Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Country code for Grand Prix of America

DH85868993 recently brought my attention to this table of agreed-upon abbreviations for three-letter country codes in results tables, and it occurred to me that with two new additions to the calendar in the next two years, we're going to need to figure out what to do. The Russian Grand Prix is easy enough - RUS should be fine - but the Grand Prix of America might be a problem because there is nothing that easily fits. USA is, obviously, already taken. The way I see it, there are a few ways forward:

1) We use the code AMR or AME. These are both derived from the word 'America', but the problem with this is that I've never actually heard of the word being trimmed down this way, so it might be confusing.

2) We use GPA, for Grand Prix of America. This would remove all confusion, though none of the standardised country codes specifically refer to the Grand Prix part of a race's name.

3a) We use NYC, for New York City. This one is contentious; the race is in New Jersey, and overlooks New York City.

3b) We use NJ, for New Jersey. This seems at odds with a three-letter code, though (unless there is a three-letter abbreviation for NJ ... NJR?). I suppose an exception could be made.

3c) We use NEW, for "New", which could refer to both New Jersey or New York City. However, it is a case of being deliberately ambiguous, and I don't like that idea.

3d) We use WEE or WNY, as parts of the circuit are in Weehawken and West New York. This is again confusing, and perhaps entirely too specific.

4) We use PIC, for Port Imperial Street Circuit. I don't like this, because there is no precedent for using a circuit name in the place of a country or race title. And also because Charles Pic.

5) Something else. I don't know what.

Personally, I like the first option the best. AME is straight and to the point, and it's derived from "America", so clicking on the w-link will take users straight to the Grand Prix of America page, where the connection between AME and "America" should be immediately obvious to anyone who follows it. However, I'm also open to the idea of NYC (mostly because I feel New York will feature prominently in any promotion of the race) and GPA.

I know this is largely a cosmetic thing, but like I said, I feel there is no immediately-obvious way forward. We're fast approaching June, which means the first drafts of the 2013 calendar are imminent (the 2012 calendar was released on 3 June 2011, so the 2013 calendar could be as little as a week away), and as soon as it gets released, I want to start working on blank tables and templates because they're fiddly and time consuming, and I find that the sooner they get done, the more time we have to concentrate on developments that affect the season.

So, what will it be? 10:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

'AME' seems best. Used together with it should be pretty clear that it means 'America'. - mspete93 12:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also suggest 'AME'. Best to avoid anything based on the city or circuit, in case the race ever moves somewhere else but keeps the same name. DH85868993 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go with AME, too. I think the code must be derived from the actual title of the race rather than circuit, location etc., and clearly the first 3 letters of 'America' are the obvious choice for clarity. And as mspete says, together with a flag there's unlikely to be any confusion. Allypap81 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

reliable sites

Hi, I recently asked a question about the reliability of Statsf1 a few months ago, but I got no response. Currently List of Formula One polesitters is at FLC, but is having a bit of trouble as I can prove the reliability of statsf1. I was wondering if anyone in the project is able to verify that the site is reliable and if it is not, point in the direction of one that is. This would be a great help, as I think this is the only stumbling block at the moment, cheers. NapHit (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

How do we prove the reliability of a source? (semi-rhetorical question) Probably about the best I can offer is that for the particular information in question (i.e. number of pole positions per driver), the information at StatsF1 matches the information at FORIX, which is generally considered as a reliable source. Unfortunately, FORIX is a subscription site, so I can't just provide a link that you could use to demonstrate to a third party (e.g. an FLC reviewer) that the information matches. And I also have no evidence to support my statement that FORIX is generally considered as a reliable source (although I believe it to be true). Hope this helps (although I have my doubts). DH85868993 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As a point of order, to suggest subscription sites cannot be used is to suggest periodicals and books cannot be used as a reviwer generally can't review them either. --Falcadore (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that that's the case. However, to demonstrate the reliability of a non-subscription site by comparison to a reputable source is difficult when a subscription or a healthy library of back issues are required. Pyrope 13:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

List of formula one drivers update

Could someone please update this page after as of the 2012 Monaco Grand Prix? I usually do it but I really don't have time. Editadam 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Peugeot engine links

The current convention is for references to Peugeot Formula One engines to link to [[Peugeot]]. I'm wondering whether [[Peugeot#Formula One]] might be a better place to which to link. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed change.--Midgrid(talk) 19:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine, although perhaps Peugeot Sport instead? QueenCake (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Peugeot Sport seems the appropriate link. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 Formula One season - Peer Review

I've just noticed that the 2012 Formula One season article has been listed for a peer review here and couldn't find it mentioned already on this page. I'm sure that any comments would be much appreciated.--Midgrid(talk) 19:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Constructor column in "Teams and drivers" tables in season summary articles

I propose that the "Constructor" column in the "Teams and drivers" tables in the season summary articles be de-bolded. Opinions? DH85868993 (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I oppose it. I see no reason not to continue having them in bold. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the rationale behind my proposal is that I can't see any reason the information in that column is any more important/should be highlighted more than the information in any of the other columns. DH85868993 (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How about Article 6.3 of the sporting regulations, which states that the title (and therefore, all results obtained) will be credited to the name of the constructor? In the case of McLaren, a win is credited to McLaren - not to Vodafone and not to Mercedes. McLaren. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Article 6.3 of the sporting regulations that says we have to have the constructor name in bold. What on earth does that have to do with anything? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Article 6.3 makes it quite clear who the results are credited to. By having the constructor name in bold, it makes it easier to identify who the teams are. If we un-bold the Constructor column, then we might as well do away with the team name column, particularly as that information might otherwise be lost in the swell of data on sponsor names and official team names and the like.

Personally, I don't see any reason why the column shouldn't be bold. And right now, the major argument against it seems to be "I don't see any reason why the column should be bold", which I don't think is that compelling an argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if the constructor name wasn't bold, it would be difficult to identify the teams? Saying "I don't see any reason why the column should be bold" is as compelling an argument as "I don't see any reason why the column shouldn't be bold", which is what you're saying. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I direct your attention to this comment, which you made above:

By terms, I obviously mean sponsor names. Nothing explains what "AT&T" or "West" etc mean, or why those words are in the team name, and they quite patently are not explained. Who the sponsors are is not explained by the link to the team article. It's not even clear that they're sponsors.

By that logic, the constructor name is separate, alone and w-linked. This implies that it has a certain importance over the official team name in the adjacent column - which it does. As I've pointed out, Article 6.3 describes constructor names as the name to which results are credited. The way I see it, from the angle you're approaching this, un-bolding the constructor names would require us to remove the team name column. Which we can't do, because that is the official name that appears on all FIA entry lists and in all media released from the teams.

This is a bit like the bold-P episode above: it's not really a critical issue that threatens the integrity of the article. The pages work just as well with or without bold constructor names, so why try and fix something if it isn't broken? The constructor names are notable enough to be w-linked when the team names are not. Therefore, putting them in bold works to further highlight that.

I'd much rather we focused our energies on something that actually needs fixing, like the inconsistent and incomplete circuit maps. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What does the logic I used in a separate argument have to do with this one? Forget Article 6.3 - it has zero bearing on what we do here. No, de-bolding the constructor column does not mean we delete the team column - why would it? You know what? You guys keep the hopeless mess of contradictory methods you currently use, which differ from season to season, and keep pretending that it looks good. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What inconsistency? Am I missing something here? Every season page uses a bold column for the constructors in the teams and drivers table. The only inconsistency at the moment is the way the 2012 season page lists the team name and engine in the column, which you yourself pointed out was an issue. I'm going to amend that issue on every page since 2000 shortly (I don't have enough time on my hands to do all 60 pages right now, and I'm a bit uncertain about the proper names for some of the older ones). So I'm not seeing what's contradictory here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the entrant column, which in the last few seasons contains no links, and which prior to about 2009, contains links. The discussion above concluded that that was fine. I'm really past caring about it anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see the Constructors column CORRECTLY USED, which it presently is NOT. Constructor is a terminology that combines the chassis AND the engine. Not as is said above McLaren, but McLaren-Mercedes. Until this can be correctly understood you are arguing over who is less wrong. --Falcadore (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that. But even if you include the engine names in the table, there's still no need to un-bold the constructor column. There's no reason to keep it bold, either, but we're only talking about a purely cosmetic change here Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There, I fixed it. The constructor column on the 2012 Formula One season page now has full constructor names. We'll see how it goes for now (I'm anticipating some opposition), and then expand it out to other season articles if the idea takes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

An alternative would have been to keep the existing contents and relabel the column "Chassis make" per the terminology used in Article 6.3 of the sporting regulations. DH85868993 (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, because that would be at odds with the title "World Constructors Championship" and the WCC points table in the article.

Also, Article 6.3 clearly says "A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Schedule 3 to The 2009 Concorde Agreement."; in other words, "the constructor is the person who builds the car". Under 6.3, the "chassis" refers to the physical car, and the "make" is the engine. Therefore, "Constructor" is the most-appropriate name to use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel like we're disappearing down a rabbit hole here but in 6.3 I see "The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor." and "If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine...", which says to me that there is a "chassis make" and an "engine make". So, for McLaren-Mercedes, "McLaren" is the "chassis make" and "Mercedes" is the "engine make". So what I wrote was that you could have left the existing contents of the column (i.e. "Red Bull", "McLaren", "Ferrari", etc) and labelled it "Chassis Make". I'm not saying what's there now is wrong, just pointing out an alternative you could have chosen. DH85868993 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Because I think we might have thrown a baby out with some bathwater lately, and following on from DH's comment above, I'll transcribe here a message I just left at another talk page.

"Lotus" is not a constructor, it is a chassis "make" that has been used by three different constructors: Team Lotus, Lotus Racing, and Lotus GP. A constructor is an entity that constructs a chassis and/or engine. They each appoint a name for their chassis and engine and this is termed a make. Where the chassis and engine are manufactured by different constructors the two names are combined, chassis first, to form a car make. Constructors' Championship points are awarded to each car make and, where the constructor of the chassis and engine are different, the championship title is awarded to the constructor of the chassis. I realise that this has become confused in recent times, and for that I entirely blame Martin Brundle. He has been very repetitious in hammering home his understanding that the "constructor" is the combination of chassis and engine names, but although he has a very big platform to broadcast from this doesn't make him any the less wrong. The most recent version of the Sporting Regulations have made a complete dogs' breakfast of this position, presumably because journalists have started thinking that Brundle was right and the FIA were wrong, but certainly in the time of Team Lotus (proper) the situation was very clear. In the words of the 2001 Sporting Regulations "The constructor of an engine or rolling chassis is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which owns the intellectual property rights to such engine or chassis. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor." In other words, Team Lotus were the constructor of Lotus chassis.

In other words, and although I see why Falcadore has been making the changes they recently have, we still aren't really close to representing the reality of the situation; we are merely perpetuating the media's oversimplification and misconception. The columns that are presently headed "Constructor" in the season summary would be better simply termed "Car" or "Car make". I'm not proposing that we must change things (I, for one, can't be bothered to have that argument with the persistently uninformed), just hoping that people realise that things are still wrong. Pyrope 16:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Brundle would have the understanding that he does because as recently as the 1980s his team, Tyrrell, had its constructors points split between Tyrrell-Ford and Tyrrell-Renault. So if Brundle is wrong, when did the definition change? --Falcadore (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Brundle is wrong, period. Has never been thus. He's got the gist of it, in that the two car makes were awarded points separately, but the chassis constructor in each case was the Tyrrell Racing Organisation. The engine makes were "Ford" (constructed by Cosworth Engineering, remember that they can assign the engine make name but there is no requirement that the name be related to them, see also Playlife vs. Mecachrome, for example) and "Renault" (constructed by Renault Sport). It is a fairly poorly known technical distinction, and for the last few weeks (heck, the last few years, really) I've been happily letting it slide, but recent conversations here and elsewhere lead me to believe that it would be better if the regular editors here all actually appreciated the distinction and technicalities of the points they are arguing. I'm not suggesting that we have a wholesale reordering of the way data is presented (let's face it, that goes against the common names principle, and would likely result in a torrent of IP editors "correcting" us) but when people start presenting a misconception as an absolute fact it does start to make my right eye twitch a bit. Pyrope 23:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe Pyrope is exactly correct. However, I also agree that we should not have a wholesale reordering of the way data is presented. I must confess to having been under "the Brundle misconception" until I actually closely read Article 6.3 of the Sporting Regulations for the first time about a month ago. DH85868993 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we confusing the terms Chassis Constructors and the Constructor point scoring mechanism? I thought the term Constructor in this debate was specifically about the Constructor as it is used in determining the Constructors Points calculations. --Falcadore (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You're still suffering, Falcadore. There are two distinct terms: constructor and make. Constructors are people or organisations that hold the IP rights to a chassis or engine; makes are the names that those constructors give to those chassis or engines. The championship is between different constructors, but points are awarded per car make (i.e. the particular chassis-engine name combination). In the above example "Lotus-Ford" is the car make, "Team Lotus" is the chassis constructor. Pyrope 16:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No I do not think I am suffering, because it is the CONSTRUCTORS Championship, not the MAKES Championship. So while perhaps Makes competes for the Constructors title, it is the Construcotrs name of the championship and it is much more common in its usage. So there is a defacto public (COMMONNAME?) definition and a technical definition and this is the source of debate. --Falcadore (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat, although it is called the Constructors' Championship because it is the constructors that are the competitors. A car make isn't a competitor. The shorthand for each constructor may well have become the name they apply to their chassis, but that doesn't mean that's what is technically considered a constructor in the regulations. Common name yes, reality no. One of the biggest problems that Wikipedia faces. Pyrope 20:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You've contradicted yourself there, or rather the rules do. A make is not a competitor, yet it is the defining characteristic. So therefore it isn't a championship for the competitors and is only awarded to the teams because.. there is no-one to represent a nebulous concept. Additionally I maintain the changes I've been making to the season pages is still the correct thing to do as it highlights where a team contributes to the Constructors Championship. --Falcadore (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As a side issue, it also highlights that the Constructors style of Chassis-engine "makes" terminology should be removed from ALL non-championship Formula One races, and perhaps additionally to championship races from 1950-56 as the "Makes" terminology does not apply to any of those races. --Falcadore (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. The constructors are the ones who enter the championship and it is they who are awarded the points and, ultimately, the championship itself. To keep things simple, each constructor decides a make name for their entry. It is the difference between "Williams" and "Williams Grand Prix Engineering trading as Williams F1". The former is a make, a convenient shorthand that the FIA use to keep track of points allocations, the latter is the constructor sensu stricto (science journal latin shows I'm thinking harder than I usually do! ;-). Constructors are not at all nebulous, most of the time they are incorporated bodies and occasionally, in the case of Williams, publicly listed ones (or subsidiaries thereof). It is the concept of a "team" that is nebulous, but I'm not going to get into that here because that's a can of worms that this discussion really doesn't need to open. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that what you have been doing is a bad thing, far from it, it actually clarifies a lot and props for putting in the time. But I think that those of us here who have decided to take a special interest in maintaining F1 pages need to know that terms such as "Williams-Renault" and the like are not constructors, but makes, and that what we maintain in those table headings is a convenient and widespread misconception. Hence, when somebody tells me that "Team Lotus" weren't a constructor (which was the straw that broke my back on this issue) at least I know it isn't somebody that should know better. Pyrope 22:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! :) — JonC^ॐ 22:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment of Juan Manuel Fangio

I can't find the best place on WP:MOTOR to ask for a reassessment, but I believe Juan Manuel Fangio (Start class) is now either C-class or B-class. Assessment criteria link. Does anyone agree? I'm seeking a second opinion. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Without checking the criteria in detail, I'd say it's definitely C-class and probably B-class. I notice that it's been assessed as B-Class for both WP:ARGENTINA and WP:BIO, so if it's good enough for them... DH85868993 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Formula One drivers by teams categories up for deletion

I created a few more Formula One drivers by teams categories today e.g. Category:Arrows Formula One drivers and I have just noticed that they are all (bar the Ferrari one are) up for deletion here. There is a president I see with some American auto racing categories being deleted. I can see a point to deleting templates like the MasterCard Lola one I guess, but I think the Williams, McLaren should be kept. --Kingjamie (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to have your say there before the page is filled with people who know nothing whatsoever about Formula One. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Aye, like the ones who proposed the team infobox for deletion, it's people who don't work with the articles and yet think they know what's better. Those are useful additions by the way Kingjamie, I find the categories handy myself. QueenCake (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying to add categories to every Formula One driver so if you see any Red Categories, don't delete.--Kingjamie (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated several of the categories for renaming, merging or deletion - please add any views you may have at the CfD page. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

F1 race championship round identifiers

Near the top of the F1 race report infobox there is a line identifying which round of the championship the race is: "Race M of N in the YYYY Formula One season". I propose adding an extra parameter to {{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} to allow the text "Formula One season" to be replaced with alternative text for cases where "YYYY Formula One season" is not the most appropriate text. I'm specifically thinking of the 1952 and 1953 seasons, when all the WDC races (except the Indianapolis 500) were Formula Two races, so it seems inappropriate to describe them as "Race M of N in the YYYY Formula One season". For 1952 and 1953, I would proposed changing the text to read "Round M of N in the YYYY World Drivers' Championship". Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, I agree with your change. QueenCake (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the parameter to the template and updated the 1952 and 1953 race reports. DH85868993 (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"Rounds" column

There's a bit of debate going on over at the 2012 Formula One season page over the use of the "rounds" column in the team and driver table. The column currently lists Timo Glock has having take part in all eight rounds of the 2012 season; however, I feel that Glock should be listed as only having taken part in the first seven. Here is my reasoning:

On the Saturday morning before the race, Glock was taken ill. He never drove the car in qualifying, and so never set a lap time. The stewards gave Glock permission to enter the race on the condition that he passed a health check. On Sunday morning, he was still unwell, and so was unable to race. Over the course of the weekend, Glock only took part in practice sessions. This, I think, does not meet the requirements of having actually taken part in the race.

By comparison, Glock never started the 2011 Turkish Grand Prix, either. His gearbox failed before the race, and so he never joined the grid. The difference here is that he did qualify for the race, so while he was capable of entering the race, he was unable to do so. In Valencia, he was incapable and unable to enter the race at all. Therefore, I feel that he did not actually take part in the race in Valencia, and the team and driver table should reflect this.

I believe there is a precedent for this. Glock was also unwell at the 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. Kamui Kobayashi drove in his place in the first practice session. Glock later had an accident in qualifying and was ruled out of the race, with Kobayashi replacing him in Brazil and Abu Dhabi. However, Kobayashi is not listed as having taken part in the Japanese Grand Prix as he only ever took part in practice sessions, just as Glock only took part in practice in Valencia last weekend.

However, it has been brought to my attention that there may be several instances - particularly in early season articles - of drivers who have not qualified for a race and have not taken part in it being listed as having participated. Therefore, I feel that we should define what actually consititutes "participation". This is what I think a suitable definition would be:

• A driver may be said to have participated in a Grand Prix meeting provided that he has taken part in qualifying and the race. If he takes part in qualifying, but does not race (whether because of a mechanical problem, illness, failing to set a time within 107% of the fastest time, etc.), then he may still be described as having taken part because qualifying a car is a necessary prerequisite of entering the race.

In other words, if a driver only takes part in practice, then he cannot be considered to have participated in the Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering how easily those who fail to participate in qualifying or fail to meet the 107% rule are still allowed to race, I consider qualifying to not be a requirement to be a participant in a Grand Prix weekend. Unless I am mistaken all practice sessions are held under strict conditions and teams are not allowed to use parts or to perform things that would be illegal in the race. Therefore a participation in a practice session is a participation in the weekend as a whole.

(And before anyone says it, "Friday drivers" are clearly designated to the FIA prior to the start of the practice sessions, and are clearly not intended to participate in the race proper. Glock's example is not the same as someone who was never planned to participate in the race.) The³5₉ (Talk) 06:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, even though they fail to qualify the car, they take part in the qualifying session. Glock didn't take part in qualifying in Valencia at all. He never even got into the car.

Secondly, it's not about what you consider. It's about what the FIA considers. And they are quite clear on this: you must take part in the qualifying session in order to take part in the race. As such, that's how the articles should be written - a driver has not "participated" in a Grand Prix if he doesn't actually drive in the Grand Prix (or at least tries to). Otherwise, we might as well have a column for test and reserve drivers and which races they drove at. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Glock clearly did not participate in qualifying and yet was allowed to participate in the race prior to his withdrawing. Your very example of the 2011 Turkish Grand Prix - Kamui Kobayashi failed to set a time qualifying because of a mechanical failure, yet was allowed to race. I'm fairly certain the requirement is that the cars must qualify, as in set a time, in the eyes of the FIA, not merely participate. There have been numerous instances of mechanical failures sidelining cars in qualifying yet they still participate in the race. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Glock was given permission to enter the race in Valencia pending the final approval of the FIA doctor, which he did not receive. Without that permission, he could not enter the race, regardless of whether the stewards granted him permission to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

But you're missing the key point, Glock was given permission to enter the race despite failing to participate in qualifying. This throws the "requirement" out the window. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

♠Given the "requirement" to meet the 107% standard has proven more than a bit flexible in the past, this really is no surprise. It seems to me we're treating the rules more rigidly than FIA (or, at least, more than the race officials...).

♠That said, IMO the question of "participating" for me is, "Did he start on race day?" If he didn't, it doesn't matter a damn what else he did on that weekend; he might as well have been sunning himself at Ipanema, for all it matters. He didn't run. Fini. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we're getting bogged down in the detail here, and need to consider the purpose of the column. As I see it, the purpose of the column is to inform readers who was driving for the team at each round; I think whether or not they actually qualified for/started the race isn't all that important. So for me, the fact that Glock was the intended race driver at Valencia is sufficient for him to get the humber '8' next to his name. DH85868993 (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the intention is in no way representative of what actually happened. I could say that I intend to race at Silverstone - does that mean I should be included in the table?

You are correct in saying that the purpose of the column is to inform readers of who drove at which round. However, Glock did not take part in qualifying or the race (and he was kept out of both by the same condition). Since qualifying and the race are the most important parts of a weekend, the table should reflect a failure to participate on this level.

But you're missing the key point, Glock was given permission to enter the race despite failing to participate in qualifying. This throws the "requirement" out the window.

I think you're missing the point here. Glock was indeed given permission to enter the race despite failing to participate in qualifying - on the condition that the FIA medical delegate declared him fit enough to compete. It says so right here. Glock never got that declaration of health, so whatever permission he had was irrelevant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"I could say that I intend to race at Silverstone - does that mean I should be included in the table?" No. But if one of the teams officially entered you in the event as a race driver, then yes, you should. "Since qualifying and the race are the most important parts of a weekend, the table should reflect a failure to participate on this level.". In your opinion. Which highlights the problem - as far as I'm aware, the criteria for including a round in the Rounds column have never been explicitly defined. Hopefully this discussion will resolve that. DH85868993 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As has been said before, I don't the difference between practice and qualifying that changes whether someone has participated. Glock was Marussia's registered participant before practice, after practice, and he still was after qualifying. Him not being able to start the race due to health would be the same as not being able to start the race because his car wasn't ready, in my opinion. From a competition point of view, he was allowed to start.

You could define being a participant as starting a race, but this is not something I would agree with. You do not need to qualify to participate in the race, and therefore qualifying has no bearing on whether a driver is participating in that round of the championship or not. The only difference between practice and qualifying (other than the format of the session) is that the times are used to define the grid for the race. So participating in practice, unless you are either a Friday driver or (in the case of Perez in Canada last year) are replaced as the participating driver for that car the rest of the weekend, counts as participating in the weekend. - mspete93 14:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A driver may be said to have participated in a Grand Prix meeting provided that he has taken part in qualifying and the race. This is rubbish - we are not the arbiters of who has participated and who hasn't - that's WP:OR. You don't have to take part in qualifying to take part in the race - you just need permission to race, like any other motor race anywhere in the world. Some past GPs didn't even have qualifying, just practice sessions - all you had to do was have an entry accepted and just turn up on the day. How does that fit in with this definition? Anyway, Glock was not forbidden by the doctors to take part, he was advised not to take part, and he took that advice and made the decision not to race. As far as his entry is concerned, and the stewards etc - he was able to race. For the sake of the (pointless) rounds column, it's just misleading to pretend he missed the event. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"the purpose of the column is to inform readers who was driving for the team at each round" Well, no. I take it to mean started the race for that team. Suggesting merely qualifying is "participating" strikes me as nonsensical. And Bretonbanquet is quite right: until 1933 at (frex) Monaco, there was no qualifying. Does somebody who was in the lottery for entry at the '30 Monaco GP count as a "participant"? Not in any results table I've ever seen. Nor in any I'd want to see. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Grand Prix is not just the race, it's the whole event. And drivers who DNS all down the years are almost always listed in the results, certainly since 1950. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no way the rounds column can be used to show if drivers "started the race". Firstly, what is used in F1 articles must be consistent with other series. Take the British Touring Car Championship, where there are three races in a day and therefore plenty of cases of DNS, where cars get too damaged in one race to take part in the next. Are you suggesting the rounds column should outline which races drivers started and did not? Because that could end up as a rather wide column. And what happens when a driver turns up to one round in a season and doesn't start a race? Do they not get mentioned in the table? - mspete93 22:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"There is no way the rounds column can be used to show if drivers 'started the race'". This does it nicely. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

At a glance, no it doesn't - it includes drivers who DNS, like Peter Whitehead in Monaco. But it doesn't include anyone who took part in "round 3" at Indy. The rounds column is redundant cruft. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This same issue occured with the 2012 24 Hours of Le Mans, where Jean-Christophe Boullion crashed during a practice session and failed to participate in qualifying. For Le Mans, a set number of laps are required to be taken during qualifying to participate in the race. A waiver for Boullion would likely have been granted, but following qualifying Boullion withdrew entirely, cutting the team down to 2 drivers. At issue on the 2012 World Endurance Championship season is whether or not Boullion participated in the round or not. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's my summary of the discussion so far, in the hopes of steering us towards consensus. Please correct any errors I have made, or if you agree with where I have placed your name in the table, remove the "(tbc)". DH85868993 (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What a driver has to do to have the round number listed alongside their name	Users who support this position
Be entered for the race (as a race driver)	DH85868993, Bretonbanquet, Gamma127
Participate in practice (or better), as a nominated race driver	The359, mspete93 (tbc)
Participate in qualifying and/or the race	Prisonermonkeys
Qualify for the race
Start the race	Trekphiler

There is a precedent already established. Opinions are so varied there is no chance of achieving a consensus, so we revert to the precedent already established. --Falcadore (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, could you please state what the precedent is? DH85868993 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on season articles already written (and some time ago) it based on attendances. So what Prisonermonkeys is trying to do is change what we already use and he clearly does not have the consensus to do that. --Falcadore (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because we already use it, that doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. There was a time when the team and driver table on the first future season's article page was arranged based on the championship standings of the then-current season page. It was done that way for years, before someone pointed out that it should be done alphabetically, and that became the norm.

In this case, I just feel that the definition of having participated in a Grand Prix should be adjusted from simply attending the event to actually competing in the event. I just don't think that taking part in practice and practice alone - for whatever reason - justifies "participation". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And you're quite entitled to that opinion. However, we're not debating the definition of "participating in the Grand Prix" - we're debating the criteria for putting the number in the column. Which is not the same thing. DH85868993 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's taking an incident way out-of context. The issue there was poor editting practice, wasteful editting and rampant speculation. Not remotely comparable. --Falcadore (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

DH, I think the issue is inherently intertwined. The rounds column should be used to relect whoever participated in the actual race.

With due respect, the rounds column should be used to reflect whatever the WikiProject decides it should reflect. DH85868993 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore, you know perfectly well what I mean - just because we have always done something one way, that doesn't automatically mean it's the right way. I can (and have done so) make a case for listing Glock as not participating in the European Grand Prix since he didn't take part in the European Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But he did take part in the European Grand Prix. It's already been said that the "Grand Prix" is the meeting, not simply "the race". There's no consensus to change what has been done up to now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You are still comparing a procedural issue with a content issue. It's not the same. For this sort of change it would need consensus and retrospective change across several article which would see some drivers and teams potentially deleted from F1 season articles becaue they would no longer be registered as having competed in any rounds. A better comparison would by the misnamed summary table debate, which because consensus is not quite there and no change has been performed. On this issue you are nowhere near achieving consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That remains to be seen. Right now, I'm not even confident that everyone who has weighed in on this debate actually understands what I'm proposing.

And I'd hardly say it's comparable to the "misnamed summary table debate", either. That enitre issue seems to be people trying to remove a table from an article for the sake of removing a table from an article. But that debate is for another time and place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK then, in the interests of helping the other participants in this conversation to understand what you're proposing: Prisonermonkeys, under what conditions do you believe the round number should be added next to the driver's name in the "Rounds" column? DH85868993 (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the round number should only be added to the column when the driver takes part in the race.

If the driver does not take part in the race, we look at whether or not they took part in qualifying. If they took part in qualifying, but not the race (for example, they had a gearbox problem that prevented them from leaving the pits), we can include them as having taken part because qualifying the car is a pre-requisite to entering the race.

If the driver does not take part in qualifying, we look at whether or not they took part in pre-qualifying (if it applies) or if they were given permission to enter the race by the stewards (provided that they actually do so).

In short, I think that taking part in practice and practice alone is not enough to satisfy any definition of having taken part in a Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

So in summary then, you believe that the number should go in the column if the driver takes part in the race and/or qualifying. Yes? DH85868993 (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I believe the number should only go in the column once the driver takes part in the race. If the driver does not start the race for whatever reason, we look to see if he took part in qualifying, and if he did, we can add the number. If he does not take part in the race or qualifying, we can look to pre-qualifying (if it exists). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the table above. DH85868993 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment of Alex Yoong

The Alex Yoong article has gone through major expansion today and I see in the talk page, that is still classes a Stub article across the Wikiprojects, now I'm not sure if the article is now a B or C class? What do you think? --Kingjamie (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Compared it to the Mansell example in the assessment page and gave it a B class.--Kingjamie (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs checking for NPOV, and maybe some dicky grammar here and there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

London Grand Prix

The rececntly created London Grand Prix (formula 1), has been nominated for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Grand Prix (formula 1). Comment is welcome. --Falcadore (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This one's a slam dunk - wipe it off the face of the site. Although the person who made it did successfully argue for the 2014 Formula One season page to be kept ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a serious proposal to keep, is it? *sigh* TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Only a suggestion but could all the ideas for this (Olympic site, other ideas for Central London, the Hyde Park one from a few years back) be added together to make an article? Britmax (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, if a bit crystal ballish for my liking. I wouldn't oppose, tho. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be, but it's already mentioned on the 2013 Formula One season page - and it amounts to two sentences. Without more infotmation, there won't be any substance to it, and if it's going to be justified under WP:CRYSTAL, it's going to need more than two sentences. I'm expecting/hoping for a draft calendar some time this week, so hopefully we'll know more soon. But I can't see them turning a race around in the space of a year. Not unless Silverstone is moved to the back of the European season so that they could be paired together. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a Motorsport in London article which could include actual events like Crystal Palace's London Trophy? --Falcadore (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. (FYI, IDK if it fails WP:Crystal or not, just it fails my sense of the matter. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Formula One drivers and team owners

Category:Formula One drivers and team owners has been nominated for merging into Category:Formula One team owners. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Female Formula One drivers

Category:Female Formula One drivers has been nominated for merging into Category:Female racing drivers and Category:Formula One drivers. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the merger discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree I think it should stay as its own, because of the small amount of female F1 drivers, and it is easy to find them here.

Bernie as a 'reliable' source

It's increasingly obvious - and absolutely stark in light of his recent pork pies over the true status of the Singapore GP (see here) - that BCE shouldn't be treated as a reliable source when taken in isolation. If news media are so lazy as to take his pronouncements as gospel without doing any further digging then that is their lookout, but I think for Wikipedia standards we should be looking for information independent of Bernie before we treat anything he says as more than indicative. Thoughts? Pyrope 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If we attempted to make a list of all the occasions that Bernie told a little untruth in order to play somebody off against somebody else, furthering whatever little cause he was pursuing at that time, it would be a long list. Not to say that he's a liar, but he regularly exaggerates to prove a point, and that's how he operates. While what Bernie does is a serious business, what Bernie says is often not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been away for a while and unfortunately missed this, but yes I fully agree with you. We can't be just using quotes from Bernie in an article as a reliable source, especially when there are no other supporting sources, and it's something I was arguing against on the 2013 Formula One season talk page. QueenCake (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bernie's comments are what they are. They may be more relevant or less, depending on the subject and context. I think that what you mean is that announcements by Bernie can't be considered official, and I agree with that view. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My original intent was that if a source (even 'reputable' ones such as Autosport, BBC, whatever) only cites Bernie as the origin for a story, that as far as Wikipedia goes we not regard that particular story as reliable. So people altering pages with forthcoming races, or canceled races, or the other guff that Bernie spouts need to cite sources that include third party confirmation (e.g. announcements that corroborate Bernie's information from the other party to any deal). I'm also tempted to treat most of Bernie's mutterings as unencyclopedic hearsay, so an addition along the lines of "Bernie Ecclestone commented..." be struck out too. He's just got too poor a record for telling the truth, even if a secondary media source decide to repeat it. Pyrope 17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Is widely regarded as one of the greatest (whatever) of all time"

I don't think this position, in any form that could reasonably interpreted as saying this, belongs in an encyclopedia. The reason I think this is that no matter how well this information is sourced it is not the place of this work to puff people up in this way, any more than it would be to bring them down. Policy seems to boil down to stating the objective facts and significant statistics reported by reliable sources and allowing the reader to make up their own minds. Another problem here is that if it appears on, say one F1 drivers page and not another the inconsistency that is a weakness of collaborative projects written by volunteers strikes some people as bias. What is the opinion of project members on this? Britmax (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I take the point. However, if there is broad agreement in the sources, it seems to me leaving it out is a mistake. Is Moss "widely regarded as the greatest driver never to be World Champion"? Yes. Is leaving that out a mistake? IMO, it is. Doubtless we can find other examples. (It may require mention, if not actual citation, of more sources than one saying so for a claim of this kind to survive, however.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can find sources claiming at least four different drivers to be widely regarded to be the best, is it really that notable a claim? If a driver was widely regarded above all others then maybe... --Falcadore (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. Fangio, Clark, & Schumacher? And maybe I'm missing the point... At a minimum, it does illustrate this isn't a clear-cut issue. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is very clear cut. What you need is a reputable, reliable source that says "is considered one of the greatest...". Aggregating lots of crufty blogs and equivocal throw away lines in interviews isn't enough, that's original research. You need a source that supports the claim as it is made. Very, very simple. Pyrope 12:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix - TFA

FYI, I have nominated 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix to be featured on the front page on August 3 (its fourth anniversary). The nomination can be viewed here.--Midgrid(talk) 19:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nomination was not successful.--Midgrid(talk) 21:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Alejandro de Tomaso

Alejandro de Tomaso is listed as an Argentine-Italian on his page and is listed in the List of Formula One drivers as Argentinian and Italian, however the two races he entered (the 1957 Argentine Grand Prix & the 1959 United States Grand Prix) both show him as an Argentine in his results. I think right now we should consider him an Argentine in the List of Formula One drivers and in his driver info box, unless someone does some research and finds something that opposes this. (There is a little bit of research already posted at this link: [1]) Editadam 22:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If he raced as Argentinian in the two Formula One attempts, the List of Formula One drivers should list him as Argentinian. However, as most race drivers participate in races outside of Formula One, if he races in other series as Italian, then his bio should state both. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Twite calls him Argentinian, so I've changed both. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Williams FW07 nomenclature

I've started a discussion at Talk:Williams FW07 about the correct nomenclature for the FW07 6-wheeler and the FW07 cars used for the first 3 races of 1982. Interested parties are invited to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And a similar discussion at Talk:Williams FW08#6-wheeler about the correct name for the 6-wheeled FW08. Again, interested parties are welcome to participate. DH85868993 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of six-wheeled F1 cars, would a category for them be appropriate? There are articles for Tyrrell P34, March 2-4-0, Williams FW07, Williams FW08 and Ferrari 312T, all of which would fit in such a category.--Midgrid(talk) 13:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Becoming a member

It says you just have to add your name to the list. Is that really it? Because I would like to join, if that is possible. My F1 credentials aren't exactly impressive (My first GP was the 2005 GP and I only watched the home GP til 09 when I watched it and the GP and only this year (2012) I have attempted to watch at least qually of all races (as the races are on after I have to go to bed, yes I still go to school)) , but I am keen to learn. Is this the same with any other motorsport-based WikiProjects? Just to make sure... TollHRT52 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2012 (AEST)

It says you just have to add your name to the list. Is that really it? Yes, that's really it. As far as I'm aware, it's the same for any WikiProject. Welcome aboard! DH85868993 (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. TollHRT52 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2012 (AEST)

Indeed, welcome. Wikiprojects don't own pages, we are merely a group of loosely affiliated editors with similar interests. Basically, we are here for help, guidance and another perspective. Sometimes it helps to draw attention to inconsistencies if you raise them here rather than at an individual article, and where ambiguity exists it helps to talk it out where most editors congregate so that you can get a wide input from informed editors. Other than that, what you get up to is your own business! Glad to have you aboard. Pyrope 16:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Formula One fatal accidents FL nomination

FYI, List of Formula One fatal accidents has been (re-)nominated for featured list status. The discussion is located here.--Midgrid(talk) 19:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

F1 results table keys renamed

FYI, {{F1 driver results legend}}, {{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}} have recently been renamed to {{Motorsport driver results legend}}, {{Motorsport driver results legend 2}} and {{Motorsport driver results legend 3}}, almost certainly as a result of a comment I made at a recent deletion discussion where I pointed out that as well as being used for F1 World Championship results tables, {{F1 driver results legend 2}} is also used for most (all?) DTM results tables (even though that's probably slightly inappropriate, since {{F1 driver results legend 2}} contains an entry for "Friday test driver", which isn't relevant to DTM) and possibly other series' results tables as well.

How should we proceed:

• Leave things as they are, noting that redirects are in place, so we don't actually need to make any changes to the F1 driver/team/car/season summary articles
• Change the names back, because "it was fine how it was" (the DTM usage notwithstanding)
• Change the names back for {{F1 driver results legend 2}} (intended/suitable for use with F1 World Championship results) and {{F1 driver results legend 3}} (intended/suitable for use with F1 non-championship race results), and change all the non-F1 results tables which currently use them to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}} instead
• Something else?

DH85868993 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should be left as they are. The current situation leaves them open to being changed by people who think they're too F1-centric since they're "motorsport" templates. Certainly numbers 2 and 3 should be changed back, I think. I created #3 specifically as a non-championship F1 template, and I don't think it's used anywhere else. I don't know how big a job it would be to change the non-F1 results tables to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}}, but that might be a good idea. I don't like the word "motorsport" anyway, I think it's an Americanism. It ought to be "motor sport", per Motor Sport Magazine and the Motor Sports Association. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Change 'em back. AFAIK, only F1 uses (used) pre-qual, so "motorsport" is too broad. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll revert {{Motorsport driver results legend 2}} and {{Motorsport driver results legend 3}} to {{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}}, and when I have time (on the weekend?) I'll change all the non-F1 uses of these templates to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}} instead. DH85868993 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That is to say, I would revert them if I could, but I can't. Any friendly admins listening who could perform the reverts? (if so, please remember to also move the "sandbox", "testcases" and "doc" subpages). I have updated the non-F1 usages to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}} instead. DH85868993 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've listed the templates at WP:RM. DH85868993 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we're going to the trouble of having the templates renamed by an admin, should we take the opportunity to improve the names, rather than just revert them to what they were? Specifically, how about {{Formula One championship results legend}} and {{Formula One non-championship results legend}}? I'm suggesting removing the word "driver" from the names, because they're not just used for driver results tables - they're also used for team/constructor and car results tables. I've also suggested "Formula One championhip results legend" rather than "Formula One World Championship results legend" because although the vast majority of uses are for World Championship results tables, there are a few cases where they are used for other F1 championship results tables (e.g. Britsh F1 series results tables in 1978 British Formula One season..1982 British Formula One season and Giacomo Agostini). Of course, we'd leave {{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}} as redirects, so we wouldn't need to update any articles. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I do agree, renaming now seems a good idea. However, it seems to me not having "World Championship" is asking for confusion. At a glance, the Brit F1 page linked to above is a misnomer, since it's not the World Championship. That being so, I'd say divide them as "World" & "Non-World" or "Non-Champ". Failing that, anybody want to try a "[Your Name Here] Championship" template? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could rename the existing templates to "Formula One World Championship results legend" and "Formula One non-championship results legend" and to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}} for the British F1 series tables. DH85868993 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That could work. My thought is, if there's a way to do a generic "championship" one, it would be useful for Formula Ford, Formula Vee, GP2/GP3, Formula Atlantic, & all the others I've left out. :D It would still fit their self-identified form, & be more "type specific". Too much trouble? (If so, I'll not complain.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the templates will be renamed to their original names ({{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}}) in (probably) a couple of days' time. (I didn't think there was yet a strong enough consensus on "improved" names). Are there any further comments on the idea of improving the template names? DH85868993 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The templates have been moved back to their original names ({{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}}). DH85868993 (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Attention needed

Please keep an eye out for the return of "Reverted random unexplained IP change to motor racing article". After a pause one has surfaced at 2012 German Grand Prix. Britmax (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter

How long until the next newsletter comes out? TollHRT52 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2012 (AEST)

It is the very first first sentence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Newsletter. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, but there isn't one for August yet, and it is the end of the month. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2012 (AEST)

They are published the week after the end of the month. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible new cell in F1 driver results key

A discussion is under way here about the idea of having a "ban" cell for driver results tables in cases like Grosjean's next race. Editors do look at the blank cell we currently use for banned drivers and add inappropriate alternatives, like "EX", and it's a pain - but the question is whether this requires a more permanent fix like this, or simply continued reversion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Blank means the driver did not participate. The reasoning behind the participation is not really relevant, be it FIA sanctions, injuries, or any other issue. The matrix is for results, not "This driver could have been at this race, but...." statements. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How about we just create a new thingy on the points tables in the season pages as banned from race (maybe BFR?). TollHRT52 (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2012 (AEST)

That's what the discussion on the template talk page is for. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Formula One drivers

I've raised concerns at Talk:List of Formula One drivers regarding that article's data. In January 2010 it retained featured status but I really don't think that the referencing is up to scratch. From what I can tell there are no references for the table itself aside from two offline sources. Comparing the data to www.driverdb.com shows some discrepancies but I don't know if that is a reliable source. It's an amazing wealth of data but can we say that we have no doubts as to its accuracy? violet/riga _^[talk] 23:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

F1stat template

I've created a prototype template called {{F1stat}} that will return key pieces of statistical data for given inputs. This means that {{F1stat|BUT|wins}} returns the number of wins Button has had () and {{F1stat|HAM|entries}} returns the number of race entries that Hamilton has had (339). The idea is to have one central place for updates. When the driver is no longer current we can just subst them into the respective articles. Is this useful? Shall I complete the dataset? violet/riga _^[talk] 15:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a fascinating idea (and no doubt priceless if you need to look up something really quickly) but I'm not sure how it would work in an article. How did you envisage putting it to use? Allypap81 (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It can be used in the infoboxes and race records of all current drivers and at stats pages such as List of Formula One drivers. You can also have prose of the form:

As of the {{F1stat|UPTO}}, Button has won {{F1stat|BUT|wins}} grand prix.

Which produces:

As of the 2024 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, Button has won grand prix.

violet/riga _^[talk] 16:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh that's excellent! Means that the same stat doesn't have to be updated in multiple articles - it only needs to be edited at the central database. I'm fully behind it, unless someone else can spot a flaw I've not seen? Allypap81 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

♠I like that! Question, tho: Can (will) you apply this to GP generally? Or beyond F1/GP, say in Champ Car? I can picture it being useful lots of places.

♠One small problem: using abbreviations for driver names... This could be an issue where they don't exist. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to extend it and make, for example, {{BTCCstats}}. I envisage it being used only for drivers who are currently active and, at least in F1, they all have their own three letter code. At the end of each season a little housekeeping would easily sort out those who have left and those who join. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain if that got done. :) I was kind of hoping it could be applied very widely, if only to free up everybody who's now manually updating. I don't suppose...? :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's merit in the idea. Some points to consider:

• Ideally the template should support all the fields in the infobox which are liable to change after each race (i.e. entries, starts, wins, poles, fastest laps, podiums, total points), so that we wouldn't need to update the driver infoboxes at all after each race. It might also be useful for it to support "current season points" and "current championship position", so that statements like "Driver X currently lies Yth in the Drivers' Championship with Z points" (which are sometimes added to driver articles and then become out-of date) could also "auto-update".
• The "number of pole positions" and "number of wins" fields in driver infoboxes are often updated by non-regular editors; we might need to add a wikinote next to the template explaining how to update the number (or maybe not; if a non-regular editor replaces the template with a hardcoded number, one of the regular editors can just fix it later on).
• If we use the template in List of Formula One driver records, then we'd need to update the "percentage" tables such that they calculate the percentages from the other numbers in the table - but that shouldn't be too hard. Of course, the tables would still require some manual editing/checking to ensure that the drivers appeared in the right order.
• In addition to the three-letter driver abbreviations, it might be helpful for the template to accept the driver's full surname (e.g. "Button"), or even their full name (e.g. "Jenson Button" or "JensonButton"), for the benefit of editors who aren't familiar with the three-letter abbreviations.
• One drawback to using the template is that if you look at old versions of an article, you won't see exactly how it appeared at the time (because the template will still display the current values). Sometimes when infobox figures get in a muddle (or have been vandalised), it's handy to be able to see exactly how the article appeared at a given point in the past (of course you could always work out what the values would have been by looking at the corresponding old version of the template, but it just makes it a little more complicated).
• Regarding expanding to other series, my suggestion would be to trial it with F1 to sort out any issues, and then roll it out to other series.

Just some thoughts anyway. DH85868993 (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

1. The template would include all stats that are regularly updated.
2. I think that we can correct those well intentioned edits quite easily.
3. The percentage calculation could be done using another field in the template.
4. I chose to use the three letter code because they will certainly be unique - you never know if Ralf Schumacher will suddenly make a comeback! The short form seems to neatest way to do it and anyone that does know that the template exists would likely be familiar with how to use it (plus instructions can be placed on the template page).
5. That is a fair point re: looking at older versions. The good thing about this is that it would make it harder to vandalise.
6. It's certainly worth trialling it first.

It might be worth considering making the template return a citation as well as the value required. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Structure

Right, so the template is taking shape but will take a while to populate fully. Before I go ahead there is one main question about the structure: what do we group by, the driver or the statistic? For example do we have:

ALO

wins

entries

points

...

BUT

wins

entries

points

...

...

or

Wins

ALO

BUT

DLR

...

Entries

ALO

BUT

DLR

...

...

I'm favouring the latter at the moment but will probably not be the person updating it all... violet/riga _^[talk] 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

♠"it might be helpful for the template to accept the driver's full surname" If it did, that would address my desire for a broader-use template (which might then need to be renamed, or offered in "variants" to keep the result updates straight).

♠While I like that it could be used on the result percentages, I'd disfavor it; that really wants manual updating IMO, since the alphabetizing will/may need fixing anyhow.

♠Also, with name coding, it might be necessary to dab driver names. AFAIK, there are no two relatives currently in F1, but Michael & Ralf were, & there's room for confusion between Bruno & Ayrton. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to make it accept various inputs (BUT, Button, or Jenson Button) if that is what people want. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to group by driver (i.e. the first option). That would make it easier to compare the stats against external sources (e.g. FORIX, ChicaneF1, etc) and to add new drivers as the season progresses (i.e. would just have add one new "block" of stats rather than add one new line to the section for each stat). DH85868993 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Implementation

{{F1stat}} is pretty much ready, with the first few drivers (alphabetically) populated into the template. I've put it into place in the Jenson Button infobox (permalink in case it is reverted) and it seems to be working. Any final comments before considering taking this further? violet/riga _^[talk] 22:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! I suggest changing "fastest" to "fastestlaps", to make it more consistent with the other options (and the infobox parameter name) - it's only 4 extra characters. Other changes you may also wish to consider, for additional clarity (although I acknowledge that they're clearly explained in the template documentation): "points"-->"careerpoints", "seasonpoints"-->"currentseasonpoints", "seasonposition"-->"currentseasonposition". DH85868993 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've changed "fastest" to "fastestlaps" and "points" to "careerpoints".

The template has been rolled out to all current driver articles (infoboxes) and List of Formula One drivers. I don't know about other places that use this info so I will leave it there. We will now just have to see how well this works after the race this weekend... violet/riga _^[talk] 22:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter co-editing

I have already left a message in the Newsletter talk page, but since no-one is answering I thought I would advertise it here. Interested? Reply to me. Any co-editors who read this can remove this letter ASAP. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2012 (AEST)

You should probably gain a few more months successful editting experience first. This sort of thing isn't really for novices who have only been editing for six weeks.

If you have some project ideas you don't need to be an magazine edittor to introduce them. --Falcadore (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

S'pose I am rushing into things a little quickly, but it feels like you're dragging me down mate. TollHRT52 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2012 (AEST)

I agree with Falcadore, you seem to want to bite off more than you can chew as a new editor. We are not attempting to drag you down, we are simply seeing the mistakes you have been making in your short time that show the inexperience you have, and feel you need to calm down and take things slowly before taking on larger projects. Suggestions are welcomed, but do not expect them to automatically accepted. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Lotus disambiguation page (and Lotus in general)

I would like to create a talk and reach a consensus about Lotus' disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus), and 2011 Team Lotus' status. IMHO, on the disambiguation page, the hierarchy might lead people to think Team Lotus belonged to Lotus Cars (whereas they've been separate companies since 1954, although both were created by Colin Chapman). Team Lotus '10-'11, on the contrary, should be connected to Team Lotus '54-'94, if not in the same article, as it is the same brand, (with a different nationality and structure, I admit). Mercedes' case is similar: the current team has nothing to see with '54-'55 Mercedes, yet they're part of the same article, so logically, Team Lotus '10-'11 should be part of Team Lotus '54-'94. BenjF1 (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As we are discussing a Disambiguation page and not a page carrying actual content, I feel this is massively unimportant. People who are sufficiently interested in the subject to draw any conclusions will either not see this disambig page, or click onto the articles which carries the importance of the subjects, chapter and verse. --Falcadore (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I talked about it on the disambiguation page, I was told to come here. And as I said, I also mean to talk about the general status of Team Lotus 10-11, which should be at least linked to Team Lotus 54-94 considering this is the same brand. BenjF1 (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Being the same brand does not make them the same team. Simply using the same name for one of their two years does not mean the team has any relation to the previous team. Team Lotus 2011 is in fact 1Malaysia F1 Team, a company that founded and ran the team, that has no relation to Lotus Cars. Mercedes-Benz is different in that the 1950s and 2010s versions of the team were both started and run by Mercedes-Benz.

On the other hand I believe that Lotus F1 Team should be equally seperate from Lotus Cars as, although the relationship is closer between the two than it was between Lotus Racing/Team Lotus and Lotus Cars, the company still does not own or run the team, the naming and branding in this case is simply sponsorship. The same also applies to Lotus GP, the GP2/GP3 team.

So in summary, through various discussions on WikiProject Formula One, the status of Lotus Racing/Team Lotus is that they have no relation other than name to the original Team Lotus, and are therefore seperate entities with no shared history. Lotus F1 Team is also a seperate entity, both from Lotus and from Renault F1 as the team has changed owners. And as for the disambiguation page, the "hierarchy" is a bit moot as anyone reading the brief descriptions should be capable of figuring out what they are looking for. A simple elimination of the hierarcy and simply listing every entry with equal indentation would thus eliminate the problem. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion for the disambiguation page is the same as The359's: give every entry the same indentation and let the words describe the relationships between them. As for the "general status of Team Lotus 10-11", the current arrangement of articles about "Formula One teams with the word Lotus as part of their name" is the result of numerous lengthy discussions over the past 3 years. The Team Lotus (2010-11) article clearly explains the relationships between that team, Lotus Cars and the original Team Lotus. DH85868993 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DH85868993: I agree the article is quite clear, but I think it is not accurate enough on several points. It says the team "used the name" - if it were only using the name, they would have got a license from TL or something, but they bought the brand, and that's different IMHO. Then, the article says TL "forms part of the Caterham Group" whereas Caterham Cars was bought by Team Lotus Enterprises, so that's actually the contrary. Although I admit this has nothing to do with the Lotus Case, that's another lack of accuracy.

The359: Saying that being the same brand does not make them the same team is an acceptable statement, but I honestly cannot see the difference with Mercedes. It's just the same brand coming back to F1 in another factory. Renault did the same, they even actually bought a team they used to race against, yet they are one unique article. And actually their case is interesting, because they're a French team that came back to F1 buying an English-located factory. 2011 Team Lotus should be more legitimate since they were even based a few kilometers away from Classic Team Lotus and from the old Team Lotus factory. So there is no actual consistency. The fact that the company name is different doesn't change the identity of the team. Caterham F1 Team is still 1Malaysia Racing Team, yet nobody will deny that Caterham has just entered F1.BenjF1 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you're new here, but we're really not looking forward to opening up this nightmare again! New Team Lotus and Caterham get separate pages because of the convention that a new page is created for a team when the constructor name changes - regardless of the company owning it. It gets confusing when you consider that team/constructor haven't always meant the same thing, but it's all really been debated to death. When there's two "entities", for lack of a better word, sharing the same name, it gets more completed. Renault and Mercedes are considered the same team as the same organisation controlled them - the various Lotus teams are separate as they are all controlled by different people, effectively it's just a coincidence that they are all called Lotus. QueenCake (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your argument. But you say the various Lotus teams are separate because they are all controlled by different people. Sorry but that's the same for Mercedes and Renault again: 2002 Renault, 2010 Mercedes and 2011 Team Lotus were all three entered by the same company than in the past with different people at the head of the company and at the head of the team, and a different factory as well. BenjF1 (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

When he says "people", he means corporations. Mercedes-Benz F1 is owned by Mercedes-Benz, in both incarnations. Same with Renault. Team Lotus of the 1960s ceased to exist as anything more than a brand name for sale, and was bought by a completely unrelated company solely for the purposes of using the name. The location of the factory is also not a factor in this. For Team Lotus of 2011 to be similar to the cases of Mercedes-Benz and Renault, it'd have to effectively be started by Lotus Cars, which it most certainly did not. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course it did not. But TL wasn't only a name, for example last year, Fernandes owned the rights on the association of TL's special shades of green and yellow in F1. Plus, if David Hunt had been willing to bring Team Lotus back himself, as he owned the team at the end of 1994, wouldn't it have been considered as the continuation? It would seem weird that a brand is not "allowed" to come back to Formula 1, then. BenjF1 (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Fernandes owned the rights to special shades of green and yellow in 2011? Even though his Lotuses were painted the exact same colors in 2010, AND the colors are identical to those of the Lotus car company? Where in the world are you getting these ideas?

David Hunt did try to resurrect Team Lotus in a bid to become one of the new teams in the sport, but when that failed Hunt sold the name to Fernandes. I do not know how Hunt's team may have been viewed, but since it does not exist it's a bit moot. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as the colours are concerned, I'm just based on this piece of information: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2561143

If you wish I can take another example. If Williams stops F1 activity, then is sold by Frank Williams and comes back. Then it's not the real Williams because it's not started by... Williams Cars? BenjF1 (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't represent Lotus F1 Team, original Team Lotus, etc. as if they were Lotus Cars' teams unlike Fernandes's Lotus team, I'd do it like this. And as Pacific Team Lotus is included, I'd also include Lotus Renault GP, or alternatively neither, neither team's constructor name was Lotus. --August90 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Already looks fairer to me. BenjF1 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Calendar table links in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 articles

This discussion is brought here on the advice offered by a user at Talk:2010 Formula One season.

I would like to restore the calendar tables in those (2010 Formula One season and 2011 Formula One season) articles to the state that they were in prior to the edit that occurred on June 11, 2012, in which the links to the appropriate GP pages were unilaterally destroyed without discussion (as far as I can tell) and without a reasonable and rational explanation. I would also like to add similar links in the same table in the 2012 Formula One season article.

The reason I would like the links restored is they make navigating to the appropriate articles less of a chore for the reader. That is the beauty of hyperlinks. The table has a row for each GP of the season and a column giving the full 'Race Name' of each of those GPs (which is specific to that year's race), along with the circuit name and the date. Yet, although there is a race name given for each row in the table and a separate article exists to cover each of those specific races, that article is, following the destructive edit of June 11 that I would like to revert, no longer hyperlinked. Indeed the race name is no longer hyperlinked to any article at all so is vacant and begging for the link to be restored. Perversely, there is a redundant column in the table, the one labelled 'Grand Prix,' which does carry a hyperlink; but not to the specific GP concerned, rather to the generic GP article for that country.

The guideline for links at WP:LINKS is clear in reccommending such links to closely related articles and that the most specific links possible be made, with the linked articles then in turn linking to any more general articles.

Why shouldn't we restore those links in the 2010 and 2011 articles and add them to the 2012 article?

Eff Won (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been offered (on one of the other article talk pages) as evidence of a consensus to remove the links to year-specific GPs from the calendar table. But as anyone who can read it without any preconceptions will see, it shows nothing of the sort. It is fromOctober 2011, and is mostly another user attempting to reason with the same user that deleted the links again in June this year, in a similar way to that which I have recently attemped, and being met with the same obstinate refusal to see reason as I was. The points are almost identical and the cause was almost identical - a unilateral removal of the links. Two other users also chipped-in to that discussion, one supported keeping the links, the other was non-committal, wavering between remove/keep, so it could hardly be described as a consensus for their removal. Eff Won (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If we are refusing to see reason, then what do you hope to accomplish from this? Surely if we cannot be swayed, your arguement is a waste. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As the debate is very well advanced on the 2012 page I would suggest directing debate there. --Falcadore (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I give up. There is a culture and attitude here that is not conducive to reasonable debate. It is a shame, but there we have it. Eff Won (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, because I know holding a singular debate in four different locations at the same time is conducive and reasonable! Heaven forbid the person claiming to want to make things easier for readers to find is against making a debate easier to keep track of! The³5₉ (Talk) 22:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I see we've crossed into The Twilight Zone. Apparently my arguments from a year ago are null and void because of my actions from a month ago — even though both my arguments and my actions are consistent with one another. Somehow, this means that my contributions to the aforementioned discussion mean absolutely nothing, thereby weakening the established consensus. I'm willing to bet that Eff Won will make similar arguments against everyone who supported the consensus in October.

Eff Won, if you want to make a change to the calendar, you need a consensus for it. Don't try and get a consensus that a previous consensus was not actually a consensus at all because a) that does not address the issue at all, and b) it will only make everyones' heads explode. Even if by some miracle you manage to get a consensus that a previous consensus was not a consensus, that will not give you permission to go ahead and make the changes you want to make, because you do not have a consensus for it.

And on the subect of whether or not links to links to specific race pages should be included in the calendar table of a season page, allow me to explain my stance: no, they should not. The reasons for thi are two-fold:

• 1) First of all, the article is constructed in a very specific manner. Ideas are introduced one at a time - for instance, the teams and drivers are introduced through the team and driver table before the events of the season are recounted. To this end, the calendar table introduces the "generic" race articles in the order that they take place. The calendar table is the best place (indeed, it is the only place) within the article for these links to go.

• 2) Secondly, we cannot have two links with similar wording leading to two separate pages. In the past, you have suggested that the "Belgian GP" entry could lead to the page on the Belgian Grand Prix, and that the "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" entry could link to the 2012 race page. As I have explained to you (twice, I might add), this is not acceptable because it is an easter egg. Readers should have a reasonable idea of what a link will lead to when they follow it, and the presence of the title sponsor in the race title column will not distinguish one link from the other given that Shell has been the title sponsor of the Belgian Grand Prix for years.

The only alternative to this would be to remove the links to generic races from the calendar, and replace them with links to specific races. This is unacceptable, because it involves removing content that is highly relevant to the article — the links to the generic race pages — and replaces it with content that appears prominently in at least four other places (the race summaries and the three resuslts tables). It is not necessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What do I need to know?

As a newly signed-up up member of this project, can someone provide me with a list, or a link to a list, of things I need to know. I'm a passionate F1 fan, and would like to work on these articles in a constructive and collaborative manner. I made a bit of a dodgy start, I admit, but I didn't realise that Wikipedia had these sub-teams which were empowered to write their own local rules. I clumsily waded in, shiny new copy of the Wiki-guidelines in hand, and attempted to put the world to rights - and achieved nothing but to make a complete arse of myself - I'm sorry. Please help me and guide me in the ways of WP:F1, and, hopefully, we can move forward in harmony, rather than in dischord. Eff Won (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no list. Nor do we have any rules. The fact that you continue to call them rules shows, to me, that you are not actually attempting to "collaborate" with anything we say, and instead are wishing to continue this arguement by standing fast on your incorrect viewpoints on Wikipedia guidelines. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is going to get done if editors resort to this "you're wrong", "no, you're wrong" kind of argument. We're all here to improve WP:F1, and it stands to reason that the more editors we have, the more opinions we have, and the more likely one of those opinions is to be the "right" one. Of course, not everyone is going to agree and some editors seem to think that "consensus" is defined by when all editors magically change their opinions so that they all agree with one viewpoint. There are always going to be people who disagree with a consensus that has been reached. Despite making a couple of mistakes, when I first joined the first message I got corrected my mistakes and welcomed me to the project. Which is exactly what we should be doing to Eff Won. So could Eff Won and Prisonermonkeys, and any other editors, please, in one comment, state what you think should be in the table about which we're speaking. If we give it, say, 48 hours for everyone to post their view in one comment (i.e. stating why you think you're right, rather than why others are wrong), and then we can see who thinks what and come to some sort of consensus. Or ignore all I've just said and carry on with your slanging match, which isn't going to solve anything. Allypap81 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, this is how the 2011 table looked after Prisonermonkeys' edit on 11 June:

Round	Race Title	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Qantas Australian Grand Prix	Australian GP	Albert Park, Melbourne	27 March
2	Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix	Malaysia GP	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	10 April
3	UBS Chinese Grand Prix	Chinese GP	Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai	17 April
4	DHL Turkish Grand Prix	Turkish GP	Istanbul Park, Istanbul	8 May
5	Gran Premio de España Santander	Spanish GP	Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona	22 May
6	Grand Prix de Monaco	Monaco GP	Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	29 May
7	Grand Prix du Canada	Canadian GP	Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal	12 June
8	Grand Prix of Europe	European GP	Valencia Street Circuit, Valencia	26 June
9	Santander British Grand Prix	British GP	Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone	10 July
10	Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland	German GP	Nürburgring, Nürburg	24 July
11	Eni Magyar Nagydíj	Hungarian GP	Hungaroring, Budapest	31 July
12	Shell Belgian Grand Prix	Belgian GP	Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Spa	28 August
13	Gran Premio Santander d'Italia	Italian GP	Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza	11 September
14	SingTel Singapore Grand Prix	Singapore GP	Marina Bay Street Circuit, Marina Bay	25 September
15	Japanese Grand Prix	Japanese GP	Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka	9 October
16	Korean Grand Prix	Korean GP	Korean International Circuit, Yeongam	16 October
17	Airtel Grand Prix of India	Indian GP	Buddh International Circuit, Greater Noida	30 October
18	Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Abu Dhabi GP	Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi	13 November
19	Grande Prêmio Petrobras do Brasil	Brazilian GP	Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo	27 November

And this is how it looked after Eff Won's most recent edit:

Round	This Season's Race Title	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Qantas Australian Grand Prix	Australian GP	Albert Park, Melbourne	27 March
2	Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix	Malaysia GP	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	10 April
3	UBS Chinese Grand Prix	Chinese GP	Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai	17 April
4	DHL Turkish Grand Prix	Turkish GP	Istanbul Park, Istanbul	8 May
5	Gran Premio de España Santander	Spanish GP	Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona	22 May
6	Grand Prix de Monaco	Monaco GP	Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	29 May
7	Grand Prix du Canada	Canadian GP	Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal	12 June
8	Grand Prix of Europe	European GP	Valencia Street Circuit, Valencia	26 June
9	Santander British Grand Prix	British GP	Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone	10 July
10	Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland	German GP	Nürburgring, Nürburg	24 July
11	Eni Magyar Nagydíj	Hungarian GP	Hungaroring, Budapest	31 July
12	Shell Belgian Grand Prix	Belgian GP	Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Spa	28 August
13	Gran Premio Santander d'Italia	Italian GP	Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza	11 September
14	SingTel Singapore Grand Prix	Singapore GP	Marina Bay Street Circuit, Marina Bay	25 September
15	Japanese Grand Prix	Japanese GP	Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka	9 October
16	Korean Grand Prix	Korean GP	Korean International Circuit, Yeongam	16 October
17	Airtel Grand Prix of India	Indian GP	Buddh International Circuit, Greater Noida	30 October
18	Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Abu Dhabi GP	Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi	13 November
19	Grande Prêmio Petrobras do Brasil	Brazilian GP	Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo	27 November

Allypap81 (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's only fair that I give my opinion - I believe the upper table is pretty much as good as it could be - there's links to the general event (for example Australian GP), while links to the 2011 event (2011 Australian Grand Prix) occur all through the season report and 3 times in the "Results and Standings" section, which is, after all, where one would expect them to be. Allypap81 (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole "one comment" thing isn't necessary. Eff Won has been directed to a prior consensus plenty of times, and has chosen to ignore it on every occasion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Prisonermonkeys' version, I'd prefer it for 2 reasons: the event title is unlinked (it doesn't need a link, since there's a race report link) & the header is "event name" (since the "year page" implies it, it makes "this season" redundant). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The first argument there could similarly be used to support the removal of other links in that table, so why do you say it for the year-GP links and not for the others? Eff Won (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"why do you say it for the year-GP links and not for the others?" Because none of them are redundant? See, just 'cause links also appear in the text doesn't mean they shouldn't appear in the table. If they're already tabulated, however, where's the benefit of a second tabulated link? Beyond the MOS issue, I mean. (IDK if I entirely agree with the MOS, but that's another thread. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying - the year-GP links aren't already tabulated there, only the generis GP for each venue. Eff Won (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"the year-GP links aren't already tabulated" Not yet. Like every other "season" page, the reports will be linked in the tables...unless that's changed & IDK about it. Which doesn't address the "it ain't broke, don't fix it". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you didn't realise that Prisonermonkeys had gone around removing them all recently. From what I can tell, they were there for many months, if not years, previous to his actions. That is why I restored them, and consequently that is why he got me into a bit of trouble with the WP:F1 members. I'm now trying to understand the full picture, to avoid any future faux pas. Eff Won (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys you say I've "been directed to a prior consensus plenty of times". You failed to qualify that by pointing out that there was not actually any evidence of that claimed consensus in the places that I was directed to. Eff Won (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because you don't have enough experience to recognise a Wikipedia consensus when you see one. It doesn't say "This is a consensus". A proposal was made to change something, and there was no consensus to follow the proposal, therefore the consensus is the status quo. That's how it works. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And for the benefit of anyone here who hasn't seen the alleged evidence of that consensus, and doesn't know where to start looking for it, can you tell us where that is too. Eff Won (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My view on September 2, when I visited the 2012 season article, was that as each row in that table specifically represents the GP for that place in that year and that as there were no links already in the second column, that it was begging to have that link added. Following the reversion of my edit there I noticed that the tables in the 2010 and 2011 season articles had also had the year articles linked, up until Prisonermonkeys removed the links in June 2012, so I reverted those Prisonermonkeys edits, to restore those links in those 2 articles too. Today I have also spotted that the 2009 article had the same year article links until just 3 days ago (albeit on the 3rd, rather than 2nd, column), when Prisonermonkeys removed them from there too. Eff Won (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because the calendar format that was agreed upon was not rolled out to previous seasons. There's too much work to do, and stuff like this gets forgotten sometimes. This is a huge fuss about not very much. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And for the benefit of anyone here who doesn't know where to start looking, can you tell us where that calendar format agreement is documented, or the discussion resulting in that agreement. Eff Won (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, when you use words like "alleged", you lose my already challenged interest. I've shown you the consensus discussion, so you can post it here yourself. I'm really not falling for this stuff. You're trying to turn this into some kind of achingly dull court case - stop dragging it out and accept that you're in a minority of one. Discussions of this magnitude are only necessary if there's a genuine disagreement among editors, not just one person out to make a scene. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Was this the discussion that you believe confirms that there is a consensus that year-GP articles should never be linked from the year-GP field in the calendar table? And is that also the calendar format agreement that you alluded to? Eff Won (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that the discussion I linked you to on your talk page? No. That's one editor making a huge, prolonged fuss all on his own, how prescient. You'll note that guy is now permanently blocked for being an asshole. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This one? Interestingly, about the only thing that most contributors agreed to there was that a link to the year-GP article would be a good idea. You yourself offered a format with a link to the year-GP article, as did QueenCake (explicitly agreeing with your idea for it), as did De Facto too, and even Prisonermonkeys offered one when he saw the strength of opinion in favour of it and, perhaps, thought it would help get support for his other ideas. TREKphiler supported the link to the year-GP article there too. You yourself seemed very enthusiastic about adding the link, raising it in several of your contributions to the rathy lengthy debate. I would say it was possibly your main concern there. As it is apparent from recent events that "that guy" (who you say, was "permanently blocked") clearly isn't Prisonermonkeys, I'm assuming it must have been De Facto that you were referring to there, was his "being an asshole", per chance, related to his intolerance of Prisonermonkeys's persistence? Eff Won (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who advocated what, including me, we could not reach a decision to change the format. That constitutes a consensus not to change the format, so the format was not changed. There is still no consensus to change the format, so the format will not be changed. This discussion is just confirming that right now, so in other words you are getting nowhere. With regard to De Facto, he was blocked for being exactly the kind of person Wikipedia hates the most, and he was basically sitebanned. It does not matter in any sense why he was an asshole, it is just taken as fact by all concerned that he was. You'd do well do avoid his methods of editing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The format disagreement (or lack of agreement) was over the size and shape of it though. There was a consensus (as I understand the word) to include links to the year-GP articles. And it isn't the shape or size that Prisonermonkeys changed from the status quo, he simply removed the year-GP links. So what exactly are the characteristics that De Facto had that earned him a "site ban"? Surely not merely that Prisonermonkeys disagreed with his views on calendar links; because if that were the case all the others who agreed with De Facto on that point (including yourself) would deserve one too. Eff Won (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify that with a detailed answer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that response. You made some heavily veiled allusions about consensus and behaviour, I merely asked for more detail. Presumably you can actually support what you said. Eff Won (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You know this discussion constitutes a consensus, right? Nobody anywhere at any time has agreed with anything you've ever said. That's a consensus. You've edited precisely three articles in total, Eff Won, most of it edit-warring. The rest of your edits are flogging an abattoir full of dead horses on talk pages. You might consider a new approach to your work on here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that's not really a fair intepretation of my 6 days, so far, with Wikipedia is it. I spent most of the first few days trying to keep my head above the water whilst people who should have known better were trying to drown me, and I've spent the last day or two trying to participate in this fact-finding exercise, which I initiated following advice from helpful and sincere users, to help me become an integrated and useful member of WP:F1. Did you see the barnstar I just received on my talk page? Eff Won (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is. Your contributions back it up. And there you go again with your belief that everyone's out to get you for no reason. You are not engaged in a fact-finding exercise. I saw the barnstar - I hope you don't think it makes any difference to this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem reluctant to give me a chance to show that I'm willing to collaborate here. You seem to support the stance that Prisonermonkeys took in ruthlessly reverting my first edit without providing a reasoned explanation, or at least didn't condemn him for that. Why is that? I've been contrite here and tried to understand how this WP:F1 group works. You've hardly been helpful in providing tips, sources of information or a guide to the lore and language of the group. In fact, I almost think you want me gone from here - you jump on almost everything I say. What more do you want from me? Eff Won (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How about making a single edit about something else - all your edits concern the same trivial topic. I am not in the business of "condemning" experienced editors, and a revert is a revert - there are no "ruthless" reverts. Prove that you are actually here to make edits and do stuff, and not just make endless futile chat about unimportant formatting. I'll help you along by knocking my contribution to this rubbish on the head. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you seem to think there is some rule in place that says an editor's first edit will always be accepted and can never be reverted? You seem to think it was personal when I reverted your first edits. It wasn't. I reverted those edits because they made the article inconsistent with the other season articles and because they went against an established consensus. I have explained this to you four or five times, and yet you are still under the impression that they were removed out of some personal dislike of you. Are you really so thin-skinned that you take it as a grievous personal insult when someone reverts your edits?

In the time since those edits were removed, you have done nothing short of make and absolutely nuisance of yourself. You have been disruptive, ignored consensus where it exists, refused to acknowledge consensus when directed to it, accused established and respected editors of having achieved consensus through fraudulent means, edit-warred to try and force your changes through, attacked and insulted anybody and everybody who has tried to reason with you and then demanded that we applaud your edits as being brilliant ideas, deliberately mis-quoted Wikipedia guidelines out of context to try and force edits through, repeatedly and persistently dragged discussion about changes out, and refused to allow any meaningful progress on any page you have edited until the issue is resolved to your satisfaction. You have shown nothing but aggressive, uncivilised, arrogant, rude and childish behaviour, and I think it is fair to say that everyone here is quickly running out of patience with you if they haven't done so already. And then you wonder why people are "reluctant to give you a chance". Why is that? It's because you haven't shown us a thing to make you want to support you.

You want to know what more you can do to be accepted around here? Here's a few ideas:

• 1) As Breton said, you can try contributing something for once, rather than spinning the page of its axis when you don't get your way.
• 2) You can try showing some respect for the other editors rather than abusing them and criticising them if they don't agree with you.
• 3) You should think about what you're doing before you actually do it.
• 4) If you don't get a consensus, drop the issue. Browbeating and berating everyone isn't going to change it (and in some cases, it will just make us dig our heels in - if that makes us petty, then we're petty; no-one here ever claimed to be anything other than human).
• 5) Stop taking it all so damn seriously.

Finally, I suggest you put some serious thought into how you go about presenting yourself. Because I can guarantee you that if you don't wisen up and quickly, your days here are numbered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You asked: "Why do you seem to think there is some rule in place that says an editor's first edit will always be accepted and can never be reverted?". Well of course I don't, where do you think I have ever expressed that thought? I think, for reasons known only to yourself (or maybe they are subconscious), but which the rest of us can speculate about, you are totally and maliciously misrepresenting my indignation at the intolerant way you reverted my edit.

You then indulge in a bit of gratuitous self-flattery over your reaction to my reaction: "I have explained this to you four or five times,". I have seen no evidence of "explanations" from you. I think you are misrepresenting your behaviour there.

Then you launch into a vitriolic attack of my subsequent attempts to understand if any of the claims you make to defend your actions were founded:

• You characterise my search for founded reasons as: "you have done nothing short of make and absolutely nuisance of yourself". You might see a request for you to support your actions with founded reasoning and evidence as such, but I see reasonable observers do not.
• You assert that I "have been disruptive", again supported not with evidence, but with your own bluster. So another misrepresentation.
• You say I have: "ignored consensus where it exists, refused to acknowledge consensus when directed to it", yet have failed, despite repeat requests, to provide evidence of such consensus, and in fact, such evidence that I have found from the 2 links purported to lead to that consensus suggests it is you, and not me, who has ignored consensus.
• You allege that I have "accused established and respected editors of having achieved consensus through fraudulent means". Can you provide evidence to support that serious charge which I believe it to be a misrepresentation?
• You allege that I have "edit-warred to try and force your changes through". Can you show evidence of that, rather than that I have resisted you trying to force your changes through?
• You say that I have "attacked and insulted anybody and everybody who has tried to reason with you", again with no supporting evidence, and I refute that entirely as a misrepresentation.
• You then go on to claim that I "then demanded that we applaud your edits as being brilliant ideas". LOL! Can you show us evidence of that "demand"? Well I know you can't, because I know it is yet another misrepresentation.
• How about support for "deliberately mis-quoted Wikipedia guidelines out of context to try and force edits through". That appears to be another misrepresentation.
• Then there is this astonishing remark, especially from you: "You have shown nothing but aggressive, uncivilised, arrogant, rude and childish behaviour"!
• And your final shot: "I think it is fair to say that everyone here is quickly running out of patience with you if they haven't done so already." Speaking for everyone else, and misrepresenting them to boot!

Do you spot the common thread in your disgraceful account? Misrepresentation I think, yes, MISREPRESENTATION. How people can tolerate you participating in discussions here, I do not know, or trust anythig you write. Let us hope that that level of impropriety doesn't extend into what you write into the Wikipedia articles!

As for your spiteful tips at the end; you can shove them; I won't be taking any tips from someone like you.

Eff Won (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidence that you have accused and insulted others hasn't been provided? Wow. Ignorance is bliss.

Still no actual edits to Wikipedia. Just arguing. As I said before, you're no longer worth the effort. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I love the way he sturctures his criticisms of me as arguments against me, as if everything I have said can be disproven like a logical argument - but he doesn't actually supply any evidence to support what he's saying. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything, but I have to agree. If getting rv'd really bugs you, you've got no business here, 'cause it's gonna happen. It's gonna happen on pages you care deeply about. And if this is how you react on a page you don't care deeply about, when that happens, you are going to get kicked. Forever. Take if from somebody who doesn't handle criticism well. :D Do yourself a favor. Get a grip, or walk away now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, here's an idea for something Eff Won might like to do that is constructive and would be appreciated:

There are a few pages related to the 2012 GP2 and GP3 Series seasons that need a bit of work. They are as follows:

• 2012 Hockenheimring GP2 and GP3 Series rounds
• 2012 Hungaroring GP2 and GP3 Series rounds
• 2012 Spa-Francorchamps GP2 and GP3 Series rounds

All three pages need to have their results tables filled in. This is what they should look like. Perhaps Eff Won would like to consider doing this. The GP2 results are freely available here:

• Hockenheim GP2
• Hungaroring GP2
• Spa GP2

And the GP3 results are available here:

• Hockenheim GP3
• Hungaroring GP3
• Spa GP3

I know filling all of these in seems a little bit tedious, and not all that important. But it is certainly something that I, for one, would appreciate being done, and I think you would get some value out of it, because it will teach you how wikicode works. It's up to you if you want to do it, but I think doing it would earn you a bit of respect from everyone here. That's what you want, isn't it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think expanding some of our older Formula One article that have single senntence descriptions are of MUCH higher value that writing tables for modern junior events like GP3. Expanding high value articles liek World Championship F1 races compared to low value GP2/3? --Falcadore (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be the next step. I was thinking we could get Eff Won to take it one step at a time, teach him the basics of editing and get him used to wikicoding. Then, when he's got a handle on it, see if he's up to editing some of the high-value articles. Or do you jsut want to throw him into the middle of it all and say "Here's an article that deserately needs attention, but even though you're a newcomer and still not familiar with it all, have at it." and then expect him to get everything right? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Experienced edittors don't get everything right (very definately looking in the mirror when I say... type that) so I'm not going to suggest that anyone else can. It was just my personal thoughts that Eff Won's focus on a strict interpretation of essentatially presentation aspects of Wikipedia articles, links, flags is part of the problem. Wikipedia's motorsport editting fraternity is already very well serviced with table compilers and we are very underserviced by prose writers. Wikipedia readers, particularly Formula One readers, aren't going to interested in the tables when there are dozens of website with tables. With a handle like Eff Won, he/she may not be interested outside of Formula One. I certainly would not push GP2 and GP3 ahead of the World Championships of other disciplines like Rally, Touring Cars, GT1, Endurance Sports Car, MotoGP. GP2 and GP3 are support categories and categories that are independant in their own right deserve greater attention.

But all of that is a personal opinion, and hardly a new one from myself. --Falcadore (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Renault F1 logos up for deletion

File:Renault Sport F1 Logo White Background.jpg and File:Renault Sport F1 logo small.jpg have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? They may become useful. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2012 (AEST)

Usefulness isn't the issue here. The person who put the images up for deletion is questioning wheter or not they are free images, which means that the person who uploaded them down not own them, and so Wikipedia does not have the right to use them if this is the case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the two qualify under {{PD-textlogo}} if you want to try to argue for keeping them. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"F1 Driver" up for deletion

An article on the extremely fringe almost-F1 driver Tom Monarch is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Monarch. He's not notable as it stands, but will probably prove notable once people figure out what else he did, just like every other F1 driver who has been put up for AfD. Meantime, it'd be handy if the article is redirected rather than deleted. Have your say, if you wish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

1988 Osella

While doing some roaming of the 1988 Formula One season article, I noticed something. In the entrants table, Osella Squadra Corse's entries are listed as the Osella FA1I and Osella FA1L chassis, using the Osella 890T turbocharged V8. This makes the constructor Osella. However a look further down the page shows Osella's results in the Constructor's championship as Osella-Alfa Romeo. Now, granted, the Osella 890T is apparently just the Alfa Romeo 890T engine from 1987, but was the engine actually rebadged as an Osella? A quick search of some references seems mixed: A reference used in the 1988 season article from GrandPrix.com lists the results of the 1988 Belgian Grand Prix as Osella-Alfa Romeo. Formula1.com lists the results of the 1988 season as just Osella. Statsf1.com also lists it as just Osella. So what is the story here? The³5₉ (Talk) 08:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My recollection from the time is that Alfa Romeo effectively disowned the engine, so officially the cars were just "Osellas". But many sources just ignored the fact and still referred to the cars as "Osella-Alfa Romeos". I'll see if I can find some sources to either back that up or repudiate it. DH85868993 (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Forix has the engine as "Alfa Romeo" in 1987 but "Osella" in 1988. Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I recall that Alfa Romeo had been bought by Fiat, who obviously owned Ferrari as well. Fiat wanted Ferrari engines to be the only Italian engines in F1, so Alfa pulled out. The Alfa engines continued to be used in Osellas during 1988, but they were just badged as Osellas. Still crap though. I miss Osella. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Currently the only place that the entry is listed as Osella-Alfa Romeo is the 1988 Formula One season constructor standings matrix. So from what I gather this should then be removed? The³5₉ (Talk) 05:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Jones encyclopedia lists them as OSella-Alfa Romeos in 1988. --Falcadore (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sid Watkins

The Prof appears to have died, which is a sad thing. His article is getting attention from people noting the fact, but not adding a source. The only "official" word I can get right now is on Twitter, so if anyone can find a decent source, could they please add it to the article. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Standings after the race

I've always had a little bit of an issue with this, bit it did not crystalise until today when I was going over some 1976 seasons races. So cross posted from Talk:1976_Spanish_Grand_Prix#Points_after_the_race:

There is a problem with this section of the page. It lists Lauda on 30 and Hunt on 15, but this is not correct as Hunt was disqualified. He was reinstated but that happenned months later. At no point every in 1976 was there a scoreline of 30-15 and it is fictional to suggest otherwise. We should show the points as they were and then later in the season at the appropriate point indicate when the reinstatement occurred and alter the points then.

So what I propose is making this standings accurate. In this instance the table should say, if it is to be accurate to what to pointscore was between the Spanish and Belgian Grands Prix, this:

Pos	Driver	Points
1	Niki Lauda	33
2	Patrick Depailler	10
3	Clay Regazzoni	9
4	Jochen Mass	7
5	James Hunt	6

Actually looking at how we have editted the 1997 Formula One articles this is the correct behavior. Schumacher had all his points removed after the season, but during the season in these race articles Schumacher's points have been left in as an accurate reflection of the point score at the time.So I now don't see any reason why the 1976 points should not be amended. --Falcadore (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Schumacher situation is a little different - he only lost his championship position but got to keep all his results and points (noting that his points total of 1560, as shown at FORIX and formula1.com includes the 78 points from 1997). Which is not to say I disagree with you about 1976; just that it's not exactly the same situation. For the benefit of other readers, here's a link to the previous discussion on the topic. DH85868993 (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not really different as these tables show championship poistion, which is what Schumacher had removed. That he kept his points is something for his career statistics and is not relevant here. --Falcadore (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed all the tables, there wasn't just the Spanish GP but the British GP also had disqualification issues, Would be a shame if in Rush they put point scores up as the film goes on and they were sourced from Wikipedia :P

Actually, I'd like to put forward since next year the 1976 season will get quite a bit of attention when Rush is released, that we (the F1 Wikiproject) work to improve ALL 1976 related articles. --Falcadore (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd add just one caveat: footnote the post-race scores indicating they were changed by stewards' rulings after the flag dropped, both to clarify & (hopefully, but, I regret to say, improbably) ward off the drive-by edits "correcting" things. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As the changes were complete prior to your caveat, you mind inspecting the results? --Falcadore (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a note, & hidden cmt to ref to the note; hopefully, between the 2, it'll avoid conflict. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Grand Prix reports from the European GP onwards

I have noticed that the reports for the European, British, German, Hungarian, Belgian and Italian are all either missing sections or require expansion. I and another user at the F1 Wiki have created detailed race reports, and I thought it might be useful to use these reports to expand the Wikipedia articles. Should this be done?

Links: Europe, Britain, Germany, Hungary, Belgium and Italy. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Because copying material from one website to another is quite often a breach of copyright. By all means expand the section, but don't use someone else's language. --Falcadore (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

F1 Wiki appears to be CC-BY-SA, so in theory there isn't a problem. As far as I can see, all that would need to happen is that a note be made in the References section that the article contained text from that source, and the job's a good 'un. I think this could possible be accomplished by use of something similar to the {{EB1911}} template. If anyone knows better please feel free to correct me! However, that being said, F1 Wiki is not a reliable source. Therefore facts and figures, and controversial incidents/opinions/quotes/etc., would still have to be cited to a WP:V-compliant source. As F1 Wiki appears to entirely lack these this not an insignificant task. We already have quite a lot of poorly-sourced race reports here, and copy-pasting a few more isn't going to get anyone any brownie points. Pyrope 00:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Circuit maps

I'm attempting to get some sort of consensus on the design of circuit maps used on Wikipedia as part of a (potentially foolish) bid to try and clean them up into a consistent style and design. Since these are used quite heavily on F1 articles (particularly race reports) you make like to throw in your views over at WT:MOTOR. AlexJ (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Schlesser.jpg

file:Schlesser.jpg has been nominated for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Source added. Thanks for the heads up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Compliance with WP:LINKS RFC

I have concerns about the compliance with Wikipedia content style guidelines, particularly with WP:LINKS with the multiplicity of duplicate links (the 22 to Sebastian Vettel, for example), of the 2012 Formula One season article. I welcome constructive discussion and comments on whether others believe this to be a concern with that article. Eff Won (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Eleven of which are in tables and/or photographs, which by your very own quoting of the guidelines, is an exception to the guideline. If you're going to claim that we are overlinking, please use the correct number instead of a hyperinflated one. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the current practice there, by the end of the 2012 season in November, the "Race summaries" section could easily have 10-20 links to the articles about Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Button, Webber, Räikkönen, McLaren, Red Bull, Lotus, Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault. Eff Won (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am confused as to whether you are advocating more or fewer links in this article, as in your short time on Wikipedia, you have made a number of edits both adding and removing links, and argued strongly in favour of adding duplicate links to this very article. Now this. I also note that none of your edits had any support at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've explained it before, but here it is again. Duplicating links, especially when counted in dozens per section, is bad. Missing links, to specifically implicated articles in an unlinked table column, is bad (single links in tables are allowed, even expected, even if the link exists elsewhere in the article). Eff Won (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But there are no sections which have duplicate links. You list 22 uses of the link to Sebastian Vettel, yet every single link is in an individual section or table. Further, if you are going to claim that links in tables are excluded, where are you getting the 22 number from, because I count 11 links in prose, and 11 links in tables/photos. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say Eff Won has added the eleven links from the prose to the eleven links in tables and captions to get the sum of twenty-two. He's clearly done it to make his "case" look stronger than it actually is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I find this level of pedantry of editing is not constructive when there are much larger content based issues the need addressing. --Falcadore (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. TollHRT52 (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2012 (AEST)

When people delete all links except the very first one, it become very hard to use pages as hypertext pages should be used. Try to see it from a user's point of view instead of the bureaucratic point of view. If you skip from the TOC to a section, or were linked into an anchor, you'd miss the only link in a page. And not highlighting important linking pages for people who skim articles at a links section is also just bad practice that Wikipedia promotes. Indeed, should the first occurrence be linked, if an important occurrence appears later? Seems like the more important occurrence should be linked over an incidental occurrence. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Who decides which occurrence is the more important? The first occurrence should always be linked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:LINKS is pretty clear: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." That means linking once in the lead; once at the first occurrence in the body text; and everywhere in tables & captions. If the article is huge, a second link lower in the body may be appropriate. For example, take a look at WP's best articles, Wikipedia:Featured articles ... those articles all adhere to WP:LINKS. --Noleander (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Owen Maddock

So, I finally caved and stuck my Owen Maddock piece up in main space. It isn't finished, but I have so much going on right now that I doubt I'll have enough time to do a good job by myself and, hey, isn't that what crowdsourcing is all about? There are one or two sections that are a little skimpy, and others that might benefit from a trim, but I think I've become too close to this article and can't see the wood for the trees. Thanks to DH for giving me the kick, and sorry that it still took a couple of months to get it out there. Pyrope 00:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice work!—Midgrid(talk) 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What he said. --Falcadore (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What a damn good article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You do make me so envious. Very nice work indeed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

United States Grand Prix#Other Grands Prix in the United States (1976-1988) section, should Italian, German, etc GP articles have a similar section?

The USGP article has a section that briefly tells about other US F1 races in the 70s and 80s, and I think it's a good thing, people may be interested about races in that country, not about a race with a specific title. But what do you think, would a similar section be good also in articles about other two-race countries "main" Grands Prix? --August90 (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Main reason for that section is US Grand Prix West, where the name only had one word that was different. As happens in Wikipedia it then gets used to expand into less and less relevant details. If the article was Formula One in Germany, then sure. If there was an East German Grand Prix, then that would be worth mentioning. But Luxembourg, European and San Marino GPs are off topic. Brazilian Grand Prix is just a name. It isn't representative of Brazil's collective history in Formula One.

Also most of the GP articles contain extensive non-world championship histories. Would you include the 1923 San Sebastian Grand Prix in the Spanish Grand Prix article? Solitude Gradn Prix in the German article? Formula One World Champion is only about a third to a qurater of the Australian GP history. None of New Zealand or Macau or Cuba or Denmark or Rhodesia... --Falcadore (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Villeneuve Monza 1981.jpg

File:Villeneuve Monza 1981.jpg has been nominated for deletion, since it's used in several F1 pages, this might be of interest to you. -- 76.65.131.79 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hockenheim or Nurburgring?

It appears that on the 2013 Formula One season article and the Template:Formula One circuits template the Nurburgring is returning to the calendar, however, I understood that the 2013 calendar had the Hockenheimring again. Sas1998 (Talk) 16:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that we have to wait what FIA decides about the 2013 calendar: here there are both circuits, so we have only to wait. :-) Restu²⁰ 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have Nürburgring in the calendar, obviously they still have the contract of hosting the race, and Hockenheim doesn't have it. --August90 (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe Bernie Ecclestone has said that the plan is to have the race at the Ring unless that proves impossible, at which point it will go to Hockenheim. So I would assume the Ring is holding the race until such time as that changes. We can prove that the race will be at the Ring, because that's what the supplied source says. If it comes to light that the race was rescheduled for Hockenheim the day after the calendar was released, but it was never made public for six months, then there's not a lot that we can do about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent spelling changer

User:‎Thblue2009 is repeatedly changing UK to US spelling in Formula One tyres, Formula One tires and Template:Formula One (more specifically, they are changing Formula One tires to be a duplicate of Formula One tyres, but with "tyre" changed to "tire") without discussion, ignoring messages on their talk page alerting them to WP:ENGVAR and asking them to stop. I've nearing the 3RR limit on all three articles, so other editors may need to deal with future activity. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"As of" statements

Numerous F1-related articles contain statements of the form "As of <date>, blah, blah, blah...", which should be periodically checked and updated. I've created a list of all the ones of which I'm aware at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Updates#"As of" statements. Feel free to add any others of which you are aware. DH85868993 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Korean GP lap length

It appears that on several of the Korean GP articles the lap length is listed as 5.621, however on others the lap length is 5.615. Only one of these is correct, and here it says 5.615. This point has also been raised here. Sas1998 (Talk) 10:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The circuits official website, Formula1.com, FIA, BBC and Sky all go with the 5.615km length, so we should go with this too. AlexJ (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Time to move the members list onto its own subpage?

I feel the members list has grown too large to be stored here. I feel it should be moved onto its own subpage, where it won't make the useful bits of the project page too far away from the top. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Sas1998 (Talk) 09:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Members. DH85868993 (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We could also consider removing those members who haven't edited for years, or perhaps making an active list. Though then again that's a fair bit of work for an extremely trivial matter. A more important concern would be our page looking woefully out of date compared to other projects, it's essentially just a big dump of information... QueenCake (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We could do, but like you say it would require a lot of work... Sas1998 (Talk) 10:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Should the link to the members list on the talk page banner ({{WikiProject Formula One}}) also be changed to the subpage? —Gyaro–Maguus— 09:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Tyre supplier changes

An IP is randomly changing the tyre supplier in season articles (as in [2]). I will go through the contributions list but would ask the project to monitor and revert any unsourced random changes. Britmax (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Related requested move

The usage of Arrows is under discussion, see Talk:Arrows, where the page is suggested to be renamed to Arrows (F1) so that it can be redirected to Arrow as the plural form. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a much better name for this if the move goes ahead, e.g. Arrows Grand Prix or Arrows Grand Prix International. No disambiguator should be needed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Team name changes

User:Daniels Renault Sport has changed some team names in the Kimi Räikkönen article, citing no sources. Are these changes right? Britmax (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

They appear to match the names given in his full F1 career history and those at reliable sources. If you want to check this for yourself in future there are a list of sources you can consult on the main project page (link top left). Easily verifiable by simple web search, and uncontroversial, so I don't see any pressing need to give inline citations here. Pyrope 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Great: no problem then. I saw unexplained changes and my antennae twitched, is all. Thanks. Britmax (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hernando da Silva Ramos

I've started a discussion here about moving this article – if anyone wants to chip in, please do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

It has been proposed that Kinetic energy recovery system be merged with Regenerative brake. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the merge discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Jenson Button GA nomination

FYI, I have just noticed that Jenson Button was nominated for Good Article status earlier today.—Midgrid(talk) 15:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not an actual nomination, just an IP which has repeatedly added a GAN to the talk page, despite having no relation to the article. However, the article probably isn't far off from GA status, should anyone want to have a go at it... QueenCake (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Héctor Rebaque

I noticed that on this site [3] there is an picture of Héctor Rebaque in a Hesketh in wich the text below the picture says. Hector Rebaque in his privateer Hesketh-Ford during practice for the 1977 Austrian Grand Prix at the Osterreichring. As far as I know his car was entered by Hesketh Racing but this pictutre says different. Can anyone help me out? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The picture caption seems to be wrong – the car was entered by Hesketh Racing as you say. They were almost finished by 1977 but they did enter a car or two at most races at that time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats what I thougt. I think everyone would agree. I just wanted to be sure! Jahn1234567890 (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Lotus T128

This is going to be a bit preemptive as it is something that will pop up in the near future. Kodewa, who runs the Lotus Cars-backed LMP2 team in the FIA WEC, is building their own LMP2 car for 2013, and it will carry the name Lotus T128. Unfortunately, we already have a Lotus T128 Formula One car from 2011 run by Team Lotus (2010–11). As the LMP2 car will likely have its own article in the near future, we're going to need to disambiguate. So what are people's thoughts for how this should be done? I think it's fair to say that neither car is really a dominant topic that will be searched for, so both should have a disambiguated title. Lotus T128 (Formula One car) and Lotus T128 (sportscar) then? The³5₉ (Talk) 22:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Apollon F1

I've got a question. On the French wikipedia page of te apollon f1 team there is a picture of the logo of the team. Is there a posibility or is it even allowed to get the picture on the English wikipedia page of the apollon team. I'm not very familiar with pictures on wikipedia so if anyone wants to help me feel free to help. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo is here [4] – seems like the genuine logo, but God knows if it's fair-use. Maybe somebody knows the procedure? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at it and the image is fair-use so we could use it but I have no idea how to work with images on wikipedia so if anyone would like to help? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The logo appears lifted directly from here, one of our links from the English article. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I thought is was fair-use but I have no idea now. Does anyone know? Cause I would really like to use the logo on the Apollon page. How completer the page the better isn't it? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The logo doesn't really change the article, it's just a logo for a team most wont even remember. It's not imperative that we have it. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I know the logo wont change the page much but I started editing Formula One pages on wikipedia with a goal. And that goal is to make pages as complete and best as possible. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo's uploaded & on the page. Hopefully it's okay to stay. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Country code Grand Prix of America

In an earlier discussion for the Country Code of the Grand Prix of America the suggestion was AME. I have another option. Because New Jersey is in the far east of America the Country code also could be USE. Personally I like this Country code better. How about you guys? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.186.161.95 (talk)

I forgot to log in Sorry! Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As there is no clash with another event in 2012 AME or US for that matter works just fine. USE would require explanation - which then defeats the point or abbreviating it in the first place. --Falcadore (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the current venue for the race is in the east of the country. What if in a few years time they decide to move the race to somewhere in the west? DH85868993 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's called Grand Prix of New Jersey, should we not call it NJE or JER. Just an idea. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Aren't we a year or so away from making that decision? --Falcadore (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Falcadore lets continue this discussion in a year or so. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up a while ago, when the race was still included on the 2013 calendar. It was agreed among the editors that the three-letter country code should be directly derived from the title of the race. Since the race was/is to be known as the "Grand Prix of America", it was decided that "AME" was the best fit. Although the race is physically located in the east of the United States, "USE" cannot be used because the race is not called "United States Grand Prix East", and so hence the "USE" is meaningless. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prisonermonkeys. Sas1998 (Talk) 18:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Liuzzi's birth year

Hi, there is an online service by Agenzia delle Entrate about the Italian fiscal code card that allows to verify the correspondence between the tax code and personal data of a person; if you put a code and its related personal data the system says whether the data are valid or not. I've tried to put this data in the form: LZZVNT80M06E645S as fiscal code; then Liuzzi, Vitantonio, 06/08/1980, Bari, Locorotondo, Maschio. Then if you submit the data it says Dati validi (valid data). You can verify it here. So his birth year is actually 1980. If you try with 1981 as year (using LZZVNT81M06E645T as correspondent code) it says Dati non validi (Invalid data). 87.5.82.83 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. With the same system you can also verify that Giovanna Amati was born in 1959, not in 1962. 87.5.82.83 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

On Liuzzi's website, [5], he clearly states his year of birth, thanks for the rubbish though. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Except if you looked at our article on Vitantonio Liuzzi, you'd see that his birth year is in question. Various sources use either 1980 or 1981. This therefore provides yet another source to the debate, and hence is not at all rubbish. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Dontforgetthisone: That's a bit harsh, especially considering birth year fudging is a favourite pastime of racing drivers. Plenty of past examples. --Falcadore (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Dontforgetthisone, start being a bit more civil or we can take it somewhere. As Falcadore said, switching birthdates is something a lot of racing drivers have done, like Ratzenberger. Personal websites aren't always going to be fully truthful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it back to 1980, on the basis of the evidence above and FORIX, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes OK, I admit, I snapped to early. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

But can I just say F1.com ([6]), Crash.net ([7]), F1 Fanatic ([8]), BBC F1 ([9]) and his official website I said earlier ([10]) all say 1981.

Which all would have been based on driver/team supplied data who has a vested interest sometimes in falsifying the data. --Falcadore (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also changed Amati's year of birth to 1959 (this is supported by numerous other sources including FORIX and oldracingcars.com). DH85868993 (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dontforgetthisone: there are also other websites reporting 1980, exempli gratia the Superstars Series profile, a 2005 interview (the source cited for this interview is ITV-F1) and La Repubblica ([11]). I must also say that Codice Fiscale is not rubbish, but a personal and unique document as an Identity Card can be ("the card serves to identify unambiguously individuals residing in Italy irrespective of residency status." - from the wikipedia article); the code that Liuzzi would have if he was born in 1981 does not exist, the code with 1980 exists. We're on an encyclopedia and we must write the real birth year, not the one Liuzzi would like to be written. :) 79.51.77.116 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it must be said that sources like the Codice Fiscale trump any of our usual F1 sources, and stuff like Crash.net and F1Fanatic are not great sources anyway, and F1.com is lousy with errors as we know. The chances of the Codice Fiscale being wrong are effectively nil. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

template:F1stat

I've started a discussion at template talk:F1stat about the usefulness of the "seasonposition" and "seasonpoints" stats. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Triple Crown of Motorsport nominated for deletion

Triple Crown of Motorsport has been nominated for deletion. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the AfD page. DH85868993 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Alonso:‎ ‎Formula One career: New section: Comparison with team-mate

An editor has added this section to the Alonso article. I have removed it with an edit note telling them not to bother if they are not going to do it for every racing driver, ever. I wondered what the project's opinion of this would be. Britmax (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's WP:OR so you were right to get rid of it. --Falcadore (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a "comparison with team-mates" section in Alain Prost, but I don't think it adds much value (I mean if you're a multiple F1 World Champion, there's a fair chance that you will have outscored your team-mate on many if not most occasions) and I'd be happy to see it deleted. As a general principle, I think such comparisons are better suited to a specialist F1 website rather than a general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia. DH85868993 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm noticing a few "comparison with team mate" lines appearing in articles. These are rarely sourced and even if they are what's the benefit? Britmax (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely right to get rid of it. Unencyclopedic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Raikkonen photo

I was sure I've brought this up before, but apparently I haven't.

As is usual once the championship is decided, the 2012 season page was updated with the images of the first-, second- and third-placed finishers. However, I have to say that I think the photo of Kimi Räikkönen is rather unflattering. Unfortuantely, it also happens to be the only one of him that I can find in Lotus colours on the Wikimedia Commons pages.

Does anyone know of a better photo that we could use? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on what is unflattering about it? Seems like a fairly normal and clear photo to me. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Many of his photos are unflattering. This one I have no problem with. --Falcadore (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nationality articles

I've just finished a rather lengthy project: creating articles about nationalities of Formula One drivers:

I've now completed every country that has a world champion and transferred it to the main namespace. It is now on DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Formula One nationalities) and I'm hoping that it could appear on the front page when Vettel/Alonso is crowned, but it might take too long to get all of the individual articles reviewed.

I suppose the next task could be to start linking to this from the other articles. violet/riga _^[talk] 11:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic work! We can also places it at the Formula One list. We could make a page with small introductions of all articles with a link to the main article. What do you think? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.186.161.95 (talk)

I forgot to log in Sorry! Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was considering making a Nationalities of Formula One drivers page... violet/riga _^[talk] 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the List of Formula One drivers page already includes enough information on this topic, there is no reason for a Nationalities of Formula One drivers page. It is a bit redundant. Editadam 12:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

head of aero

The head of aero is important for the team McLaren and this feature gives notability? 89.17.224.6 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources confers notability. Go read WP:GNG. Pyrope 18:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton twice winner in America

An editor keeps adding this to the article, adding that the first was Ayrton Senna. I think this is trivial. Opinions? Britmax (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering Schumacher, Hill and Clark all have won more than twice, yeah very. --Falcadore (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought the 'stat' was that Hamilton and Senna are the only two drivers to have won the United States GP at two different tracks. Probably pretty trivia-ish though. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely trivial. DH85868993 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It was two different tracks, although I personally don't think that changes its triviality status. Britmax (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor has added it again, and the first "status" to the Ayrton Senna article. Opinions? Britmax (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

An editor has proposed that Team Lotus (2010-11) be merged with Caterham F1. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Team_Lotus_(2010–11)#Merger_Proposal. DH85868993 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Webber move proposal

An editor has proposed that Mark Webber be moved to Mark Webber (racing driver) and that Mark Webber (disambiguation) be moved to Mark Webber. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Mark_Webber#Requested_move. DH85868993 (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Couple of new articles I've created, wondering about some feedback from my fellow editors. --Falcadore (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Should probably mention what they are. Mozambique Grand Prix and Tunis Grand Prix. --Falcadore (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of a DYK from these do you think? --Falcadore (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow you do learn something every day, we once had a race in Mozambique? I see no reason why you couldn't go for a DYK, they're well written, referenced, and on an interesting topic. Since Tunis Grand Prix is the longer article I'll try for that one. Nicely done if I may say, the only feedback I can think of would be that Tunis is probably long enough to split into a lead/section. QueenCake (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Flagicons

The infobox formatting examples appear to suggest the inclusion of flagicons in direct but nevertheless silent opposition to MOS:FLAG. No attempt is even made at an overriding reasoning that would outweight the considerations that have led to the formulation of MOS:FLAG. Guidelines are of course not strictly binding, but exceptions have to be justified by rationale. A WikiProject cannot just ignore the project-wide consensus and considerations that have gone into addressing this particular issue.

So, the F1 editors who prefer the current use of flagicons have to include a reasoning that outweighs the reasonings behind MOS:FLAG. Or alternatively, the WikiProject's style recommendations should be brought in line with our Manual of Style. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gee, we really haven't been through this a zillion times before. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You're failing to understand the core point: However much the WikiProject has discussed this, and however strong your consensus is, is entirely irrelevant if it doesn't yield a rationale that overrides the considerations behind MOS:FLAG. That overriding rationale would have to be included at the project page, to justify the style recommendations opposing the MOS. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Link, please. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You fail to understand the burden of proof here. I could right now edit the F1 WikiProject page, bring the infobox suggestion in line with the MOS and simply point to MOS:FLAG as the applicable guideline. You couldn't justifiably revert unless and until you present a rationale that overrides the considerations of the Manual of Style. Are you following? What is that rationale, if it exists? Otherwise, I'm adjusting the WikiProject page to reflect MOS:FLAG. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the previous discussions? You're claiming that a rationale has to be presented, but it doesn't. You can't point to anything that says a rationale has to be presented anywhere. MOSFLAG is a guideline not a policy, and no rationale has to be provided where it is not followed to the letter. I suggest not editing the WP page until you have a consensus to do so. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the previous discussions? -- I guess now it's my turn to say "link please".

You're claiming that a rationale has to be presented, but it doesn't. -- Then how would you justify reverting me if I brought the WikiProject page in line with the MOS?

no rationale has to be provided where it is not followed to the letter. -- True, but that's not what this WikiProject does with MOS:FLAG. It recommends doing the exact opposite of what MOS:FLAG recommends. MOS:FLAG explains the reasoning behind its aspects. The WikiProject explains nothing, so far. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is starting to feel like Groundhog Day. Please, go away. — Jon C.ॐ 14:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You know where the archive is, I have other things to do. I'm not wasting any more time with this nonsense. If others want to spend aeons going through it with you, then great. I suggest restoring Jon C's comment, as you have removed it three times already and are in danger of violating WP:3RR. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll make a suggestion to User:213.196.218.39 start with [12] which is a link utilising the search engine at the top of the page. This will send to a myriad of links previously on the subject. I hope this is of assistance. --Falcadore (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm with the mysterious IP on this one. In general, Wikiprojects do not have the authority to override the MOS, even with a consensus. Several projects do this however and several projects show very strong article ownership issues. I'm not really familiar with this project but its clear to me that the fact this comes up every few weeks by different individuals that there is a problem. Its unlikely it will be addressed on this page though and it would be better as a general topic on the Village pump. Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Could I again suggest reading the discussion. No-one is suggesting overriding the MOS - consensus is that flagicons in F1 infoboxes conform to the MOS. Ian Dalziel (talk)

With regard to the comment by Kumioko, "this comes up every few weeks by different individuals" – if that were the case, then there might be an issue. But this has often been proven in past SPIs to be the same person dragging up the same issues again and again. That's not to say that this IP is part of that particular pattern. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have zero interest in motor racing, and no knowledge of the previous discussions here: I come in response to a request at WT:MOS. The originator of the discussion has not exactly laid out his objections very clearly, so I can only start from the first principles of what I read at MOSFLAG, and what I see of the consensus in various sports projects of how to interpret it. MOSFLAG states Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

I have come across a small group of very determined editors, who frequent MOSFLAG, who are very keen on present these two clauses as interdependent, but it seems to me that it is neither necessarily nor logically so. So, I suspect, it comes down to the second permissive clause for using flags: Is their use in the lists and tables under the auspices of this project pertinent to the purpose of those lists? I will assume that the purpose of those lists is to inform the reader of line-ups, race results, championship standings etc; what is pertinent can be judged by what reliable secondary sources include in equivalent tables as a matter of course.

There is no need, as the OP suggests, to have "a rationale that overrides the considerations behind MOS:FLAG": there is a need to determine whether the permissive clauses in MOSFLAG are really being breached at all.

If they are, there may then be a need to consider whether the policy at MOSFLAG actually represents the consensus of the wikipedia community as a whole, or merely that of the tiny number who frequent MOSFLAG. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an earlier discussion on the same topic. DH85868993 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if the dispute is in terms of flag use in infoboxes, then yes, you are operating against WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Campaign to change that, or conform. Kevin McE (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes are not prohibited by the guideline. We reached a sort of detente with the flag-haters at the MOS allowing us to use a single flag to represent sporting nationality as per every other F1 source. After long weeks of arguing with people who say that one single flag in an infobox is distracting, yet 10 or 20 flags in other infoboxes are not distracting, few people had the stomach to continue. If flags were prohibited, they would be so in all infoboxes. It's just arbitrary on the part of the MOS-writers, regardless of what the community (in this case the WP) actually want. Furthermore, it's a guideline, not a policy, and the stalemate in the discussion renders the status quo as the best option, given that there is no actual violation of the guideline. This may represent a movement against the spirit of the guideline, but it is not a violation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

F1 drivers do represent their nation, so flags are explicitly allowed under MOSFLAG. There's really nothing up for debate here. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And - to revisit another point - national flags are raised in the F1 podium ceremony, so the flag has a particular relevance for F1 drivers. Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Section headers?

Not sure if this has been covered before... What is the standard format for section headers? (talking here about breaking up an F1 career by team) I've been tinkering with a few driver bios and there doesn't seem to be any consistency. They make a lot of sense for someone like Jarno Trulli whose career took in long stints at several teams, but not so much for someone like Gabriele Tarquini where two of the headers cover one-off drives. Is there a hard and fast criteria or are the headers to break up longer articles but not compulsory? It strikes me it could be very confusing if applied to a number of 1950s/60s/70s drivers who floated back and forth between seats.

Cheers, Tom Prankerd (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Definately not years as they are essentially arbitrary in the timing of a drivers career. Personally only the category a driver is best known for should be subdivided by team, like Jean-Louis Schlesser, priority should be given to the sports car teams he raced for rather than his very brief formula one career (his infobox displays very much the wrong information). Actually not sure I like the Tarquini information very much, everything other than F1 and WTCC is just skimmed. --Falcadore (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the age-old problem of F1 being covered at the expense of everything else. It's expected in that it is the (supposed) top rung of the motorsports ladder, but it doesn't make for a good encyclopedia. I'd say that section headers are generally chosen at random by whoever works most on that given article, but that they should differ quite widely depending on the career that driver has had. I would use your discretion and change them / keep them as you see fit – someone will always jump in if they disagree :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Yeh, realise the Tarquini article among others is widely skewed towards F1 - personally it's just because that's about all I know about, hopefully someone as knowledgeable in other categories will flesh them out further at some point in the future; I'm not sure in the meantime that it's a reason to skimp on F1 details. Tarquini's could definitely do with someone looking at the BTCC but I really don't have the information to expand it; I could list a bunch of results from GEL but not tell you what exactly most of it means. On-topic I think I will sort the section headers on the article. Tom Prankerd (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

1985 San Marino Grand Prix

Hi, I put this on the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix talk page, but am a bit eager to iron this out if you'll forgive me. That article, Thierry Boutsen and Arrows Grand Prix International all state de Angelis was disqualified and reinstated. None of the sources I've read on the race (Autocourse, Motorsport, Grand Prix '85 and - from memory - BBC's Grand Prix, the FIA season review or Duke's VHS highlights) mention anything about Elio, and the only time the claim is cited is to a dead YouTube video. I can't help but feel, considering Arrows' long winless record, this little factlet would be a lot more well known. Does anyone have a solid source that Boutsen was announced as a winner for however briefly, or shall I fall back on reliable printed sources and change the references? Tom Prankerd (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that it was in fact Boutsen's position that was in doubt, as he pushed his dry Arrows across the finishing line, but stopped before the car had completely crossed it. I have not heard of De Angelis's position being in doubt at any stage.—Midgrid(talk) 13:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Boutsen doing that definitely rings a bell from the coverage, good memory (I had it in the back of my mind that there was some further weirdness). Regarding Elio all of the contemporary articles make a big hoo-ha about Prost's disqualification and how farcical the situation was - I find it difficult to believe the likes of Jenks and Peter Windsor would not mention an organisational cock-up like the Lotus being DQ'd and reinstated afterwards (presumably in a very short space of time); the occurence would also seem to lack credibility as well - they weighed the Lotus, it was underweight and they - what - weighed it again and found it to be the right weight?

Thanks for the input, I think later today I'll Be Bold and change it, adding citations (something I really need to start doing) and leave it to whoever is/was pushing the Boutsen-as-temporary-victor thing to bring some sources to the table. Tom Prankerd (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sponsored names in team templates

What views do users here have on templates such as Template:McLaren which include the full team name inculding sponsor, when many people on the template such as James Hunt, Gordon Murray predate the Vodafone & Mercedes era?--95.148.62.194 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a very small discrepancy in the grander scheme. The team has changed it's name a number of times, even its generic name. --Falcadore (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In particular with that template, there should be two templates, one for McLaren's Formula One team and one for their sports car and other open wheel interests. To have a template called Vodafone McLaren Mercedes that covers the MP4-12C, F1, P1, and various Can-Am and IndyCars when they had no correlation with the Formula One team is misleading. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Or we could just change the titlebar back to "McLaren" (as it was until the 5th of December) and then there's no problem. DH85868993 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I see this change has now been made. As a general principle, my preference is for the titlebar of the template not to include the sponsor name, in the same way that the corresponding article names don't (e.g. the McLaren and Force India team articles are called "McLaren" and "Force India", not "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" and "Sahara Force India F1 Team"). But regardless of my personal preference, the template titlebar should reflect the scope of the template, i.e. since the McLaren template includes more than the just the F1 team, the titlebar should contain the more general name (i.e. "McLaren"). The Force India template only covers the F1 team, so the sponsor name could be included, but as expressed earlier, my preference is that it doesn't, for consistency with the article title, and all the other F1 team templates (following the change to the McLaren template, the Force India template is now the only one which includes the sponsor name in the titlebar). DH85868993 (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My problem is not so much the name, it's just that the template is a bit odd. It's dominated by the current and historical F1 personnel as well as every F1 car, then goes on to list every single other thing that McLaren made that was not F1 related. Is it an F1 template or is it a McLaren template? The Ferrari F1 template does not combine Scuderia Ferrari with Ferrari road cars. Surely there should be a template just for the Formula One team and another template to cover the overall company. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As it currently stands, it's a McLaren template. I guess there's an argument for splitting off the road car-related items, i.e. making it a "McLaren racing team/cars" template, but I question whether that's really worthwhile. Noting that even if the road cars are removed, the non-F1 racing cars should remain per standard practice for similar templates (e.g. {{Williams}}, {{Brabham}}, {{Team Lotus}}, etc). DH85868993 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Baghetti's Ferrari in 1961

I've just made an edit to Giancarlo Baghetti article, in which I've replaced previously mentioned "Ferrari 246 F2 car" (which I'm not sure ever existed) with the 156 Dino (also an F2 car). It's clear that 246 (being an F1 car from 1958–60 with a 2.4-liter engine) couldn't be the right model, moreover Small (2000) in Grand Prix Who's Who lists all 3 championship entries in 1961 as 156, while here his cars in Syracuse & Naples are listed as 156 '0008' (assuming 0008 is a chassis number) and here in France his car is listed as 156 '01'.

If 156 is indeed the correct model number for both non-championship and championship races, the hunch I have is that due to the previously used prose (unreferenced and unattributed!), there's a strong suggestion that 156 as used in Syracuse and Naples was an F2 car (an F2 model from late 1950s, also sometimes referred to as "156 Dino"), while 156 as used in Italy was a 1961-vintage F1 car. I couldn't find any sources to confirm or deny that the 156s were different models. Can someone help?

The options I see are:

1) all first 3 entries in 1961 (Syracuse, Naples, France) were with the same car (i.e. 156 F1), in which case the article text needs to be re-worked

2) first 2 entries (Syracuse and Naples) are indeed with 156 F2 and the third (France) is with 156 F1 (in which case only minor changes are needed to the Baghetti article, mostly removing maintenance tags and creating proper wikilinks)

3) there was indeed such a thing as 246 F2 car, in which case my change to Baghetti's page will need to be reversed and Baghetti's article will need to be properly referenced – and we'll also need to create a new article about the 246 F2 car and track down proper sources (I couldn't find any)

I feel this question is somewhat wider than just Baghetti, as it also relates to confusion about model numbering in Ferrari's early years (multiple 156s, multiple 246s, etc.). That's why I'm placing it here, instead of just Baghetti Talk page. A few other pages might need to be harmonized as well depending on the answer, including Ferrari Grand Prix results, etc. cherkash (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Modified above inline - some info was incorrect. cherkash (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Any takers for this one? cherkash (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ferrari type numbers referred to the engine one way or another, didn't they? Originally the capacity of one cylinder, I think, but later total capacity/number of cylinders. So a 246 couldn't have been a 1.5 litre Formula Two car. Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The race results section of Alan Henry's Ferrari The Grand Prix Cars shows Baghetti driving 156/0008 at Syracuse, Naples, Reims and Aintree and 156/0003 at Monza. I suspect that 156/0008 is the rear-engined prototype chassis which Ginther raced with a 2.4 litre engine at Monaco in 1960 (listed by Henry as "246'P'/0008") and von Trips raced with a 1.5 litre engine at Monza in 1960 (listed by Henry as "156'P'/0008") and that 156/0003 is one of the 1961 "sharknose" cars. DH85868993 (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny edits to Max Chilton

Just a quick heads-up — in the past few hours, Max Chilton has been confirmed as a driver for Marussia F1. Accompanying this has been a series of funny edits by one user, named "AdamCrownTalent", who only registered a week ago and has mostly limited his edits to Chilton's page. I suspect this user is actually Chilton's manager or somehow connected to his management — the name is a fairly obvious give-away, while highlights of his editing history include a non-free image, deleting content en masse (some of it wasn't particularly well-written to begin with, but the user seems to have removed anything that appears to criticise Chilton's performances), and wording that makes the article read like an advertisement, such as "On 18th December 2012, at the age of 21, Chilton was announced as a race driver for Marussia f1 team in the 2013 formula 1 world championship, marking him out as a rising British talent on the circuit."

I'm not really sure what to do about this — it's clearly trying to promote Chilton — but I don't know exactly what policy it's in violation of, so I don't know how to approach an admin. This needs to be dealt with, but until some time as it is, can we just keep an eye out? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI has some guidance on this. AlexJ (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WPF1 newsletter

Both Cs-wolves and myself have decided, due to a combination of lack of time and interests shifting elsewhere, to retire from editing and delivering the project newsletter. Is there anyone interested in taking over? I would be happy to instruct anyone who so desires in how it is updated and delivered.—Midgrid(talk) 15:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Eff Won / Lucy-marie / DeFacto

Four more socks of this idiot were blocked today [13], including User:Oxon Lad, who made a few F1-related edits a while ago. One possible sock was left unblocked due to lack of proof (User:Freimütig) so if that one pops up anywhere, it would be worth mentioning it here perhaps. I suppose it's a fair bet that he/she will reinvent him/herself some time soon with new accounts, so be on your toes :/ Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing Members

Hi everyone, bit off the actual topic, but on the members page, is it an idea if I go through and remove blocked accounts from the members list etc or is that not allowed? Just to tidy it up and make is short again. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How many members do we have that are blocked, exactly? I doubt it's much of a percentage of the grand total, and would not make a considerable dent on the size of the list. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna

Someone has now added Most Kms led "(most kilometres led)" to the trivia that has been put on this article over the last few days. Unless we wish to have all F1 (or possibly racing driver articles) drowned by this trivia "to avoid bias" I think we need to have a really serious look at the trivial statistics noew being added to racing driver articles in general and this one in particular. Please nip this in the bud. Britmax (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree entirely. There's way, way too much opportunity for cruft masquerading as information. Deleted, along with some other marginal junk. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If he/she adds it back in a third time tell him to bring a reference, because I know for a fact he's calculating them himself (WP:OR). --Falcadore (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Could I just point out that mathematical calculations don't violate WP:OR? Spa-Franks (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly not, but if you don't know how many part and full laps there are it's not purely a matter of mathematics any more. Britmax (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

When the editor concerned is making up their own definitions (particularly street circuit) is does. --Falcadore (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Formula One records: distance led

Should we delete all records from the various lists of F1 records because of how highly inaccurate they are? Because the only reliable method of calculating is to multiply the number of laps led by the lap length of the circuit, it then means distance led has a plus or minus accuracy of up to 99% of the lap distance, per lead change because a lead change might occur near the start or the end of a lap. A driver who has had two seperate stints as race leader of the German Grand Prix at the Nurburgring Nordschliefe has a plus or minus of over 88 km.

Should we really document any record with such a high level of inaccuracy without a reference? --Falcadore (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I believe, the distance led ignores how much has been led, agreeing with your calculation. From memory, this might have been used by the Grand Prix Data Book, alongside various F1 books I have I home (which I cannot access at the current time). Pierluigi Martini led "half a lap" (not on Wikipedia) but all sources would state the entire distance. ChichaneF1.com and Manipe F1 give accruate laps led data (except Alonso's is wrong on Manipe F1). —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. It is very problematic. Just one obvious issue is how to calculate it. It appears the number is based on lap length, with credit at crossing the stripe. What about the lead changes over the course of the lap? Does everybody who led part of it get credit? (Does that amount to leading a total distance several times the total race distance...?) How do we (or anybody!) know? And that's only with modern cases, where it might (just) be possible to confirm on video. Go back to even the '50s... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

An editor has tried to add "Distance traveled under racing conditions - 80,668 kilometers in 308 races (307 starts)" to Michael Schumacher's article. Apart form anything else what does "under racing conditions" mean? I've reverted it. Britmax (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Flat Out, Flat Broke: Formula 1 the Hard Way! nominated for deletion

Flat Out, Flat Broke: Formula 1 the Hard Way! has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the subject at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Aggregated racing driver infoboxes

User:Frietjes has proposed making changes to the various series-specific racing driver infoboxes ({{Infobox F1 driver}}, {{Infobox Le Mans driver}}, {{Infobox WRC driver}}, etc) to allow them to be embedded inside {{Infobox racing driver}}, such that a driver's article may contain a single infobox covering all the different series in which they have particpated, rather than multiple infoboxes - see Andy Priaulx as an example. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Template_talk:Infobox_racing_driver#addition_of_modules. DH85868993 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Laffite and Regazzoni at the 1976 British Grand Prix

We currently have some inconsistency regarding the results for Clay Regazzoni and Jacques Laffite at the 1976 British Grand Prix, i.e. whether their result is "Ret" or "DSQ". (For those unfamiliar with the details, the race was stopped after an accident at the first corner. The race stewards announced that no driver would be allowed to take part in the restarted race unless they were in their original car, and that they had finished the first lap of the original race. Regazzoni, Laffite and Hunt all failed to complete the first lap of the original race, but they all took the restart: Hunt in his original car; Regazzoni and Laffite in spare cars. Hunt went on to win the restarted race but Laffite and Regazzoni retired after 31 and 36 laps respectively. Ferrari, Tyrrell and Fittipaldi protested about Hunt being allowed to restart after a firm decision had been announced by the stewards and Hunt was subsequently disqualified). There's no question about Hunt's disqualification but external sources differ regarding Laffite and Regazzoni's results: ChicaneF1 and formula1.com give them as "ret"; FORIX (subscription site) and StatsF1 say "dsq", grandprix.com gives their results as "r/dq" and Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Vol 3 lists them under "Retirements" (as opposed to Hunt, who is listed under "Disqualified"). I don't especially mind which result we go with; I'm more concerned about Wikipedia being internally consistent. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

From my understanding, race results become official after a set period of time, unless there is a protest. The protest in this case was solely against Hunt, therefore the results were not made official. After all the legal wrangling and tribunals, the result was that Hunt was disqualified, thus making the results (finally) official. However, since no protest was made regarding Regazzoni and Laffite, their results should not have changed.

This of course assumes that Regazzoni and Laffite finished the race. Since they did not, disqualification, had it even been an option on the table, would have been moot as they did not finish the race in the first place. I can think of no instance in racing history in which cars which failed to finish suffered further sanctions from protests or stewards decisions, with the exception of Tyrrell in 1984. Therefore it seems to be that the logical conclusion is Retirement, and that the instances of Disqualification are assumptions based on the similarity of the case to Hunt's. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If there are no further opinions on the matter, I'll change all the relevant articles to show Regazzoni and Laffite's results as "Ret" (noting that half of them already do so) sometime within the next 48 hours. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with The359's assessment: Regazzoni and Laffite might well have been disqualified had anyone protested against them, but since they retired anyway, nobody cared. I think in order to show someone as DSQ, there has to be a decent source (FIA or something, not just an F1 website race classification) that says he was actually disqualified, otherwise it looks like WP:OR. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the relevant articles. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mercedes constructor name

There's a discussion in progress at Talk:Mercedes AMG F1 W04#Mercedes AMG F1 W04? regarding whether Mercedes' constructor name for 2013 is "Mercedes" or "Mercedes AMG". You are welcome to express any opinions you may have on the matter at Talk:Mercedes AMG F1 W04#Mercedes AMG F1 W04?. DH85868993 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

FYI, File:Schumihill1994.jpg will be deleted in a couple of days' time unless a suitable non-free use rationale is provided. DH85868993 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion of this file, and made a comment on this in its talk page. What is the process here? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ferrari 412T - space or no space?

You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Ferrari 412T#Space or no space?. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Constructor names of Red Bull, Toro Rosso, and Hispania

The constructor names of Red Bull, Toro Rosso, and Hispania are Red Bull Racing, STR, and HRT, as can be seen here (I selected results from an early 2011 race because HRT was still Hispania then.) and here (I couldn't find anymore the official FIA list.) But we have car articles like Red Bull RB7, Toro Rosso STR6, and Hispania F111. Also, season articles, like this, have Red Bull and Toro Rosso as constructor names of RBR and STR, yet they have HRT as Hispania's constructor name.

So, I wonder if we should switch to the official names or keep them as they currently are. I have no problem with the current system. Red Bull and Toro Rosso are probably more commonly used than Red Bull Racing and STR, so especially in car articles I have no problem with the current names. But maybe constructor name columns in season articles ahould have official names. --August90 (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it seems that this period is about names (see Talk:Mercedes AMG F1 W04 for example). I agree with your last proposal that we keep using the "probably most common names" in articles, but at the same time we use the official names in the info boxes and other sections that can be used more for referential purposes rather than encyclopaedic purposes. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I opened this discussion also to clarify that Mercedes situation. About that proposal that car articles may have common names, I remembered a precedent. Article about 2010 (BMW) Sauber was Sauber C29 but I noticed it was moved to BMW Sauber C29 just under a month ago. --August90 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rename

It has been proposed that Red Bull Racing be renamed and moved to Infiniti Red Bull Racing. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Red_Bull_Racing#Suggested_move. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Tecno

The article for the Tecno team has been moved to Tecno (motorsport), which I don't think is particularly helpful. Any ideas for a better disambiguator? There are lots of links to (re)fix after this guy has finished going around changing them all once. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a terrible disambiguator. I'm having difficulty thinking of something more acceptable. Readro (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also having trouble thinking of anything better. Tecno (kart and racing car constructor) would be accurate, but it's a bit long :-) DH85868993 (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The disambiguator should describe the subject, not the field with which it is associated. The article doesn't even need a disambiguator anyway, and should be moved to its full name (Tecno Racing Team), in line with 90% of the other former F1 teams. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Although the F1 team only operated as "Martini Racing Team", so far as I can tell, their very successful F2 works team were indeed Tecno Racing Team, and I'd agree with Bretonbanquet that this would be preferable to the new page name. Pyrope 23:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. DH85868993 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't Tecno (constructor) be more accurate (And sufficiently? :D )? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I considered that option, but I sometimes wonder whether "(constructor)" might not be an especially meaningful disambiguator for people who aren't already familiar with the subject - I wonder whether people ask themselves "constructor of what?". But I'm happy to go with "(constructor)" if everyone else likes it. DH85868993 (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A fair point, but not enough to dissuade, I don't think. How many will just stumble on the page? Of those, how hard is it for them to read the first line or two? In addition, "constructor" is used elsewhere in reference F1. (A link to "constructor" in the lead in all cases might, therefore, be advisable.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree. The form "Tecno (constructor)" is both entirely synthetic and not intuitive to the non-specialist. The first consideration makes it a title to avoid, the second makes it a title to dismiss entirely. If somebody who doesn't know racing, and F1's specific set of terminology in particular, enters "Tecno" in the search box they are not going to know that "Tecno (constructor)" is anything to do with motor racing. Constructor of what? Bridges? "Tecno Racing Team" has the advantage of specifying that the subject is involved with racing, at least, and follows the integrated constructor/race team approach that we have used to disambiguate the Team Lotus and Scuderia Ferrari pages. Pyrope 08:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Except Tecno isn't only (or even primarily) a racing team, it's a carbuilder. Which makes Tecno Racing Team a synthesis, too, plus inaccurate. Neither does it address the frequent use of the constructor dab. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Would Martini Racing work? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the race team, not the constructor... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to stay out of this then. I wish I could help, but I don't know what the problem is. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm not opposed to the page staying where it is. It may not be ideal, but it appears to beat the other options. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, say Tecno (motorsport) isn't fantastic. Tecno (kart and racing car constructor) is incredibly cumbersome. Tecno Racing Team doesn't respect its constructors history, Tecno (constructor) is too vague. Martini Racing only refers to the race team. You're looking for something perfect that does not exist. OK there are lots of Martini Racing's so that can't work. Almost all Formula One teams are constructors so Tecno Racing Team is not as bad as Trekphiler makes it out to be. Most of the Formula One teams with disambiguated names refer to the racing team name in some form. Tecno is inherently more notable as a racing team than a racing car constructor. Even though more of their history was in constructing junior formulae cars, even their ignoble Formula One history has been written about in far greater terms than junior formulae success of any sort. --Falcadore (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Driver results legend

Looking at the driver results legend:

Key
Colour	Result
Gold	Winner
Silver	Second place
Bronze	Third place
Green	Other points position
Blue	Other classified position
	Not classified, finished (NC)
Purple	Not classified, retired (Ret)
Red	Did not qualify (DNQ)
	Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ)
Black	Disqualified (DSQ)
White	Did not start (DNS)
	Race cancelled (C)
Light blue	Practiced only (PO)
	Thursday/Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards)
Blank	Did not practice (DNP)
	Excluded (EX)
	Did not arrive (DNA)
	Withdrawn (WD)
Text formatting	Meaning
Bold	Pole position
Italics	Fastest lap
Superscript	Sprint race result
Abbreviation	Meaning
WDC	World Drivers' Championship position
WCC	World Constructors' Championship position
NC	Not classified

I'm wondering if it isn't time to update it a little bit, and remove some of the unnecessary fields, particularly on season pages. For instance, are "Practiced Only (PO)" and "Friday test driver (TD)" really that necessary, considering that we don't include them in results matrixes? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have two driver results legends: one for season pages and one for driver pages? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have used the "Practiced Only" 'recently' for Sergio Perez in 2011, so I think that should stay. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

'TD' is used in the driver results tables - see Sebastian Vettel as an example. Also, for those who may not be aware, we have previously discussed the idea of having a landscape legend for use with driver/team results, without overwhelming consensus. DH85868993 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could start a new, more up to date one, therefore, the old one is kept for older seasons, but in newer seasons, where fewer of these are used, we have a table which is more relevant. I definitely think that DNPQ needs to go. SAS1998―Talk 18:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How about one like this one I made here? The major changes are that "excluded" has been placed in black, as it is similar to DSQ, except it is like being 'pre-disqualified'; all the blank ones are deleted, as these are never used these days; and DNPQ is gone, as that rule has been gone for several decades now. SAS1998―Talk 18:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Good job with that new legend. Looks great! So this legend will be used for all future seasons? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually in favour of having separate versions of the legend for driver/team/car results (where the legend appears above the table) and season summary articles (where the legend appears beside the table) - see my rationale in the earlier discussion. But if we're going to stick with the current portrait-layout legend for the driver/team/car tables, then I don't see the value in having multiple versions of the legend just because some values aren't used in the tables for some seasons. DH85868993 (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see where your coming from. Having a bunch of different legends for different seasons is inefficient. Would you suggest just leaving the legend as is? Even with all of the outdated values, the legend still works well. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If we stick to using the same portrait-layout legend for the driver/team/car tables and the season summary tables, then yes, I would say leave it as is. If we decide to have separate legends for the driver/team/car tables and the season summary tables (i.e. an embeddable/collapsible one for the driver/team/car tables in addition to the current non-collapsible portrait-layout one for the season summary tables), then we may wish to consider removing values which are never used in any of the season summary tables (e.g. 'TD') from the "season summary" legend. DH85868993 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree to having a different key for all three (team and driver would be different as some teams existed longer than the drivers, back when there were different rules). Although some of you think that there is no point in creating a new one for each time there is a major rule change, I disagree, as it looks messy to have useless boxes and text in the key. I may make one to show you soon. SAS1998―Talk 16:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, that would require 8 different legends:

• two "season summary" legends (one with DNPQ, one without [noting that we don't show TD in season summary tables])
• two "team" legends (one with DNPQ, one without [noting that we don't show TD in team results tables]), and
• four "driver" legends (one with DNPQ, one with TD, one with neither and one with both)

all to overcome the "problem" of the having items in the legend which don't appear in the table. I'm sorry, but to me that seems completely unnecessary, especially considering that the "problem" will still occur anyway - consider that Alain Prost never had a DNQ, but DNQ would still appear in the legend for his results table. DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. Well, maybe we should just have the current season article legend (without TD, and all the other parts which are never used, but with DNPQ), and create a collapsible one for the driver articles (with TD and DNPQ), and a collapsible one for team articles (without TD, with DNPQ), all of which will be complete with all types of result. SAS1998―Talk 10:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Test and Reserve Drivers

I'm bringing a question over from Talk:2013 Formula One season. Why do we list test and reserve drivers so prominently on Formula One season articles? Consider, for a moment, Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia. What does someone, who does not know anything about motor racing, take from Formula One season articles listing test drivers and third drivers?

Is there another sport anywhere in Wikipedia that lists athletes who, intentionally, don't compete? I know there isn't another motorsport article.

A third question. Why is it notable to list test and reserve drivers? What is so important about test drivers that they are listed prominently, and given more importance than car designers, chief mechanics, team principals and aerodynamicists?

And to the first person who says, they are on standby to replace the main drivers. That mean the might drive. Might. Maybe. Maybe not. That's crystall balling. Do or do not. There is no try. Being a Formula One test driver IS important to the driver. So write about it in the article about the driver. If its important to the team write about it there. Is a test driver important to the Formula One season? How many times do test/third/reserve drivers get mentioned in season reviews? Why are we tabulating people who don't get mentioned anywhere other than in the table?

Is this just an example of a statistic that crept in and suddenly got blown out and given importance way beyond the original intention?

Is a test driver important to the Formula One season? What is the most important feat ever achieved by a test driver in a Formula One season? --Falcadore (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never really questioned their inclusion before, but now you raise it I do find myself agreeing with you. As you said, even for the ones which do work with the team - as a simulator driver or something - their work is not more important than team principles and senior engineering staff. If test drivers are included, then you have to argue so should they, and before anyone suggests we do that it would make the table completely unwieldy.

Test/reserve/third/development drivers often do not even have a clearly defined role in each team. We know guys like Paffet actually carry out a testing role. Are guys like Valsecchi and Frijns actually working with the teams or stand a chance of racing should a spot arise? Or are they there because of money or a partner scheme, and we include them purely because they are called test drivers and we include the actual ones? What I'm getting at is, if we find it hard to ascertain who really merits inclusion in the column, it shouldn't be there. At best, it's a waste of space, at worst having a "test/reserve driver" that does not carry out either of those roles is potentially misleading. QueenCake (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Do or do not. There is no try." Thanks, Yoda. ;p

Except for that little quibble, I agree with you. This is important to the driver in question, & to the team, but not the season at large. Delete. Arthur Bach ^{I'll alert the media} 21:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As it has been a week and there has been no objecting comment I shall take this to mean there is no objection to the removing of test drivers from the table of drivers in Formula One season article. --Falcadore (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I say get rid of them. Readro (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care either way – I don't have any objection if they're taken out. If anyone does remove them, be sure to go back and do the other seasons as well, for consistency. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong decision. If you don't care about them then ignore them but some people find them interesting - don't deny Wikipedia readers that information because of your own personal preferences. We need to return the test driver column to the tables. Officially Mr X (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you numerous times Officially Mr. X, Wikipedia's content is not what is interesting, it is what is notable. Perhaps you can provide what contribution of note (rather than of interest) these drivers achieve towards the season? When do you think you might appreciate the difference between interest and note? --Falcadore (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You could argue what is notable about any of Formula One. But test drivers are a part of what goes on and therefore it is our duty to report it. It's not like car testing, and these drivers, go unnoticed in the sporting media either - so on that basis, how can you deny that they are noteworthy? Officially Mr X (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Falcadore, you can't go removing all of the test driver columns. That's not your decision. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not your place to impose such destructive changes. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

We discussed it. After nine days there was a very clear consensus. That is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If you want to have it re-instated, state your case. "Falcadore: you can't do it", is not a reason, it's a complaint. Let's have the content based reasons why. Let's have some referencing how the contributions of test drivers are important to the 20 or so races of the F1 season and why they are significantly mor eimportant than any team member other than the drivers, considering many of them actually participate in the races (for example tyre changers) and the test drivers do not. --Falcadore (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to move all that information somewhere, not delete it. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You cannot claim a consensus when only a couple of people were in on the discussion. What are even your motives here Falcadore? If it wasn't for a "table size" issue then I'd be very happy to include more team personelle in the F1 seasons pages. But sticking to drivers (race AND test/reserve drivers) seems like a reasonable poilcy since they are the ones that get most attention (the rightly or wrongly argument is not for here) and are the ones that change the most. Sure Adrian Newey has probably done more for Red Bull in the last four years than Mark Webber - are we gonna kick Webber out of the table and stick Newey in there with big, bold font? Officially Mr X (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NFL rosters have practice squads. MLB rosters have 40 players. This isn't an isolated situation. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've already said I don't have a preference for removing or keeping the test and reserve drivers. But I have to say that Falcadore did everything right in bringing it here and discussing it. Nobody objected, yet when he acts on it people start moaning. This discussion was here for long enough and constitutes a consensus. He even gave notice of his intention to make the changes. Reverting him and then pitching up here and saying "Figure it out" is incredibly unconstructive. If editors have strong opinions about an article, then they really need to be keeping an eye on the discussions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

When I saw the deletions of Falcadore, I was shocked. The deleted informations are something, for that many readers look. I completely agree to Officially Mr X and strongly oppose against this deletions. Please leave the column in the table.

Sorry, for not writing in perfect english ;-) --Gamma127 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You expect me to watch the discussion everyday, Bretonbanquet? The discussion has been up for only a week. Not long enough. Falcadore is deleting information that some people might want to read, and not moving it anywhere else. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000: Wikipedia NFL season articles don't list the identity of all those practice squads.

Officially Mr. X: As Mark Webber raced all of those races in those four years (and won a bunch of them) and Adrian Newey competed in none that is either a nonsense statement or one highly POV.

Gamma127: the reasons why are stated above pretty clearly and based on content issues. If it is information people look for then it should be very easy to demonstrated the notability of those test drivers to the subject of the article. --Falcadore (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not even once a week, GeoJoe1000? Yet you're pretty quick to revert. There is no minimum time for which a discussion has to be live before making an edit – it was plenty long enough. There's nothing to stop you putting the information somewhere else yourself – like the team pages... oh wait, it's already there in every team infobox. The more I think about it, the less reason I can see for reserve drivers to be listed here. They don't have any bearing on the subject of the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone can show me a link to test drivers for all F1 teams for every season, go ahead and delete them from the season pages. Please don't be rude about it either. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Every team has its test drivers listed in the infobox. Why do they need to be all together on the same page? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

From previous years as well? --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000: The articles on each of the drivers carry when they were test drivers. It is not Wikipedias role to list trivia for no reason. Please establish why it is important to list all test drivers collectively. --Falcadore (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) No GJ, but then I'm struggling to see why that info is relevant to the season articles, given that these drivers don't compete against each other – in fact they don't compete at all. Team articles could have a short list of past test drivers if anyone thinks it's important, and it ought to be mentioned in the individual driver articles. It's far more important to the team and the driver than it is to the season. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem would be that I can't see how we can objectively define a test driver. Readro (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Officially Mr. X, how many times are you going to claim that "it is out duty to report information if we have it"? Because that has never, ever, been a guideline or requirement or even the intent of Wikipedia. We do not report every single iota of information we have available. Nor is there a requirement that just because a select few people may have interest in that information, we must report it. We are an encyclopedia, not a database, you seem to be completely confused on the difference. If you want to find information on a team's test drivers, look at Red Bull Racing, Scuderia Ferrari, etc. If you want to find out about a driver's duties, look at Davide Rigon, Brendon Hartley, or Susie Wolff. Or even for that matter look at Williams FW35, Lotus E21, Red Bull RB9. In other words, the information that you believe we are "deleting" is available, in triplicate, on Wikipedia. And hell, if you can't find a rare bit of trivia on Wikipedia, you're free to look elsewhere, there are plenty of websites out there that provide detailed databases that go far beyond the reach of what we are attempting to accomplish. If you can't use the searching ability correctly to find the information you might need, it is not our fault. We are not here to guide your hand and provide every information you might think up as necessary, and repeat it every damn place imaginable. I suggest you adjust your view of Wikipedia, because your arguement is askew. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have additionally provided for you Officially Mr.X websites where publishing this information is more appropriate. --Falcadore (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is it now that people are complaining about test drivers? Falcadore should have brought this up years ago before they were added to every driver table over the last few years. If you want to get rid of more unnecessary information, delete the car numbers and engine information. This is an encyclopedia after all, not a database. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it matter what time in which it is brought up? Is there a statute of limitations on how long information can be on Wikipedia before it is magically no longer deletable? Should I also point out that Falcadore was not the one to originally propose that we delete the test drivers, and was simply the one to take the initiative to make the changes to the articles per consensus?

The race numbers, although they have no affect on the season, are there simply for the purposes of quick identification. The race engines however do however have an effect on the season, especially in past seasons when some teams carried different generations or versions of the same manufacturer's engine. If you're going to be obtuse and claim we start deleting highly notable information from the season article, then your entire arguement becomes silly and unworthy. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Real professional, The359. You are very picky. I can see you won't listen to me, so go ahead and delete the test drivers before my argument becomes silly and unworthy. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a professional, this isn't my job. This is a discussion. Your suggestion that we delete the race numbers and engine information shows you have stopped taking this discussion seriously. As does the "you guys should have done this years ago!" arguement. If you want to discuss the topic, bring a legitimate arguement backed by Wikipedia policy and not one based on "I want it, therefore it must be". The³5₉ (Talk) 20:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000: If you would like to contribute a reason to keep the information based on wikipedias guidelines of content and notability, it would be good please. --Falcadore (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There's been a lot of heat and noise since I started removing test driver information, almost all of it focused on the act of removal. Can we please have objections limited to reasons as to why this information is notable? Can we have a reference, a link ANYTHING which demonstrates that is it important to list test drivers to understand the 2012 F1 season to pick one year as an example. What are some notable events involving test drivers in the 2012 races. Why are they so important? --Falcadore (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Although test drivers have no bearing on season in which they test, they have bearing on the team lineups for the following years because test drivers are often signed as full-time drivers. Test drivers are the future of F1. Some test drivers are seriously injured while testing F1 cars. Maria de Villota is a great example. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And how is that relevant to the 2012 season? The 2012 season page does not exist to give people a glimpse of the 2014 season. Most test drivers also do not end up as full time drivers, so what is the relevance of listing them? How is de Villota's injury relevant to the 2012 season? That topic is already discussed on Maria de Villota, therefore how is the information not available? It is simply placed where it is appropriate. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000: I think you are confusing Wikipedia with a news magazine. Wikipedia does NOT anticipate the future notability of anyone. There is a specific policy against it - WP:Speculation. So I'm afraid that is not an acceptable reason. Wikipedia reports only what IS. Not what might be. --Falcadore (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I am trying really hard to make a point just like you asked. The information isn't hurting anybody. It's one column. If I want to look for 2010 Ferrari test drivers, I go to the 2010 F1 page. There is no other page for that information. Sure, dirver pages might have that information, but there's no way for people to know it's there. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Giancarlo Fisichella, Luca Badoer, and Marc Gené all contain this information. Again, it is not our job to guide you by the hand to find every bit of information you might be seeking. People can easily find this information by doing a proper search. We have a fully-fledged search engine built into Wikipedia that can find you the information you may need.

Do you want to know who was team principal at Ferrari in 2010? Should we include that on the season page as well? Because Stefano Domenicali seems to cover that as well. Point is, the information is available, you just wanted it duplicated repeatedly to make it easier to find. That is not our job, that is not what an encyclopedia is meant to do. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You are still wrapped up in the idea the Wikipedia can hold everything in the history of the universe because its open editting. This is simply not the case. "It's not hurting anybody" does not even come close to demonstrating you understand how wikipedia works. It has to be relevant AND notable. You can't substitute the 'and' for an 'or'. --Falcadore (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you both want to make Wikipedia less accessible to people looking for information. I won't hold you back anymore. --GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption is wrong. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You have proved the exact opposite: "Point is, the information is available, you just wanted it duplicated repeatedly to make it easier to find. That is not our job, that is not what an encyclopedia is meant to do." Your job is to add information in only one place regardless if people are ever able to find it. If this is what Wikipedia's meant to do, I will not stop you--GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has said that this information can only be in one place. The point is that test drivers are not notable enough to warrant repeated mentions in every possible article. We are not attempting to hide information, we are attempting to place information where it belongs based on its relevance and importance. Thus, the decision made by several contributors was that test drivers were not relevant enough for inclusion in the season articles as they have very little affect on the season as a whole. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000: If you want to make a list of Formula One test drivers there is a place where you can put it. I suggest here. That way it isn't deleted. It won't be hiding it from people looking for information and it won't be cluttering up articles where it should not be. This way, everybody wins and you don't have to be upset anymore. --Falcadore (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this information Falcadore. Although it still pains me, go ahead and delete the test drivers columns. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia SHOULD BE F1 Wiki - that is what people WANT TO SEE. What is the point of Wikipedia as a source of information for the masses if it doesn't provide answers to the questions that people ask about? And don't tell me that I don't understand what an encyclopedia should be, because that is a ridiculous rebuttal.

Here is a standard scenario, to which I beg of you not to scoff at with your typical levels of fixed-minded scorn; "Hmm, I wonder who were Ferrari's test drivers in 2008? I will look on Wikipedia. Oh wait, because of some arbitrary policy put in place by a few select, frequent-discussion-page-reading editors, I cannot find the information I want. Well that was a very helpful experience. I suppose I could search in the Wikipedia search engine for every driver that could possibly have had a connection with Ferrari in the hope that I find all those that I am looking for. Thank you Wikipedia for making my life more difficult and adding nothing to the pages that are now absent of the information I require. Yours sincerely, a future Internet browser." Officially Mr X (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

We have never, ever, been an all inclusive encyclopedia. Someone might want information on me. Does that mean I deserve an article on myself? No. We have a standard of notability that applies to everything. Simply because one person might want to look something up does not merit that thing's inclusion. We are stating that you do not understand what Wikipedia is about because your entire arguement goes against the very basic tenets of Wikipedia. Assuming you know what people "want to see" is silly, since the entire Wikipedia community agrees to stand by this notability policy.

2008 test drivers? Luca Badoer and Marc Gené both cover both drivers' work for Scuderia Ferrari from 1999-2010. Look, your information is available! "Ferrari test driver" isn't that hard to put into a search engine, is it? And just look at the results! Fisichella, Badoer, Gene, Massa, Bianchi, de la Rosa. All right in the first 30 results!

So then you tell me, Mr X, who was team principal of Scuderia Ferrari in 2008? I am here, current internet user, asking you a question. 2008 Formula One season doesn't tell me, so it must be incomplete! Heaven forbid I managed to find it all by myself through searching. What is the fuel supplier for Scuderia Ferrari in 2008? It's not on 2008 Formula One season, it must be incomplete! Oh wait, I found that too!

This is not an arbitrary policy put forward by a select few, this is a select few realizing that the article is not in line with Wikipedia policy and correcting the problem. If you do not like Wikipedia policy, then you're in the wrong place. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This is slightly infuriating. Your criterion for notability is totally without substantiation. I happen to believe it unhealthy to spend too much time on a talk-page so I won't go on a diatribe right now but to address one point, you only found the page for Stefano Domenicali because you knew who to search for - assuming people have a ball-park idea of what to search for beats the entire point. Once again, you have demonstrated a deliberate desire to make Wikipedia harder for people to navigate and find functionality with. You are like a brick wall incased in concrete but for some reason I still try to put the arguments forward. Wikipedia should be looking to improve not be stripped back. Officially Mr X (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

On what do you base your assumption that I knew who I was looking for? I for one did not remember his name and merely had to go on the notion that he replaced Todt. One would however assume that for someone to want to look up test drivers for Formula One teams, they'd have a "ballpark idea" about the sport and teams and thus would know what they were looking for and thus would manage to find it regardless of where it was listed.

If I had a deliberate desire to do anything, I'd state it. If you don't see me stating it, then you're assuming, and here I am tell you that your assumption is wrong. You continue to put your arguements forward because you don't listen to us when we tell you that your idea of what Wikipedia should be is wrong. We've been down this road for years with you, and you still are adament that you are going to continue to do it your way. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, then take it up with the policy sections in the beaucracy, not by having banal fights over test drivers in Formula One articles! You are not going to change a damn thing by going at it in this way. If you are frustrated, it is because you are being stubborn. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

@Falcadore: Please accept, that I do not agree with you in this discussion. I have read your arguments (and the arguments of other users), but I do not agree with them. Absolutely not.

However I agree with Officially Mr X and his argumentation.

And I want to add one point: It is very easy, to ignore an information, you do not look for. If you do not want to know who the testdrivers are, you can easily ignore them. And if you do not want to know the car numbers, you can easily ignore them, too. But, and that's important, an information, that is deleted, is not available for people who look for them.

I think, the information, who was a testdriver in 2012, is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. So leave them, where they are. And if you do not need the information: Ignore it, instead of deleting it. --Gamma127 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not deleted. The information exists in other articles. Therefore it serves no purpose in the 2012 season article. If it exists solely because "it's an easy place to find it", then it serves no purpose. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again, if you are putting the information in a place that is hard to find then what is the point. People shouldn't have to work hard to find something - it is inefficient and people can't be bothered with that sort of nonsense. Wikipedia is designed to provide a service to the people, whether you like it or not. And you clearly don't. Officially Mr X (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

How are the team articles hard to find? I would think far more people would be interested in (for example) Ferrari test drivers past and present, than test drivers from a particular year, who never competed against each other or raced in that year. Mr X, you need to stop implying that others are deliberately trying to sabotage Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

People shouldn't have to work to find something? Especially something so trivial and insignificant? If you looked it up on Wikipedia, then you had to work to find it. To be any lazier, you might as well ask Siri. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet: I do not need to stopping saying anything. Certain people, IN MY OPINION, are making Wikipedia worse. I am not the only person to have gained a dislike for some of the attitudes and actions of editors around here. And I do not appreciate smart-alec rhetorical questions like "How are the team articles hard to find?", when such a question goes no way towards answering or illuding to the issue being discussed.

The359: Team and driver articles are less obvious and convenient places to look for a test driver list than season articles, so YES, you are making it harder for people than necessary. Officially Mr X (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF and wonder why nobody takes you seriously. You find that a smart-alec question? There's obviously nothing rhetorical about it. You said the information was in a place that's hard to find – I asked how it is hard to find, and you think that's a smart-alec question. Ok, well, I don't know how else to put it. It's easy to find, and it doesn't need to be in the season article where it has no bearing on the subject at hand. How you think a season article is a better place than the team / driver articles is totally beyond me. Why do they need to be in one list? No, that's not a rhetorical question. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you want a history of Formula One in the 2012 Formula One season article too so people don't have to do any work? How about additions to the chart? Team principals, team mechanics, pit crew members. How about the drivers' management? Bases of operation for each team? Surely we cannot let these poor innocent people struggle to find such information by not including it in one single solitary article that every must look to as their first place and any and all information. How are team articles not a convenient place to find information on the team's employees, IE test drivers? Really, who is going to come to Wikipedia and say "I must know who all is a test driver in 2012. I need to know every single one at once, from every team. Now." No one. Your example is so out of the realm of possibility that it's moot. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hell, let's throw another one in, since we've been over this in WP:F1 before: Who is the fastest in the 2013 pre-season tests? Does that information exist anywhere on Wikipedia? It doesn't, because we removed it, because it was trivial. Can you find it elsewhere on the internet? Sure. But that doesn't mean it warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Now don't get me wrong, your test drivers are mentioned on Wikipedia, you just want to insist that they be in one specific article in which their existence has no bearing. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with posting a suggestion here and waiting just a week, is that you are not going to get all the regular F1 editor's attention, the first they will know is when there is a pseudo-edit war going on with the various season's articles (as I did). I don't really see the few editors discussion going anywhere fast, and I suspect some entrenchment is taking place. What we really need is a proper consensus, I don't see that happening with this discussion as is. More input is require from more F1 editors - at the moment there is something like 3 vs. 3 - just not good enough to ensure support for what is a considerably a major change to many articles. My suggestion (you may dismiss if you like) would be to start an RfC on a sub-page, linked from here, with maybe a brief note to all F1 regular editors. Even an RfC runs for 30 days which is a much more sensible time to allow major changes to be discussed. If you want me to set it up, drop me a note, or anyone can set it up themselves.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronhjones: The objectors aren't providing a basis for objection other than "they don't like it" or "it makes it hard to find". I have yet to see a single mention by any editor establishing the notability of test drivers to the subject, which was the original and yet to be tested reason for removal. You are welcome to be the first.

Gamma127: I think, the information, who was a testdriver in 2012, is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not work on what people think. It works on what is established. Please establish that test drivers are notable to the subject. To date, nobody has. --Falcadore (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Falcadore: Explain what you mean by "establish that test drivers are notable". When has it ever been proved race drivers, chassis names or the race calendar are any more notable than test drivers? Okay, those three are all notable but I would state that so are test drivers. You are fabricating a false task for those opposed to your ideas to complete - "establish they are notable" means what exactly? What are you looking for - a quote from Bernie Ecclestone saying he holds test drivers in high esteem and claiming seasons of Formula One would be meaningless without them? The sheer amount of times test drivers are mentioned, interviewed and written about during the season, every season must surely make them notable enough to feature in one table of a season article. Officially Mr X (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I made my suggestion on the basis that consensus is a fundamental policy - the discussion above is going nowhere - and thus as it says on Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion - When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, requests for comment) - I don't see any agreement being met. Both sides are digging in - you need to involve a wider discussion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that what Prisonermonkeys is implying is that their is a consensus amongst those who are backed with Wikipedia policy. "It should be included because it is information and someone might want it" is not a valid arguement. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If you all come to an agreement here - then that's fine, I'm just pointing out the pitfalls. I still say that a week is rather short for a discussion about changing so many articles. I just don't want to log on tonight or tomorrow and find that section is removed and reverted again and again like Friday. Such action will make me lock at all the articles, and that affects everybody.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ron: I'm fine waiting another week or longer, if that satisfies you. You may notice after the initial bout of reversions - of which no grounds for reverting my edits were given - I have not put my edits back in place again.

All I'm asking is for notability to the subject be established. It's one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. Surely its not too much to ask for objections to have actual foundation other than "I don't like what you say"? --Falcadore (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that fussed about actual the time period - I just wish we had more editors discussing it - let's leave it here if you wish. But we do need some consensus. No one wants to see edit warring (well I hope not!) If I get time this evening, I'll post some standard "discussion in place" templates on regular's talk pages. And now, since it's 3am, as Zebedee says "Time for Bed"...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ronhjones for trying to civilize this discussion. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Back to Mr.X question, if the work of Test and reserve drivers is so important towards the subject title (for example the 2012 Formula One season) then it should be established that they have made a noteworthy contribution towards the events of the season. The current references do little more than announce they have a pulse. Where is the efforts of a test driver specifically linked to the events of a season? Justify why they are listed with an example of their efforts in the season review. Significant members of the team get referenced in articles all the time for comments etc. Where are the references that say where a specific test driver affected the outcome of a race or a specific event in a race or the championship? Currently they are listed at the top of the article, then never mentioned again. Justify their prominent listing. --Falcadore (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding a {{Please see}} to all recipients of the F1 newsletter with WP:AWB - it's slow as some editors have vanished and their pages are filled with old newsletters and it's crashing AWB (still easier than doing all of them manually! as AWB restarts itself). Sorry if you are already here and get a message - I'm not going to go through all the list and select.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the information is probably unnecessary in the tables, but worthwhile information in its own right. Perhaps a separate article could be created about the role of test drivers, citing notable examples? I know there is a short passage at Test driver#Formula One, but it's hardly exhaustive, and fairly poorly written. The point is, however, that while the information is all available in other places, it being compiled in one article allowed for some comparison to take place. That facility is now gone thanks to a fairly draconian action, in my opinion.

Also, I can't help but feel that this discussion is simply becoming something of a personal battle between Falcadore and Officially Mr X, which certainly isn't healthy... WilliamF1two (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

WilliamF12: Perhaps you need to re-read some of the above thread. Mr.X's behavior has been adequately summed up by others. I bear the brunt of criticism as I'm a more proactive editor than others. You may wish to portray this as a personal battle, but I can only tell you that it has nothing to do with this case. Believe what you will.

There still remains the lack of any connection from listing the test drivers to their involvement in the article. We list these drivers year-in year-out, but after they are listed they are never mentioned again in the rest of the article. Why list them at all if they have no participation? We may as well list the names of the people who unlock the gates each morning at the racetracks for all theior involvement in the rest of the article.

Why are we listing the identity of people who are not mentioned ANYWHERE else in the articles? --Falcadore (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, there are more important positions in an F1 team than a test driver. If someone wants a test driver column, why not have a Team Principal column? Or a technical director column? These two positions have MUCH more influence and importance on an F1 team than a test driver that may only get in the car on a few days a year. Are the test drivers mentioned throughout the rest of the article? Very rarely. So if they are not mentioned in the article, why are they in the table that effectively introduces the readers to the people involved in the season? (I would like to see a team principal column included instead, but maybe it's only me with that interest) Editadam 02:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It really does not look like this issue is going anywhere. Is it safe to say there might never be a clear consensus on this issue? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It does help to have a reason for objecting. Material that is not relevant to the article always should be deleted. Consensus only applies if relevancy can be established. --Falcadore (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

♠Since there's been already considerable fulmination on this, & since I've already said what I think, I'm not sure I have much of value to add.

♠However, consider two words: "test driver". This clearly makes their inclusion in race results at best tenuous. Important to the team, yes. Important to the driver in question, yes. Worthy of mention on those pages, certainly. Worthy of mention on the racing season page? No. Not unless the driver in question is injured, killed, deputized to drive temporarily, or promoted to replace someone--any of which are independently notable season events on their own merit. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion this subject is really a matter of common sense: The article in question is about the specific season of the specific sport and it should include anything notable in this context. The only issue that in my opinion is open for discussion is whether being a test driver is a notable fact for the specific season on its own, in which case all test drivers are expected to be present in the article, or not. Other issues like whether a specific query can or cannot be answered easily could be the subject of other debates, for example to establish if a new article on F1 test drivers and their contribution in the sport is notable. Don't forget though that the sport is about the drivers' and teams' championship not about a test drivers' championship. So, what I propose is the following:

• We remove test drivers from the specific table in all season articles.
• We maintain any references in the article text related to notable test drivers as and if required.
• Assuming that we agree about the notability of lists of test/reserve drivers, in my opinion they should be annexed to the corresponding team pages as the definition of a test driver includes a contract with a specific team and this does not necessarily relate to a single season.

(I was writing this at the same time Trekphiler was writing almost the same thing!) Rentzepopoulos (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You're either a very discerning fellow, or you have spyware on my system. :D Michael Weston ^{burn, baby, burn} 06:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Could test drivers be added to team results? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What team results? Test drivers have not achieved results, so why would they be included with race results? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The driver result legend has options for practiced only and test drove on Friday. Where would you put all of the test driver information? It has to go somewhere. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For the 50th time: The information is on team, car, and driver pages. The information is not being deleted outright. Nor would there be a requirement, if we were to delete something as non-notable, for it to "go somwhere". The³5₉ (Talk) 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll make this clear. Information on test drivers is NOT on team or car pages. I've been looking for it. Not there. You can't just have test driver info on driver pages. That's illogical. If you're looking up test driver information, you'd have to already know who the test drivers are! We have to put the information somewhere. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it is logical to store information on unrelated articles? We do not store information in articles because it is convenient to do so. It has to relate directly to the topic. --Falcadore (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A few lines above, I made a proposal that I think takes care of everybody's concerns: Lists are removed from seasons' pages (where they clearly do not make sense) and interested editors may list this information to the corresponding teams' pages. What do you think? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as its notable to the topic, although I'm not convinced that it is. It is however outside the area of my concern. --Falcadore (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying there needs to be a list of test drivers that can link to their corresponding driver pages. Team pages would work, as long as you list all of the test drivers. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Each team page would need a section (or an article of its own in the case of long-running teams like Ferrari, McLaren or Williams) dedicated to mentioning/listing every test driver that has contributed to the team over each season of its history. Even if you think test drivers are irrelevant to the racing of a particular season, they certainly are not irrelevant to the history, running and progress of the individual teams who, even in this day-and-age of limited testing, rely on testing data to improve car performance and gain sponsorship. Testing is also an important media talking point, as well as being of significant importance to the drivers who take part - there is considerable prestige attached to being test driver for a Formula One team. One of the more crucial points was made by GeoJoe1000, who brought forward the important point that "if you're looking up test driver information, you'd have to already know who the test drivers are", and this is exactly the problem that placing testing information on the driver pages alone does not solve. In my opinion, putting the relevant information on seasons pages (in order to link to the relevant drivers) seems like the most obvious solution (afterall, testing does happen within the scope and time of a Formula One season, and nowhere on the seasons pages does it claim to only be talking about the racing - politics and commercial stories certainly get mentions, so why not testing?), but (since this is unpopular with some) I can understand race team pages being used instead of seasons pages, just so long as information is sufficient enough to carry the job that seasons pages would thereby be lacking to do. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world would every team page need to list every test driver ever employed by that team? Every member of the racing team is important to the team, that does not mean we need chart after chart of every single person to ever fill that position in that team. And again, we are not going to create lists just to make something easy to find. Having information does not require it to be in Wikipedia, and if you're going to continue to push such a theory, I want to see a single shred of Wikipedia policy that backs it. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000, the last comment is simply unacceptable. There are several people participating in this discussion trying to reach consensus. Your comment just erases everything you wrote so far as it proves that your intention is not consensus. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. Said comment has been deleted. I suggest you read The359's last comment as well. That can't be acceptable either. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Why in the world would every team page need to list every test driver ever employed by that team?" I'm not sure that's essential, but naming the ones who were with the team a long time, or who had careers of note elsewhere (sports car, GP2, even F1), certainly deserve inclusion.

I'd go on to say, a link from the team page to List of Formula One test drivers wouldn't be out of the question. Such a list would solve all the complaints, serve as a place to look for the interested, & save the information from being lost. The last point IMO is important: losing this because we can't figure out where to put it is a bad idea. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I say Trekphiler's plan sounds great. Who's with me? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The implication was that every test driver had to be listed on the team pages for ease of use in finding, when that is absolutely not what we need. Team principals are much more important and their mentions are in the prose of the article. If a test driver is notable, and I think very few will be, then they can be mentioned in prose. And quite frankly many of our team articles already mention test driver signings from some recent seasons, so I fail to see how deleting the long list from the chart of the season articles impairs anyone.

I'd also argue that the existence of a List of Formula One test drivers article is not notable. As was pointed out before, many "test drivers" don't even drive the cars and are there merely for money or sponsorship. The definition of a test driver is hard to define so as it is. Losing this information is of no consequence in my mind. This information is borderline trivia. Simply because someone might want to know the factoid does not inherently merit its inclusion in Wikipedia. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the beginning of this debate I've asked for notability of test drivers to be established. This has yet to be attempted, let alone proven. GeoJoe1000, this is a hurdle to be achieved before an article specifically about Formula One test drivers could be written. That is however a seperate subject to this debate. This is about removing test drivers from Formula One season articles. --Falcadore (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, how do we define a test driver objectively? I don't see that we can. Readro (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I was chastised for this earlier, I'll ask again: why must I prove the worth of test drivers? "[N]otability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." This is straight from Wikipedia's guidelines. The information is already available on all recent season pages. Just because test drivers aren't notable, doesn't mean we can delete the information. Once more from Wikipedia: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content." GeoJoe1000 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think now would be a good time to address other issues regarding test drivers, such as the issue that Readro brought up. How do we define "test driver"? I think as long as a citation is found that titles a driver as a test driver, he/she can be added to the season page. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Relevancy is important.

WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics.

WP:NOTWHOSWHO Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. --Falcadore (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This is what I wanted to see.

Firstly, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with [OR] significantly contribute to the list topic." The test drivers themselves are often only famous because they are associated with testing during a certain F1 season. Secondly, I am confused about the Who's who Wikipedia policy. I'm guessing your point is that the F1 season is a notable event, but the test drivers are not notable people within that event. Still, test drivers aren't included in the rest of the season article for that reason. Thirdly, since the test drivers are only found in the table, readability and neatness are not a problem. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If they aren't in the rest of the article, what reason is there for listing them? It's purposeless for understanding the article and fail notability towards the subject. --Falcadore (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Remember what Wikipedia says about notability. It does "not limit the content of an article or list." Season pages are the most convenient place to put test drivers for each team. Lists of test drivers do not degrade season pages in any way. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If the only reason for placing the data is convenience, then is definately Indiscriminate because it's confusing to readers why they are there at all. Indiscriminate is not a policy about neatness. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. They are not mentioned anywhere else so there isn't any explanatory text. --Falcadore (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Indiscriminate lists "would be a collection of information gathered 'without care or making distinctions' or in a 'thoughtless' manner." Test driver lists don't fit that qualification. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

They absolutely do. Have you given any thought as to what contribution they have made towards the Formula One season? No, because you have frequently stated you are looking for a convenient home for the data and don't seem to car about the relevance to the subject. That looks exactly like thoughtless to me. And there is still no explanatory text, no establishment of notability. not limit the content of an article or list is NOT a carte blanche excuse to add anything of the most passing resemblance for reasons of convenience. By your reasoning you could make a list of breakfast food race drivers had eaten before each race and defend it as you just have. --Falcadore (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To quote the first line of Indiscriminate: As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Where is the context? --Falcadore (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that we are basically the only people left discussing this issue. If you want relevancy, I'll add information about pre-season testing. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The opinions of others is not extinguished because of more recent posts of others. And pre-existing consensus within the F1 Wikiproject is that pre-season testing is not sufficiently notable to the topic. Would you like a link to that established consensus? --Falcadore (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. You'll just have to start deleting more information from season pages. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No one is about deleting information. The consensus over pre-season testing and cutting test drivers from the team charts is simply a matter of trimming the fat. The season articles cannot ever be expected to cover every nuance of one year of racing or they would become too disproportionately large and too weighted toward minor trivial information.

If I had information on the model number or manufacturer of every gearbox used on every car in the 2013 season, and I added it to the chart, and it was removed because such information is so minor and trivial, would it be deletion or removing something that never carried enough weight to be there in the first place? The³5₉ (Talk) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Who decides? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

All of us, which is what we had done when the table was being removed and you lot came screaming in calling it destruction and deletion. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That attitude isn't helping. I'm curious as to why all of those people who discussed this topic originally are suddenly silent. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

People sleep at some point. And go to work. Others have said what they have said and feel as though they have nothing further to add. You yourself didn't notice this discussion for nine days, so that's not exactly fair to criticise others for not having posted for two or three. You don't "win" a consensus by being the last one standing, this isn't a wrestling free-for-all. --Falcadore (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you win a consensus? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still reading this, but I haven't changed my view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This might all be coming to an end soon. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to suggest that, hence my lack of comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think some good compromises have been suggested but certain users are carrying on with their agenda regardless. Officially Mr X (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope we can still try to find some kind of middle ground. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely a comprimise could be obtained by going with SAS1998's suggustion on the 2013 season talk page; by only listing the drivers who drive on the Friday practice session. Since they are part of the event, surely those drivers are notable for inclusion on the season pages at least. It would also involve removing the test driver column for the time being, until a test/third/reserve/development/simulator driver takes part in a practice session and does not race. (From the lead admin of the F1 wiki) —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

♠The criticism of the test drivers as non-notable IMO fails on one point. They may not be notable on their own, but surely their contribution to the team deserves inclusion. It's not there now, but I'd say the same about team managers & chief mechanics, & yes, I'd go all the way back to the origin of the team & mention every single one.

♠The idea of deleting IMO should be anathema. WP is different. We can find room for it all, here, & we should. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Trekphiler, then make mention of them in team related articles. It has previously been established that the efforts of test drivers are not notable towards the F1 season articles. So I ask again... why are we listing them in them in season articles if what they do is not important to the content of the article? There has yet to be any satisfactory answer as to why we list them when their efforts or not considered important for coverage. The most choesive arguement presented is it is convenient, which runs afoul of several policies.

Officially Mr.X: I too have previously suggested compromises. Perhaps you would like to address those, if only to reject them. Yes I have an agenda. The agenda is removing content not contextualised in article content according to previously established consensus that testing is not notable to F1 season summaries which also agrees with several WP policies or guidelines.

GyaroMaguus, third drivers efforts don't progress beyond practice. Since practice is not recorded in season results why list it? If we list personel it should be because it explains their presence later in the article. Indiscriminate states that there should be context for lists. There is no context so they should not be listed. It is possible third drivers may have relevance to individual grands prix as their efforts occur there but do not progress to the season as a whole. --Falcadore (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"make mention of them in team related articles" I've already proposed they be put on a separate page, not the season page. I only want to preserve the information, not clutter the season page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that every test driver contributes enough to a team to merit mention. Explain to me what Conor Daly did for Force India in 2012 that merits mention on the team's page? Or Susie Wolff at Williams? Hell, what did Chanoch Nissany do for Minardi besides bring his own money with him and get a story of a lifetime?

And going further back, we have such things as the 1987 Formula One season. What exactly did Csaba Kesjár do for Zakspeed? According to his own profile he simply drove their car after the Hungarian Grand Prix, I'm guessing something to do with backing or some sort. The criteria for test driver is so weak that would Kesjar even qualify as a test driver? The question becomes what is being tested, the driver or the machine? Kris Nissen is listed as March, yet his own article doesn't even mention what he was doing in the role. Emanuele Pirro and Franco Scapini also listed, yet no sourcing whatsoever to say whether or not they were employed as test drivers or simply people given chances to drive modern Formula One machinery. This is why we did not include drivers from the Young Driver tests in the Test Driver column, because they're not even test drivers! The³5₉ (Talk) 09:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Since my stance is incorrect, I'll offer two new ways to end the argument, and if these are disagreed with, I'll leave the argument. One possibility is to rename the "Teams and drivers" section as "Teams and race drivers". This would mean that only those who took part in either qualifying or the race would be included. My alternate proposal is an "entry list" subsection, which lists the drivers and (relevant) information that appears on the entry list to the races. This may include Friday practice drivers, which evidently is not notable enough, and any test or third drivers will not be included in the table pre-season.

By the way, Nissany drove in one practice session for Minardi at the 2005 Hungarian Grand Prix. He did something. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd never though I'd see a light at the end of the tunnel. Or maybe its a hallucination. We'll find out. Since Friday practice drivers are the most NOTABLE test drivers (at this point, I'm willing to dump test drivers like Conor Daly who only performed a straight-line test for Force India once) they should be listed somewhere on season pages. An entry list subsection should work perfectly. Thank you GyaroMaguus for a proposal to bring an end to this issue. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think the entry list is not very usable, since I searched for official race entry lists (from both the website Formula 1 website and from the FIA) and neither seem to produce them. And the idea of putting Friday practice drivers on the table seems to not be happening, even though on a personal level I would include them (and hence they stay on the F1 Wiki). In fact, GeoJoe1000, I was originally going to write "These ideas allso invalidate GeoJoe's and Mr. X's arguments for good measure" at the end (sorry). So my sole usable proposal is a change of section header from "Teams and drivers" to "Teams and race drivers". —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I should expand on that idea – the "test drivers" column is removed and the only listed drivers are drivers take part in qualifying and/or the race. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's re-iterate then: Test drivers (and by this term we mean the drivers that are testing something; presumably the car/tires/track -- not themselves) are to be included in the season article when they do something notable for the season during or in the preparation of a race. This is what we all agree (and agreed from the beginning). However, listing test drivers only because they are test drivers is not part of the season article. Other locations might be more suitable, such as the corresponding teams and of course their own page if they pass the notability criterion for some reason. Can we agree on this? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My first though would be to put the Friday practice drivers in their own section under the team and driver changes section. That might not be the best option though. If this idea is taken forward, should the races competed in be noted? —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If I may ask, what is the virtue of keeping Friday practice drivers? --Falcadore (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you won't help solve this issue Falcadore, then please let others work this out. The discussion cannot stay on the issue of notability anymore. GyaroMaguus I have no idea what you mean by invalidating my argument, but at this point it looks like the test drivers column will be deleted. If we can keep Friday test drivers on season pages somehow, I'll be pleased. The best option so far is a section for Friday practice drivers. Correct? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

@Falcadore: I feel that they should be included as they took part in the weekend. It is notable enough to put it on individual grid matrices, so (in my eyes) they are notable enough for the pages. To be honest, I support the notion of them being there, but cannot come up with a fantastic reason.
@GeoJoe1000: I "invalidated" your argument by disagreeing with you. And as Falcadore is one of the more prominent F1 Wikipedians, his decisions will be more respected and he was asking a decent question. As long as there is a decent consensus for a Friday practice drivers section, I will support it (as my idea). —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you believe keeping the most important test drivers on season pages isn't disagreeing in my opinion. I will support GyaroMaguus's idea. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Friday drivers are making a contribution that can directly help or even hinder the team in a specific race result since they are aiding in setting up and preparing the car for that race, just as the normal race drivers would be during the practice sessions. They are not simply pounding around putting miles on the car, they are doing setup work that the team needs, and a team with a good setup may perform better than a team without a good setup. So this contribution is more direct than other test driving duties performed outside of race weekends. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000: It was a fair question. I've responded to as many of your questions as I could. The fact that this debate has continued as long as it has demonstrates the issue has genuine merit. If someone else had asked that question would you have responded in the same way? And you can't reject notability, the principal driver of wikipedia merit, simply because you don't have an answer.

GyaroMaguus: That they took part in the weekend suggests the notability belongs to the individual race articles rather than the season summary.

The359: that sounds fair to me, although it still needs contextualising. Anything that is tabulated needs some form of explanatory text, even on a list article. --Falcadore (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Falcadore: What The359 is a valid reason, in my eyes, to add them in their own section on the season's page. They have taken part in the Grand Prix weekend, (hopefully) improving the team's fortunes while gaining F1 experience himself. The section does not need to be massively lengthy, and with a good bit of narrative on the driver's drives, it could work. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just have Friday test drivers, as they have participated. I'm not too bothered how we include them, as long as they are there. SAS1998―Talk 10:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe we are actually forming a consensus! Are there any more ideas as to where Friday test drivers should be placed on season pages? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Test drivers are part of a teams announced line-up. There is no reason for them to be removed. Yes there involvement has decreased over recent years however they are still on the pay role of the team. They deserve a mention. Understandably though there are some drivers put up that shouldn't be included. I would say Friday drivers or "active" test drivers should still be listed Chubbennaitor 00:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well then maybe you can be the first person who can provide a source substantiating that they make a specific or significant contribution to the Formula One season. Nobody else seems to be able to. --Falcadore (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your obsession with proof has dragged this discussion on long enough. Specific proof is impossible; no one but F1 teams know how important test drivers are to the results of a F1 season, but the fact that F1 teams hire them in the first place should be enough proof. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

They hire truck drivers too, but they're not notable either. I'd be OK with Friday drivers, in the interests of a consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

My obession with proof, or wikipedias standards of notability? If you don't understand the difference I can link you too various policies. However, this may help Specific proof is impossible; no one but F1 teams know how important test drivers are to the results of a F1 season. That sentence right there defines that it is not important enough for Wikipedia. If you can not seperate how your unsupported opinion is not acceptable for Wikipedia contributions then you need to spend some time reading the guidelines before you provide any more contributions. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is that you are not getting. --Falcadore (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Then i guess everyone here doesn't understand Wikipedia. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we need a source to include Friday practice drivers somewhere in the relevant articles (my reason for their inclusion is above), because if not, there seems to more or less be a clear consensus of their inclusion (and of no other TDs). And GeoJoe, don't fall into the trap of saying "F1 teams hire them" because that can apply to any employees they hire. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand now. No need to attack my comments. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@Geojoe: I was tryng to help you understand Wikipedia better, sorry.

@Everyone: If we can have a full and clear consensus on the inclusiion of Friday practice drivers, should we discuss where in the article there should go. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude, but I also don't need to be told I'm wrong three times (Bretonbanquet and Falcadore). Sorry about being so blunt. I appreciate the fact you want to help me learn more about Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't see why we can't change the test drivers column in the signed teams and drivers section to Friday test drivers. Specific information about when test drivers practiced on Friday could be put under race summaries. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe, just drivers who are not official race drivers / have not raced (whichever is appropriate for the time of season) who tested or practiced the car in an official session, such as the pre-season tests and Friday practice sessions. A report showing that they were driving the car in a session could be used as a source (for example, Pedro de la Rosa could be listed alongside Ferrari with this as a reference). The main issue with this is that if it is put the teams and drivers table, the title of column is going to be difficult to name without causing ambiguity. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Test driver is a very tricky term. OK, we can leave test drivers out of the table. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I revert to my previous stance on the matter. So, is it safe to assume that there is consensus for Friday practice drivers now to be placed within the table (when they take part)? No-one appears to written anything against the idea in the past few days. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am all for the Friday practice drivers only in the table. SAS1998―Talk 12:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused as to exactly what we are doing with the test drivers, but I know you guys know best. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the question has been asked, as I now understand it the consensus is to replace test drivers column of drivers table with friday practice drivers exclusively where the driver actually takes part in the session(s) (as opposed to a driver announced in the role but does not take part in such a role) and in instances prior to the establishment of Friday practice drivers, remove test drivers completely. Does that accurately reflect the attitudes of those reading this thread? --Falcadore (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The test drivers column is removed and replaced by a Friday practice drivers column (maybe titled differently) under this proposal. The column is created when a driver who is not one of the teams two race drivers drives for the team in a Friday practice session, and all drivers who also do this are included. The rest of the test drivers are not included in the table (but maybe in the article if relevant, say in the driver changes section). —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally am not too sure about prior to the introduction of Friday practice drivers, but I feel removing the test driver columns is probably the best option for it. It may not be how the thread progressed initially, but since the majority has decided (on separate occasions) to (a) omit the test drivers column and (b) include Friday practice drivers; your assertion appears to be correct. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As the term "Friday drivers" seems a little awkward, I propose that when we introduce this last column we name it "Additional drivers". Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The text of "Additional drivers" should have cursor hover-over text saying something along the lines of "Additional drivers who have taken part in official practice sessions". I remember now that they practice on Thursday in Monaco. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Could the term "third drivers" be used with the same hover-over text? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Practice only? --Falcadore (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Would "Free Practice only" be more technically accurate? —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Shall we agree to close this issue and change the season articles? I think it would be better to start with the 2013 article and not move back but establish this as the standard process from now on. So, I think we agree that we keep one extra column and name it something like Additional/Third/Practice only/Free Practice only with an explanatory hover-over text saying that this column refers to drivers that have taken part in official practice sessions". Please support/oppose replying to this and state your preferred column name so that we move in changing 2013 article asap. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how this debate is not relevant to ALL Formula One seaosn articles. I intend to start with 2013 and continue immeidately into preceding seasons. --09:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

At least getting rid of all but Friday drivers is a step forward, being that they at least participate in the season. My point, at the very beginning of this debate, was that test drivers have no clearly defined role between teams and no clearly defined criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. See how Sutil has now been added for driving in one test last week, though in other years drivers haven't been included for that while "official" test drivers are included despite doing bugger all! QueenCake (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

All season pages will have to be changed to provide consistency. Other than that, I'm fine with someone going ahead and beginning the process of cleaning up the season pages. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

My eventual solution was that to change it on all articles (or if needed, a comprimise option is to start from 2004) to the new column if applicable and removing it pre-2003 (inclusive). As GeoJoe says, there needs to be consistancy between the articles. I would title it "Free Practice driver(s)" with a hover-over text saying "Drivers who have also competed in an official Free Practice session but has not entered a race" or "...has not taken part in a race". "Additional drivers" is too vague and some drivers (such as Velsecchi) already have the role of "Third driver" but may not actually be able to be placed in the column. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with getting rid of the test/3rd driver column as in some cases regular drivers test drive during a season (e.g. if they replace a driver for a race). Also it is still part of their career which they deserve credit for and most importantly they are still officially part of the team even if they don't take part in any races. It is the same as being part of a soccer or rugby squad: even if you don't play you're still part of the team and deserve to be there! User:Dodo497User talk:Dodo497

If they replace a driver for a race they will then show up in the drivers column - sono problem. And while you might be part of a soccer or rugby squad, wikipedia does not list who those rugby and soccer players are. You are right, they should be treated exactly the same as those squad member of football teams who don't take part seasons. So don't mention them. --Falcadore (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick points. 1) Me and Anti-lag have replaced some of the blank cells (or N/A cells) with Template:n/a, and 2) Are we going to do the mouse hover-over thing too? SAS1998―Talk 19:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do the mouse hover-over thing, this is the phrase that's been used on the 2013 F1 page: Drivers who have also competed in an official Free Practice session but have not entered any race. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done the mouse hover-over thing (which, in the process, I discovered is called a tooltip), and changed the phrase ever so slightly. It now reads "Drivers who have competed in an official free practice session but did not enter the race". Also, the columns have been renamed Free Practice drivers, instead of Friday Practice drivers, because Monaco's practice is on Thursday. SAS1998―Talk 17:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)