Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

1995 European Grand Prix

Just letting you guys know I've began working again on my 1995 "project", and am currently expanding the 1995 European Grand Prix article in the mainspace. A few people have said that it would be better to do it in my sandbox so I didn't get edit-conflicted or into any disputes. My reason for doing it in the mainspace is so that others can help expand it and add info if they wish. However, I've had to undo two edits (plus one a few days ago). I'm certain these are made in good faith... but as the article isn't "finished" yet, I don't see the need to add links as the article is still under development and I will be adding more content in the next few days, and as for the removal of a sentence... that was partially my fault for not finishing the sentence. Just thought I'd let you guys know. D.M.N. (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd been generally reorganising the Early 90s pages which were presenting as walls of text in occasionaly slightly ropey English. Sorry if I trod on your toes with the 1995 season summary, I hadn't realised there was anyone actively working on it. Brickie (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Season summaries

The season summaries for 1990-93 present as rather forbidding walls of text. The content is excellent, conveying the narrative of the season very well, but I wonder if it's possible to include some sub-headings to break things up a bit.

I'd be happy to do something myself, but I wanted to suggest it here as well in case there are any thoughts. Brickie (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For your information, the new conversations should go at the bottom of the page. Regarding the summaries, be bold! If you think a change will improve things, then make the change unless it is likely to be controversial. Readro (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Sure you can do it. Chubbennaitor 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for a rule of thumb, I guess it should probably be between two and five paras to a heading, but of course it all depends on the content. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done something for the 1992 season - see what you think. I'm generally bold, if being bold is required, but for all I knew there have been holy wars over this in the WikiProject so I thought it best to ask first! I also did a little light copyediting while I was at it. Brickie (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We have holy wars on most things, but never on a Wednesday. ;-) What you've done is a perfectly logical approach, but I always feel there should be a more elegant way of doing this. I don't have a better example to show you, however. I've only got a few races into 1982 Formula One season (up to Imola), and haven't introduced any sub-headings yet. I don't think we have any GA or FA standard season summaries yet, so we're still setting the standard. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the other thing is to drop the race-by-race summary, give a brief account of the season at the top and people can find out who won which race and who retired by the stats below. Seems a shame to lose the good content though. Brickie (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer what you (User:Brickie) have done to the 1992 article, it is easier to read than the other ones. DeMoN2009 12:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think you should keep the idea of having text describing the season. The work you're doing is a definite improvement. The bit I'm trying to get my own head round how you structure a season summary without just repeating what happens in the races. Most seasons there's a lot of other stuff happens outside the races (the Mosley scandal last year, Stepneygate the year before, the FISA-FOCA war in the early 1980s etc etc) and it's this that I think the season summaries can capture and the races reports can't or shouldn't. 4u1e (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are not insulted by this, but I'm tempted to mass revert the edits you've made to the season articles. You've made this edit to the 1995 Formula One season article, which I've just undone, why do we need that much detail in the season article. I understand for race reports, but we don't need that much detail about one race in the season article (I understand for IndyCar articles where race reports do not exist; but not for F1). The current version looks much better than this.... it is just extremely too much detail for a season article (besides, my attempt is to get that article to FA one day after the 1995 race reports to provide a baseline for the season articles). I'm not going to revert on the other articles, because that'd just begin a tedious revert war, but I just find the detail for those articles extremely much... some races can be described in one or two lines where not too much occured. I really think we should revert the others, as it is introducing a lot of unsourced content into the articles. D.M.N. (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone got an opinion on the summaries? I don't really want to revert the bunch. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not insulted at all - I just want to make them better (though a slightly less caustic edit summary when reverting 1995 might have been nice). As I said in the discussion above, the pages as I found them were just walls of text providing a narrative history of the season. I accept that it might be a bit much info for some people, but I don't think just reverting them will help, since it'll be the same page but without any headings to break it up. I had a go at improving it, the feedback here seemed to be good, so I did a few more. Your suggestion of leaving a very brief outline on the season page, linking to more detail in the individual race pages is a good one, and I'm happy to do the work on that basis. What's probably a good idea is for us to get one season "right" as a template and then base the others on it. Since you've said that that's your plan for 1995, I'll wait for you to do that and then adapt the other articles to match it. How does that sound? Brickie (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine and I see where your coming from (I didn't want to discourage you from doing this!). My only problem with your edits was that I felt the descriptions were more like telling a "story"... a season article should cover the main aspects of a particular season. For instance, when I do the main article for the 1995 season, I'd probably have a paragraph on the Schumacher/Hill rivalry highlighting key events from the year (Britain, Italy, Belgium, Europe [championship squabble would be included]) and then two or three more paragraphs underneath covering other bits (Alesi/Canada, McLaren, off-track events and a paragraph with lower teams to round off the section; of course events would differ from season to season). I don't mind Brickie if you wanted to try out a layout like this in your sandbox, click here, and we could see how it ends up! ;) D.M.N. (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that a "story" is fine, what you want to avoid is a "narrative" - what is "the story" of the 1995 season? IMO, it's Schumacher and Hill's fight for the title and the beginnings of Ferrari's renaissance. But I agree it's better to avoid is a "narrative" style of just saying "and then this happened and then that happened". Tell you what I'll do - I've got "Murray Walker's Grand Prix Year" books for 1991-93 and 1987. I'll grab my 1991 book and try and do something a bit better for that season, with full race reports and so on. Brickie (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that season articles don't need to regurgitate race results. However, I think that often you'll be able to have a fairly substantial season article that doesn't go over the races in any detail but just gives the wider story of the year, all the things that happened outside the races. I'm tinkering away at 1982 Formula One season, and am finding that there is almost too much stuff outside the races to fit in! That was an exceptional year and other seasons may have very little to say. 4u1e (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this: User:Brickie/Sandbox/F1 1991? I've experimented with prose rather than a list for the summary of driver/team changes, and have removed all the race summaries and replaced them with a paragraph outlining the championship battle and some of the other notable incidents both on and off the track - Prost's falling out with Ferrari, Schumacher's arrival on the scene, Mosley taking over at FISA. Brickie (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks OK. I'm going to try and do something in my sandbox with the 1995 article... will try and get it "done" within a week and see what you guys think. ;-) D.M.N. (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One observation with these season pages is that they are quite table heavy (five by my count). I reckon it would be a good idea to merge the race schedule and race results tables to reduce the number of tables, seing as the layout & content of these two tables are similar. What do others think? AlexJ (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of doing that before you mentioned it! I've tested it here in my sandbox... problem now is that the table looks very squashed... D.M.N. (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that table looks too bad, actually. How many seasons would have to be changed, though? It's a lot of work if it's only for a relatively minimal gain... Brickie (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it too. Changing the font-size to 85% (like the driver and constructor standings tables) helps with the "squashedness". The season summary articles from 1989 onwards would need to be updated, so that's 21. But I think it's worthwhile. DH85868993 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above two comments, I've made further changes, see here. The font size is 85% and I've removed the "sortable" function for that table as the symbols in itself were taking up a bit room... removing the symbols removes the "squashness" to an extent. I like it. ;-) D.M.N. (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just realised that the "race schedule" tables from 2005 onwards have extra columns such as "Time" and "City/Location". So we'll need to decide whether to include this extra information in the combined table (which possibly will make it too wide) or whether we're happy to lose that info. Or whether we would rather just stay with two separate tables. DH85868993 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got a widescreen display, so probably not the best judge of how the table renders (that one in D.M.N.'s sandbox still has acres of blank space to the right on my screen). My personal feeling is that the race start time is overkill for a general season overview, so we could lose that. Not sure about location - the circuit and country may be enough for this type of article - more detailed location info is only a click away after all. AlexJ (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - in fact, you can arguably remove "Pole" and "Fastest Lap" from the table as well as neither of those are things that affect points. You'd have: Date, Name ("German GP"), Track, Winning Driver, Winning Constructor, Report Link. That might make the table more manageable. Brickie (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Like this: User:Brickie/Sandbox/F1_table... Brickie (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like having Pole and Fastest Lap in the summary table. I find it's very easy to spot the winners in the Drivers table, but pole position and fastest lap are harder to spot quickly, so having them listed in the summary table makes it easier to see this information. DH85868993 (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair point, and I'm certainly not adamant about removing them. Perhaps including Poles at least would be good as it may well be that a driver/team always performed well in qualifying but couldn't parlay it in to wins, but I suspect most people wanting to know about fastest laps will be after more detail on the races generally and will go to the reports. Brickie (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with DH to be honest. D.M.N. (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've done some tests with the tables, one seen here where I put the tables alongside each other (see below first table)... only problem is that it came out my question. I think that we should remove the podium state, if I'm too be honest, I don't think it is as useful as knowing who is on pole and who had fastest lap in terms of the table. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. When you talk about the podium state, do you mean the colour fill in the table of results for "Gold", "Silver" and "Bronze"? If so, I think that's standard across pretty much all sporting tables on WP, so I'd leave it. Brickie (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not that table. User:D.M.N./Sandbox#Drivers - scroll down to the tables underneath (i.e. the last two tables that appear on the page... they look "similar"!). D.M.N. (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The side by side tables don't really work too well for screen resolutions which are less than 1280 pixels wide. As for the podiums column, I think it's interesting/useful information, although I'm not passionate about it. DH85868993 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point about the screen resolutions thing which I never really previously thought about. I think I'll leave it as it is in which case. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 2008 from F1 team article infoboxes

Someone has proposed that the 2008 information be removed from the F1 team infoboxes. What do we think? DH85868993 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is right for the information to be removed now, as the 2009 setups are just about complete for most teams. Schumi555 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Not until Melbourne. Isn't why we put two season's worth of info there, so we could have a smoother transition? The 2008 information still has a place there, and it should be kept there, until Melbourne. Apterygial 23:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

They should stay until the start of the first Friday practice at Melbourne. This sort of thing should be written down somewhere in the WikiProject, to ensue we follow the same procedure every year... Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Something I didn't realise earlier was that the editor has already removed the 2008 fields from the template and all the 2009 team articles. So I don't know whether that changes things, i.e. can we be bothered putting in the information back in? DH85868993 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, this 'be bold' policy really is a pain in the ass sometimes, isn't it? ;D

I think we should put it back in. We should also leave a message on his talk page saying that he shouldn't make huge changes like that without at least consulting a relevant WikiProject (is that WP policy? It should be). Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If we agree that the stuff should be there, I'll spend 5 minutes with the undo button putting it back in. Apterygial 23:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not until Melbourne or the last test. Chubbennaitor 09:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all back in. Really, it's quite irritating when people suggest something, wait three minutes (really), and make sweeping changes across multiple pages. "Be bold" is there for constructively adding in useful information or removing clearly redundant information, not as a means to circumvent discussion and consensus. Apterygial 08:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It just happened again. I reverted the team boxes, but have run out of time for anything else. Any chance of someone else doing the drivers, please? Next time we really need to add a comment within the text guiding editors who decide they might be bold. Pyrope 13:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Did the drivers. One more time, and we'll have to compose a musical to teach people the value of consensus. (Consensus/prevents us/from doing pointless edits/that take too much time/to get back into line) (Or something, see how crap it is without helpful discussion). Apterygial 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates created

I've created the templates:

• Template:F1GP 50-59
• Template:F1GP 60-69
• Template:F1GP 70-79
• Template:F1GP 80-89
• Template:F1GP 90-99
• Template:F1GP 00-09

Of course, they will need to be added to the respective race articles, but I don't have AWB or another tool to do it quickly, so I'd appreciate if someone else could do it. Also, I'm trying to see if I could link the templates together, i.e. a "Next" link from 50-59 to 60-69 and so on. D.M.N. (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Chubbennaitor 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the new templates be added above or below Template:F1 race report in each race report? Schumi555 20:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Below. That's how I've done it in the 1995 race reports that I've been working on. D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll start adding them to the 50s RRs today. Thanks D.M.N. Apterygial 22:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DH and I added the relevant templates to all the listed RRs (about 850 articles). That's just about the most tedious thing I've ever done, so please don't tell me I put them in the wrong places ;). Apterygial 11:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!--Diniz(talk) 17:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Impressive, if I do say so myself. Cs-wolves(talk) 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

F1 car article infobox images

Chubbenaitor has recently done some great work adding images to the infoboxes of dozens of F1 car articles. I have a question though: In cases where the infobox image was formerly located in the body of the article, with a caption, would we like to see the caption retained in the infobox, so there's no loss of information? Or would we rather not have image captions in the infoboxes? DH85868993 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer not having captions in the infobox, if possible. Do have an any examples of where this has happened? Apterygial 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Lotus 16 for a start, and quite a few others. It does seem a shame to lose the caption information, but I can see that it makes the infobox look untidy if the caption is too long (say, two lines). Pyrope 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll go through them and add descriptions. I'll start hopefully tonight. Chubbennaitor 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope and Apterygial that it'd look untidy with descriptions/captions. In fact, I see you've already started doing it, this looks horrible. D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll revert them all. Chubbennaitor 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no captions in the infobox. Perhaps dump the removed captions on the talk page for now, so they can be easily found and worked back into the article at a later date. AlexJ (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chubbennaitor 16:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What about same image twice in page like in Brabham BT19, I think we should use only once --Typ932 ^T·C 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

One has a description further down the page. That image is just to show what it looks like. If it's used in the page with a description then there isn't a problem. Chubbennaitor 17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Typ932 - once per article is plenty. AlexJ (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted back Chubbennaitor's infobox edit to the previous version. D.M.N. (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've discovered how to add captions, hopefully. Chubbennaitor 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It involves changing the template to something similar to the drivers info. box. Chubbennaitor 19:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean captions to racing car infobox? just look for example Alfa_Romeo_179 how to add captions --Typ932 ^T·C 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no need to change the template just for a simple caption. That Alfa one is about as long as I'd want to see though. Pyrope 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Alonsomania

While looking on the cleanup page and figuring out what to do next, this came to my attention. I don't think this is encyclopedia content, possibly a small mention in Alonso's article would do. AFD? D.M.N. (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's big enough for it's own page. Chubbennaitor 16:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Size doesn't make something notable. D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree. I don't think this is notable and think it is actually original research, non-NPOV and completely unsourced. I'd go so far to say that this is almost-speedyable. Possibly a prod is the way to go. Readro (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Prod it. No references, and a quick internet scout turned up none either, hence not notable enough for an article. AlexJ (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Prodded. Readro (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is notable as it was a big thing circa 2005. As there is dissent, then the PROD may need to change to an AFD. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Added sources and other material. Challenging the PROD. This was more than a media buzzword circa 2005. Could support merging with driver article intact, but may be too long to do so. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Taken to AFD (view AFD). D.M.N. (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merged it. Could see killing the last paragraph, though. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So I did. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Alonso&diff=275353631&oldid=275353264 ). Anyway, as this does hold importance to the cultural impact of Alonso, should it be moved up to personal life? (I say no it shouldn't). -- Guroadrunner (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep it's page. Chubbennaitor 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discussion at AFD

There is currently a interesting discussion at the AFD regarding the FIA Formula Two Championship... which may in turn lead to a lot of changes to the Formula One page and whether it needs to be split into several different pages: 1) On the "Formula One" concept; 2) On the different forms of the F1 championships - i.e. present version; 1947 to 1950 version. Readro (talk · contribs) at the AFD makes some very good points that should be worth considering should we feel the page needs to be split for the different "inceptions". D.M.N. (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and summarise my argument here. It was suggested at the AfD that we have a page for Formula Two the category and separate pages for the European Championship and the new incarnation to start this year. I thought this made sense, then wondered why this shouldn't also apply to Formula One. Formula One is inherently more than the the World Championship, as I shall summarise.

• 1946 - Formula One defined
• 1948 - F1 races start
• 1950 - Formation of the World Drivers' Championship (the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs)
• 1957 - The International Cup for Formula 1 Manufacturers is established (the Coupe Internationale des Constructeurs Formule 1)
• 1960 - Formation of the South African Formula One Championship
• 1975 - South African championship folds
• 1978 - The Shellsport G8 International Series becomes the British Formula One series.
• 1980 - During the FISA-FOCA war, the existing world championships were abolished and replaced by the Formula One World Championship. Here is an excerpt from the 1981 FIA yellow book.

GENERAL REGULATIONS

1 -- In application of the decisions taken during the FIA Rio Congress of 15th April 1980, the FISA is organising the new FIA Formula 1 World Championship from 1st January 1981. As a result, the old World Championship for Drivers is suppressed.

2 -- The new Formula 1 World Championship, which is the property of the FIA, will have 2 World Championship titles, one for Drivers and one for Constructors.

• 1982 - British series folds

Not forgetting the huge amount of non-championship races that took place. Also, pre-1981, the rules stated that Formula Two cars were allowed to be used if there were not enough Formula One cars to make a decent grid.

I think we need an article for Formula One the category and a Formula One World Championship article to cover the 1950-present day championship. I'm also in favour of renaming the pages pre-1981 as 19xx Grand Prix season, whilst referring to the champions from that period as World Drivers' Champion and Winner of the International Cup for Formula One Manufacturers, which are the correct titles. This also helps cure the anomaly of having the 1952 Formula One season and 1953 Formula One season articles, which are actually about championships run to Formula Two. Readro (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel awful for starting the AFD because this is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. There is simply no need whatsoever for two articles, here or at Formula Two. There is no confusion and no loss of information. It is simply pointless. Eightball (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything more constructive than "one of the worst ideas I've ever heard" ? The fact of the matter is that we have on one hand, Formula One, and on the other, the World Championship. They are not the same thing thus they should have separate articles. Readro (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are acting like F1 is a sport and the World Championship is a league that plays that sport. That's not a correct interpretation. Formula One is a type of motor racing and the World Championship is the current NAME the FIA has decided to use for it. EVERYONE considers Formula One to have a consistent history going back to 1950, regardless of names and governing bodies. Basically, this is an idea only you have thought of. It is not mirrored by anyone else; that includes the FIA, FOM, and the popular media, not to mention every other source of racing history ever. Therefore it is entirely baseless and stupid and only serves to increase confusion and ruin an article that has absolutely nothing wrong with it. Eightball (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Formula One is a type of motor racing defined by the FIA in 1946. The world championship wasn't created specifically as a Formula One championship - indeed it utilised Formula Two rules between 1952 and 1953. If Formula One is not a type of motor racing then what are those non-championship races? They are Formula One races but not part of the world championship. What was the South African Formula One Championship? What was the British Formula One Series? They were Formula One racing. Formula One is a type of motor racing that all of these races and championships utilise. As to going against "everyone", I cite the rulebooks, copies of which I have on my shelf in the room I am sitting in. I have several books which also attest to these facts. Your version of history is incorrect and just because you don't have the courage to consider being wrong does not give you any right to try and denounce contradictory accounts. Also, resorting to calling my argument "stupid" is a waste of time, inflammatory and non-constructive. Readro (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Formula One and the World Championship as being one and the same. As recently as 1996 there were races involving then-current Formula One cars that were not a part of the World Championship. For only a twelve year period out of over sixty have the terms been interchangeable. AlexJ (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A series run with cars built to F1 specifications is not Formula One. There are separate articles for the British and South African F1 series because they are SEPARATE SERIES run to F1 specs. They were not ever Formula One races. Your opinion that using F1 cars makes a series somehow F1 itself is just that - your opinion. More importantly, it's an opinion not held by any respectable source. It's something you've made up on the spot because you think you are helping when in fact it's just one more example of Wikipedia out stepping it's bounds. If the IndyCar series were to use F1 cars, would you call it F1? No, you wouldn't. Well, maybe YOU would, but no one of any importance would. Eightball (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They are Formula One races. Any race run to Formula One rules is a Formula One race. My position is justified by the rule books. Again, please stop insulting me and justify your argument with facts. Readro (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Show me which rulebook you are talking about, because I believe you are 100% wrong. An F1 race is a race that is counted towards the F1 world championship, period. Your opinion, again, is irrelevant. Eightball (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The world championship rulebook, which is published every year. It used to be known as the "yellow book" because of its bright yellow cover. Once again, it's not my opinion, it is fact. Readro (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Readro, this idea for two F1 articles is technically correct and I applaud your reasoning for that, but it may cause confusion for the layman who is using Wikipedia. I imagine that the vast majority of people who enter the term "Formula One" into the search box would actually be looking for the article on the modern championship, not the general category. Thus I would amend your proposal to having "Formula One" redirect to "Formula One World Championship" with a hatnote to "Formula One (category)" at the top of the latter page.

Regarding the pre-1981 terminology, I would be in favour of this in the name of accuracy, but wouldn't renaming the pages "19XX Grand Prix season" necessitate the inclusion of non-championship races as well, in addition to creating ambiguity with, say, motorcycle Grands Prix? --Diniz(talk) 11:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of two separate articles, one for the Formula and one on the Championship - I think if worded properly and Wikilinked well (both from other articles and internally) there would be little confusion for the layman. AlexJ (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with having Formula One redirect to the world championship with a hatnote to the category. As to necessitating the inclusion of non-championship races, well a lot of them already feature the non-championship races. As to creating ambiguity with motorcycle Grands Prix, all the pre-1950 pages already use "19XX Grand Prix season" and I'd say that we don't have anything else to call it. Motorcycle Grands Prix already use 19XX Grand Prix motorcycle racing season and I'd argue that the term Grand Prix is more synonymous with car racing than with the bikes. At the moment we have a situation which provides us with "1952 Formula One season", which is incorrect on two levels. Readro (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to change anything? It's worked for quiet a while before. Chubbennaitor 17:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Because there are glaring errors. The length of time that incorrect information has been on Wikipedia does not excuse it from being corrected. My first post explains exactly what is wrong. Readro (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one's complained though. It all worked and made sense. Chubbennaitor 20:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It may work well and make sense, but an encyclopaedia is meant to be correct. Schumi555 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Readro. The idea that F1 and the World Championship are interchangeable terms across the history of the sport is woefully inaccurate. Anyone who upholds that proposition should probably go and watch golf or something. Eightball, firstly saying that someone's opinion is irrelevant says a lot more about you than it does about anyone's opinion. Secondly, your idea that races that involve F1 cars, run to F1 rules, but do not count towards the F1 World Championship are somehow not F1 races is so wrong, I am a bit lost for words. Don't ask me to "prove" it because it isn't worth the time, and a cursory glance at any non-Championship results website or book will tell you instantly.

Formula One has not always been simply a single Championship. It's a formula, a set of rules and specifications to which motor races are run. Races run to the current Formula One rul

""></A></NOSCRIPT></META></SCRIPT>

</HEAD><BODY><META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=http://scf.ifl.net/cgi-local/snpfiltered.pl?t=c&u=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wiof Formula One. In 1950, the World Drivers' Championship was formed. In 1981, the World Drivers' Championship was disbanded and replaced by the new FIA Formula One World Championship. I stated this and sourced it in my opening post. Also, if Formula One is synonymous with the World Championship, please explain what the Indy 500 was doing there in the 1950s. If Formula One is synonymous with the World Championship, please explain why it was run to Formula Two rules between 1952 and 1953. Readro (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The AIACR championship predated the F1 regulations, as you say yourself; it has nothing to do with F1. As far as I can tell, 1981 was simply a restructuring under the new Concorde Agreement; it is not a different championship. The Indy 500 was considered an incredibly prestigious event in the 50s, and it just made sense to F1 organizers to include it in the championship, regardless of the fact that it was not a grand prix race. F1 was run to F2 regs in 1952/53 because there was like one manufacturer that actually had a car built to F1 regulations. None of this changes anything. Eightball (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, now what conclusions can we draw from this? If events that weren't using Formula One rules were part of the World Championship then logically Formula One can't be synonymous with the World Championship. If the World Championship itself wasn't run to Formula One rules for a period then equally, Formula One can't be synonymous with the World Championship. Readro (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here we are again with your insistence that your views are the facts and it's us that are differing from them. You carry on thinking what you think, and the rest of us will carry on with any changes people decide to make. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how much more simple this can be. Formula One is a ruleset, the Formula One WOrld Championship is a series. They're not inherently one in the same, even though people do associate one with the other. People refer to the current IndyCar series as the "IndyCar Racing League" or IRL, but it's actually the "IndyCar Series", which is run by the IRL sanctioning body. Common associations don't trump facts.

• Group 5 (formula) is not inherently the World Sportscar Championship (series)
• Group C (formula) is not inherently the World Sportscar Championship (series)
• Group B (formula) is not inherently the World Rally Championship (series)
• Group A (formula) is not inherently the World Rally Championship (series)
• Group N (formula) is not inherently the World Touring Car Championship (series)
• Super 2000 (formula) is not inherently the World Touring Car Championship (series)
• F3000 (formula) is not inherently the International F3000 Championship (series)
• Formula Two (formula) is not inherently the F2 European Championship or the FIA F2 Championship (series)
• GT3 (formula) is not inherently the FIA GT3 European Championship (series)

So, ta-da, F1 is not inherently the Formula One World Championship. Obviously the world championships of all these formulas are the most popular, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a difference between the formula and the series. The359 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

i don't think there is a need about a separate article about formula one the formula. it will only create confusion. if other series used formula 1 cars simply mention it in the article about that series. Loosmark (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought at attempting to gain the beginnings of consensus and/or feasability, utilising the 1930s European F1 series, the British F1 series, the South African F1 series, the historic F1 series, and that of the 1952/53 Formula 2 World Drivers Championships as real world justifications, who believes there is a case to split into Formula 1 and World Drivers' Championships, if suitable text can be written:

Agree --Falcadore (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

USF1 (Formula One)

Their website now takes us to www.usgpe.com/ [I believe Bernie doesn't like the officials "F1" in a team name like that]. I would move it myself, but I'm not sure if commonname applies for such a new organisation? D.M.N. (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A web address does not have to match the team name. Scuderia Ferrari's website is at FerrariWorld.com, for instance. Until there's a statement from the team that their name has changed, it should remain. The359 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This may be of use... Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Testing times

Just came across this at autosport.com; it is a complete list of all testing times pre-season and during the season back to 1999, with most results also in 1998 and 1997. This could be handy for season review articles, in pre-season testing sections. Just thought I'd post it here. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few of them need subscription. Nice find though. D.M.N. (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ITV post the times on their articles for the days. I we want times. They don't need subscription. Chubbennaitor 19:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Racing

I created the Shannon Racing article yesterday, and it has been (improperly in my opinion) tagged for speedy deletion. I have contested it, but it has just gone past midnight here so I will have to go to sleep soon. If someone could keep an eye on the article, or contribute their opinion on its deletion on the talk page, then it would be much appreciated.--Diniz(talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the worst speedies I've ever seen. I'll keep an eye on it, but if anyone else wants to help out that'd be great. Apterygial 01:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it looks safe now.--Diniz(talk) 14:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea...

I know this idea may not meet most people's delights, but I thought I'd post it here anyway. Why don't we add driver's helmet designs to their userboxes? I know it probably won't work... but that is the idea. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 15:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time it was suggested I think there were questions raised about copyright. Anyone know if this ever was/is still an issue? Pyrope 15:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have enough helmet designs anyway. Chubbennaitor 15:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion is located here.--Diniz(talk) 15:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else has access to Forix, but on that website's driver profiles, the helmet images are copyrighted by the creator of the image (one Carlos Yamazato) and not whoever was responsible for the helmet design itself. And what about drivers who pay tribute to other drivers' helmet designs? Is Anthony Davidson breaking Eddie Cheever's copyright? Is Pedro Diniz breaking Carlos Pace's copyright? Did Michele Alboreto break Ronnie Peterson's copyright? etc.--Diniz(talk) 15:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not too sure. I don't mind a little description of someone's helmet if it's extremely notable or is a tribute to someone, but I don't think we need a picture on every article which would break copyright. D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that there are some drivers who have, at the very least, threatened litigation where third parties have used their helmet designs for commercial use. It's similar rules to those that exist for 2D representations of 3D art. Some may be relaxed about it, but it is still a work of art and so is copyrightable. Pyrope 15:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not commercial use, though, so would they still be bothered with that? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All photos/pictures/images on Wikipedia must be licenced for commercial use. AlexJ (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New WPF1 icon?

Current

New?

Better edit

I brought this issue up quite a while ago: in my opinion, the current WPF1 icon should display the reigning champion. If this was to be consistently applied every year, then it would bring the project up to date and avoid any accusations of favouritism. Last year it didn't work out because there wasn't a suitable head-on shot of Räikkönen to replace the admittedly high-quality image of Alonso in 2006, from which the current icon is drawn. However, on this occasion, Apterygial has coincidentally uploaded a similar icon of Lewis Hamilton at the 2008 Canadian Grand Prix. What are people's thoughts on changing the icon?--Diniz(talk) 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Diniz's logic, that the reigning WC should be a fitting symbol of our project. I'd probably support the change (BTW, incredible as it may seem, I didn't upload the image specifically for this purpose). Apterygial 01:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the aforementioned logic. Cs-wolves(talk) 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly from the last time this was brought up, the suggestion was that we use an old picture so as to avoid favoritism. Even though we would be selecting the World Champion, we'd still be displaying a picture from a current team in a relatively current paint scheme. Not everyone will automatically assume we're picking because of the World Champion.

The suggested picture here is also too dark in my opinion. The359 (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that I've redone my original crappy late at night effort, making it lighter than before as well (perhaps too light). I think that while McLarens look great in the flesh and on TV, I've never found them particularly photogenic. Apterygial 04:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I think the original McLaren pic is better than the one below. D.M.N. (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Renault picture is much nicer, i oppose the change. Loosmark (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a Lotus 49 please? :) Readro (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a shot with File:Lotus-49c-1.jpg, unless of course you want a real Lotus 49, then you'll have to get behind me in the waiting list. ;) Apterygial 13:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I dare say that shot of the 49 looks much better than the other options presented. Readro (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it have to be a car, how about a nice closeup of mr. F1? Or maybe the last defunct constructor with WCC? --Sporti (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A picture of Bernie? That seems a little cruel to our readers! Though I am not generally in favour of changing the image to the current world champion because it involves the logo changing every year which defeats the point of the logo, to be easily identifiable with the project. Personally I wouldn't mind having a nice mid 90s Williams, or Senna if we have a decent image of him driving. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the old version unless a better image comes up. Why not a 2009 car? Chubbennaitor 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how this one would look for a 2009 image. D.M.N. (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Newsletter previous images. I'm sure I've seen a better version. 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See the last few issues and the 'work in progress' issue. Chubbennaitor 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a hassle to change the picture every season, especially if said picture doesn't look as nice as the one we have currently. AlexJ (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I merely mean to change it to 2009 because that's what F1 cars will look for about 10 years. Chubbennaitor 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But WP:F1 is just as much about the past eras of F1 as it is about the current. AlexJ (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well. Most people come and recognise the most recent cars and it makes sense to them. What was the point in changing to Alonso? Chubbennaitor 18:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the discussion I created on the same subject last year. I guess the initial logo (the 2005 Jordan) was chosen because the project had far fewer images to choose from when an icon was first used.--Diniz(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) The logo we have at the moment is of a *very* high quality. Yes, some would say that it is out of date, but until, and only until, we can find an image that is as good as the one we have, it shouldn't be changed. The image of Vettel mentioned above won't work because there is too much light glare on the car, and the Hamilton image discussed is too low-quality. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Schumacher. Fairly good quality

Yes. But Morgana F1 has taken some fantastic shots. I try and find a Schumacher one I remember uploading. Chubbennaitor 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a really good photo and I suggest using this unless we can find a better one. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lotus 49

This is the cleanest, most striking picture I've seen so far. Give it a crop and I think it's the best option. Readro (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad angle. I thinkt the Schumacher one will be the best. Chubbennaitor 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad angle? It's a lot more interesting than the Schumacher pic and a technically better photograph. Readro (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad angle. You can't see the whole car. Chubbennaitor 18:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope that comment is a joke, because the whole car is on the image, isn't it? D.M.N. (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is fairly good. Chubbennaitor 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm on about. Chubbennaitor 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean that you can't see it like you can the others. Chubbennaitor 21:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I also prefer the elevated three-quarter view. However, I'd also prefer an older, classic car, but one from the '70s or '80s with slicks'n'wings so that it doesn't look too far removed from the modern image of F1 (JPS Lotus?). *clatter as of 2c coins rattling into the can* Pyrope 03:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to break up the party, but I'm not remotely convinced that the logo needs changing. I've yet to see a single image mentioned here, nor in my searches for images when expanding the portal, that would come anywhere near the current logo in terms of detail and recognisability. Red for one does not transfer well to a small scale, which unfortunately rules out Ferraris. As for the argument that an older car would be a good choice, while we may all like the idea, because we are F1 fanatics and swoon at an exposed engine and a high front wing, we want people to look at the logo and think "F1". If they look at the car and think "Formula Ford" (perish the thought) then the whole idea is pointless. So let's do what Bernie never could and leave a system that's not broke untouched. P.S., Chubbennaitor, the walrus car? Really? Apterygial 06:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but as far as I can see, the project is called WikiProject Formula One, not WikProject Recent Formula One. If people are deciding whether to join the project based on the age of the car in the banner then I'd be very surprised. Readro (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who said it was WikProject Old Formula One either. The 2009 cars are good. The walrus car is the best angle I could find in my stream. Chubbennaitor 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Apterygial on this - I see nothing that's any better than what we've got. It would be change for change sake. AlexJ (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, don't fix what isn't broken. The359 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I agree. If we are changing, I would personally vote for a recent picture, but I see no problem with keeping the one we have. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to. Chubbennaitor 07:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Appears consensus is that we don't need to change, at least from my reading of it. Anyone any objections if we just call this closed and we all move on to discussing how many grand prixs Button will win this year? Narson'sPetFerret (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If Brawn GP wins the constructors' championship we will make them our logo. Apterygial 10:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The current icon is fine. Readro (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The car I'm guessing? Current icon is fine. I reckon 2-3 wins at most. Chubbennaitor 15:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There's enough space for two pics - the empty space on the right under Formula One portal link, so maybe one older and one newer? (Or maybe one of Bernie and one of Max...) --Sporti (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense... but an icon requires this much discussion? Leave it as it is... D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no right to tell people what to spend their time on, I'll just say from where I'm sitting this is a massive waste of time. Current logo does the job more than adequately. Mark83 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kimi wants you for F1 on Wikipedia

I'm fully aware of the irony, but I thought I might as well show something else I was working on a few days ago. Quality's pretty good. Apterygial 13:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean we're going to get 20/22 insane idea newsletters? :P --Diniz(talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, this is just me wasting time when I should be doing uni work. I'll get really focused soon and you'll never hear from me ever again, until I finish MII in a single day. Apterygial 14:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

F1 Team Templates

A user, in an attempt to modify the infobox on Brawn GP, has created two new templates which I feel are redundant. Template:Bought F1 team and Template:New F1 team. These seem to serve no purpose as, from my understand, the normal Template:F1 team will be modified once the 2009 season begins to eliminate all the 2008 information anyway. Should these two templates be marked for deletion? The359 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

...as an alternative I'd say just redirect the two to Template:F1 team if consensus emerges here. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They make sense. It just means that we'd have to change them. Chubbennaitor 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't make sense... the "new" template has fields for their performance last season... eh? And how long does a team remain "bought" or "new" for? Loads of teams, past and present, were bought, it isn't something that should be included in an infobox. These are entirely redundant and add nothing, classic cruft. Pyrope 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kill them off. We already have more than enough templates to maintain. If we think the "Competed as" field, or the ability to hide the 2008 values are really vital to have for the next 16 days, then update the existing {{F1 team}} template. DH85868993 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bin these. I think we should have, for the future, a "Competed as" field just in case it is needed. We could also use it for sponsorship/engine changes. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've turned the two templates into redirects to the existing template. I've also corrected Brawn GP so that it uses the Template:F1 team again instead of Template:Bought F1 team. The359 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They're good because we'd have to change them after their first year. Chubbennaitor 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Winter BrawnGP Barcelona times

Dear WP:F1 members. Ever since the BrawnGP cars set their shockingly-fast 1'19s and then 1'18s at Circuit de Catalunya‎, the page for said track received edit after edit changing the lap-record to the "new" record by the BGP001 - ignoring, however, that the official record is still a 1'21 from the actual race on Formula1.com, and presumably will remain this way until the Barcelona weekend - since winter-testing isn't regulated, and cars don't have to conform to 2009 regulations (or any regulations other than safety-requirements).. Is there any official Wikipedia ruling? A way to prevent an edit-war? MetzMaboo (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The official lap record is the fastest lap driven in a race. Winter testing often produces faster laps due to the lower temperatures. Readro (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That too, in addition to the lack of regulation-enforcement I mentioned. So, should we wait for the ecstatic anonymous IPs to calm down, or what else can we do? (does raise the question actually - why doesn't qualifying count?) MetzMaboo (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

D.M.N. has put an invisible note next to the lap record field, which should discourage people from changing it.--Diniz(talk) 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed. Hopefully it works. ;-) D.M.N. (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Club world championships

I notice the recent addition of {{Club world championships}} to List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions. Do we think that's appropriate? I recognise that the F1 World Championship is a World Championship contested by a number of teams (rather than clubs), but I feel there's a significant difference between the F1WC and the FIFA Club World Cup, for example. What do others think? DH85868993 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate. Chubbennaitor 07:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what's the preferred approach: attempt to have the template changed to use the word "team" rather than "club"? Or just remove F1 (and probably also WRC) from the template altogether? DH85868993 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the template was created was for a catch-all navbox for "world championships" not contested by national teams, aka sporting clubs, or teams. –Howard the Duck 04:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you need to change the name of the template then, Howard. The intent is OK, but F1, Rallying and the America's Cup are not in any accurate way contested by clubs. 4u1e (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And they are contested by...? Teams? –Howard the Duck 12:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are contested by teams. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So is the navbox appropriate? We'd need to think of a better term, though. It's not club. Many like "team". How about "non-national team"? –Howard the Duck 14:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Championships contested by international groups. Chubbennaitor 16:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But you can be non-international and still not be a national team. Why not just call it "Championships contested by teams not representing nations" ? Readro (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Force India? They represent India, well they want to. Chubbennaitor 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They also did represent the country through colours before Sponsorship. Chubbennaitor 17:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Being nationalistic is not the same thing as being a national team. Readro (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They're not the Indian team, there could be 10 (or 12) teams representing India under the current and historic rules. F1, like almost all other motorsports, is not contested by national teams in the way that A1GP is.

I suggest the two templates should be re-named "World championships contested on a national basis" and "World championships not contested on a national basis". Yes, it's clumsy, but at least it's accurate. If anyone has better wording, I'd be glad to hear it though. 4u1e (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer your take on this but a better sounding name. –Howard the Duck 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:10, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Given how we have a newsletter, I'm not sure if this would be hugely useful. Saying that, it'd help us keep track of things, say for instance Person A fails to notify this project that they have prodded an article that falls under our banner. I'm not too fussed either way. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What would this be useful for? I can't see it's point. Chubbennaitor 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good service, and though not particularly necessary considering the size of this project and amount of articles involved, could be helpful as bot updates for various articles under scrutiny at the moment. Please note that if any article related to WPF1 is PRODed or AfDed, it is not necessary for the nominator to notify the project. Such articles would be easily tracked through these alerts. Plus all the articles that are currently under PR, GAN, FAN etc. would also be included in the lists. And I know most of us usually inform the project about any such activities, but having an alternate service that would inform anyone visiting the project's main page about the goings-on of the project could be a helpful tool. ^LeaveSleaves 15:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a lot of articles to keep track of, it helps. A lot. DeMoN2009 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LeaveSleaves that this could be very useful when it comes to deletions. My recent experience with Shannon Racing has taught me that one can't ever be too careful about the issue.--Diniz(talk) 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read about this, and I can really see no reason why we shouldn't adopt this system. It certainly wouldn't replace the need for a newsletter. Apterygial 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support the adoption of this. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 13:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey everybody, the portal's up for Featured status!

Here! Apterygial 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

C'mon guys! Show some enthusiasm! Maybe I should add some flags to the portal to increase comments... Apterygial 11:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We're all happy. Chubbennaitor 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would cast a support vote, but I think I've been involved too heavily with the portal to remain objective. I'm surprised no editors from outside the WP have commented yet: featured portals may not attract as much attention as featured articles, but I didn't realise the discrepancy was so great!--Diniz(talk) 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Video sources for old F1 races

I know we have trouble sometimes sourcing old F1 races as some of them can be found on YouTube. Now (and I hope this doesn't consist of advertising!) if you're in the UK, some of the old races will be put onto the BBC website.... at the moment the 1986 and 1994 races are on in extended highlights form of approx. 45 minutes. These are very good sources to use as they are a) the original broadcast [some are anyway, others are just short 5 minute clips] and b) contain driver interviews pre and post race. I've already added and changed sources in the 1991 Australian Grand Prix article and may do so with the other articles. This will be carrying on throughout the season, and it should be a good source to use which passes WP:RS, unlike YouTube footage. D.M.N. (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Videos on YouTube can pass as reliable sources, if you know the original source material. Obviously linking to the YouTube video doesn't work, but not having a legal copy of a source for all to see does not negate the validity of the source. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

F1 team & driver infobox updates

In the expectation that the 2008 information will be removed from the F1 driver and team infoboxes some time in the next few days, I just wanted to remind everyone that the intention was that the 2008 parameters should be removed, but that the names of the 2009 parameters should be left exactly as is, i.e. the word "2009" shouldn't be removed (the rationale being that at the end of 2009, we can then just add some "2010" parameters). DH85868993 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me removing the 2008 parameters from the templates some time within the next 24 hours? (They can be removed from the team and driver articles as part of the normal post-race updates). DH85868993 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead with track activity commencing in a few hours. D.M.N. (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. Might be worth waiting for friday practice, we have waited this long. Just incase FOTA throw a giant hissy fit and decide to go shopping instead of race. (Unlikely, but...) --Narson ~ Talk • 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You really do have some offense to through against F1. Chubbennaitor 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming you meant 'throw'. Though I still don't see what you are getting at. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Chubbennaitor, we all love this sport, but that doesn't mean many of us aren't fairly irritated about the way it's constantly changing itself (I think Brawn's going to change its colour scheme before first practice...) Apterygial 22:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Or maybe not. Apterygial 03:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All gone. Come November we can do this all again. Apterygial 07:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The word "Current" should not be removed. Raymond Giggs 08:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Grand Prix race report

I am proposing an addition to {{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} parameters. Thoughts are welcome at Template talk:Infobox Grand Prix race report#Reference parameter. ^LeaveSleaves 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made the proposed change and it appears to be working as intended. I'd encourage everyone to use this parameter in existing and future race articles wherever a suitable reference is available. ^LeaveSleaves 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice addition! Already amended in the 1995 articles. Good work there LeaveSleaves. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Weights

See: 2009 Australian Grand Prix qualifying table

Anyone else think this isn't exactly needed.... we are an encyclopedia, not a detailed F1 site after all. D.M.N. (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Whose idea was that? Completely unnecessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Listing the weights is useful, especially when you compare the weights to grid positions. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But there's no explanation of the weights at all, i.e. why each car might weigh a certain amount, why one is heavier than another etc. Simply listing the weights like that is redundant and confusing. I suggest a proper discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bretonbanquet. Just because we have the information doesn't mean we should use it in its raw form. There needs to some sort of interpretation or explanation of significance of those figures. And instead of providing those raw figures we can utilise the information into the article while writing race reports. ^LeaveSleaves 16:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would easily be possible to explain the fuel weight system and that the FIA has begun publishing the information in the main body of the article, so that the raw data makes sense when encountered in the table.--Diniz(talk) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed from table. Anyone welcome to put some detail on weights in prose. D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How can we know the amount of fuel? I think that in a way or another the table of weights is useful, we can compare and know which car was faster because it was lighter or had a better engine. I vote for keeping it. Fsarmony (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it is all guesswork. "Lighter or had a better engine" are only two influences from a multitude possible. If better engine were so important why are LH and HK so far down the field? Why did MW qualify in tenth while SV was third? If you want to discuss possible qualifying performance factors then by all means do, but it ought to be written in prose and properly referenced. A simple data dump does not do this, and it wrongly implies that this is the single greatest factor. Any data in tables should augment the prose, not supplant it. Pyrope 23:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great, I was just so glad the weights were there. But when I opened the table before the GP it was gone. Great!!! So now where do I look for the weights!? And I do think that the information was very relevant and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.235.210.96 (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Autosport article cited in the References section has the full list.--Diniz(talk) 08:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree as the FIA used it on their coverage. Chubbennaitor 06:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think having the fuel weights in a column of the qualifying table is a good idea, as I believe it is similar to data such as the times themselves, which cannot be communicated as effectively in the prose of the article. As Chubbennaitor has said, there was also a FOM graphic during the race coverage that featured the starting weights, indicating the importance which has been attached to the information. However, it could be made clearer: the format previously used could confuse the average reader who is unfamiliar with the switch between the low-fuel Q1 and Q2 sessions, and then the race-fuel Q3 one.--Diniz(talk) 08:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much about significance of the information but interpretation of it. Lap, race times do not require explaining and hence are okay to be used as raw data. As Pyrope's post above elaborates, simply providing the weight data does not necessarily extend the reader's knowledge of the situation. Such complicated figures are best handled through prose. ^LeaveSleaves 08:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, adequately explaining the importance of the relative weights of the cars is not nearly feasible in a table, in my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It shows which cars are heavier which means the leader knows which one has more fuel in. If you look down the cars weight without fuel but with driver they are all very similar showing that the cars that are heavier have more fuel. The readers know who has more fuel elaborating the situation further. Chubbennaitor 10:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Chub, we know what it means and how to interpret it, but this is a general interest encyclopedia. You should assume no prior knowledge in your reader. You need to give context and a balanced point of view, which is only really possible, for something this complex, in prose. Pyrope 10:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And we're still going to do the confusing flag changes. Why would FIA put it on coverage if they thought that it was going to be hard to understand it. I worked out that the cars were heavier because of fuel, an average person should get the first part. Chubbennaitor 10:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Leave me out of the flag changes, I really couldn't care less. However, you need to go away and read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and particularly the part that states "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." The FIA just provide the stats, the local broadcasters and prose journalists provide the context. For example, the BBC web coverage gav the weights, but also a paragraph setting them in context and explaining what they may indicate. They also, as many others did, explained that the weight of a car is only one factor in any assessment of relative performance. We are not an F1 geek site, we are a general interest, prose encyclopedia, to be read by everyone. In this Wikipedia is different from the vast majority of F1 resources, as we should be providing articles that may interest and inform people with no previous F1 knowledge, or even knowledge of motorsport at all. Pyrope 10:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Pyrope on both points. The flag issue is dreadfully tedious. The fuel weights, however, are interesting, but we should provide context if we are to mention them at all. They may warrant a mention in prose, probably in qualifying, but a full table is ridiculous. Lap times make sense to mention, as they are quite easy to decipher, but the weight of every car? Use words, not tables. Apterygial 11:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Leave flags out of here. I agree with Apterygial on adding text and keeping the weights. Chubbennaitor 18:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Something like "Rubens Barrichello had the heaviest car out of the ten drivers to make the final part of qualifying, implying he was carrying more fuel than those around him" would be fine to mention, providing a ref backed it up. A contextless column of weights wouldn't add much in my opinion but I don't feel strongly against it being added. It may even complement the prose, but I think it's crucial that the context is provided in prose, and writing that should be the priority. AlexJ (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Chubbennaitor 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) Agree with AlexJ (talk · contribs). D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Colours on the entry numbers

I tried to add colours to entry list on the 20th March. However, it was hastily removed by LeaveSleaves. I have already added colours to the WRC, WTCC, V8 Supercar and BTCC pages. I never recieved any objections to these, with people making changes where and adding colours to new entries where neccessary, without any objections. While I accept these pages are less monitered, below is exactly what I did:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race Drivers	Test Driver(s)
Vodafone McLaren Mercedes	McLaren	MP4-24	Mercedes FO 108W	B	1	Lewis Hamilton	Pedro de la Rosa Gary Paffett
					2	Heikki Kovalainen
Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro	Ferrari	F60	Ferrari 056	B	3	Kimi Räikkönen	Luca Badoer Marc Gené
					4	Felipe Massa
BMW Sauber F1 Team	BMW Sauber	F1.09	BMW P86/9	B	5	Robert Kubica	Christian Klien
					6	Nick Heidfeld
ING Renault F1 Team	Renault	R29	Renault RS27	B	7	Fernando Alonso	Romain Grosjean
					8	Nelson Piquet Jr.
Panasonic Toyota Racing	Toyota	TF109	Toyota RVX-09	B	9	Jarno Trulli	Kamui Kobayashi
					10	Timo Glock
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso	STR4	Ferrari 056	B	11	Sébastien Buemi	Brendon Hartley
					12	Sébastien Bourdais
Red Bull Racing	Red Bull	RB5	Renault RS27	B	14	Mark Webber	David Coulthard Brendon Hartley
					15	Sebastian Vettel
AT&T Williams	Williams	FW31	Toyota RVX-09	B	16	Nico Rosberg	Nico Hülkenberg
					17	Kazuki Nakajima
Brawn GP	Brawn	BGP 001	Mercedes FO 108W	B	18	Jenson Button
					19	Rubens Barrichello
Force India F1 Team	Force India	VJM02	Mercedes FO 108W	B	20	Adrian Sutil	Vitantonio Liuzzi
					21	Giancarlo Fisichella

I feel it would help gove extra information in the table without overcrowding it, and would bring it into line with the other major series listed above. If you could sign your name in the relevant section below, with a reason if possible, that would be great. Petera93 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Users in Support of This Idea

Users Against This Idea

1. Well for a start off, this isn't a vote... besides we are an encyclopedia, not a colouring book. D.M.N. (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• My first question is what determines what color to use? Did you source it? Do the white backgrounds mean white is the "team's color" or because there is no color to add? Too many questions that need to be answered. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it really need sourcing, because they are just the colours used on the cars. A white background means that white is the predominant colour on the car- i.e. the Toyotas, BMWs and the Brawns are all predominantly white, are they not? Petera93 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's no point. It's too bright and thee really is no huge reason for us to se the scheme. Chubbennaitor 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For those of you complaining it is too bright (which is a fair point) we could potentially use some fainter colours like those used in championship tables, but then the colours wouldn't be accurate, which is stupid in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petera93 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Serves no Encyclopedic purpose. If someone wants to know what the cars look like, they can click on the chassis or teams and see a picture of it. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 18:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Apart from my initial reason to remove the colours, I'd like to ask: what significant information are these colours imparting to the table? The colour of the car? Is that really the information you are looking for when reading about driver assignments by teams? ^LeaveSleaves 18:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• There's little to gain from their use, they're potentially confusing to the non-familiar reader (what do those colours mean?), slightly arbitrary in terms of deciding the two predominate colours (should Force India be White/Green or White/Orange?) and the light text on white background is hard to read. Sorry. AlexJ (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• It's a no from me too - I just don't see that it's any more than decoration. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• One other vote against - do we know what the effect would be for colourblind readers? 4u1e (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Verdict

Ok- not a popular idea- oh well, no harm in trying. Feel free to keep adding your support above-or not. Please tell me on my talk page if a suggestion has ever been so rejected. Petera93 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry - lots of suggestions have been so rejected. It's nothing personal. Thanks for the idea, anyway. 4u1e (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Results tables

Can anyone tell me why only the top five are displayed in the race tables on the 2009 Australian GP article. I don't see the point in only showing half (or less) of a table. I asked the editor who reverted my addition of full tables without a reply, and I also asked on the article's talk page without reply. So, I'm bringing this one here.

Should the full results table be shown, or not? If not, why not? Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was the first one that inserted the table (as I have done on the 1995 race articles I'm working on and stuff). We need a "break off" point, the reader is not interested in the full table (they can go to a dedicated motor sport website for that) all they want is a brief overview of the tables, and the top 5 positions do that perfectly. D.M.N. (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Several links throughout the article are given to the season article, where a full table is shown. Two huge classification tables are big enough without having to worry about two more huge ones. Apterygial 08:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Season in progress footnotes

I notice that none of the 2009 driver/team/car articles (except Jenson Button) seem to have the traditional "season in progress" footnote under their results tables. Is this deliberate? Or just an oversight? I was going to start adding them in, but thought I would check first. DH85868993 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oversight/lack of time etc. for the car articles. Actually, must make time to go back and adjust following Trulli's demotion. Pyrope 11:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, beaten to that! Pyrope 12:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Brawn / Virgin

This editor Sargantt Has changed some of the references in the Brawn Article to suggest that the team name (or car name) has changed to Virgin. When I reverted the changes the editor drew my attention to a reference but I do not infer any such change from it. Opinions? Britmax (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That reference is not any kind of verification. He's moved the BGP 001 article as well - needs moving back. Can't do it myself, already late for work :( Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to circuit infoboxes

An editor has been updating the infoboxes in numerous of the F1 circuit articles, replacing the circuit layout diagram at the top of the infobox with a photo, and inserting the layout diagram further down the infobox, just above the layout details, like this. Do we like such changes, or would we rather keep the circuit layout at the top of the infobox? DH85868993 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the photos aren't exactly brilliant and probably shouldn't be the first thing one sees when the page opens, but I've no problem per se with the switches this editor has made. It always irritates me though when people make wholesale changes across a range of articles without discussing anything first. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert. We have a standard, why start the infighting anew? There's no reason the photos can't be added to the body of the article further down. --Falcadore (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was the way it was supposed to be. No worries. I'll stop. SilkTork *^YES! 07:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not a bad idea. Trouble is, you want the circuit image as large as possible so you can see the detail, and the best spot for that is in the infobox. Apterygial 09:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that under all infobox and image guidelines (Wikipedia:Images, MOS:IMAGES, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Design_and_usage, WP:IMGSIZE, Help:Infobox, that 180px is the recommended max width. If you wish the circuit layout image to be larger than 180 (which would force the infobox to become wider) then the circuit layout image may be more usefully placed in the main body, in a section named Layout (Where possible I've been creating such a section in the F1 circuit articles I was editing). Though size forcing is generally discouraged, it is considered acceptable in certain circumstances - and the clarity needed for a circuit layout would be considered acceptable. (see MOS:IMAGES). If it is felt that the circuit layout images are too small for the infobox, they are better removed to the Layout section. An image of the circuit - that is a photograph of the circuit - is an acceptable and desirable item to have in the infobox. SilkTork *^YES! 11:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The culprit could be the Portal as that is what it does. Chubbennaitor 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the circuit maps TBH. D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem I find with the photos is that they're not generally photographs of the circuit, rather photographs of one corner taken from the back of the stands, which is hardly the same thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A representative and evocative image of the circuit - a particular corner, or the grandstand straight - is attractive and desirable, as is a diagrammatic overview of the circuit. My point above about size is that guidelines discourage size forcing, so if people want to have a detailed and readable image of the circuit, that could be size forced in the main body, ideally in a section specially about the layout/circuit. There is nothing wrong with having a 180px image of the circuit within the infobox to give a flavour of the circuit, and then a size forced one in the main body for readers who wish to study the layout in detail. I also feel that there is much to be gained from having both a visual image of an aspect of the circuit to give a feel for the location, as well as a diagram of the layout. My impression of the template was that was the intention. I understand now that I was mistaken, and the intention is to have text in the Layout field. It might be worthwhile considering having an additional field named Circuit, which is specially for a diagram of the circuit layout. SilkTork *^YES! 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that for most circuits, unless there is a distinctive building, to a lay person one photo of a strip of black tarmac looks just the same as another strip of black tarmac. And the issue of image size also affects the photo, as the small dimensions makes the whole thing a bit difficult to see. For most tracks the circuit layout is in many ways the most iconic part of the branding, and is the only thing that provides a repeatable, uniform way of fingerprinting one circuit fom another. Hence, I still reckon that a circuit diagram at the top of the infobox is the best visual shorthand for any one circuit. Pyrope 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope here, and I also like the uniformity the circuit layout provides - it goes well with the set fields that an infobox has. A circuit photo is better off later in the image, where a proper descriptive caption can be provided. AlexJ (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Alex and Pyrope on the desirability of having the circuit layout in the infobox. However, it would also be great to have good, iconic photos of circuits in the articles. There are some iconic bits of track - think Spa or Monaco, rather than Barcelona or Silverstone. Trouble is, I imagine it's hard to get access to the right areas to get really good photos! 4u1e (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1996 qualifying results tables

Whilst expanding the 1995 European Grand Prix article in my sandbox, I had the idea of altering the qualifying table so it includes the times from both qualifying sessions, with the fastest in bold. Would anyone have any objections to me or others changing the existing pre-1996 qualifying tables to this format, and adopting it for future tables to be created in the future?--Diniz(talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To reflect the old two part qualifying system you mean? Yeah, go for it! I take it 'future tables to be created in the future' means tables for pre-1996 events that don't yet have tables, but may be created in the future? :S 4u1e (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should really re-read the things I type! That's exactly what I meant. ;) --Diniz(talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For the ones I've been doing, I've done exactly what you're suggesting - add both sessions' times with the fastest overall in bold. Readro (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Last time we discussed this we decided to use bold to indicate the fastest time for each driver, and to make the Time and Pos columns sortable. DH85868993 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'd completely forgotten about that! Thanks for linking to it.--Diniz(talk) 12:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason really why we want to make it "sortable"? IMO, it doesn't really add anything to the table itself (someone did it with the '09 AGP article, but I removed the function). BTW, I agree with the both times pre-1996 thingy. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful, but it might also be really hard to get to work so that it doesn't screw the table up. I've got no objection to the sorting function, but I won't be volunteering to do it! ;-) 4u1e (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Forti peer review

I've listed the Forti article for a peer review here. Any comments, suggestions and feedback would be much appreciated!--Diniz(talk) 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Excluded vs Disqualified

The BBC article on Hamilton at the 2009 Aussie GP ([1]) says he was 'excluded'. We mark him on the 2009 season page and on the race page as disqualified. Now, disqualified probably makes more sense, but in that case, what does 'Excluded' even mean? It has an entry on the season pages separate from 'Disqualified'. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, 'excluded' means to be disqualified before the race has started, i.e. during practice or qualifying, extrapolated to 'excluded from the race'. This used to happen a lot, mainly for turfing someone into the wall during Friday practice, or relatively trivial things like having an underweight car or missing a weight check. Nowadays a rule-breaking driver will more likely just get sent to the back of the grid for the race - Bernie doesn't like empty spaces on the grid. 'Disqualified' refers to a driver who has been chucked out after the race has started, or even finished, as in this case. The difference between the terms 'excluded' and 'disqualified' does tend to get blurred these days though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. :) --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The perfect fodder for List of motorsport terminology. --Falcadore (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cars of 2009 Formula One season

This page was recently created. What's our view of pages like this? Is this something better contained simply in the season article? Could do with a name change, regardless. Apterygial 11:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And Cars of the 2008 Formula One season. Could work if it was overhauled from a simple gallery to a discussion of common characteristics, performance, etc. Apterygial 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd bin them. As they stand, they're just galleries, which are probably better suited to Wikimedia Commons than here. A discussion of the common characteristics etc of the cars would be useful, indeed highly desirable, but should start by being part of the season summary. If it became big enough that it was swamping the article, then it could be split out into a daughter article. 4u1e (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected both articles to respective season articles. Simply no additional purpose being served that isn't covered by existing main article, individual car articles and categories here and at commons. ^LeaveSleaves 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no point really. OK it shows the images but so do the cars' main pages. Chubbennaitor 15:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 2009 Australian Grand Prix

On April 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Australian Grand Prix, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nice work, everyone! Apterygial 06:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What was it? Chubbennaitor 07:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still on the main page, for a couple of hours more. Apterygial 09:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• ... that Brawn GP's one-two finish at the 2009 Australian Grand Prix made it the first Formula One team to do so on debut at a Grand Prix since 1954?

D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds recognisable. Chubbennaitor 11:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

GPs and tables

OK, I've been bold and inserted a blank table into the Malaysian GP article for the race, and blank tables for qualifying and race into the Chinese GP article (these are hidden). It will make it much easier for editors to create the final table as all details that won't change are there, and table is in its correct format. All an editor needs to do is fill in missing details once they are known, and cut & paste to put each driver in his correct position in the final table. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We weren't doing this originally? Chubbennaitor 11:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that a question or recognition of a good idea? No, we weren't doing this originally. If it is felt desirable, the Chinese GP article can be used to pre-insert tables ready for all 2009 GPs. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Chubbennaitor, no it wasn't being done, but it's nice to have blank tables in anyway (I tended to do it, as I did with Australia). D.M.N. (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of blank tables and even blank line anticipation of additions to tables. In some instances they can stay blank for months and months. What is essentially wrong until waiting for the results to occur? --Falcadore (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's because it seems to take a long time for a race results table to appear after a race. After the Australian GP, there was no results table shown for ages. Anything that speeds the post-race process up is a good thing, imho. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then use <!- and make them invisible. --Falcadore (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. No sense in showing a table until there's something to put in it, but the basic grid could be there ready to fill in after a race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Grid vs. Time in qualifying tables

Ok, been bugging me slightly for a while, but why do the recent qualifying tables (e.g. 2009 Australian Grand Prix) list the drivers by time and not by grid position? This wasn't true for older Grands Prix (e.g. 2007 Chinese Grand Prix) so why and when did this change? It is really pretty confusing, especially for non-regulars. Knowing that I edit here a couple of my F1-fan friends have asked me about this oddity and I don't really have an answer for them. As quali is solely designed to determine the starting order wouldn't it make more sense to list by starting order? Pyrope 14:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ultimately, the finishing order during the qualifying session is far less important than the actual grid order. Suggest listing drivers by grid order, with accompanying notes to explain why certain drivers fell down the grid before the race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

While I concur that the existing system could be confusing to non-regulars, the aim of the table is to present the classification based on qualifying result and not the potential grid position at the end qualifying. Remember that the grid position can change until the race start and the existing system makes this easier to handle. If we plan to arrange the cars according to starting grid position, we'd have to revise the rationale behind the table itself. ^LeaveSleaves 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But the whole purpose of qualifying is to decide grid positions. Teams adjust their qualifying strategy to take into account penalties and grid drops (Vettel and Barrichello in Malaysia this weekend, for example). I'm struggling to see, LeaveSleaves, what the benefit of having the qualifying table is if not to provide grid positions, working as a complementary table to the race classification table. If the times are more important than the grid positions, why not have practice times as well? Apterygial 01:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither staunchly supporting the existing system nor blindly opposing a potentially new system. I'm trying to bring forward the reasons why the existing tables are the way they are and how they fit in the framework. If we wish to device a new system, we'd also have to change the framework for it. ^LeaveSleaves 01:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate that, but it wouldn't be a new system, it would go back to what was previously the case. To state that the current tables are based on a "qualifying result" is wrong, as the qualifying result is the grid order. Pyrope 13:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of interpretation. At the moment the section containing the tables is titled "Classification", which would mean the order in which the drivers finished the qualifying session and not, as I said before, starting grid. By the way, could you point to me to any older article which used the system you are suggesting? Just so that I can get an idea what you are talking about. ^LeaveSleaves 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the classified position was that which they occupied on the starting grid. That's what qualification is all about after all. And per my first comment, see 2007 Chinese Grand Prix. Pyrope 14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Race article intro issue

There's a discussion here discussing whether or not we should be listing the teams entered for each race in the text of each race article. I think it's worth bashing it out here, to see what people think. If it has been discussed here before, my apologies. My own opinion is that it tends towards the unnecessary, but I'm not staying awake at night over it :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(copied from the Malaysian talk) I added it into the first article, 2008 Japanese Grand Prix, after complaints at the FAC that the article assumed an intimate knowledge of the players in F1. At FA and GA they dislike the idea that a link to where the list is given is a good substitute for listing them on the page, something about hard copy books or something. That's not to suggest that sentence doesn't need improvement, but my impression is that it is necessary. If you had "The same ten teams that entered at the start of the season competed at this meet/race." as suggested on the talk page, you would get killed at FAC. Not every article goes to FAC, but I think it's worth writing every article as if it would, i.e., as good as possible. Apterygial 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :) This kind of thing is where I part company with the idea that the FA/GA process improves the articles though. Why then, do the FAC crowd not think that an extra list of drivers is not also necessary? The assumption that readers of these articles know so little about motor racing that they need the most basic info spelled out on every single page is bogus, imho, and it frankly looks a bit ridiculous. But no doubt, that's not a discussion for this page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I'd argue that statements like "The GP was contested by 20 drivers in ten teams of two" (why on earth does that need a cite?) and "The qualifying session was split into three parts. The first part ran for 20 minutes" etc are misleading because they suggest that these facts are somehow unusual. Nothing is mentioned of the fact that every GP is *exactly the same* in these ways. It just seems like we're writing articles for morons. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll discuss it anyway. :) It is ugly, but we have to think about who is reading these articles. Most may just drop in to read, for example, 2009 Australian Grand Prix, and nothing else, and in that case the list is very useful. The way I've been writing articles with the list is you can then introduce the drivers as they come up (generally in Background or Practice and qualifying) with reference to their team. Seeing as you would have to introduce most teams anyway, it is better, imho (and that of FAC) to have an introduction in one paragraph than scattering it throughout the article. I think one of the problems we encounter more often than we think at WT:F1 is that we always think that we are writing for hardcore F1 fans, or at the very least people who follow it fairly closely, but those people who drop in on maybe one F1 article a year (Bretonbanquet's ubiquitous morons) get left out. Following on from your idea, why not just cut the team list from 2009 Formula One season and just say "The teams were the same as the 2008 Formula One season, but Honda became Brawn and Super Aguri were well and truly gone"? Why have that team list on every page? Apterygial 23:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You clarify it very well, I guess I just think it's a shame that the articles have to be tailored to the very people who care about them the least, i.e. those "morons" who drop in to read one article and then bugger off. Personally, I don't care if those people are left out, so long as the casual fan is catered for, i.e. someone who has a basic working knowledge of the sport, someone who actually understands what a motor race is. It seems like we're only one step away from having to explain in every article that a Formula One car has four wheels and an engine, and a person sits in it. This person is known as a driver. I'm exaggerating, but I wonder if FAs on other topics have to assume such a lack of basic knowledge? As for the season articles, I look at those as the basis for understanding the race articles, and as such is the perfect place to outline all the details of each season's entrants once and for all, exactly so that we don't have to explain it all again in each race article. Wikipedia has the unique ability to quickly link people to other articles that explain a situation in greater detail, so it seems odd that the FA/GA process requires us to repeat ourselves for the benefit of people who aren't even particularly bothered anyway. I know I'm pi**ing in the wind, but it's just my rant :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's unfortunate that we have to write for the lowest common denominator, but I think the skill of article writing, whether it is for FA, GA or just trying to add quality content, is being able to reach not just the uninitiated but the hardcore fans as well. If we can explain the basics (that the car has four wheels is perhaps too basic) and be clear and concise explaining the more complicated areas (diffusers, anyone?) then we will have great articles, and that is what is what we are here for. Apterygial 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, if I were to go to say a 2003 race report, I'd find it quite useful for the structure of qualifying used to be included in that article, so that I wouldn't have to check up on it in another article. The current regulations are all very apparent to anyone with a basic interest in F1, but trying to remember when previous regulations took effect (for qualifying we've had the one-lap shootout/Friday&Saturday sessions with times added together/the good old 12laps in 1hr on Saturday/Friday & Saturday qualifying etc.) is at times difficult even for someone with a deep interest in the sport. Having such information about the structure of the race weekend included in the article serves a useful purpose in my opinion even for the more knowledgable fan, let alone the general audience this encyclopedia is aimed at. AlexJ (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I also find the "list of teams" statements rather awkward (incidentally, why is it "McLaren-Mercedes" but "Red Bull Racing"?), but I think I understand why they're there. If it is necessary to have them, I question whether they belong in a section entitled "Background" - if we look at 2009 Australian Grand Prix#Background, I would consider the proposed boycott by McLaren and Renault and the change to the race start time to be "background" information, but details of who is contesting the race and the fact that it was the debut of the Brawn team to be "foreground" information. Maybe we need a new subsection of "Report" entitled "Race entry" or something like that, which could describe who was entered for the race and maybe list changes from the previous race? Also, an alternative to the awkward "list of teams" statement could be to have a table (oh no, not another table!) listing the race entries - like this one - then readers could see for themselves that there were 10 teams, each with 2 drivers. Also note that a textual description of the entries works fairly well in the current environment, where the entry for each race is quite stable and regimented but wouldn't work nearly as well for earlier seasons where the entry list varied wildly from one race to the next and included private entries, etc. Just some thoughts, anyway. DH85868993 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with having the list in the Background section, for the articles that paragraph appears in those same cars took part on Friday and Saturday as well, and that seems a logical place to have it. I would also oppose the creation of a Race entry section, on the basis that 1. Background fills that role, as described above, and 2. A whole section for one or two sections seems a little redundant. I don't think a table is the way to go either, the paragraph was introduced in the first place so that the info could be presented in prose form, and a table would be a step back. It does, as DH and Bretonbanquet have pointed out, need a clean-up, and yes it is ugly, but I'm not offended by it, and I don't want it gone. Apterygial 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it, any have never (nor plan to) use it on the 1995 articles, if someone wishes to know further information they can just go to the season page. The only info I tend to put into the background are top points standings/pre-weekend events/driver changes etc. The practice/qualifying section, at the beginning of that, I put the practice/qualifying structure... see my FA the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix as an example. ;-) D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Minardi PS04/B

An editor has made major changes to Minardi PS04, and created a new article Minardi PS04B containing (essentially) the former contents of Minardi PS04. Can someone familiar with the subject matter please take a look to see whether the changes are accurate/sensible? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. We normally have the "B" spec descriptions in the "main" article, if that makes any sense... i.e. Williams FW17B is a redirect to Williams FW17. D.M.N. (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a different case altogether, though. From my understanding, the PS04 was the name given by Minardi to the A23 chassis bought from Arrows and only used in testing, whereas the PS04B, which was raced in 2004, was an evolution of the previous year's PS03. Thus the PS04 and PS04B have little in common, despite the common 04 designation.--Diniz(talk) 16:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That does beg the question "why did they call it the PS04B and not PS03B?" though. If what you say is true, however, then in any case PS04B should redirect to PS03. We need some reliable referencing here. Pyrope 17:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon doing some further research, it appears that the PS04B was a combination of features from the A23/PS04 and the PS03, and that the Arrows chassis was given the PS04 designation so quickly because it was assumed to be quicker than the PS03, when in fact in back-to-back tests this turned out not to be the case. When I say "evolution" I mean in the sense of the PS01, PS02, PS03 and PS04B chassis not differing significantly from each other (apart from engine supplier), not in the usual standard-spec to B-spec shift that might occur during the course of the season. I would recommend redirecting Minardi PS04 to Arrows A23, with a hatnote for the PS04B in the latter article, and that the content in the existing PS04 article should be moved to Minardi PS04B. There is some relevant material in the 2004 Autocourse annual, and some news articles from grandprix.com, which can be used to reference these changes.--Diniz(talk) 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on those two web references, what you propose seems fair. Pyrope 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Diniz as well (and apologies for the revert, didn't realise this was a special case!). D.M.N. (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've posted on Jellobiafra44 (talk · contribs)'s talk page, inviting them to join the discussion. It would be useful to hear their opinion before I make the changes above.--Diniz(talk) 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I will agree with Diniz's assessment, that the current PS04 article be shifted to the PS04B and perhaps, if possible, my article for the PS04 be retrieved an incorporated into the A23 article. In any case the A23 should be referenced and linked in the PS04 article. Regarding the PS04B article's content, there has been no reliable sources suggesting that anything on the PS04B was taken from the A23. In fact there's little to suggest that the 04B was any different from the 03, apart from some changes made to comply with crash test requirements that were updated that year. In light of this I see no problem with redirecting the 04B to the PS03 article and adding a subsection for it instead.Jellobiafra44 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't move Minardi PS04 to Minardi PS04B for some reason myself, so I've listed it at Wikipedia:Requested moves for an administrator to perform the task.--Diniz(talk) 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

All done!--Diniz(talk) 16:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Damon Hill page

some goodfaith(?) vandalism there. Loosmark (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean this? Yep, its vandalism, and I see you reverted it three minutes before you posted the above message. D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

actually it was more like 4 minutes :P thing is i reverted him twice today and i've a feeling its not the last time he's making these "improvements". but then maybe since he's new he just doesn't know what is proper encyclopedia style language. Loosmark (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Logo suggestion

I have no clue whether anyone has brought this up before, so whatever, I'll go ahead. Currently, the WP:F1 badge consists of an image of Fernando Alonso racing for Renault. Fair enough. But hey, the last time he was champion was in 2006, three years ago now. Wouldn't it be far more fitting and professional to have our logo based on the reigning world champion? I was thinking about this at the start of '08, I thought we should have updated the template to show an image of Kimi in the F2007. But yeah, too late. At least we could start this trend now with switching Lewis in for Fernando.

I know some people will not think this is a big deal, probably not, but I believe it would just be something nice to play around with. No use living in the past, is there? Ayrton Prost^sign 19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Look up. There's still a discussion on this page about it. Consensus was for no change. Readro (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Shame, I still think it's a good idea. Thanks for the heads-up anyway. (no pun intended) Ayrton Prost^sign 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To sum it up, the general feeling was that the Alonso picture was chosen not because he was World Champion, but because it was a good photo with a clear shot of an F1 car. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a bit of me which feels it would have been a shame to let that pic go. Very good angle. Ayrton Prost^sign 19:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing F1 results from Circuit articles

(I mentioned this before, but nothing much came of it the last time but I think, if agreed upon, I'll do the work myself to correct it)

Basically, my problem is that winners of Formula One Grands Prix are listed not only on the respective GP article (Belgian Grand Prix), but also on nearly all circuit articles which happened to hold a GP (Zolder). I think this is a bit wrong because, although F1 is clearly the pinnacle of motorsport, it is hardly the only event or even the largest event to take place on many circuits. Many world championships have shared these circuits over the years. Obviously some notable exceptions are for some temporary street circuits, although even they have a few other races.

My proposal is to remove lists of F1 winners from circuit articles as these results belong on the Grand Prix page, which clearly is linked from the circuit article in the first place. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Readro (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it might be wise to run the idea past WP:MOTOR as well. 4u1e (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume this suggestion is possibly related to removing other results tables from circuits, such as Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it's just that circuit articles don't really 'belong' to this project, so it's probably worth broadcasting the suggestion further. 4u1e (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in favour. AlexJ (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, i guess. Sometimes more than 1 grand prix is held at a circuit (European/Luxembourg etc) and grouping together at circuit can be useful. Also having an F1 list doesn't prevent for example a world sportscar table being added. --Falcadore (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have text. If someone wants to see the winners of Formula One races at a certain circuit, they can either read or be linked to the appropriate article, even if it is 2 or even 3 other articles. This was not specific to the lack of World Sportscar articles (there's also WTCC), but in regards to those, they are currently listed on the event article, instead of the circuit article (1000 km of Monza). ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to the previous discussion on the subject. Consensus back then (September 2007) was that circuit articles should not contain a list of F1 winners. DH85868993 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour too - at the circuit article there could be a list of notable races held at the relevant circuit, with links to the individual race articles. At the race articles there could be the list of winners. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Supported. But 4u1e makes a good point that this should run by WP:MOTOR. That way we can gain consensus on removal of results of all the tournaments occurring on the circuit making the article more uniform in terms of content. ^LeaveSleaves 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has been opened on WP:MOTOR as well for removing race win tables from all circuits. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It's an event at the circuit. It happened at the circuit thus needing the results. If I went to Silverstone I'd want to know what the results wee at that circuit not all the circuits that the British GP was hosted at. Chubbennaitor 07:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Silverstone holds hundreds of events. Do you want the winners of those races listed on Silverstone Circuit as well? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Well, at least the big main events. Chubbennaitor 08:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is "What's a big main event?" Certainly if an article exists for a particular event, then the results should go there rather than in the circuit article, and that applies to all F1 events. If no race article exists, then one should be created. If a race isn't notable enough for its own article, then the results aren't notable enough to be included anywhere, surely? We're not a results service for middling events. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A circuit article should primarily be about the circuit itself rather than the events held at the circuit. For example, Silverstone should have a bit about being the host of the British Grand Prix between 1950 and 2009, but doesn't need the full blow-by-blow details of each and every race. Far more relevant to the article would be details about changes in the layout of the circuit, how it came about being a circuit, changes in ownership etc. AlexJ (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Results aren't the full blow-by-blow of each detail for the races. The circuit should have results because it's what has happened on the race. If we aren't here to show results then what's the point as that's a large chunk of F1. Anyway, it's not the most important thing to be worrying about. We've still got the diffuser row to put down. Main events being the most televised. Chubbennaitor 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for Silverstone, you'd also need to have results for another F1 race: the International Trophy, which unlike the British GP, was actually held every year in Silverstone. What's stopping me from adding results for the World Sportscar Championship, A1GP, Formula 2, Formula 3000, World Series by Renault, ETCC, WTCC, FIA GT, Le Mans Series, etc...? See where I'm going here? --Pc13 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Chubb, no-one's saying we're not going to show the results - just that the circuit article isn't the best place to show them :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'm not too bothered just I thought it was liable. Chubbennaitor 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's redundant, honestly. I'll start removing the lists from F1 circuits soon. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of them. Cs-wolves(talk) 22:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, all except for the Long Beach Grand Prix which will need more than a simple removal I think. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Are you serious? April 1 was a week ago. Results of races at a circuit belong to the article, or to a "List of results at" subpage if necessary, which is not the case at most circuits, especially not inactive ones. Deleting relevant content is vandalism, no matter how many agree here. You better restore the pages. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No? Threatening and claiming vandalism is hardly a thought out arguement. A circuit is a venue, no different from a football stadium. You don't put every race result or football score in an article on a circuit or a stadium. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What a smart comparison. I am completely convinced now. On the other hand, Wembley stadium still does mention scores even of the NFL and lists dates of concerts, and I haven't checked the old Wembley Stadium (1923) yet. I wonder if they may have a score from the 1966 season sneaked in there? Nasty English boys. As for American venues, let's pick e.g. The Alamo: there has been only one international contest anyway, and if anyone wants to know its outcome, he should look up a history book and not Wikipedia which should focus on its architecture. And while we at WikiProject Formula One are on it, let's delete all of Wikipedia to save precious storage space, as by definition, all WP content has to be written elsewhere in reliable sources anyway. Thus, a Wikipedia article isn't the best place to show facts. Lets remove them to gain more space for personal opinions. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm will do you no favours. This is not a deletion of content; the results are better contained in the relevant Grand Prix articles than in the circuit articles, that is all that is being said. What the editors who run the Wembley articles decide to do is irrelevant here. Apterygial 03:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no list of game results on Wembley Stadium, only a list of "firsts" that should be deleted. As for the rest of that rambling, I really have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Raymond Giggs 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

With what exactly? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 04:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, of course the F1 result remove statement! Raymond Giggs 04:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please no swearing. Can everyone just try there best not to swear and I know what it's like in Matthead's seat but it's just not worth it. As long as there's a link quite obvious leading to the Grand Prix. Chubbennaitor 07:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We could right a list of events it will be hosting in the present year. Chubbennaitor 07:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when was "Damn it" a swear word (WP:CENSOR applies here). Regard the actual discussion, I support the removal of the tables, and in its place a brief description of the most notable races at the track. D.M.N. (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I'm going to suggest replacing the result(s) tables with a timeline of events held at the circuit. This allows an 'at a glance' list of the races events to have taken place, without going into too much detail, and in a much more compressed format. Each event would be linked on the timeline to the main article (British Grand Prix f.ex.) where the list of results could be found. Descriptions of really notable races, in the sense that they had a major effect on the circuit as well as as a race (perhaps only one or two races across all racing series in a tracks history) could be worked into prose in the article. AlexJ (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I was talking to The359. I support the above idea. Chubbennaitor 19:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

All racing series in a track's history? Most older tracks will have had hundreds of series race there! I don't see how it's viable without becoming POV. Readro (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just the major series. Yep, I know what's coming - 'define major'. I was thinking if a series is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it should go in the timeline. It would still be a lot of series for some older tracks, but nothing like comprehensive. It would certainly be a lot shorter than trying to include the results of every event that took place at the circuit, which again would have the same problems about POV and deciding which series to include. AlexJ (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of series with articles - the lists would be huge. You'd have F1, F2, F3000, F3, F5000, FFord, FRenault, FBMW, Touring Cars, Truck racing, etc. Readro (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

...Superbikes, MotoGP, even the bloody Ginetta Juniors have an article these days... A stupid idea on reflection (or poor attempt at defining 'major' at the very least) - but it would still be a hell of a lot shorter than listing every years results for each of those series which is what some seem to be proposing. Hopefully everyone can now agree on the fact that the circuit articles are not the best place to record all these results. AlexJ (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

I'm in negotiations with heczone photography, flickr for us to use his images. He has his images on full copyright publicly but he is sending me the originals through e-mail and allowing us the use of them I think under an agreement that we do and can help with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbennaitor (talk • contribs) 07:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

More of a Commons isuue, but I'll comment anyway. If the user refuses to free the images on flickr under acceptable licenses (viz. cc-by or cc-by-sa), you'll need to confirm the usage of images from the author through OTRS. ^LeaveSleaves 07:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do that, please don't delete the original e-mail as we'll probably need that for proof in case any admins ask. D.M.N. (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you two want me to do but the photographer is reluctant and having second thoughts. Chubbennaitor 07:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do receive permission to use the images without the Flickr licensing being changed, then you would need to forward the message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org via email and put the {{OTRS pending}} (Open-source Ticket Request System) template on it to prevent it from being deleted.--Diniz(talk) 13:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also worth reiterating - the images must be licenced under a suitable licence (CC-BY(-SA) or equivalent). Permission for use on Wikipedia alone is not sufficient. AlexJ (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If the owner sends confirmation through OTRS, the image can be uploaded under other free licenses as well. Of course this needs to specified and approved by the owner. ^LeaveSleaves 17:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gary Anderson (F1 designer)

Not sure about the location at where this page is at, partially due the "F1" part, we don't have 2009 F1 season, we have 2009 Formula One season... at the same point, he's also worked over in America, so I think the article needs to moved to a better name... maybe Gary Anderson (motorsport designer). Thoughts? (p.s. we should really standardise the naming for when a disambig gets in the way, so it looks "organised" as such) D.M.N. (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Automotive designer probably makes the most sense, since we have an article on it, although it doesn't specifically discuss any motorsports designing. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are to go for the most general disambig. possible (on the basis that most articles get by without a description in the title at all), so looking at the list of Gary Anderson's it should either be Gary Anderson (designer) or Gary Anderson (motorsport). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexJ (talk • contribs)

Or Gary Anderson (engineer) perhaps? Pyrope 14:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Engineer rather than designer, certainly! Motorsport might be more suitable; didn't he run his own team (F3?) at one point? 4u1e (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the Anson team I believe. Gary Anderson (motorsport) is probably the best suited then, any objections to the change?AlexJ (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

None, go ahead. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 11:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Drivers whose only WDC entry was withdrawn before the race

How do we want to handle drivers whose only WDC entry was withdrawn before the race (possibly meaning that they didn't appear at the race meeting). Do we want to:

• include them in List of Formula One drivers (noting that despite its name, it's actually a list of drivers who have entered a WDC race)
• include them in the relevant national subcategory of Category:Formula One drivers (obviously if they competed in some non-championship races then they go in this category regardless),
• include them in List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race?

Currently, they're being handled inconsistently. For example Alex Blignaut, David Clapham, Ray Reed and Ernie de Vos are listed in List of Formula One drivers but Gary Hocking and Syd van der Vyver are not and Hocking is the only one of the six listed in List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race. DH85868993 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that these articles had been created, and the reason I hadn't created them already is that I really doubt these guys are notable enough for their own articles. Hocking is a possible exception. There are a hell of a lot more than this, and I would argue for a separate list of drivers who raced in F1 non-championship events but did not take part in WDC events. These guys could be part of that list. The problem with List of Formula One drivers is that it either needs to be clarified to include all WDC event entrants, or not. If it does, then we can include them all easily enough. As you say, it also needs to be clarified that it only includes WDC F1 drivers and not all the dozens of non-WDC drivers. So:

• Yes, and clarify the exact scope of this list.
• Yes.
• I don't like this list at all, but yes, I suppose they should be included in it. The list is another that needs to be made much clearer. The title is awful - presumably by "a race", it means a WDC F1 race? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, why are we giving them articles in the first place? Apart from being included in the most exhaustive type of F1 stats lists they hardly qualify in terms of notability. Is som one who never actually drove an F1 car in anger really an F1 driver at all? If they have non-C races to their name then possibly they would qualify, but in the absence of this I'm eally wondering whether just sticking your name down for a WC race and then pulling out before the race justifies a page. Pyrope 14:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that withdrawing from a F1WC race doesn't merit an article in itself, but perhaps participation in other series may provide them with notability to have an article (it must be rare for a driver to have their one and only motorsport 'appearance' at the top level). None of the articles mentioned above mention other series - their articles contain no information outside their F1 'career' and given that they provide no sources, notability has not been proven for them at present. AlexJ (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's possible that some or all of these guys do have notability stashed away somewhere in their careers, but it's a matter of digging it out. I doubt there's anything out there on Reed, Clapham or de Vos, but the others were South African F1 series regulars and some like van der Vyver were successful in other series. I've been able sometimes to expand an article when it's been threatened with deletion, like Xavier Perrot, but with some of these F1 withdrawers it's going to be impossible to get an article up to scratch. That's why I suggest a list might be better. It'd be a long list though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interests on consistency, all 6 drivers (Blignaut, Clapham, Reed, de Vos, Hocking and van der Vyver) are now listed in both List of Formula One drivers and List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race. DH85868993 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User adding "F1 Victories" section to several articles

See F1season's contributions, with edits like this. I don't think the table is needed as it is already covered in the prose and in the other "Complete F1 results" table. I'm tempted to mass revert, but just wanted to see if you guys agree. D.M.N. (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems fairly redundant, given that it is already shown just above. I would have no problem with a removal. Apterygial 10:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I find them redundant too. Mark83 (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I've reverted his edits. D.M.N. (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't those results already sort of exist everywhere else. Chubbennaitor 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

1995 results table bolding

I notice that four of the 1995 race report articles (1995 Brazilian Grand Prix, 1995 European Grand Prix, 1995 Pacific Grand Prix and 1995 Japanese Grand Prix) have had the bolding removed from the points-scorer rows in the results tables. Does anyone know why this was done? DH85868993 (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it in one of the 1995 FAC/PR's. I'll try and find the exact one... D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Here we go: Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 Pacific Grand Prix/archive1. The exact comment in question was: "I don't see a need to embolden the top six finishers - they have points in the points column so it should be obvious. If you leave it like that then you ought to have a key." - based on that comment, I removed the boldness. I don't really (and still don't) see the need for boldness, their is a points column clearly in the [1995 Pacific Grand Prix#Race 2|race table]], so there isn't no real need for boldness, in my view it seemed to be an added effect with no real purpose.. the points positions are already identified by the right hand column. D.M.N. (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess then we need to decide whether:

• we want to restore the bolding in these 4 articles, so they match the other 800+ race report articles and the example race report,
• we want to change the other 800+ race report articles and the example race report to match these 4 articles, or
• we're happy to live with the inconsistency.

DH85868993 (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we'd be better making a decision based on how it affects the articles, rather than on how many articles need to be changed. AlexJ (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it affects the articles really be removing the bolding... if we didn't have a "points" column, I would understand having the bolding there, but as we do have a points column, the bolding seems kinda pointless. I don't think there's no big deal which such a small inconsistency, but I guess its good to be consistent, we don't want petty edit-wars over such small things! ;-) D.M.N. (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a petty edit war! I really have no problem with the bolding, at the end of the day all an F1 driver wants to do is get into the points (and as many as possible). Except in some very rare cases, one position outside of the points is only as valuable as ten outside, which is to say not much. I find the bolding quite valuable, really, it helps indicate the useful positions. :) Apterygial 09:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Teams who are on official entry list; but don't compete in any races?

Just wondering, what do we do about teams that are on the official FIA entry list, but don't actually compete in any races, i.e.

• 1995: Larrousse appears in the entry list, but are not listed here.

What do we do in situations like the above? D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Put them on the list of instructors but point out that they didn't compete. Chubbennaitor 19:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I think Larrousse went pop a while before the season started (just after I bought my Larrousse T-shirt, I think :( ) so a simple note to say they folded before the first race would probably do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to include Larrousse, you'll need to change the sentence about it being a list of teams which competed in the 1995 season to a list of entrants. AlexJ (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Larrousse team only officially withdrew from F1 before the San Marino Grand Prix, so I think there's definitely a case for including it in the teams and drivers table.--Diniz(talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've added them to the table, with a ref to the official entry list. Not sure whether there are any other examples like this from across the years... D.M.N. (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Anglo American Racers and Eagle Mk1

First, I opened a discussion on WP:MOTOR regarding the naming of Anglo American Racers instead of All American Racers, and since it involves F1, you all should know. Linky

Second, the history of the Eagle Mk1 mentions chassis 104 (Ti-Mag), a modified design with titanium and magnesium used in the construction. When was this car constructed? Along with the rest of the chassis in 1966, or sometime later in the Eagle career? How much titanium was used, and did this particular chassis ever actually race? I ask because I had been researching and briefly sandboxing an article on the Peter Bryant Ti22 Can-Am car, which from what I can tell, claimed to be the first race car to use titanium. Or is it simply that the Ti-Mag Eagle didn't use titanium in the monocoque, while the Ti22 did? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Doug Nye's History of The Grand Prix Car 1966-85 indicates that use of titanium in chassis 104 was restricted to the suspension links and the exhaust manifolds. It adds that chassis 103 was subsequently also fitted with a titanium suspension set. The way the text is written suggests that chassis 104 was built in early 1967. Here is 104's race history. Hope this helps. DH85868993 (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ti-Mag Eagle most certainly did race. As DH's link shows, it was the chassis that took Eagle's one and only WC race win. As far as I am aware the titanium was restricted to the components and wasn't part of the monocoque. Ti is very hard and is poorly malleable, and is thus very difficult to use in in the traditional cigar-shaped monocoque design (see also the problems that Robin Herd had using mallite in the McLaren M2B). The straight panelwork in many sportscar monocoques lends itself better to this type of material. It is, however, easily cast and for suspension swing-arms etc. doesn't represent a great manufacturing challenge. Pyrope 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, that clears that up. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 Malaysian Grand Prix Peer Review

I have listed the above article for a Peer Review, and it would be great if you could contribute. You can find it here. Thanks! Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 12:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Records succession boxes

A succession box for "Youngest Grand Prix winner for 2 different teams" has been added to the Sebastian Vettel article. I think this is overkill and would like to remove it - any objections?--Diniz(talk) 18:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is going a bit to far. I'll second that. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 19:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If t's for the removal then third. Chubbennaitor 19:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I also support its removal. Listing at List of Formula One driver records is sufficient (or if really necessary, it could go in a "Records and Achievements" section, similar to Fernando_Alonso#Records_and_achievements, Kimi_Räikkönen#Formula_One_records_and_achievements and Lewis_Hamilton#Records). DH85868993 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Overkill, so support of removal, if it has not been removed already. Cs-wolves(talk) 23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go along with that, and look forward to the breaking of the record for the "Highest number of 14th places earned by German drivers in white cars". Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too much, but we also have Most Wins in a debut Formula One season for example. Where should we draw the line? --Sporti (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think at most wins by Brazilian drivers wearing glove size 36 under the age of 29 with cousins who've raced in FIA GT. I think we can agree we don't need that one. --Falcadore (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Would that include second cousins? Apterygial 10:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it.--Diniz(talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Timezone?

Haven't seen anything on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=timezone&prefix=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject+Formula+One%2FArchive&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search or related searches, and not sure if this is one for this project or perhaps an ancestor. Basically, what's with the timezone field in circuit infoboxes? Should this be changed everytime a circuit moves into or out of daylight savings? For instance, the UK and Silverstone are currently on BST, (GMT+1), but the box says GMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silverstone_Circuit&oldid=283463149). Especially as not everyone changes on the same dates, I think this could only lead to confusion.. Anyway, opening the floor. 78.151.177.80 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Circuit articles are probably more to do with Wikiproject Motorsport rather than WP:F1. Probably best to take the discussion there to get a wider view on the subject. AlexJ (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey everybody, the portal's up for Featured status! Still!

Here! It's actually been up for quite a while, and this is the second message I've left. If you love the portal, say so. If you hate it because it doesn't mention that the Alfa Romeo 177 featured a Carlo Chiti designed Alfa Romeo flat-12 engine which had been used earlier in the Alfa Romeo 33TT12 and 33SC12 sports cars, say so. Apterygial 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Latest F1GP

I've just created the above template for use in articles, particularly current constructor and driver infoboxes, where the last Grand Prix they competed in is a required field. The template displays the last GP, and updates as Sunday ticks to Monday, UTC. As it would shorten the incredibly lengthy list of things to do after a race, does anyone have any problem with adding this to applicable infoboxes? Apterygial 11:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of the template (having just recently gone through and manually updated the "Latest Grand Prix" field for most of the F1 team articles, however:

• I would recommend changing the name to "Latest GP" rather than "Lastest GP", and
• I'm not convinced about the auto-updating. I think I would prefer for it to be updated manually so we can control exactly when it happens (I'm not quite sure why)

And of course, we'll still have to remember to manually update any drivers/teams who miss a particular race (although that doesn't happen very often these days). DH85868993 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the template, but I agree with DH with someone updating it manually straight after each race with an edit description "update". But its better than going around every race article and doing it, definitely. D.M.N. (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the horrific spelling mistake, it seems like every time I log on DH has added something to the list of things to do after the race, and we can see that it has taken four days this time. My impression is that people update the results box, but not the infobox. Is there a real problem with waiting a few hours, rather than being in complete control? What if DH goes on holiday? BTW, I've moved the template. Apterygial 11:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wait, some unknown IP will jump in and "correct" the template by deleting it and adding in the last race the instant the chequered flag falls. A manual update will allow us to preempt them, and updating one template manually is much less work than at present. Pyrope 14:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused at the moment, do people like the idea of the template but would prefer to update the template manually rather than it auto-updating? Apterygial 23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes (speaking for myself). DH85868993 (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. It makes sense now. I've reduced it just to the last GP link, and we can start putting it in the infoboxes. Apterygial 01:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To minimise effort, I'd suggest putting the template in the infoboxes as part of the post-Bahrain update, but if you want to update them pre-emptively, I have no objection. DH85868993 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did the drivers, but we can do the constructors after Bahrain. Apterygial 01:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in rather late. I somewhat agree with DH85868993's last concern in the first post and more so with Pyrope's concern. Are we really facing delays or problem with manually updating? I know I rarely do these updates and it would be improper for me to judge if such updates are really time consuming etc., but do we really need such a template? ^LeaveSleaves 02:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I doubt that we *need* a template, but it would make our lives a lot easier. I don't see any trouble in using it. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 06:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think need is the issue, but this list is ridiculous. If we can have one template which cuts down 30 edits to 1, why not use it? It no longer auto-updates, by the way, it's now just the GP linked. Apterygial 09:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to note is that when the template is updated after a race, the change won't necessarily be immediately visible in all the articles which transclude the template - sometimes template changes take a couple of days to appear in the transcluding articles. However, editing the article (which typically happens to all the current driver articles within an hour(?) of the end of a race) will cause the change to become visible immediately. Note that I'm not offering this as an argument for or against use of the template; I'm just hoping to avoid any possible confusion on Sunday. DH85868993 (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem can also be solved by purging your cache. I have noticed that in the last few months the automatic transcluding update system (the server has a list it works through) has become much quicker, almost instantaneous, so this really shouldn't be a problem. Apterygial 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that. DH85868993 (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the last major template edit I made (2 days ago) took less than 30 minutes to become visible. Pyrope 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure, Chubb, that the big infoboxes with examples on the template page are really necessary to demonstrate use of the template. Seems fairly self-explanatory to me. Apterygial 06:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Today I went through all the driver articles after the race as I usually do, primarily to pre-empt the IP editors making 30 edits to each one, half of them wrong, and the template still showed the latest race as the Chinese GP, which was incorrect. It needs to be instant or forget it - 30 minutes is also way too long. Also, glancing at the latest race field is the easiest way to determine whether or not someone has already updated the stats (or some of the stats, which is what usually happens). It seems like this was created to avoid a problem which wasn't there in the first place - it takes all of a couple of seconds to change the GP while updating the stats. Or have I missed the point? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, last time it took four days to update those fields. The idea is that now you know it exists it can be the first thing you update after the race. Apterygial 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Four days to update which fields? The driver articles are fully updated within about 15 minutes of the chequered flag. If this template is to be used, it should be updated on the Friday anyway, once all drivers have participated in the race weekend, since "the latest GP" surely does not just refer to the race itself. Then we could be assured of the the template having updated itself by the time the race has ended. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Bretonbanquet's point above is the reason why the template shouldn't be used - Glancing at the table and seeing that the last Grand Prix is the 2009 Bahrain GP to me tells me that the driver infobox has been updated and that all the stats there have been updated accordingly for that race. If the last race field was updated manually then it would be updated when the other stats are updated too. Schumi555 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's one less thing to do and I'm now watching it, so hopefully I will have changed it. It also means that only one edit is needed rather than 30 odd. The GP part refers to the actual Grand Prix so as soon as the race starts it should be changed. Chubbennaitor 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if it's fast enough. Otherwise it's just a pain in the ass. Anyway, as far as the driver articles are concerned, it's generally me who's updated the infoboxes for the last couple of seasons and I've never had a problem with changing the "last race" field while I do the other updates - in fact, as I say, it helps to discern whether or not someone else has hamfistedly butchered the stats before I got there. Incidentally, the "last GP" stat refers to the last entry, not the last actual race start, so no, it should be changed once the race weekend starts. Or better still, it should just be changed manually when the other stats are updated - it just seems very easy that way to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about slow, even though it appears almost immediately. I feel it helps te system more and it makes it easier. You can keep up the changing the boxes but I will save time by doing one edit. Chubbennaitor 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was pretty far from immediate on Sunday, as you know. Anyway, since one has to change the other stats in the infobox, this doesn't actually save any time at all - it's still one edit per article if you do the sensible thing and update all the changes at the same time. See what happens after the next race - if it's still too slow, I'd suggest junking it. By the time the chequered flag falls, it needs to be done and dusted so that it fits in with the other updates, and doesn't stick out like a sore thumb like it did on Sunday. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rainmaster

anybody seen this? Rainmaster. Ok in a way i can understand Boutsen after all he lucked 2 wins when Senna had problems, but Christian Fittipaldi a Rainmaster? OMG. Loosmark (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reference given does refer to his CART career, and not his F1 results... Remember, the watchword of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Pyrope 14:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Forget about who's included, when did a list of people who have been called Rainmaster by some publication at some point in their career, become eligible for a Wikipedia article? Taking the policy definition of notability, I don't see any sources here which constitute significant coverage of the term Rainmaster (an article on drivers considered to be rainmasters for example). AlexJ (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure some could be found. I have a strong recollection that Motor Sport have run a couple of articles about rainmasters over the years (anyone with the CDs want to check that out?). It is a fairly widespread and common concept in many forms of wheeled competition so I suspect that a decent article could grow from that stub should someone want to create one. Pyrope 14:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Motor Sport ran a "wet issue" in October 07 and talked about Ickx, Stewart, Rodriguez and Gilles Villeneuve among others. Rightly so, when you look at Stewart winning the 1968 German Grand Prix by over 4 minutes, Villeneuve chiefing wet Friday practice at the 1979 United States Grand Prix by over 9 seconds, and Rodriguez winning the wet 1970 Brands Hatch 1000km by 5 laps... I really don't want to see the relatively ordinary exploits of Hamilton or Button appearing in this article without mention of these other drivers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Jenson Button, Hamilton? Where are they? The purpose is to explain the term Rainmaster and referring to people with the name given to them. Chubbennaitor 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Hamilton as a rainmaster, especially after his show in China! Maybe a little harsh, Silverstone '08 for example; I don't wish to start an argument about which drivers should/should not be included :) But the fact is whether or not reliable sources are available describing these drivers as 'rainmasters'. Schumi555 15:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, and i watch F1 for over 20 years, the only drivers who deserve the title of rainmasters are Senna, Schumacher and Alesi. Loosmark (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is exactly the reason a list shouldn't be used. A few examples from various series worked into text to help explain the term should be used, not an opinionated listing of every Rainmaster or great Rainmaster or any kind of Rainmaster. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 17:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, this needs some more text added. Pyrope 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't stand this kind of thing. You could probably find a reference somewhere to say that Tarso Marques was a rainmaster - in F3000 or something, which would then liken him to Senna and Schumacher if so portrayed in a simple list. I'm with 359 and say dump the list in favour of a text + few examples, sticking to a small number of undeniable, multi-sourced drivers like Senna and the German, and one or two from other areas of motor sport. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the DVD archives of Motor Sport from 1924 up to and including 1979. I've searched the lot for this. As far as I can see, the original "rain master", or in his case the germanic "Regenmeister" was Rudolf Caracciola. Several sources refer to it being his nickname. I've put in several references to this effect. The germanic version of the term only refers to Caracciola. The only usage of the anglicised version, i.e. "Rain master", in the journal referred to Peter Walker in hillclimbing. Any other mentions of the term came about in letters, mostly in comparisons to Caracciola, particularly after Jackie Stewart's win at the Nurburgring in 1968. It is apparent that the genuine article is Caracciola and some time later it became fashionable to apply the term to anyone who wins in the wet. Readro (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the more recent stuff. I distinctly remember a sequence of articles (or perhaps is was one "top ten style thing?) considering rainmasters in general, and there have been individual articles on Pedro Rodriguez, Jacky Ickx, Jackie Stewart, and others, specifically considering their abilities in the wet. Sadly my stash of MS from the last 20 years is gathering dust on my parents' shelves and I am 5000km away in Canada so I can't check right now. Interesting to get the historical perspective though. Pyrope 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My copy has a feature on Barrichello as a rainmaster, concentrating on the 1993 European Grand Prix, where away from Senna's first lap heroics, Rubens went from 12th to 4th on the opening lap. Not sure where his team-mate "rainmaster" Boutsen was that day. Article was written by Robin Widdows. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks to DMN for correcting me there... momentary slip of the brain, you understand :o Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We all have momentary slips now and them! Um, I think the rainmaster page should stay, but prose is a must. When it did get turned into prose, it should be noted that rainmasters do make mistakes, even the best made/make mistakes in wet conditions. D.M.N. (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DMN, if you have sources on the paragraph you wrote a bit above then we can start to expand the page removing the list and writing in the names as "It was often used for people like Senna, Schumacher etc." Chubbennaitor 21:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't wrote any paragraph? :/ D.M.N. (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Stuck, although not known for it in F1, would certainly be deserving of some mention as a Rainmaster in the article. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Stuck got a mention in the Motor Sport article I have here, I think generally for sports car racing. I think that, if it were written with balance and decent refs, it could be a good article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Brambilla? --Sporti (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be taken to WP:Motorsport as it doesn't just concern us. The paragraph Readro wrote sorry. Chubbennaitor 07:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does concern you if the project wants to rewrite the Rainmaster article. Talk page comments shouldn't be refactored by other users and if every mention of things not completely related to the project resulted in the comments being dumped elsewhere then there would never be any inter-project collaboration. Readro (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're on about as many a discussion has been taken to places it would have better collaboration. The article concerns motor sport in general, so I saw it as WP:Motorsport being a much better place for the pages future to be discussed. Chubbennaitor 14:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I misread your post. Never mind. Readro (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You read "doesn't just concern us" as "just doesn't concern us" by any chance? AlexJ (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that would be a problem after Readro's comment. Chubbennaitor 19:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Such an arbitrary 'nickname', this is borderline fancruft, surely something like this should be merged into List of motorsport terminology. --Falcadore (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I thought it was. Chubbennaitor 07:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be tempted to reduce it to a disambiguation page, if anything. If drivers have been labelled "rainmasters" then their bios can say so, having such a page for as you say, "an arbitrary 'nickname'", seems redundant. Apterygial 10:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

even though obvious, we are an encyclopedia and 'rainmaster' is part of motor sport terminology so duly deserves a page of some sort. Chubbennaitor 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If we went by that theory, every entry on the List of motorsport terminology should have its own page.

Speaking of which; has anyone put an entry in that article? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 19:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

it's a term without a proper definition and is entirely subjective in its awarding and has been handed out like candy in some instances (Boutsen's 1989 Adelaide win was by being last man standing rather than wet weather dominance). Definately believe its page should be taken away and redirected to a short mention on the terminology page. --Falcadore (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Falcadore about merging the article into List of motorsport terminology, as it's a fairly generic term which is difficult to reference, and I think only its origin with Caracciola is noteworthy. As Caracciola's article already has information on this, then a merge is the most appropriate option.--Diniz(talk) 18:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Formula One Championship

In the past few days, Template:Formula One Championship has been changed to full width and had all the line breaks removed. What do people think? DH85868993 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Chubbennaitor 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice look. Although I think the future F1 seasons should be kept seperate in the template from current and past seasons. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on Phil's comment, I've made this test edit which I've self reverted. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's future? Chubbennaitor 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The third should be "future". Darth Newdar (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note:

The discussion about incivility/swearing on this talkpage has restarted. Thanks! Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Chinese Grand Prix photos

FYI, a large set of freely-licensed photos have been uploaded to Flickr here. I've uploaded quite a few of them, but there are a lot more available if anyone thinks it is worthwhile!--Diniz(talk) 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Structure for the "Race Report" articles

As many of you know, for the 1995 articles that I've been working on (allowing with Diniz), I've been using the following format:

== Report ==
=== Background ===
=== Practice and qualifying ===
=== Race ===
=== Post-race ===

....followed by the Classification headers. It also like this in the 2008 articles, and the 2009 articles.... however, I attempted to change it to the above on the 2009 Chinese Grand Prix article, but I was undone by LeaveSleaves (talk · contribs), with this format now in place:

== Background ==
== Event report ==
=== Practice and qualifying ===
=== Race ===
=== Post-race ===

I've brought it here, so we can have consensus for future race reports and so current format can be adjusted if necessary. D.M.N. (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this needs to be brought when this currently concerns only one article. In any case, my rationale for new format can be seen here. See no need to repost it and quite frankly would prefer discussion on that talk page. ^LeaveSleaves 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely LeaveSleaves, your rationale for changing China would apply equally to all F1 race report articles? In which case, discussion here is probably a good thing. I'm unsure either way - for example in the China article, the background contains info on Ferrari and STR running logos for the earthquake charity on their cars which is something that is part of the event report. On the other hand stuff that happened in previous races is not part of the reporting of the event. I'm going to suggest a third option - no report heading at all. I don't actually see why it's needed - P&Q, Race, Post-Race could all stand as Level 1 headers on their own - it should already be clear that the article is about the event. AlexJ (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel that there should be independence to article editors (people who significantly edit a particular race article) to set the format for that article. Of course the areas that need to be covered are similar for each race, but this shouldn't turn the articles into identical box sets with altered contents. As for the China case of logos, those announcements were made prior to the race and were in no way related to racing events per se. Hence it would be wrong to include them into so called Report section.

I'm open to creation of even newer structures such as the one you suggested in the end. I don't think mere section headings be an issue in article development. What really matters is the content. ^LeaveSleaves 22:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'd agree with you that the most important aspect of an article is its content, that doesn't mean its structure is irrelevant. As AlexJ said, a change in one article affects all of our others, and it is not up to each individual editor in each individual article to decide what that structure should be be. Tackling the main issue at hand, there is really no reason why P&Q, Race, Post-Race can't be level 2 headings (level 1 is that really massive one, try it) and we can do away with the Report heading. My assumption of the current system was that it was to differentiate the prose part of the article (the Report) from the classification section, and if this is the case I have no problem. The prose would be the same regardless, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for consistency. I'm assuming D.M.N.'s examples above should say Post-race, not Pre-race... Apterygial 00:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right in saying the content is the most important thing, but it's probably worth hammering out this article headings thing. I personally am in favour of the painting-by-numbers section style we have, with a handful of exceptions. Hence why I believe your point is a fair one, but that the same argument could be made for made for any report article. Coming back to my suggestion, I see the classification table as an appendix to the main text. You'd see an appendix being labelled as such in a book, but the main chapters wouldn't have a prefix. I think the case is similar here, and doing away with it removes the issue about what to include under the heading without losing any clarity in my view. AlexJ (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm open to removal of "Report" heading altogether. The reason I took Background out of it is because it just doesn't belong there. But I guess someone could also make a similar argument for "Post race" section as well. e.g. for 2009 Australian GP, a lot of post-race events happened quite a few days after the race. In such a case, putting entire "Post race" under "Report" doesn't make complete sense. ^LeaveSleaves 15:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I much rather the top example. Much clearer. Chubbennaitor 16:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)