivers from Austria, Formula One drivers from Australia, Formula One drivers from New Zealand, Formula One drivers from Spain, Formula One drivers from Finland and Formula One drivers from Canada. Do we think this is useful information? DH85868993 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to see that information carried in broader Motorsport in Austria, Motorsport in Australia, Motorsport in New Zealand, Motorsport in Spain, Motorsport in Finland and Motorsport in Canada as I think these are far more important articles given wikipedia's purpose as a general encyclopedia. I also think the discussion is pointless without inviting User:Violetriga. --Falcadore (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Falcadore: To clarify: when you say "that information", do you mean the timeline tables, or the entire content of the "Formula One drivers from XXX" articles? DH85868993 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. If you want to refer specifically to the tables, then I'm not a fan and I believe the articles would lose nothing by their absense. Perhaps you should ignore the Motorsport in <country> component of my arguement and I will start a seperate topic. --Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz in Formula One Template

Currently their is Endurance Sports car information mixed up with the Grand Prix/Formula One information in the Mercedes-Benz in Formula One Template and I was wondering if I should remove it but I posted this here to see your view beforehand. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My initial reaction was that it should be removed due to being outside the scope of the template, but then I considered that most of the other comparable F1 team/constructor templates (e.g. {{Scuderia Ferrari}}, {{Team Lotus}}, {{McLaren}}, {{Aston Martin Racing}}) include sports racing cars, so upon reflection, I'm happy for the information to remain. But if it stays, we should probably rename the template from {{Mercedes in Formula One}} to something else. DH85868993 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Rob Smedley

Does his place of residence need revision now he works for Williams? Britmax (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have proof that he actually relocated, yes. Otherwise, no. Tvx1 (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Circuit maps

I am wondering if there is any previous discussion regarding the layout of circuit maps, and how simpler ones could be used. I am considering improving some of the ones such as the Spa track map, as it looks cluttered in the infoboxes. SAS1998Talk 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Sas1998, I tried to get interest going in standardising circuit maps last year, but there were no takers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A question about the 107 % rule

Please answer here, if you can: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#107.25_rule_in_motorsport Outer Image (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the question has now been adequately answered. DH85868993 (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Random changes

This user may have been caught early in a random changes spree. Eyes open, please. Britmax (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The same scuderia with another name, or a new one?

The En.Wikipedia is the matrix for the other articles from other wikipedias, and the projects here are more active, which is why perhaps coming here directly could be better. I have no account in the wiki of my language, but I follow the articles and already contributed to many of them, and I intend to start a discussion that perhaps generates very profound changes in all of them, so I want to start it in the wiki where it all began.

Not just talking about Formula-1, but everywhere, companies can be sold at any time, but nobody says it ends, just because of the change of the owner. Companies can also change their name, and nobody says it ends just because their name has changed. In F-1, on the other hand, there is some confusion in this concept.

For example Footwork Arrows and Arrows Grand Prix International are or not the same team with different owners? And Minardi? The Minardi team was sold to Red Bull and changed its name to Scuderia Toro Rosso, or just sold the space available and the equipment instead of the institution?

This is relevant because in my opinion we should have a article for each institution, regardless of the name they had over time. On the other hand, also know that often, when we say in the jargon of F-1 that a team was "sold", it's not the staff, institution, pt:Pessoa jurídica, but only the structure of it.

But for this you need to set some objective criteria to know when the team finishes, and another comes in its place, or when it only changes its name. In Formula 1, various racing teams are sold and remain with the same name. Others are sold, and changes its name. In any case, the simple fact of being sold does not generate a new team. The change of owners does a team ceases to exist. I think that there should be an article for every company, not for each "name".

On the other hand, I doubt if all sales are actually selling the company, or merely selling the space in F-1. Look Renault F1 Team (2002–2010) redirect to Renault in Formula One. In Portuguese, pt:Renault F1 redirects for Lotus F1 Team. The two Renault are not the same scuderia, are they? Team Lotus (2010–11) is Caterham F1 with other name. In Portuguese Team Lotus redirect for Caterham F1 Team.

Lotus Renault is Renault? Lotus Renault is a team which existed for only one year? Or are current Lotus F1, that should not be confused with the old Team Lotus?

I don't know what should be the criterion, but it seems to me that independent of what it is, it should be a single criterion, which did not require a DISCUSSION everytime to made it good. I believe the best criterion would be to use Taxpayer Identification Number or other National identification number (in Brazil are the pt:CNPJ) or the equivalent register in each country of pt:junta comercial.

Depending on the progress of this discussion, I want to launch this discussion in Basqueteball Project in relation to "Franchises" that change of name and the host city, as New Orleans Pelicans, Charlotte Hornets e Charlotte Bobcats, because these articles are a mess.

Texto original em Português

A En.Wikipedia é a matriz para os outros artigos das outras wikipedias, e os projetos daqui são os mais ativos, razão pela qual talvez vir diretamente aqui seja o mais produtivo. Não tenho conta na wiki da minha língua, mas acompanho os artigos, ja contribuí com muitos deles, e a discussão que pretendo iniciar pode gerar uma modificação talvez muito profunda em todos eles, então quero iniciá-la na wiki onde tudo começou.

Não falando apenas a nível de F-1, mas a nível geral, uma empresa (qualquer uma) pode ser vendida a qualquer momento, e nem por isso se diz que ela acaba, por causa da mudança de dono. Empresas também podem mudar de nome, e nem por isso se diz que elas acabaram, porque o nome mudou. Na F-1, por outro lado, há uma certa confusão nesse conceito.

Por exemplo Footwork Arrows e a Arrows Grand Prix International são ou não a mesma equipe, com donos diferentes? E a Minardi? A Minardi foi vendida para a Red Bull e mudou de nome para Scuderia Toro Rosso, ou só venderam a vaga e os equipamentos, ao invés da instituição?

Isso tem relevância pois na minha opinião deveríamos ter um artigo para cada instituição, independentemente do nome que elas tiveram ao longo do tempo. Por outro lado, também sei que muitas vezes, quando se diz no jargão da F-1 que quando uma equipe foi "vendida", não foi a equipe, instituição, a pt:Pessoa jurídica, mas sim apenas a estrutura dela.

Mas para isso, é preciso definir algum critério objetivo para saber quando a equipe acaba, e surge outra em seu lugar, e quando ela apenas muda de nome. Na Formula 1, diversas escuderias são vendidas e permanecem com o mesmo nome. Outras, são vendidas, e mudam de nome. Em todo o caso, o simples fato de ser vendida não gera uma equipe nova. A mudança de donos não faz uma equipe deixar de existir. Penso que deve existir um artigo para cada empresa, não para cada "nome".

Por outro lado, tenho dúvidas se todas as vendas são realmente vendas da empresa, ou meras venda de vaga. Vejam Renault F1 Team (2002–2010) redireciona para Renault in Formula One. Em Português, pt:Renault F1 redireciona para Lotus F1 Team. As duas Renault não são a mesma empresa, são? Team Lotus (2010–11) nada mais é que a Caterham F1 com outro nome. Em Português Team Lotus redireciona para Caterham F1 Team.

Lotus Renault é a Renault? Lotus Renault é uma equipe que existiu por apenas um ano? Ou é a Lotus F1 atual, que não deve ser confundida com a antiga Team Lotus?

Não sei qual deve ser o critério, mas me parece que qualquer que seja, deveria ser um critério único, que não obrigasse essa mesma discusão a ser feita sempre. Acredito que o melhor critério seria usar o Taxpayer Identification Number ou outro National identification number (que no Brasil é o pt:CNPJ) ou o registro equivalente em cada país da pt:junta comercial.

Dependendo do andamento dessa discussão, eu quero lançar essa discussão no Projeto Basqueteball em relação às "franquias" que mudam de nome e cidade-sede, como New Orleans Pelicans, Charlotte Hornets e Charlotte Bobcats, pois estes artigos estão uma grande confusão. (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's only a mess when viewed from a distance. Each team has been debated on its individual merits. There is no standard procedure, because each team's ownership life has been completely different.
By your reasoning for example, the Mercedes-Benz team is not related to Mercedes-Benz the manufacturer but is in fact a modern day Tyrrell painted silver.
The Renault of the 1990s purchased Benetton, who in turn purchased Toleman. Thus if you go back far enough Renault of the 1990s competed against itself, the factory Renault team of the 1980s.
You proposed an extremely simplistic method that tends not to have a bearing in real life.
Additionally the Formula One wikiproject has followed the lead of the Formula One organisation. How it groups team histories and statistics should not be ignored because you find ownership histories to be inconsistent. --Falcadore (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm the user above. You said: "By your reasoning for example, the Mercedes-Benz team is not related to Mercedes-Benz the manufacturer but is in fact a modern day Tyrrell painted silver." No necessarily! For example, you also said "The Renault of the 1990s purchased Benetton", but my question is: purchased the structure (cars, mechanics, boxes, equipments) of Benetton or purchase the company (seat, actions, heritage, assets and liabilities, labor debts, trophies)... The statute of the company Benetton has changed and also their board as a formal sale, or what was sold was only her available space in Formula 1, so that other organization (scuderia, company) was created in its place? Imagine that we were writing the history of the company, not of the "franchise". Iank Peldeva 30All (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem with your franchise argument is that in nearly all situations in which there are franchises, we are currently following the same rules. In the North American sports, when a franchise is moved, it is considered a new team. The same applies to European football – Wimbledon F.C. and Milton Keynes Dons F.C. are essentially the same franchise, but are considered completely different teams.
This is, of course, excluding one massive fundamental point – the teams are generally classed separately in record books. BAR and Tyrrell are never considered one and the same in record books (and nor are the following "franchises" Honda, Brawn and Mercedes). Brawn, for that matter, are considered to be the only team to have won both titles in their only year of competition. Continuing my point, nor are Jordan, Midland, Spyker or Force India. Nor are Minardi and Toro Rosso. Nor are Toleman, Benetton, Renault and Lotus (the current one). Nor even is Frank Williams Racing Cars and the current Williams team considered to be continuous (Williams last season celebrated their 600th race, a total that excludes their spell as FWRC).
The reason you are confusing this is because you are misunderstanding the buying of teams system. These days, F1 teams are not just F1 teams anymore, they are proper companies that have divisions comprising an F1 team. Tyrrell were bought by British American Tobacco's brand owners and named BAR. Now, while the same people may have operated there, the company was under different ownership. It basically was, for all intents and purposes, a new company that rather than build up its own team from scratch paid extra to have a ready-made system up and running.
So no, fundamentally your premise is incorrect. GyaroMaguus 20:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Your example (Wimbledon F.C. / Milton Keynes Dons Football Club / AFC Wimbledon) is, in theory, exactly what I think it should always be done. Yes, same franchise, but are completely different teams (three differents clubs, three differents companies). However I saw that there is even an article Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes in which the notion of "relocation" is emphasized, when apparently there was not a reallocation, but a selling space. Maybe what I'm trying to discuss ever make sense in English-speaking context. Furthermore, I understand that in the case of the NBA, the current and the former Charlotte Hornets do not have any legal relationship with one another, only for commercial reasons the league agreed that the new club would incorporate the old statistics.
But, what I really wanted to know is if Tyrrel, Honda, Brawn, Mercedes, Jordan, Midland, Spyker, Force India, Toro Rosso and Minardi are, from business point of view, the same or different companies. Apparently, according to what you said, they are different companies. In Brazil, to verify if a company (Corporate personhood) is the same status and are registered notary, the pt:CNPJ (a type of ID for companies). I do not know what is the equivalent of the CNPJ other countries, such as USA, England, France, Germany, but something equivalent must exist.
See CR Vasco da Gama, the club disputing football championships, rowing and other sports. There is the article Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama (basketball), but only for editorial decision, because in fact the basketball team is part of the same club Vasco, the same legal entity. See also Rio de Janeiro Vôlei Clube, here on wiki-en is a single article for pt:Rio de Janeiro Vôlei Clube and pt:Paraná Vôlei Clube. The En-Wiki said classifies as "relocation", but pt-wiki shows that there was, in fact, the extinction of a club and creating another, and not the mere transfer of town. You can change a company town, but in the case of "Rexona-Ades" (fantasy teams name) this was not done. Would possible, in theory, the Paraná VC become a basketball or football club, while Rio de Janeiro occupied its place in volleyball league.
I'm looking for information on equivalent cases in Formula 1, just to separate the cases where a company name change, those in which another takes its place. Even without merging / splitting of items, they meet F-1/NBA statistics, but I think that at the least information about the companies should be included. If at least it can not be done here, perhaps in en-wiki this possible. And maybe the only way to know this for sure is through "CNPJ" (equivalent identification number in their countries) scuderias of, their respective legal personality. Iank Peldeva 30All (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
While might say they are the same entity from a business point of view, that is however, a point of view invented by yourself with no support from within the sport for your assertion. You say they are the same team and possibly should be combined, then let's see some references from reliable sources backing up your arguement. Failing that, this is crossing the line into either Original Research or a subjective point of view outside of NPOV. --Falcadore (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The "business point of view" is largely irrelevant in terms of F1. As far as F1 is concerned, one team becomes extinct and another team is created, with the same people working but under a different name, different owner, different sponsorships, different investing, etc. Even from a business point of view, the teams are separate – Tyrrell, BAR, Honda, Brawn and Mercedes are all completely separate entities who transferred an asset (the F1 team) between themselves, transferring the workforce (a division of the company tied to the asset) across to the new employers; the same applies to all the other team changes. So there is no corporate personhood. The teams are all parts of larger companies. Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Sauber, Lotus, Marussia and Caterham all make cars. Red Bull and Toro Rosso are basically adverts for the drink the company produces. Williams does stuff. Force India is basically owned by UB Group. See my point? I will go with WP:GOODFAITH in what you are trying to say, but you are not fully understanding the situation and your premise is incorrect. GyaroMaguus 10:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We have typically named and separated articles based on the constructor name, which is the name the FIA credits all results to, regardless of the ownership or any structural changes to the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Save for the fact that we don't. The FIA considers Caterham F1 to be one an the same team as Lotus Racing (2010) and Team Lotus (2011). Yet, we have one article for the former team name and one for the latter two (which is in contradiction with our own philosophy, which would require separate articles for those two team names as well). They credit all the race starts made by the three of them to one an the same current team: Caterham!. Just look on page 41 of the source I have linked to. Marussia (page 40), as correctly pointed out, is credited as competing since 2012, Force India (page 36) since 2008, Sauber (page 37) since 1993 (although the 2006-2009 period isn't credited to them as their is no win in their statistics), Lotus (page 34) since 2010 and Mercedes (page 32) since 2010. Tony Fernandes himself has noted on several occasions that this is his team's fifth year in the sport. Even the Caterham article acknowledges it was nothing more than a formal name change. Therefore I think that the articles for Caterham F1 and Team Lotus (2010-11) should be merged into one article, since nobody, absolutely nobody, credites them as separate teams. In general I think Iank Peldeva 30All, has been missed. As far I can see, the suggestion is that there should be an article for the parent, legal, institution that "housed" al these teams in addition to the already existing team articles, not just to merge the existing articles. I think that is going to far. I think it is enough to have the different articles, like we have them, based on whom FIA credits the results to. That should be the general criterion whether or not to create a new article. Tvx1 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I am slightly intrigued as to how the current Lotus team started from 2010 (since it surely was actually 2012?) but I am fine with the Caterham/Lotus merger. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of Tvx1's words except that Lotus Racing (2010) and Team Lotus (2011) were both commonly referred to as just "Lotus", so we don't need multiple articles (we wouldn't create separate articles for WilliamsF1, Williams F1 and Williams Racing). GyaroMaguus 00:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tvx1: The FIA media kit page for Caterham is internally inconsistent - it says "since 2010" but also says "45 Grand Prix", which equates to the number of races since the start of 2012. I also disagree with your statement that "nobody, absolutely nobody, credites them as separate teams" - both ChicaneF1 and StatsF1 show Caterham as debuting in 2012. There is also WP:ASTONISH to consider - I think many non-experts would be confused if they clicked on the word "Lotus" in 2011 Australian Grand Prix and it took them to an article titled "Caterham F1". Given the convoluted use of the name "Lotus" in Formula One, I think it's clearer to have a separate article for "Lotus Racing/Team Lotus 2010-11", provided that the article makes it clear that the team subsequently became known as Caterham F1 (which it does). DH85868993 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
To answer Tvx1's question about the FIA's recognition of the team starting in 2010 and the statistics beginning in 2012 - could this be the difference between Team and Constructor? For statistical purposes the FIA generally groups by Constructor - where many different teams contributed to Brabham, Lotus, Cooper etc and for example Tyrrell Racing's statistics are split between Matra and Tyrrell? Therefore Caterham's statistics refer specifically specifically to Caterham the constructor not Caterham the team. --Falcadore (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
A perfect example of this is GP2 team Russian Time. An article for the team was created when the team was announced. Halfway through the 2013 season, it was merged into the Motopark Academy article, as they were running the team. But when team principal Igor Mazepa died, Russian Time and Motopark Academy went their separate ways, and Russian Time joined with the ex-iSport International outfit, whom they had originally purchased an entry from. Russian Time was hastily moved to the iSport article, and the whole thing is now a mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering the WP:ASTONISH point (and my hypocritical nature) I think it is better to hold the status quo on constructor articles, and should sort out Russian Time into its own article. GyaroMaguus 11:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Sites like ChicaneF1 and StatsF1 have no legal authority regarding F1. It's not up to them to credit points to teams. They are made by fans wo enjoy keeping records of this sport. For all we know, they might base themselves on when to split team statistics on Wikipedia. We should base ourselves on the official instances like FIA and FOM. I'm puzzled why the FIA credits Caterham having started in 2010, but credits only 45 GP's to them. I'm starting to feel that we will only find our answer if we communicate directly with the people at FIA. Anyways, any "astonishment that could exist as a result of a merger can be easily resolved by clearly explaining in the lead that the team was named Lotus Racing/Team Lotus during 2010-2011.Tvx1 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I just gave you an answer to your puzzlement. --Falcadore (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In Portuguese pt:Caterham F1 Team is the same article for Caterham F1 and Team Lotus (2010–11). But, pt:Renault F1 redirect to pt:Lotus F1 Team. The article said: "In early 2000, Renault announced his return to Formula 1, by buying the Benetton team, but keeping the name of the team for another season." If Renault is Benetton with other name, the statistic should be merged. But, if Renault is not Benetton, because By who played one season with the name of another team? The statistics of this season go to Benetton truth (extinct) just why the name continued, or go for the real team? The FIA ​​is a source to be considered, but can not be seen as absolute source, because it is a primary source. A secondary or tertiary source written by experts who explain this in more detail, could be stronger than the FIA itself in my opinion. I still would like, if possible, please, an explanation of the business record of the teams, the ID number of each. Another question I have is on the seats and the nationalities of the teams. Why a team can have a flag of a country, being based in another? Caterham F1 is based in Leafield, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, and is considered to be Malaysian? As this is explained? If the term "base" is used only to designate a garage to store cars, I can understand. But if the Caterham team is actually a subsidiary of Lotus Car / Caterham in the UK and the "base" is the location of the office of the company, then it seems contradictory. Iank Peldeva 30All (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The names of articles reflect the names that teams compete under, not the names of the owners. Because what happens when you get a team with multiple owners, like McLaren? Look at the above example of Russian Time for what happens when you start trying to credit results to an entity other than the one that it competes as - you get chaos.
As for nationalities, teams need to register with the FIA to compete. When they do so, they specify their nationality, which is of their choosing. So even if Caterham are based in England, they want to be registered as a Malaysian team.
As for the rest of your arguments, they have already been covered. The fact is that the current system is the simplest and easiest for everyone involved to follow. It does not matter what the editors of the Portuguese Wikipedia do, or why. They have the ability to form their own consensus independently of us, just as we can form a consensus independently of them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this might help. Tyrrell Racing first entered Formula One at the 1968 South African Grand Prix. But they did not build their own car until the 1970 Canadian Grand Prix. So Tyrrell Racing competed in 463 Grands Prix. But Tyrrells (the car) only raced in 430.
The Caterham team started in 2010. The first Caterham race car did not compete until 2012. So the team has raced in 84 Grands Prix but Caterham racing cars have only raced in 46. How does that sound?
As mentioned previously, the difference between team and constructor. That's one of the things about Formula One, the teams prize is not awarded to the team, but to the name of the car and sometimes they do not correspond. --Falcadore (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You did not give an answer to my puzzlement, you gave your own personal guesswork at what the explanation might be. That is pure speculation. An answer is backed by a reliable source to prove it. Tvx1 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
And what would you propose as an alternative? Merging and collapsing articles and splitting results up across them based on the ownership of the team at the time? What is so wrong with having articles and results line up with the teams using the name that they compete under? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It actually isn't guesswork because the Formula One have always recognised Constructors rather than Teams. It's very well established and common knowledge. So unless you are saying that the Constructors championship is actually a Teams championship and we need a reference to prove otherwise I don't see a reference is needed to establish what is already well known but misinterpreted by some. --Falcadore (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And it is called the "World Constructors Championship" for a reason. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is my issue being generalized here? I'm talking solely about the Lotus/Caterham issue. I'm not suggesting splitting and merging team articles based on ownership by any means. In fact, ownership doesn't even come into the question since the team I'm talking about has been under the same ownership the whole time. It has always been "Tony Fernandes' F1 Team". Even our article on Caterham acknowledges that the change from Lotus to Caterham was nothing more that a formal name change. The claim that Caterham is credited by the FIA as being active from 2010, but only having participated in 45 GP's is because Caterham have only "constructed" since 2012 is nothing more than an educated guess by Falcadore based on "common knowledge". On wikipedia we base ourselves on reliable sources and not on "common knowledge". Both of you have mentioned those exact words during the Sirotkin debate. So to accept that claim as a fact we need a reliable source from the FIA to support that. Tvx1 (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, I would like to point out that the source I provided clearly shows that the FIA credits Lotus F1 Team as being a constructor since 2010 and credits all 83 (that doesn't include Canada 2014 yet, as the source dates from before the race) GP's they contested since then to that same constructor. Therefore I think our articles should reflect that. Tvx1 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Educated guess? No. The official constructors tables make it very clear, published at the time and re-published since then make it very clear. There were no Caterham Formula One cars prior to 2012. It is your contention that the Lotuses of 2010 and 2011 are retrospectively re-badged as Caterhams when there is no foundation for that. Can you find for me ANYWHERE that the 2010/2011 vehicles are Caterhams?
I can see where you have drawn your assumption though. It is your personal belief that the terms team and constructor are interchangeable. They are not. Yes it is the same team, but the Constructors trophy has never refered to the teams, it refers to the cars.
2010: Lotus-Cosworth from the car Lotus T127
2011: Lotus-Renault from the car Lotus T128
2012: Caterham-Renault from the car Caterham CT01
2013: Caterham-Renault from the car Caterham CT03
2014: Caterham-Renault from the car Caterham CT05
In 2010 and 2011 the constructor was referred to as Lotus, and the FIA have never retrospectively changed the results, because they can't. Their regulations prevent it as the opportunity to appeal those results has expired. --Falcadore (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Why do you keep claiming that I think those terms are interchangeable? That isn't even remotely true. All I try to find out is wether the FIA considers Lotus Racing/Team Lotus/Caterham to be one and the same constructor or not. And to get an answer for that, we need reliable sources from the FIA which shows us the crucial information we need. E.G. which constructor they credit all the GP(s from 2010-present to, who received Lotus' share of the 2011 television money. Is that really that difficult to understand??? For a start can you provide us with A LINK to the official constructors table you mentioned? Lastly, if it is our practice that the articles are for constructors, than why does everyone of them open with sentences like: Ferrari is a formula one team, Caterham is a formula one team, Sauber is a formula one team,... If the articles are for constructors only, than their subjects should be introduced as such. You should practice what you preach! Tvx1 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Because you are asking why the constructors statistics does not match the team history. That was what I was explaining; the statistics. You want broader explanations, ask broader questions. Your misunderstanding seemed predicated on the statistics. Why don't the stats line-up? Explanation given. Several times.
You want a link to the official constructors table? Can't you find the Official Formula One website? Didn't think it was that hard. --Falcadore (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Falcadore, that official cite is FOM. I asked for FIA proof for your claim that FIA considers them separate constructors. After all, FIA are the only ones who are in a position to credit constructors. Explanation given? Maybe. Your view is given but as of yet you have to give the first bit of proof to substantiate your view, whether you want it or not. Tvx1 (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You are unlikely to find it. The keeping of statistics and category specific records is not an FIA function. --Falcadore (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I should note that the FIA refers to the teams with their official names, i.e. with sponsors, see here. The constructors are not noted, anywhere, including the race classification and the official grid, except for news articles (example). So, Tvx1, you are going down a route that doesn't exist (and you could have seen this had you done your own research). GyaroMaguus 09:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
GyaroMaguus, I'd like to point that I'm not the one who has split up articles based on the claim that FIA credits them as separate constructors without producing any sort of proof of that. I'm not the one "going down a route" here. Tvx1 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Then what exactly are you trying to achieve in this dicussion? GyaroMaguus 14:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If want to find out once and for all who the FIA credits as separate constructors, and who they do not, in a bid to clear up this mess once and for all. And I would like to do that based on actual FIA proof and not some personal guesswork by Falcadore or "general knowledge we all know for years now". Tvx1 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It is NOT guesswork work. You are wanting proof from the FIA something that is run/officiated by the FOM. There is a disconnect you are not seeing. Maintenance of records is not a FIA function. --Falcadore (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not 100% sure that information is actually easy to find. Official FIA documents typically credit the entry rather than the constructors; even in the media pack you linked much earlier in the discussion, the team name is nearly always the entry name, but the statistics are for the constructor as a whole, and do not use the full entry name. If I were you, I'd search for your own answer, because I don't know precisely where to find it and I am happy to follow the consensus. GyaroMaguus 18:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You did not understand what I meant. I'm not looking to change anything here, I know that the Wiki-en has its concepts and respect this fact. What I would really like to understand the situation to propose changes in Wikipedia in Portuguese, in a way that reflects the reality of there. But that information is only possible to discover here, missing allowances to discuss the situation of companies without understanding the European and North American context.
The pattern that I advocate (but not necessarily should be adopted here) is that each company has an article, not every homeowner. Mc Laren and Ferrari had several owners, but no one questions that the scuderia is the same. Paraná Volleyball Club and Rio de Janeiro Volleyball Club (in Portuguese) have the same owner and occupying the same "franchise", but they are two different clubs and have two different articles. I repeat, I am not advocating that it has to be adopted here, is just one example.
Understand just as a curiosity: I wonder if the F-1 teams are a single company (same registry, same statute, same administrative office, same patrimony/heritage/property) that exchange owner only, or if the vacancy is only sold to another company ( another record, another status other administrative office) sign instead. Iank Peldeva 30All (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The companies that own the teams typically have separate articles. See Ferrari, McLaren Group, Red Bull, UB Group, Caterham Cars, Marussia Motors, Mercedes-Benz and Lotus Cars (the exceptions are Williams and Sauber, who are part of companies that barely extend beyond the F1 teams themselves). From this, we can see that F1 teams are not single companies; rather, they are parts of said larger companies. They are effectively brands within the larger company. And like brands of certain products in the rest of the business world, they can be sold to other companies. In the case of Brawn GP, a management buyout from Honda was exacted by Ross Brawn, who turned the Honda F1 brand into its own company. This was a separate company, with shares, 75.1% of which Mercedes-Benz purchased at the end of the season, and they used that majority to turn the team into a brand of Mercedes-Benz. Since this is a brand, the employees stay but have new employers. The workplace (in this case, the factory in Brackley) changed ownership. Honda, Brawn and Mercedes are three completely separate companies that traded a brand between the them that have already been under the ownership of Tyrrell and British American Tobacco. I hope that answers all your queries. GyaroMaguus 18:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually Williams is about the company as well. It's called Williams Grand Prix Engineering and although the majority of the article deals with their Formula One operation, their other activities are covered in it as well. Tvx1 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Gyaro e Tvx1, I begin to understand. But there are still some doubts me. You say, for example that most teams are not individual companies, but it seems that, the McLaren, by its full name (in Portuguese pt:razão social) McLaren Racing Limited leaves the impression that she is an individual company, though part of a holding company, and not a department of a company. Sounds like a technicality, but I think it makes a difference let it clear. Or am I wrong and is not it? I will present an example of Brazil. The Clube de Regatas do Flamengo is a club that has a team of basketball, but this basketball team, despite having separate article (here and in the English Wiki) actually is only one department of the club, not a separate organization, part of a holding company. This is exactly the point I wanted to understand a case of each Formula One team. The case of Honda, for example, still do not quite understand that buying and selling. But understand that there are three different things. 1) The company owns 2) scuderia (which may be a department of the company, or may be an independent company Subsidiary, within the same holding) 3) franchise.

In theory, the franchise can be sold to the formation of a new team (Subsidiary company), or to be occupied by a scuderia which actually is not a subsidiary, but only one sector of a larger company. Or the company subsidiary can be sold to another owner, who just change the company name. See what I mean? As I said, I do not intend to modify the Articles of Wiki-en, just explain it better, at least in the Wiki-pt. Iank Peldeva 30All (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In simple terms, when a team changes name in a major way – whether by selling the name or by simply changing the name – we make a new article (the sole exception to this is Hispania Racing Team to HRT (who simply shortened their name)). So regardless of who owns the teams, as long as there are different names we separate the articles. We do this for clarity. We don't want people clicking on the Lotus link from 2010 to find that the article is titled Caterham F1. This is why we do it the way we do it over here.
Regarding the actual ownership, McLaren Group is a parent company of McLaren Racing Limited. This means that McLaren Racing Limited is a subsidiary of McLaren Group. For clarity, all the teams are either divisions, departments, subsidiaries or brands of larger companies. All these (I'll refer to them as teams) can be bought or sold – as can whole companies – and whatever assets and employers the teams have get sold as well. When someone buys a team, they'll probably the change the name too – in which situation it is considered to be a new team and a new article is created.
To make it really clear: our articles are not based on who owns what team – but what name that teams runs under. GyaroMaguus 09:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What confuses me is still the way you talk "sells the name" (instead of "sell the franchise"). I now understand how it works for Wikipedia. Just like to understand how it works in business terms when the sale occurs. The buyer, in all cases, a record opens a new company (subsidiary, not to be confused with its parent company), and transfers it to the factory, the base, the franchise and the employees? Or he buys the whole company (including its registration, not to be confused with "name" and its head office, not to be confused with the "base" where cars are kept). And each case is different? How to get information about each company? Is there any place where such references exist? PS: Just to show an example here we can see that Rio de Janeiro Vôlei Clube had his pt:CNPJ opened in 20 of may of 2004, soon, after the foundation of the franchise "Rexona-Ades" / "Unilever". Hence it follows that Corporate personhood is different from both. Here we can see where is the head office team. This does not require Wikipedia to keep articles separately for each company. The Wiki-pt adopted this position, you can act differently. I just like to have access to such information about companies. Iank Peldeva 30All (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
They do not sell the name. I grouped "divisions", "departments", "subsidiaries" and "brands" together into "teams" to save myself a sizeable number of words. As for how each sale works in business terms, you would have to look up each sale yourself. Every company that owns an F1 team will treat it differently in respect to the company as a whole and every sale will be individual. I don't know what happened to the Jordan employees who became Midland employees who then became Spyker employees and then became Force India employees; nor do I know what contracts they had and whether they were offered new contracts every time the team changed. I don't know if Honda bought the Brackley factory from British American Tobacco, or whether it came with the BAR team as an asset the company held; nor do I know what happened when Ross Brawn performed the management buyout or what happened when Mercedes-Benz purchased 75.1% of the Brawn GP shares and took over the company. Maybe references do exist that could answer your question, but if you want them, you'd have to find them yourself; I quite frankly do not have the motivation to discover whether they do or not. As far as I am concerned, in the current day and age, individual F1 teams are NOT companies and should not be treated as such. They should be treated as assets; in that thy can be bought and sold between individuals and companies. GyaroMaguus 00:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your explanation. You all were very friendly in helping me, it has given me grants to extend the debate. My intention was more to create the same debate, not necessarily change anything for now. If ever arise sources about this question I asked, I ask you please let me know. Congratulations to all! Iank Peldeva 30All (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Brawn BGP 001 naming

An editor has stated that the Brawn BGP 001 should be referred to as the "Brawn GP BGP 001" (and updated the article contents accordingly). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Brawn BGP 001#Brawn GP BGP 001 title incorrect.. DH85868993 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

FIA Pole Trophy

There has been a tedious debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season with regard to the inclusion of information in the table for the FIA Pole Trophy. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. You can bring your input here. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, your input would be greatly appreciated as the debate continues on. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

All the "2014 Grand Prix of XXX" redirects have been nominated for discussion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Note that these are the (unused) "2014 Grand Prix of XXX" redirects, not the "2014 XXX Grand Prix" redirects (which will be converted into articles in the fullness of time). DH85868993 (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Phallic" editor

Lately I have noticed a few edits from IP addresses that are describing the 2014 noses as "phallic" like this one. I suppose that, on a certain level, there is a truth to it, but at the same time, there are so many other ways to describe the noses; "finger-like", "anteater" and "alien" all spring to mind. And so I think the use of "phallic" is essentially trolling; however, I can't report the editors as IP vandals, since it's always a different address, and it's entirely plausible that this is a genuine (if misguided) attempt to improve the article.

So, can we all be on the look-out for these edits and revert them? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More redirects for discussion

I have nominated {{2013 F1 Drivers Standings}} (which redirects to {{F1 Drivers Standings}}) and {{2013 F1 Constructors Standings}} (which redirects to {{F1 Constructors Standings}}) for deletion, on the basis that they are unused and misleading. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2016 Formula One season

2016 Formula One season has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Tvx1 (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been nominated. The argument that it gives undue weight to that content is invalid, because those changes are what distinguish the article from previous ones, and the unwritten rule has always been that new season articles only get created once there is enough new content to justify its creation. You would need a consensus to change that.
Furthermore, the suggestion that a project guideline be established to defer creation of a future season article until the start of the next season is unwieldy at best, since it is a quantitative solution to a problem that demands a qualitative approach. There is no set guideline as to when information about an upcoming season is made public; it gets announced at the discretion of those making the announcement. Now, don't take this next part the wrong way, but I've never actually seen you add content to a season article in bulk - you tend to refine what already exists. As someone who does work with the prose in these articles, I can tell you that it is difficult enough as is to expand articles, particularly when dealing with technical content. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that editors can hold off for six months and then expand articles with multiple references from a variety of sources months after the fact, and I very much doubt that you can expect the same quality of work as we currently have if you impose a completely arbitrary time limit on when content can be added. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Your arguments are fair, I will not deny that. But the main argument for recreating that article was "It's the time of the year that specific information will be published". However, if you purely look at the article's content, it actually contains less information than the previous version. There's only three teams (still don't know why the others aren't included) with a total of two signed drivers and the list of races is a copy from the 2015 season article + Europe. The article just doesn't have that many 2016 specific content (yes, there's Haas and Europe but that isn't that much in relation to the entire article) and that combined with the fact that some users suggested the deletion on the talk page made me decide to nominate it. It just wan't to have a clear discussion with a wide input and a happy outcome on the matter. Tvx1 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Tvx1, the table only contains three entries right now because they are the only entries with any available information right now. To include other teams would simply create a blank table.
Also, reading the entry made by the user who suggested deletion, I'm pretty sure that he's had a couple of altercations with the admins in the past. His suggestion had less to do with getting rid of an unnecessary article, and more to do with proving an admin had abused their powers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix attendance figures

A user, User:Haken arizona is currently insisting that the 2014 German Grand Prix article should include details of crowd attendance figures. This is something that we have never really done before, as crowd figures aren't usually reported by event organisers. But is it something that we should consider?

Personally, I say no. Crowd attendance figures have no bearing on the outcome of the race. It doesn't matter if 10 people or 10,000 people buy tickets; the race will still be run, and competitors will still compete. Furthermore, the justification for including the figures for Hockenheim is that it was a talking point at the time, which is a clear-cut case of RECENTISM if ever I have heard one. Sure, Toto Wolff wasn't happy with the low turn-out on Friday, but it was the middle of the workday, and lots of people had already taken the Monday off work to watch the World Cup final. And yes, Flavio Briatore was recruited to investigate ways of making the sport more popular, but the idea was quickly (and quietly) abandoned. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am member haken Arizona, Looks like you don't want any additional information posted on your formula one event pages. This is contrary to what Wikipedia stands for. You are letting your ego get in the way. Look up older GP events on Wikipedia, they are full of information. But you insist only the results of the race should be present.(UTC)

If it's properly sourced, it can go in. Information does not have to have a bearing on the outcome of the race in order to be relevant, and I've never seen anything anywhere that says it does. We call them race reports, but that's a misnomer – they're articles about a particular event. Anything to do with the event can go in, providing it's properly sourced and it isn't trivia. As far as I know, sporting event articles generally include information on attendances. Football matches certainly do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The article theoretically covers the *event*, so things beyond the on-track action are relevant. The359 (Talk) 22:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
And if those figures were regularly and reliably provided, I would agree. But in this case, it appears to be little more than a knee-jerk reaction to the FIA talking about the possibility of making minor changes to something undefined as a response to people not attending on Friday because they were busy working. The idea of attendance figures might have merit, but in context, this case has no place. It's an inclusionist approach, wrongly assuming that all information is of equal weight and must therefore be included. This is, at best, something that should go in the infobox, not the article lead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
They do have to be reliable, but they are not required across the board of race articles in order to be included. Each article is different and any one does not have to carry the same information as others of its type. You didn't mention where these figures were being placed, and I (for one) didn't look. No, they shouldn't be in the lead, but either in the infobox and/or the text, if there's any more to add than basic numbers. I don't think anyone considers all information to be of equal weight, but the attendance figure at a sporting event is patently not trivia, and it's only trivia that should not be included. That isn't inclusionism, it's just encyclopedic. Any article content is included if it's relevant and verifiable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a question of the relevance that is being attached. I don't deny that the figures can be relevant, but I think including them simply because it prompted some discussion on maybe making some unspecified changes (which ultimately came to nought) is the wrong reason. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
It's sourced and it's specific to the event. Crowd figures are regularly cited in the Australian Grand Prix articles - as it is an ongoing subject of debate within local media, so it is hardly shattering news.
AND it is a criteria in the Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report! Frankly I find your objections misplaced. Whether there is a political motive or not, crowd figures - where available not only can, but SHOULD be included in the article. If those figures are a source of some controversy then explain why in the article and reference it.
It's in the infobox. --Falcadore (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd hardly call this instance controversial. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Then there is no reason not to include the attendance figures. --Falcadore (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I never said that there was - only that in this case, the context in which they were being presented was wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Then Be Bold. --Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't. Still bound by the limitations of my device. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I never knew the template had an attendance field before. Presumably somebody thought it was relevant at some point in time then. I'm a little cautious about the figures as they can be notoriously unreliable (particularly in America), but if they're sourced then we should probably include them. QueenCake (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Listing the attendance information in the infobox is indeed acceptable. PM, I don't understand why this had to again lead you to instigate another edit-war. When are you finally going to do a reading of WP:BOLD and act in accordance with that guideline by going straight to the talk page when your actions have been reverted instead of reverting over and over and over again. Again you reverted thrice before you initiated a talk page discussion. Even if that information would have been in the article for a short while pending a swift consensus that wouldn't have been a drama. Really edit-warring brings nothing but disruption. Don't do it at all. Tvx1 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys member keeps erasing my attendance data. It is properly sourced trough respectable source BBC. I believe any fact about the grand prix event is worth being in encyclopedia. Attendance was a major factor of why Korean GP was canceled. Now 3 years in a row German GP is seeing very low number even with german winning car and driver. Attendance mattered so much that it prompted various F1 management people to question the future of the sport. Also german GP tickets were heavily discounted do to the soccer win. User:Haken arizona UTC — Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I kept deleting it because it is not being presented appropriately. The article lead is for key issues in the article, and the attendance figures were not a key issue. See the above discussion - the best place for it is the infobox. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, why didn't you just move it to the infobox? The359 (Talk) 06:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Because I don't know the mark-up needed to do it. Since I'm editing from a mobile, I can usually only use mark-up that I already know. The limitations of my device make learning new code hard, unless I can see it used in context first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
So rather than waiting to fix it, you deleted it? Hardly seems to be constructive. Rather than edit warring, why not get someone else to fix it for you? The359 (Talk) 02:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. It's simply unbelievable you see any justification for your latest edit. Tvx1 (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That is what I am saying prisonermonkeys keeps erasing my edit just because he is on a mobile phone and can't do it, what a joke, User:Haken arizona UTC — Preceding undated comment added 03:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I erased your edit because it's not what the consensus has established. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
There you go finally. Was that really that difficult? Worst part is that Falcadore had already given directions to two places where you could find the required markup two days ago: This season's Australian Grand Prix article and the Infobox template. Both of you should have been able to easily find that. Tvx1 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Excess accident details

I suspect that our friend Todd Abedrabbo may be carrying on his fixation with excessively detailed accident descriptions as an IP. He may just be editing while logged out in error. Would someone keep an eye on this as it's late here now and I am off to bed. Britmax (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

English Grand Prix / Catalonian Grand Prix

This is a bit of an odd one - there is a subject that, for the moment, is purely hypothetical, but should it be realised, then I feel it has the potential to become an issue for some articles, and that it would be pertinent to have a plan to address it to minimise disruption.

In the coming weeks and months, there are two referendums in Europe that have the potential to affect races. Firstly, Scotland is voting on independence, and so too is Catalonia. In the event that either or both referendum is successful, then it has the potential to affect the British and Spanish Grands Prix - specifically, their names. The British Grand Prix could become the English Grand Prix; likewise, the Spanish could become the Catalonian.

Now, I understand that both referendums are yet to be held, and that a successful yes vote is no guarantee of a name change. So, for now, we should wait and see. But for the purposes of this discussion, I think we should assume that both will be successful, that both will require name changes, and come up with a plan to address it, given the potential for confusion and vandalism. After all, I can find no precedent for this - new nations don't form very often, and no race has ever been affected until now.

The Barcelona one is easy enough; it was in Spain and will be in Catalonia, and so a new page would be needed, with a high degree of interconnectivity between them. But Silverstone is a harder proposition - Scotland would be achieving independence, and so the race would effectively remain exactly the same, but running under a new name, and I have no idea how to address that.

Thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should not discuss this at all until reliable sources report that name changes are likely. We could spend/waste many hours (and needlessly open many cans of worms) discussing/planning for something that never eventuates. DH85868993 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if Scotland would become independent, is there anything pointing to a need for Great Britain to change their name? Surely England, Wales, and Northern Ireland would still constitute Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and hence still have a British Grand Prix. The359 (Talk) 05:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Great Britain specifically refers to the island containing England, Scotland, and Wales. Referring to just a England and Wales as Great Britain would be technically incorrect. So they would have to name that something like South Britain or something else to that effect. But I rather think they would call it simply United Kingdom and the race United Kingdom Grand Prix. But still, all of that is pure hypothesis and there's no point in discussing now. We just have to wait and see if something changes. Tvx1 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree that it's a pointless discussion and there's no sense in doing anything at all until something happens in real life. That said, it'd still be called the British Grand Prix. It would still be held in Britain and it doesn't have to represent the whole island. Plus, the rest of the UK would still be called the UK, and the adjective for something from the UK is... British. Plus, the value of the name "British Grand Prix" is so great that nobody's going to change it. I can't see the Scots kicking up a stink about it. Nothing will happen. I imagine the Spanish GP would just move to Jerez if Catalonia became independent. Maybe Catalonia would apply to Uncle Bernie and have their own GP. Very likely, nothing will happen at all. Totally agree that this kind of speculation is futile. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Who cares? Speculation on something that might is pointless. We don't do anything unless something does happen. Why waste time on hypotheticals?
Was there any debate amongst editors whether a Korean race might be called South Korean Grand Prix instead of Korean Grand Prix? No. Why? Because debating about what a race might be called is completely against Wikipedia's aims. We report what is, not what might be. It is not our role to take part in any form of debate or anticipate any form of possible name change. When a name change happens we change it. It is just that simple. Please PM don't keep filling up talk pages with hypotheticals. Wikipedia does not deal in hypotheticals. --Falcadore (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I see you have completely missed the point of what I'm trying to do here. Which is odd, because I tried to make it as clear as possible. I am only trying to anticipate a potential problem and be proactive in finding a solution, so that if it does come to pass, we already have a plan in place. I'd much rather do that now and never need to use it than convince myself that it's an obscure problem, only to have it come up and see articles in disarray as people try to make things up as they go.
But credit where credit is due - you've given me a very good idea on how to handle the problem. If and when it happens, I'll just let you sort it out. I'm sure you'll do just fine, and you won't lose your patience with anyone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
As someone who has been editing here for quite a while you really ought to have anticipated that established editors would give you short shrift over a blatant crystalballing exercise such as this. Firstly, the referenda haven't even happened yet. Second, even if either results in a "yes" vote it may be many years before the practicalities of secession are worked out. Finally, we have no idea what the new entities (on either side) might be called. Will the UK continue as GB&NI, or possibly England, Wales and NI? Or what? Much more to the point: we don't know what the FIA/FOM/race promoters will call the events. Falcadore's points are all well made and to the point. Stick to established facts in the past tense. Pyrope 17:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's be honest, if there is a change in name it'll be very clearly stated by both the FIA and the press. Any announced changes would be dealt with at the appropriate time. Anyhow, Silverstone holds the rights to hold the British GP until 2026, and Barcelona holds the rights to hold the Spanish GP until 2016. These rights are not just to Formula One races, but F1 races under a specific name. Some if there are any changes they'll have to be done after renegotiation of contracts. GyaroMaguus 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Pyrope, as established editors, I am surprised that neither you nor Falcadore recognised the potential for instability and disruption that an event such as this should it come to pass, particularly among the more inexperienced editors. Especially since it was you two who taught me to edit with one eye on the future, and to consider what an article will look like a day from now, a year from now, and a decade from now.

I am well aware that I am forecasting a very precise set of circumstances, and that those circumstances are unlikely to pass. But well do I remember the problems we had in 2009 when foreign-language sources started reporting that Alonso was moving to Ferrari in 2010 months before it was confirmed. We probably never anticipated that being a problem in 2008, and so nothing was really done about it until the 2010 article was constantly being edited back and forth. If we had seen it coming, we probably would have done something about it.

Hell, we have that problem right now "Baku Street Circuit" can refer to any one of three circuits, and until such time as the new circuit is named, there is a conflict.

So you can keep calling it speculation if you like. But I see it as anticipating potential issues, and trying to come up with a solution in advance so that it is less of a problem if it comes to pass. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a lack of recognition that problems can occur, the thought is simply that we cannot plan ahead for every eventuality and it is futile to even attempt it, especially with something as oddly peculiar as this. Without any actual facts to go off, what exactly are you expecting us to plan for? A problem might occur, yes, but are you actually suggestion we come up with some sort of predetermined solution for a problem that does not yet exist? How in the world would that ever be considered consensus? As soon as any event such as this happened, it likely would have facts the counteract any decision we attempt to come up with. The359 (Talk) 05:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it you are asking for preparations for any event like:
Has Scotland seceded? No. Has race name changed? No. No action.
Has Scotland seceded? Yes. Is Great Britain still Great Britain? Yes. Has race name changed? No. No action.
Has Scotland seceded? Yes. Is Great Britain still Great Britain? No. Has race name changed? No. No action.
Has Scotland seceded? Yes. Is Great Britain still Great Britain? No. Has race name changed? Yes. Change article.
See, it's simple. No action is recquired until the FIA and/or relevant ASN/race organiser announces the race name has changed. Whether a region secedes or not it still comes down to has the relevant organisers confirmed a name change or not.
Do we do anything anticipatory? No. Why? Nothing has actually happenned. When it does, then we act. Until then, mountain, meet molehill. --Falcadore (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that if the name of a race changes, the new name should be used on Wikipedia. Otherwise, not. Or is that too complicated? Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this just another case of speculating into existence a problem of which we don't even know it even exists. For all its worth, the most likely name for a successor to the British Grand Prix if Scotland were to become independent would be the United Kingdom Grand Prix. The solution to this hypothetical problem has been swiftly summed up by Falcadore. I would make just a little amendment to it, though. I wouldn't change the names of all the existing articles, but rather creating new articles for the new Grands Prix with the new titles. Tvx1 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

1950 and 1951 car numbers

An editor has added car number columns to 1950_Formula_One_season#Teams_and_drivers and 1951_Formula_One_season#Teams_and_drivers. Given that the car numbers changed from race to race, do we think this is useful/necessary information? (I thought I'd raise it here because the decision has the potential to affect every season summary article before 1974, when race numbers were standardised). DH85868993 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I say get rid. It's clutter and almost completely irrelevant information. I'd be against any such number column for seasons prior to 1974. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks a bit odd. I agree with the delete. GyaroMaguus 00:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
They've now been added to 1952 Formula One season and 1953 Formula One season, too. DH85868993 (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
So, do we have a consensus to remove them again? Tvx1 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If you're in agreement too, I'd say that constitutes a consensus. Maybe remove with an edit summary citing this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that they have also been added to the 1954, 1955 and 1956 articles. DH85868993 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This looks terrible. I support getting rid of them. Allypap81 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've removed the car numbers from the 1950-56 season articles, and left messages on the relevant IP user talk pages (although I doubt they'll see them). DH85868993 (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
For what it's still worth, yes I am in agreement. Tvx1 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

107% rule

Do we really need to list every application of the rule? How long is this going to make the article by about 2020? Britmax (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't worry me if we didn't list every application of the rule. It's a fairly common occurrence these days, and the driver is almost always allowed to race. At current rates, the table would have about 100 extra rows by 2020. DH85868993 (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I would consider going with what the rule is designed for (Preventing dangerously slow cars from qualifying). Include those who set a representative lap time (whether they started the race or not) and don't include those who didn't set a time due to mechanical / technical issues (e.g. Lewis Hamilton and Pastor Maldonado at the 2014 Hungarian GP who had mechanical issues but would have set times within 107%). Following this, the table would look more like this for the 2014 season:
107% rule after adoption by first qualifying round (from 2011)
Year Event Q1 fastest time 107% time Driver Team Time % of fastest Allowed to race?
2014 British Grand Prix 1:40.380 1:47.406 Sweden Marcus Ericsson Malaysia Caterham 1:49.421 109.006 Yes
Japan Kamui Kobayashi 1:49.625 109.210 Yes

Mharris99 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, because the other drivers have not exceeded the 107% mark. We are sort of reporting technical non-qualifications rather than 107% incursions. GyaroMaguus 22:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I also like Mharris99's idea. DH85868993 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out that failing to set a time during Q1 is considered to be a 107% violation, and the driver in question has to apply to the stewards in order to be allowed to race. E.G. Hamilton's application review at Hungary. I would remove those whore are labeled excluded from the table. Those drivers did effectively set a time within the 107% mark during Q1, but were later excluded for an infraction during Q2 or Q3. They didn't have to apply to the stewards to be allowed to race. Tvx1 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, no. As is visible in Kobayashi's review from Silverstone, the FIA mentions when a driver has failed to qualify in light of the 107% rule. It was not mentioned on Hamilton's appeal, and thus, Hamilton only purely failed to qualify, but not under the 107% ruling. So all those who purely failed to set a time should be excluded from the list. GyaroMaguus 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Right you are! I was completely wrong on that matter. So, overall, I agree that the cases of "no time set" and "excluded" can be removed from the table. Tvx1 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
ARgh! Do you have to tabulate EVERYTHING? Just make a note in the appropriate race stating they were allowed to race - in the above instance to 2014 British Grand Prix.
Can someone explain to me why everything has to be tabulated? --Falcadore (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone probably just decided to list them (allow WP:AGF) and we just kept updating the article. GyaroMaguus 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why we need a list of rule violations at all. It doesn't really add much to the article. QueenCake (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The only really notable instances are the rare times when a team or driver was refused permission to race. The 107% rule was only introduced to stop teams from competing if it was obvious that they could not compete, which is mirrored in the application of the rule. Hence, that is the only set of circumstances where it could reasonably be tabulated (even then, we don't have to do it). If someone is outside 107%, then an explanation of why they are generally allowed to compete would suffice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

So does anyone object to me removing all the "no time set" and "excluded" entries? Tvx1 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't. DH85868993 (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Calendar on future season articles

Since it's around the time of the year that next season's calendar will start appear in the sources and FIA will publish the official provisional calendar, I think it's a good moment to try an achieve a consensus on a matter that has been well-discussed in the past but that never appears to have reached a consensus. I'll put it plain and simple: when should we change our list of contracted races on a future season's article to the familiar calendar format? Do we do this when some preliminary draft appears in the sources, our do we wait until the FIA officially publishes the (provisional) calendar? Take into account WP:NOTNEWS, I think we should wait for the FIA calendar. Please feel free to share your opinions on the matter. Tvx1 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming reliable sources (such as Autosport) give us a calendar before the FIA, and this calendar is missing a contracted race, this is the action I'd take:
  1. Split the table into two sections of all the races indicated as being on the calendar (like how it is done with currently contracted and current but not contracted Grands Prix) and those indicated as not being on it.
  2. Once the FIA release the (provisional) calendar, insert the table in the familiar style. Add additional text for calendar changes.
  3. Once the final calendar is officially released, then update the table again (if needed). One new bullet point for the all the changes from the provisional.
GyaroMaguus 20:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
List the races as we currently do, until such time as a draft is published, at which point we convert to calendar format. It might be a draft calendar, but very little actually changes - maybe a date or swapping the order of races, but there are rarely widespread changes. The last time that happened was in 2011, and that was in circumstances beyond the FIA's control. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. We are by no means in a rush to publish things. A provisional calendar by the FIA is more than early enough. After all it's a provisional one. Last year we went with a draft which did not include the Grand Prix of America, which was included on the FIA calendar, and which did include the Mexican Grand Prix even though there wasn't anything remotely published about a contract for that race being in place. Again, we are in no rush, so some draft is just not good enough. At most we could give that a mention in the prose. Tvx1 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Then we follow official announcements by the FIA and the text of reliable sources. Simple. GyaroMaguus 23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see what the problem is, since any calendar - be it a draft or the final version - needs to be approved by the World Motorsport Council before it is published.

And I find the argument that that particular draft was invalid because there was nothing prior on certain races having a contract when you are also arguing that Wikipedia is not news. If a calendar published by FOM with the approval of the WMSC contains a race that had not previously been discussed, then surely the authority of FOM and the WMSC could be used in lieu of an announcement from organisers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the authority from FOM or WMSC would work. In fact that was what I was referring to in the first place. The WMSC is actually a body from the FIA. It's not something entirely independent. The calendars (provisional or final) are always published through the WMSC. This is the one from last year. The authority from, however, does not work because they simply don't have any. And that was the "authority" we went with last year. Tvx1 (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Bot request

In the past few months, the wiki markup bgcolor="#XXXXXX" has stopped working for mobile browsers, as it is no longer supported. It has been replaced by style=background-color:"#XXXXXX", which some of you may recognise as the markup being used in the results matrices on the 2014 season article. The issue has been raised at VPT, who have recognised it as a bug. Their explanation of why it has happened was a little too technical for me, but as I understand it, the problem may expand to affect non-mobile users as well.

Recent discussions with other users has revealed the extent of this problem. It affects every season, driver, team and car article in almost every motorsport discipline. I cannot begin to fathom where else it might be used across Wikipedia, much less the extent of it. As such, the problem is too extensive to be fixed by us and us alone. In concert with a few other users, it has been decided that the most efficient way forward is to put in a WP:BOTREQUEST to repair the problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this being done: it should fix the problem for mobile devices and there should be no detrimental effects for desktop users. As far as I can see, the only downside of doing this is that some of our watchlists will be flooded for a short white while the bot does its work, but I'm sure we can survive that. I have notified WikiProject Motorsport, WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing and WikiProject Sports Car Racing of this proposal (a) so that their members won't be surprised/confused if they suddenly see lots of articles being updated and (b) just in case anyone there knows of a reason why this would be a bad idea. I think it makes sense to do this just for Formula One-related articles at first - if all goes well, the other motorsport WikiProjects can decide if they want to do the same for the articles within their scope. DH85868993 (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with it, but if it is a known bug there should be a bot to change it for all of Wikipedia rather than one specific to F1 or Motorsport. The359 (Talk) 10:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree with you, but it's been raised several times now at WP:VPT and the response always seems to be "yeah, it's a known problem - someone really should address it at some point" and then - nothing (the discussion always seems to get bogged down in a philosophical discussion about whether or not the browser skins should handle "obsolete" HTML elements). See this RfC, the Bugzilla report here (which was active for a week but hasn't been updated in over 2 months) and the two most recent VPT discussions here and here. In the latter discussion I specifically asked if they thought there would be any site-wide solution/action on this within, say, the next couple of months and got no response. I get the distinct impression that if we want this problem fixed in the short-to-medium term, we're going to have to do something ourselves, noting that the proposed solution (changing obsolete HTML to valid HTML) should not conflict with any eventual site-wide solution. DH85868993 (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The359, if a bot is created it will be wiki-wide. I don't think it's possible to request one for specific pages. I only mention the problem in the context of our pages to demonstrate its extent. By my estimate, it affects close to ten thousand articles related to Formula 1 alone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
style=background-color:"#XXXXXX" won't work, see my comments at WP:BOTREQ#Request to fix "bgcolor" markup. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Cosworth article

While doing some reading I came across the Cosworth article. This article currently contains two tables claiming to list Cosworth entire F1 supplies. The first is in a section called "Complete Formula One World Championship results]]. But in contrary to what the section title claims in contains only the first six seasons of their F1 participation. Just beneath this table there is another one listing their customers per season. This last one seems to be the more relevant one to me since they are a mere engine supplier. However, the information in this list contradicts the information in the former table (that is, for the seasons that are present in both tables). Furthermore some information seems to be wrong. For instance, the table claims that Cosworth's 1965 customers were the Lotus and Cooper teams, while in reality they used Coventry Climax engines. DH85868993 already questioned the first table on the article's talk page, but that is three years ago now, and they never received any reaction to their concern. Needless to say, the tables need some urgent expanding/correcting to make them accurate/complete. I would have done it myself, but I thought i'd raise the issue first to make sure which table is preferred and in case of the former table, if we want to complete that one whether we should move it to a separate article. Tvx1 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be the second chart's "Teams" label should actually say "Manufacturers", since Cosworth did supply teams using Lotus and Cooper chassis in 1965. However the second chart is then missing the teams which ran Brabhams with Cosworths that same year. The359 (Talk) 19:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Well no, it shouldn't. The car manufacturers weren't Cosworth's customers. They didn't "use" the engines. The customers were the teams and privateer entrants and they are the one that should be listed. So a portion of the table's information is currently incorrect.
I'm not implying a fix for the problem, simply explaining why the two charts may appear to disagree with each other. The second chart is simply labelled incorrectly, hence some of the confusion. The359 (Talk) 10:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
True. But it is more than a simple labeling issue. Even if the column is relabeled a lot a info remains missing. And as I stated before, it were the entrant rather than the constructors who used the engines. Tvx1 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Race results on event page

An editor has suggested adding coloured backgrounds for the "Pos" cells in the race results tables in F1 race report articles - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables#Race_results_on_event_page. In the interests of keeping the discussion in one place, please add any comments there. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the original response of it adding nothing to the information. Simply because we can color cells does not mean we should. The359 (Talk) 22:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Flags, referendums etc

Not wishing to jump the gun, but I guess that in the event of a yes vote for Scottish independence tomorrow (results likely confirmed early on Friday morning in the UK), we could expect to see a rash of editors 'updating' flags associated with historical results from the UK flag to the Scottish one.

My assumption is that all stays as it is for now with the UK flag used for all historic and current UK drivers. In the event of a yes vote - but possibly not for a year or two - it would become clear how the FIA will treat Scottish and 'rest of' UK drivers in the future and we can make appropriate changes.

I do note the conversation at the top of the page about race naming - the only reason for mentioning this now is to be sure we have a common line on whether to revert changes to flags to the current status quo until such time as the future position becomes clear. --4u1e (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia has a very historical stance on flags. So, for an example applicable to all Scottish drivers, imagine if Paul di Resta, switched to a Scottish nationality. All his F1 outings should show him a British, since this was his nationality at the time. All past DTM races will display him as British, but once a change is announced or is shown to have taken place, he will be listed as Scottish. This applies to all drivers and respective changes in nationalities and flags, see the European Championships and Jody Scheckter.
As for race naming, we again rely on sources. Most contracts are with those who circuits and to hold a race under a specific name. This means renegotiations are required for a new race name. One notes a lack of Scottish races, which will ease the situation. GyaroMaguus 13:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Just wait and see what happens. If Scotland becomes independent and Paul di Resta makes an F1 comeback as a Scottish race driver, we just add Scottish to his infobox (we don't simply replace British). For other drivers like David Coulthard or Jackie Stewart nothing changes as UK is the nation they represented during their careers. We always display the nationalities and flags they represented during their careers, even if they do not longer exist. Just take a look at Jody Scheckter and Rudolf Caracciola. This isn't really an isolated case either. Although I can't come up with any examples from Formula 1, I do know that tennis players like Novak Djokovic or Jelena Jankovic are listed as representing Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro and finally Serbia with their corresponding flags, mirroring the country's different situations throughout history, according to which year the article is pertaining to and that works just fine. So Scotland can be dealt with just as well. Tvx1 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree entirely with GM and Tvx1. Di Resta is the only driver who might straddle both nationalities, if he makes a comeback, and we can easily list both if necessary. Any future Scottish drivers can be dealt with according to the nationality ascribed to them by the FIA. Regarding 4u1e's point though, we might have to be vigilant about people making rash changes (across the whole site) so don't be afraid to revert where you see cases of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Drivers with dual nationality register their preferred nationality with the national motorsport confederation of their choice. Nico Rosberg is both Finnish and German, but chooses to be recognised as German. I assume the same process would take place for Scottish drivers, and that any historical results would be credited to their original nationality. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: Can you please clarify what you mean by "their original nationality"? My guess is that you mean "their registered/preferred nationality at the time the historical result was achieved", but I thought it was worth asking you to clarify, to avoid any potential confusion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@DH85868993: - The nationality they competed under pre-referendum. For example, if Paul di Resta chose to be recognised as Scottish rather than British, then I would image that he would be recognised as a British driver until Scotland was officially declared independent, in which point he would be Scottish. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought you meant. I just didn't want someone reading this to possibly misinterpret the phrase "original nationality" and take the discussion off on a tangent it didn't need to go on. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how dual nationalities come into the equation here. Surely if Scotland becomes independent, Scottish persons will simply receive Scottish nationalities and corresponding passports. And passport nationality is what the Super Licenses and thus the FIA go by. Tvx1 (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I will also note that Scotland will not be independent immediately upon the result of the referendum – the actual independence will take place sometime in 2016. However, whether the FIA decides to allow Scottish nationality before then is a different matter entirely, and again, we follow the sources. GyaroMaguus 12:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1, it has nothing to do with passports, it has to do with which national motorsport authority issued the driver their racing license. "For the purposes of this Code the “nationality” of a competitor or driver is that of the ASN which issued him with his FIA licence (see Article 112)." and "A parent ASN is the ASN of the country of which the licence-holder is a national. In the case of a professional competitor or driver as defined by article 18 of the present Code, a parent ASN may also be the ASN of the E.U. country of which the licence-holder is a bonafide permanent resident." ($FILE/CSI%2024.10.2006%20modif%20ap%20AGO%20oct%2006%20revu%2016.05.07ANG.pdf) There is no requirement that you be a full citizen of a European country in order to obtain a license from said country.

To further the point, Scotland would need to create their own ASN in order to issue Scottish racing licenses. However there is nothing stopping a Scottish citizen from maintaining a British racing license if they hold dual citizenship and choose to represent Britain. The359 (Talk) 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the event of Scottish independence I suspect people living in Scotland and those with Scottish heritage will be invited to apply for Scottish passports and citizenship. Nobody will be forced to become a Scottish citizen, as I don't think that's legal. People will be allowed to have dual citizenship (Scottish / British) if they choose. They will still be entitled to British citizenship if they have it at the moment. Racing drivers would be able to choose which motor sport authority issues their licences (assuming Scotland has one) and so choose their racing nationality. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The359, you've misread article 47 there. The exception you cited applies only to instances defined by rule 18, which are NATIONAL events and not to international events such as a FIA World Championship. Anyways, this is what is written in article 112:
In practice, this means that the nationalities that are shown on the on-screen graphics, the flags that are waived during the podium ceremonies and the national anthems which are played during the aforementioned ceremonies match a passport nationality held by the driver in question. Tvx1 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence I posted specifically addresses the nationality and it being based off of the ASN which grants the license. The FIA only grants Super Licenses on top of the ASN license. The section you quote only refers to a driver's nationality in World Championships, not all international events. Take for instance Nico Rosberg, who is a dual citizen and theoretically has two passports. However since 2003 he has raced in national and international series that were not World Championships under a German flag, meaning his license came from the German ASN (ADAC?). It has nothing to do with his passport. He could obviously have chosen to change his nationality once he reached F1, but this Scottish change really affects all motorsport beyond just World Championships, so to say it is all down to passports is a misnomer. The359 (Talk) 22:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No, the first sentence you posted cites an exception that can be made to issue licenses for drivers who compete in NATIONAL competions (=rule 18, please read it). That doesn't apply to international competitions. While the FIA does not base the nationalities on the passports by rule, de facto they will match due to the nature of the rules. For instance, in your example Rosberg holds both a German and a Finnish passport. Tvx1 (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of whatever the rules allow and whatever drivers can a can't do, in these situations all we can do is follow sources. What is currently being discussed is of the concern of the drivers, not us. GyaroMaguus 22:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter - Scotland has voted to stay in the Union. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and with the Spanish government stating their unwillingness to recognize the Catalan vote, it seems this exercise was unnecessary. Tvx1 (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The Catalan vote will still go ahead, and it remains to be seen how that will be resolved. In retrospect, yes, this was a pointless discussion — but in the weeks leading up to the Scottish referendum, the yes vote held a slender majority, and so it was a feasible outcome. As I said at the top of this page, I would much prefer to consider the implications of a change like this and develop a response to it only to discover that it was unnecessary if the alternative is to assume nothing will happen and then have articles disrupted when change comes and we haven't agreed on a response. So while these discussions have been unnecessary, I don't think that they were a waste of time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
And the answer to both the questions is plain and simple. Regarding the Grands Prix, if a Grand takes a new name we make a new article for it. If nothing changes we don't change anything either. Regarding the drivers, if a driver effectively changes nationality we list his/her participations after the change under the new nationality while the ones before the change remain untouched. If a driver maintains nationality we don't do anything. Of course, every change has to be backed by reliable sources. Tvx1 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Cockpit Manager '14 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cockpit Manager '14 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockpit Manager '14 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DH85868993 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Category request

I must say I'm very surprised by the lack of car sub-categories. We have them by season, and even Category:Formula One cars that never raced, but we don't have them by capability or achievement.

I've requested a category for Category:Formula_One_championship-winning_cars, and there appear to be no takers for creating it. Seems an obvious partner to Category:Formula One World Drivers' Champions...

Another one would be "Turbo F1 cars", "Hybrid F1 cars", or "Cars running slick tyres", etc, but let's go one at a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You would find that simply making the Championship-winning cars category would not be so easily put together – teams used to use multiple cars in a season and even further back, private entries may mix it up further, and this is assuming we stick to just one of the two championships.
As for your other examples, Turbo and Hybrid F1 cars would work, but would be considered unnecessary by other editors. Cars running slick tyres is simply not notable enough for inclusion.
One I'd be happy to introduce is race-winning cars because that is an easy to define category. GyaroMaguus 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we have "Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive vehicles" and "Compact cars", so I'm not sure why they would be considered unnecessary. Anyway, I see the championship criteria as quite easy to define: the Infobox has a section Constructors' Championships: x. Essentially, if that number is not zero, it belongs in the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Constructors championship is awarded to a chassis constructor efforts over a single year involving many cars, not any one car. However if a team uses a different manufacturer of engine then their points are split. To take 1965 as an example, Lotus-Climax won the Constructors Championship and while Jim Clark provided effectively all of those points several cars contributed. Clark himself drove both the Lotus 25 and the Lotus 33 during the season. Clark had four team mates over the course of the year who (theoretically) contributed to the title whether they drove a Lotus 25 or Lotus 33. So did Paul Hawkins of DW Racing who drove a Lotus 33. As did South African drivers Ernie Pieterse and Neville Lederle in their Lotus 21s, Brian Gubby in his Lotus 24 and Rhodesian Clive Puzey in his five-year-old Lotus 18. However Brausch Niemann's Lotus 22 did not contrubute because it had a Ford engine instead of a Climax, nor did the Lotus 25 and 33 of Reg Parnell Racing who had BRM engines.
Put simply, constructors championships are not awarded to cars. It would be misleading to connect a championship victory to a car. --Falcadore (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't have put it better. If we go with your system, we might fall foul of overcategorisation, and we ought to be careful. Don't get me wrong, I'd like the category to be in place, but it is not feasible because F1 has a complicated (and sometimes illogical) history. Also, the F1 WikiProject is notorious for disagreements. If we don't sort this out quickly, it might take a very long time to reach a conclusion. GyaroMaguus 23:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Agreed. Constructors win championships. Cars win races and "race-winning cars" would be fine, per GyaroMaguus. The idea of one car being used throughout a season is a modern construct and categorising them as championship winners doesn't work across the different eras. I'm OK with turbo cars and hybrid cars, but not cars running slick tyres. The first two are defining characteristics of the cars themselves, while the other is not. Cars can be fitted with whatever tyres anyone chooses, or is restricted to by the rules at the time. I'd be against categorising per any transient characteristic: cars with red liveries etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
So are we saying it's subjective inclusion criteria or something? I come back to Template:Racing_car. The final few items are:

| Races = | Wins = | Cons_champ = | Drivers_champ = | Teams_champ = | Poles = | Fastest_laps =

I acknowledge it's possible to come up with some complicated historical examples of teams using different cars in the season. If we take the Ferrari_F2002 as an example. Constructors' Championships is listed as 2 (2002 & 2003) - even though it only entered 4 races in 2003. Should we correct that infobox? As it turns out, this still counts as a championship winning car (2002), so it's a moot point and would be included in the category anyway. Incidentally, the Lotus 25 is also credited with 2 championships... Ultimately, if the article says a car won a championship (adequately sourced), then it's in, if not then it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Racing car is used for more than just Formula One cars. A constructors' title may be appropriate for another series. --Falcadore (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I don't think there criteria should be filled in for Formula One cars as they didn't win the championship, but the drivers and the constructors did. Tvx1 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It's definitely a concept worth going with. How about a category something like "F1 cars that have been used to win the constructors championship"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Are road going cars normally categorised in Wikipedia according to their achievements rather than their properties? Like best selling car for example? --Falcadore (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
For achievement-based categories, there is Category:First automobile made by manufacturer, Category:Euro NCAP superminis, Category:Winners of Car of the Year Japan, Category:Green automobiles, and should we ever see one, I would expect it to be added to Category:Supersonic transports. Probably the trouble with best-selling cars is that it's transient, you could always be overtaken, whereas a championship is permanent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact, usually, an article focuses mainly on achievements, rather than simply a description. For example, Lennox Lewis talks about his world titles, and barely mentions his height, weight or bicep measurements. Really, an F1 car article doesn't need to mention the wheelbase or horsepower. It should all be about what that car did during races. In contrast the Vauxhall Astra article mentions its use by the police, its use on Top Gear, and its popularity, sales, awards and success in the BTCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Green autoobile isn't an achievement and I can't even so how its a valid category as there is no defined criteria. First automobile by manufacturer is not an achievement, it's a statistic. Euro NCAP superminis doesn't describe the star rating achieved it just describes what category Euro NCAP thinks the car fits into. --Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The role of FP1 drivers

I've opened up an RFC over at Talk:2014 Formula One season to discuss the role of FP1 drivers and whether or not they should be included as season articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not simply FP1 drivers. They can take part in either of the Friday (or Thursday) practice sessions. Tvx1 (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

New Track Maps

Is their currently any user working on the track maps for the new Mexican GP layout, because I'm not so good at creating them and I was wondering if a user had them in the works because they need creating sooner or later. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I know User:Arz has created quite a lot of these track maps. Maybe we could ask that user to help us out? Tvx1 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The Baku one probably needs to be brought in line with the style of the other maps.
About a year ago, I tried to get some support for standardising circuit maps, but there was no interest. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

European Grand Prix & Baku European Grand Prix

Apparently the new race in Azarbaijan that will be added to the calendar will be named Baku European Grand Prix. I was wondering whether we should create a new article for the new race, instead of mixing it up with European Grand Prix, just like we have an article for the United States Grand Prix and one for the United States Grand Prix West. Basically they are different Grands Prix. Tvx1 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait until we have something more concrete. They've gone through three names already, once they've settled on one we can create a new article if necessary. QueenCake (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but all of the official material at the circuit announcement clearly said "Baku European Grand Prix", so I seriously doubt thrre will be a change.
To answer @Tvx1:'s question, I don't think it needs a separate article. The USA GP and USA GP West were from a time when there were two races at once. I'd just set this up as a subsection - maybe "third modern incarnation" - of the existing Euro GP article.
Also, should the three-letter code be EUR or BAK? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Using a new subsection is indeed a viable alternative. Altough I think a new article would allow us to deal with more efficiently and more cleanly. If we go with the subsection idea, and we don't treat them as different Grands Prix, we should keep using the code EUR.Tvx1 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
If it is going to be titled the "Baku European Grand Prix" I would suggest a new article. It would be neater, as it is a new name, and being a permanent event rather than a title used for a race in a country is rather different from previous incarnations of the European Grand Prix. Though if we did keep it in one article, it wouldn't be much of a problem - save from being annoyed at a city in Asia being associated with Europe. QueenCake (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't we just wait to see how the FIA/Formula 1 treat it? If it seems to be viewed as a continuation of the European GP, then we include it in the existing page (maybe in a new section, as suggested). We aren't in a rush anyway, the race won't happen for another two years. JohnMcButts (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
What he said. DH85868993 (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Personally I think creating a new article for the Baku European Grand Prix would make more sense as it's potentially a brand new Grand Prix as the European Grand Prix has never taken on the name of the location before. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's sort that 'apparentness' into a confirmation. --Falcadore (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason to doubt it. Sure, they have changed the name in the past, but the announcement of the circuit was the formal launch of the event. All of the supporting documentation refers to it as the "Baku European Grand Prix". They could, in theory, change the name again, but to my mind, that's just as much a case of speculation as trying to predict possible future names. We recognise Bernie Ecclestone as the ultimate authority in the calendar, so if he's referring to the race as the "Baku European Grand Prix", then that's good enough for me to accept as the name of the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


An admin is advocating removal of all flags from all F1 articles here and this will be a difficult discussion. He has started removing flags from race reports [9]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Their edits should be undone without hesitation. We have a consensus to include these flags. There's nothing that allows them to unilaterally enforce a guideline. Guidelines are not policies/laws. This looks a lot like multiple-editor ownership to me. It this persists we should not hesitate to bring this to ArbCom. Tvx1 (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion isn't going too badly, and there are one or two excellent advocates there for keeping flags. Let's see how it progresses; I think removal of flags from race reports will be a difficult argument for them to win, but the infobox flags are (as usual) more of a finely balanced issue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll admit that I might have overreacted a bit in my previous reply here. I do stand by my point to revert any edits removing flags from articles, however. Their use is perfectly acceptable under the terms of WP:SPORTFLAGS. They don't even have anything to enforce. Tvx1 (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, for sure. Note that there's a poll there now, just to gauge opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

1991 Canadian Grand Prix

I'd like to draw people's attention to the most recent edit at 1991 Canadian Grand Prix, [10] made by an IP whom I am effectively unable to interact with. He found the official F1 website "highly biased", and we would appreciate some expert input. Thank you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why the IP's edit would be controversial? They actually made the text more neutral. They didn't only acknowledge Mansell's point view, they actually included both sides' views on the incident. And that's how wikipedia works. If we have conflicting sources, we give each side its due weight and maintain a neutral point of view. Tvx1 (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not what the edit did, however. Neutral point of view means giving each version its due weight. That's an important word, as it means if there are two opinions you don't give each side a simple 50:50 split, you give weight according to the prevailing weight given in external sources. In this matter, Mansell's point of view is supported by Mansell alone, while pretty much every other reputable source has the stalling story. ESPN even goes so far as to give two versions: the "official" (their word) one about letting the revs drop too low, and an alternative tale about Mansell losing concentration and accidentally operating the engine kill switch. You should go to the Motor Sport magazine archive and read Jenks' race report. The section on Mansell's fate pointedly does not repeat Mansell's story, and while it also doesn't repeat the rev drop stall story either, it does invoke possible causes such as giant laser canons fired from the crowd! A masterstoke of targeted, scathing sarcasm. The edit that I reverted used weasel phrasing to indicate that the most widely reported and most credible story was somehow not to be trusted, but in this matter it is frankly Mansell's own assertions (attributed only to a primary source so far) that are untrustworthy, owing to his vested interest in maintaining his own reputation. Pyrope 17:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean we should just ignore one side just because we don't like it. That's not good wikipedia practice. We could still write something in the likes of: while the majority of the sources agree that he let the revs drop to low which ultimately caused the engine to stall [at this point we put a couple of citations], Mansell himself claims that it was a gearbox failure. This way we still acknowledge what the majority view is while not utterly ignoring the other side. Tvx1 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: use of flag icons in sports articles

WP:Formula One members who have an opinion regarding the use of flag icons in sports articles may wish to comment in this ongoing discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formula 1. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is now a formal RfC on the Manual of Style/Icon talk page regarding the use of flag icons for athletes in international competiton: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#RFC. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Forza Rossa Racing?

The article has been updated
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.

Any recent news on Forza Rossa's F1 entry, I haven't heard or seen anything about the project for months now? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an internet forum, and nor is it a news service. Information will be added to the article if and when it becomes available. Until then, anything else is speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No, but we mention them in a number of articles and we have even given them their own article which states that they will make their debut in 2015 even though, with only a few months remaining to the start of that season, nothing has even be announced about the basic functioning of the team, let alone about who is going to drive for them. I doesn't hurt checking whether what we are stating is correct. Tvx1 (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys? I was only asking a question to help improve a Formula One article which is Forza Rossa Racing and if anybody has any new sources for it, From my viewpoint it's like you are always trying to catch me out with something which in this case is none existent. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't always agree with SQM, but it is strange that we have heard nothing from this team yet, if they wish to race next year. It's a question worth asking. Britmax (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
We have enough sources currently about the project to actually obtain an article on the teams entry but we haven't had any new sources since, it's kind of like when Midland F1 Racing announced that it was entering F1 but eventually they sorted out buying the Jordan team, maybe FRR will purchase Caterham F1 through Colin Kolles but that's just speculation so don't take my word for it. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That just goes back to my first point—information will be added if and when it becomes available. If there is no new information available, then what do you expect us to do? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That was the question in the first place. Is there new information that requires us to update anything regarding them? A question I have: should we keep our claim that they will make their debut next season already, given that there is no real confirmation of this. Tvx1 (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Is that what the sources say? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes. There is no source that confirms they will make their debut in 2015. Tvx1 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

2015 Formula One season

The referenced discussion has been closed
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.

A difficult and tenacious decision regarding Jean-Eric Vergne is ensuing. Any further input would be greatly appreciatied. You can contribute to the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Tvx1 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Splitting out of F1 team results

Can we agree a guideline on when F1 team results should/should not be split out into a separate article? Personally, I'm not convinced that Virgin Racing's results needed to be split out into a separate article. As I recall, the earliest "constructor Grand Prix results" articles were created due to Wikipedia:Article size, but I don't think that applies in this case. DH85868993 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)DH85868993

@DH85868993: - I would say ten seasons at a minimum, as it's a long-term presence on the grid. Virgin certainly don't need or deserve a separate article for results, because all of it can be contained within one article with ease. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree, 10 was the first number to pop in my mind. I equally questioned the creation of Caterham Grand Prix results. Even worse is the fact that the smaller chart that replaces it on the main page is not much of a space saver, at least vertically. The359 (Talk) 07:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the results to both articles. They should not have been removed in the first place. Speedy Question Mark, I think you are going to need a consensus for these changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with having the results on a separate article it does absolutely no damage to the article itself, theirs mostly good reasons to have the results separated from the main article for example:
  • It makes the article look a lot more professional and cleaner (makes a lot more space).
  • It's only by a click of a button to get to them which isn't that hard.
  • The separate article for the results makes it easier for the reader to solely concentrate looking at the results if they so choose.
  • If articles with little racing history like Mercedes or Honda get the "Racing record" boxes then it should be made mandatory for all the other team pages.
Their is no reason why those results articles cant be there, all I can see are users too lazy to click a button and don't like productive change on their articles. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't have a results article for every single team. 10 years of competing seems a reasonable proposal to me, but I thought there was a preset maximum article size (x number of kB) after which it should be split. Anyway, if we settle for 10 years than we should be consistent and teams like the ones Speedy Question Mark mentioned should not have a separate results article either. Tvx1 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not keen on small teams having their own results articles. It starts to be a notability problem, and any wider RfC would re-merge the articles again. I don't see that a few seasons worth of results makes a team article too big or messy, and I agree that ten seasons is a reasonable cut-off. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
There used to be a 32kB guideline, but that was years ago before Wikipedia acquired so many templates and tables. Current guidelines suggest considering a split if an article has more than 50 kB of prose, but I doubt any of our team articles breach that limit. You also have to consider page loading times when articles start to approach 200kB, which is a problem on some of our season pages thanks to the amount of code in use.
I don't think there needs to be a hard limit of 10 seasons, as some team articles are much larger than others, but for teams with only a few years participation there is no need for a separate page for racing results. QueenCake (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Come to think of it, I don't think a strict 10 season limit is really that good an option either. We actually have quite few articles that don't have reached the 10 seasons mark (e.g. Red Bull Racing, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Force India,...) but that do have the Grand Prix results split into a separate article. And due to the length of those articles the split is a good thing. So I think we should keep it at the article size, and IMHO the Virgin Grand Prix article hasn't reached a size that warrants a split. Tvx1 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
As they are already created I don't really see a purpose to go through the trouble in removing them as they are not affecting anything huge, because if we remove them in the future the main article will gain more information and we will wonder why we didn't keep the separate article for the results, we just have to keep adding to them like we do to all articles on Wikipedia, the racing record templates are just a whole sum up of the teams results albeit the teams small history. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
What new information are you expecting to be added to Virgin Racing that will somehow force us to seperate out the small race results table? The359 (Talk) 20:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"As they are already created I don't really see a purpose to go through the trouble in removing them as they are not affecting anything"
That's not an argument for keeping an article. See ILIKEIT and NOHARM and VALINFO for more. They are completely unnecessary articles—they do nothing on their own that they don't do as part of the articles you have split them out from. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Virgin Grand Prix results, Marussia Grand Prix results and Caterham Grand Prix results for deletion. I have been looking through Speedy Question Mark's contributions for any other articles that he might have done a similar thing to, but I cannot find any.

@Speedy Question Mark: if you wish to make changes of this magnitude in the future, I suggest you establish a consensus first. All you have successfully done is create three totally unnecessary articles, and a whole lot if work for other editors. I also suggest you read the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, shit. Sorry for the language, but I just realised that there is a results article for every single current constructor. There is a category, "Formula One constructor results" that has a full list. Most of them seem to have been created by ChryZ MUC. @DH85868993:, @Bretonbanquet:, @QueenCake:, @Tvx1: and @The359: I'm tagging you here to draw your attention to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the category as well, but it does not seem to be that well populated, so it's only a handful of articles that need to be deleted. I would add Force India, Lancia, and Lotus F1 to the list. Shadow and Frank Williams are iffy, they don't cover a lot of seasons but do have a lot of non-championship results as well. The359 (Talk) 23:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of them do need individual articles, like the aforementioned Ferrari, McLaren and Williams pages, but I don't think many others need it. Certainly not the likes of Force India and Toro Rosso. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Force India's and Toro Rosso's should stay. Their articles are already quite lengthy and they are increasing as every Grand Prix passes, so for those two teams the separate article is not a bad thing at all. But for the likes of Virgin, Marussia, and Caterham they are indeed not warranted. Tvx1 (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Where do you draw the line, then? At which point does a dedicated results article become justified? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Toro Rosso will be at 10 seasons once 2015 starts. No reason to delete the article then recreate it in less than six months. The359 (Talk) 01:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The number ten was a purely arbitrary number. What I was really trying to push was the idea that only long-term teams should gave a separate article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Size of the article. E.g. the Toro Rosso article would be around 67kB in size with its results table in place. That's well above the 50kB QueenCake has mentioned. So a split is justified in that case if you ask me. Tvx1 (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the 50kB is only readable prose, not total page size. The Toro Rosso page is only on about 23kB, according to this tool. It's also only a starting point if you read the guideline, plenty of articles have much more text without a problem. QueenCake (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys:, you have misnominated the disputed Caterham, Marussia, and Virgin articles. You should not have nominated them for deletion but for merging. So, for clarity I suggest you withdraw your nominations and subsequently propose the necessary mergers. You can find the necessary explanation here. Tvx1 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
So the articles have been deleted. Are there any other ones that should be remerged? Tvx1 (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Car number fields in F1 driver infoboxes

We're approaching that time of year when the F1 driver infoboxes will contain information about both the 2014 and 2015 seasons. For the past few years, between seasons, the driver infoboxes have contained fields for "<old season> team", "<old season> car #", "<new season> team" and "<new season> car #", e.g. between the 2013 and 2014 seasons, Felipe Massa's infobox contained:

2013 team: Ferrari
2013 car #: 4
2014 team: Williams-Mercedes
2014 car #: 19

But now that drivers have permanent numbers, if we continue with our established practice, the "2014 car #" and "2015 car #" fields will be the same for all but two drivers (i.e. Vettel and the 2014 World Champion). So, do we want to continue with our established practice of having both "old season" and "new season" car number fields for every driver, or do we want to change it so that the majority of drivers just have a single "Car number" field, and only those drivers for whom the number is changing have both "2014" and "2015" fields? I'm raising this now because sure as eggs, as soon as the championship is decided (which could be as soon as 7 days time), editors will want to start putting a number 1 in the 2014 Champion's infobox. DH85868993 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that one simple Driver number field would be the most sensible and only have two fields for those drivers wo change. It should be able to code is in such a way that the second field only appears if a value is entered in it. By the way, it's not mandatory for the World Champion to use ”1”. They kan keep using their career number if they want to. Tvx1 (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for retirements table

A table of "Reasons for retirements" has been added to BAR 01. Is this desirable/necessary? DH85868993 (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really IMO. Another reason to pad out these articles with redundant information then belongs in the season or race article. Britmax (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
That's me who added this table, so I'd rather explain my reasons.
BAR 01 is often recognized as one of the most unreliable cars in the history of Formula One (22 DNFs out of 31 starts and a remarkable record of 11 straight retirements since the beginning of the season), and though there are plenty of even less reliable F1 cars (Stewart SF01 being a notable example), BAR 01's technical problems appear quite surprising given BAR's enormous budget, Reynard's experience and high overall expectations. One might ask: were there DNFs really mostly because of technical failures, or that's the drivers (fading Villeneuve and inexperienced Zonta) who caused the reliability problem? And if those were mostly technical issues, were those issues caused by one specific component (e. g. aging Supertec engine), or that was just overall level of unreliability across all the components, so the team just didn't prepare well? That's the question I wanted to answer. If you take a look at the table, you'll easily see that reliability issues spread all over the car, and nearly 10 components contributed at different races to the overall disaster.
I do not plan to add the same table to other articles about F1 cars, but in one specific case of BAR 01 I decided that it might be useful. Feel free to delete it if you prefer to. Ximaera (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
That is highly original research. Without context the chart adds nothing to the article, and quite frankly your context has no reliable unbiased referencing on offer. As it stands it simply appears to be WP:TRIVIA for the sake of trivia. The359 (Talk) 11:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not keen either. Without any kind of sourced analysis of this data, it's just a wad of info. Even so, any attempt at reasoned interpretation of this data would be highly speculative, given that we will probably never know how many of those mechanical failures were driver-induced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The idea for the added material may have some merit - but not as a table. Transpose those concepts of the description of retirements into sentences and reference them. --Falcadore (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the said table. Maybe I'll later figure out another way to express the same idea. Ximaera (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Provided that it is reliably sourced and does not constitute original research, prose should be fine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

F1 season infobox

It has been proposed to add "Drivers' Champion" and "Constructors' Champion" fields to the infobox which is displayed at the top right corner of each F1 season summary article. Please add any comments you may have at Talk:2014_Formula_One_season#Infobox. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Lap charts

I'm not great with complex markup, so I thought I would raise it here: I just saw the lap chart on the 2014 Brazilian Grand Prix article, and I noticed that Lewis Hamilton has a green colouring, and Nico Hulkenberg an orange one. As Hulkenberg took over from Hamilton, the green and orange appear next to one another in the chart. This is a bit of a problem because I'm red/green colour-blind, which makes it quite difficult to distinguish between the two, and it's a very common condition. If I have trouble with it, others will. Now, we can rely on other stimuli—like the lap numbers—to figure it out, but in terms of visually processing information, it's not a great solution. I'm guessing that the lap charts use colours individually assigned to each driver, so is it worth reconsidering which colours are used for each driver? Hulkenberg's presence would be easier to process with a pale orange, as bold orange and bold green tend to merge together. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the lap chart for that race, and I'll admit I am not aware of the issues that colour-blind people (of all disorders) have. Hamilton should be yellow, and Rosberg green. All season long Rosberg has been coloured green (because of his old yellow-green helmet) and Hamilton coloured yellow (because of his yellow helmet), so it is Hülkenberg (who has the colour label of "orange") who needs to change. (And as an FYI, each stint is coloured individually, but we allocate a colour to each driver). Since the WP article on colour blindness isn't all that helpful to me, I've listed the colours below that are available and that I would consider using. Hopefully "lightorange" should be good enough.

GyaroMaguus 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, "lightorange" should be fine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. GyaroMaguus 11:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Jean-Denis Délétraz

A couple of edits here [11] have removed quotes and basically any hint that Délétraz wasn't all that good. I think we now have a rather sterile article, although some of the wording needed to be changed. Maybe someone with a balanced view could have a look, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I gave it a look, and reinserted the quote from Palmer, which gives a fairly stark assessment on Délétraz's abilities. The problem is though that while much of the previous text may well be completely true, if rather poorly written, due to WP:BLP we can't include the more critical statements without references.
Most shockingly though, I've just discovered that the Pacific Team Lotus website is still active... QueenCake (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That website was last modified 1 October 1995, that's quite an online time capsule you've found. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Formula One scandals

An editor recently added "Tyre-gate 2013" into Category:Formula One scandals (they added it directly as text into the category page, which is incorrect, so I reverted it, but it raised some questions in my mind): Was "Tyre-gate 2013" really a scandal? Certainly it was a controversy, but personally I wouldn't describe it as a scandal. Which made me wonder: should Category:Formula One scandals be renamed to Category:Formula One controversies, noting that 3 of the 7 articles in the category are named "XXX controversy" and one of the parent categories is Category:Auto racing controversies? If the category was renamed, would Tyregate then be a suitable inclusion? (Note that I'm not suggesting creating an article for Tyregate; I'm imagining we could just create a redirect to 2013 Formula One season#Tyre issues and put that in the category). DH85868993 (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Short answer: Yes, it should be renamed, and no, I wouldn't call tyre-gate a scandal. Long answer: "scandal" is not NPOV compliant in my opinion, and it is also hard to define exactly what constitutes a scandal; however, controversy is much broader, much more neutral, and much more accurate. A CfD for the rename should be opened. Personally, I don't remember hearing about "Tyregate"; it was just an issue with Pirelli's tyres, and didn't have a -gate suffix appended to it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I've started a CfD for the rename. People are welcome to contribute any views they may have at the CfD discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, a scandal would be something like the tyre manufacturer deliberately supplying inadequate tyres, which are designed to fail, to one or more teams in order to knowingly disadvantage them, which was not the case at all. Controversy is the more accurate description. And I don't know why every controversy has to be described with a word with a -gate suffix either. Tvx1 (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I was unaware there was such a category. If we must have it, it should certainly be renamed controversies. Oh and Tvx1, Watergate. QueenCake (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I am aware where the -gate originated from. I just don't understand why every single controversy has to be named somethinggate. I mean the orginal doesn't come from a scandal involving water were the the suffix -gate was added to form a nickname. I was just the name of the building. Tvx1 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting phenomenon. List of scandals with "-gate" suffix suggests that New York Times columnist and former Nixon administration speechwriter William Safire promoted the practice as a means of diminishing the relative importance of his former boss' crimes. This Washington Post article suggests that giving a scandal a "cute" name helps to make it accessible to the public. And on a practical level, "-gate" names make for shorter news headlines, which for print media means you can use a larger font, for greater visual impact. DH85868993 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, were drifting of now. I remember now that Tyregate referred specifically to the "secret" tyre test conducted by Mercedes and Pirelli, not so much to the Pirelli tyre issues in general. Tvx1 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Listing drivers excluded from qualifying

I was wondering how we should list drivers who took part in a qualifying session, but were afterwards excluded from it. There currently doesn't seem to be a consistent approach to this. 2012 Spanish Grand Prix has Hamilton still on top op the table, whereas 2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix have the excluded drivers on the bottom. 2006 Monaco Grand Prix has Schumacher on the bottom as well but without times listed (although If I remember correctly Schumacher wasn't excluded, but merely demoted to last place). Tvx1 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

By my understanding, exclusion means all of their times from that session are disallowed, meaning they did not officially set a time in qualifying. It is as though they never participated at all. They should definitely be listed at the bottom for that reason. As for listing their times, I think that should also not be included: Just because we know their "unofficial" times doesn't mean we should list them. The359 (Talk) 22:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The official results retain the times though. Tvx1 (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's the FIA document as I would rather stick with that over the version, especially since the F1 site says DSQ instead of EX. However they also are listed in their normal position, as seen in the 2012 Spanish Grand Prix you linked. Looking back at the FIA report for 2012 Abu Dhabi, the starting grid has no lap time for Vettel. Same for Spain 2012. The359 (Talk) 00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I found another example of an excluded driver [12]. In that case the driver isn't even listed as excluded in our table. Tvx1 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Team Lotus (current)

There is currently a discussion about what should be done with the Team Lotus (current) redirect, which presently targets Team Lotus (2010–11). Previous discussions about this redirect has not ended in a consensus so more input would be particularly beneficial here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Team Lotus (current). DH85868993 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)