Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

US F1 Type 1

I have nominated US F1 Type 1 for deletion, as it has now become clear that the car will not be finished or ever compete in a Grand Prix. The discussion is located here.--Midgrid(talk) 12:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And it is for reasons like this that WP:CRYSTAL exists... Writing articles about Peter Windsor's fantasy life is not what we are here for. Pyrope 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no Pyrope, you don't understand. You see, when Winston Churchill went to report on the Boer War he took a steamer to get there, and it took a very long time, but that didn't matter because he was fresh when he got there and the war was still going on and he wrote some really good copy and...actually I have no idea what that has to do with USF1, but Mr Windsor seemed think it was relevant a few weeks ago. Shrug. 4u1e (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hispania Racing F1 Team

Sauber F1 Team's article is at Sauber, Force India F1 Team's article is at Force India etc. I thought there was a consensus where "F1 Team" is left out of team's article titles. If so, should Hispania Racing F1 Team be moved to Hispania Racing? - oahiyeel ^talk 05:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it probably should be, however it could become HRT F1 or something like that. We're waiting to see before we make any move. - mspete93 10:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking Engine Manufacturers

Looking thorugh pages today to find out when was the last time F1 was powered by only four engine manufacturers I found a bit of a problem. Several engine manufacturers, most notably ones where engine naming rights were sold to others sponsors, have links that send you off to articles which contain no information at all about Formula One engines. TAG is the most obvious, but there are others, Playlife, Acer, European etc.

Could we perhaps put some work in to have these links work logically, to point to articles relating to Formula One race engines.

I raise the issue here as the list time I tried to correct this, piping some TAG links to Porsche in motorsport I've had several different edittor revert. What does the Techniques d'Avant Garde tell you apart from the correct spelling? --Falcadore (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing very much. In most cases the engine sponsorship deal is probably not notable enough to be mentioned in the sponsoring company's article, and certainly not in the lead where it would be noticeable. I suggest that the links should go to the engine manufacturer, and there should be something in the lead saying 'Used under the names of Playlife etc'. The Ferrari and Porsche engines are a bit tricky, because the deals are a minor part of their business too - perhaps link to a specific section of their articles relevant to that engine? 4u1e (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Only four? How about two? In the early to mid 1970s, BRM, Ferrari and Renault each made their own engines, but everybody else bought a good old DFV. BRM ended in 1977, the year that Renault started; but there were a number of races where neither of these two were present. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that the articles to which the engines are linked contain no information about F1 engines:

• Techniques d'Avant Garde contains about as much info about the F1 engines as Porsche in motorsport does. (Considering that the TAG engines won 25 races and 5 World Championships (3 x WDC, 2 x WCC), I think there's an argument that they warrant their own article).
• Most of the Playlife article is about the F1 engines.
• Acer (engine) (which is what all the references to Acer engines are linked to) is a redirect to Acer Inc.#Sports Advertising which describes the F1 engine branding (admittedly briefly). Note that until a couple of minutes ago, the redirect was broken (someone had renamed the section without updating the redirect) but the intention was always that the redirect would lead to the specific section which discussed the F1 engines rather than just to the Acer article in its entirety.

I will concede that European Aviation Air Charter contains no information about the European-branded F1 engines. DH85868993 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just make articles about all those engines?  Dr. Loosmark  15:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The TAG engines could possibly support an article, but the Playlife (Renault), Acer (Ferrari), Petronas (Ferrari) and European Aviation (Er, Cosworth?) engines are straight re-badges of existing engines. There's nothing to say about the engines in a separate article, only about the sponsorship deal.

There's really very little about the engines themselves in any of those articles - I still think better to link back to the article that is most relevant to the lump of metal in the back, rather than the sponsor.

Acer (engine) directs to the top of the article for me, not the relevant section. Shrug. 4u1e (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my comments above, I wouldn't oppose, for example, "Petronas" being linked to a relevant section within the Scuderia Ferrari article (i.e. a section where it explicitly mentions the rebranding). I would suggest however that the linking be done via a redirect (like the Acer one) so that if the place where the engine is described subsequently changes, we only need to update the redirect, rather than all the links. Incidentally, is anyone else seeing the same effect as 4u1e with the Acer (engine) redirect? DH85868993 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My Acer redirect is fine :) - it links to the relevant section. Schumi555 23:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry - it was a javascript issue at my end. 4u1e (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how many articles about F1 engines do we actually have?  Dr. Loosmark  13:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Only Cosworth DFV and BMW M10, I think. Most of the rest are about engine manufacturers, although Repco and Judd (engine) contain quite a lot of technical stuff about the engines. In general, I wouldn't advocate creating articles for engines; there's just not enough to say about them - especially in modern F1 where everything is very tightly constrained. 4u1e (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also British Racing Motors V16 (which needs a bit of a tidy, BTW. Specifically, the stuff in the Trivia section should probably be in the article about the car (BRM 15) or the team (British Racing Motors) rather than the article about the engine. It's been on my To Do list for a while but I just haven't got around to it), BMW M12, Porsche 3512, Ferrari Colombo engine, Ferrari Dino engine and Ferrari Lampredi engine - see Category:Formula One engines. DH85868993 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There should probably be at least the articles about the Honda V6 Turbo and the Renault V10, two of most dominant F1 engines ever.  Dr. Loosmark  14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

points scoring system

is there a page similar to this List of FIM World Championship points scoring systems for the F1 world championship?  Dr. Loosmark  11:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is: List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems.--Midgrid(talk) 12:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks.  Dr. Loosmark  12:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Future of Formula One

FYI, Future of Formula One has been listed at WP:AfD. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of Formula One. DH85868993 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hispania Name

This is kind of related to the above, but I'm looking for some clarification on what Hispania Racing F1 Team should be referred to as on the 2010 page. The entry list released by the FIA gives their name as "HRT F1 Team". I can understand that this would normally end an argument, because that is how it appears on official documentation. HOWEVER, I do believe there is a case for referring to them as Hispania Racing F1 Team:

• 1) The team explicitly refer to themselves as being Hispania Racing F1 Team. This appears on all of their press releases, in which they detail "HRT F1 Team" as meaning "Hispania Racing F1 Team".
• 2) The team's chassis designation is "Hispania HRT", further proof that the team refer to themselves as Hispania.
• 3) The team's logo calls the team "Hispania F1 Racing Team, and even appears on the engine cowling of the car.

Furthermore, reading Wikipedia's policy on the use of acronyms, I have found the following:

• 4) Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form - Hispania is not exlucsively known as HRT F1 Team. The FIA might call them that, but Hispania call themselves Hispania.
• 5) The full name should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter acronyms are acceptable, as long as the acronym is given as an explicit alternative early (usually in parentheses) - the team is referred to as Hispania almost exclusively in the article, except for in the table of teams.

Ergo, I believe that Hispania should be referred to as Hispania F1 Racing Team and not HRT F1 Team, even if the latter is how it appears on the entry list. It may be the formal name of the team, but given that the team refer to themselves as Hispania and not HRT, I believe the use of the "common" name is perfectly acceptable in this case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The teams and drivers table should reflect exactly what the entry list says, and so should say HRT F1 Team. And could you link me to one of these press releases? The ones that I have seen say HRT F1 Team, and then explain what it stands for, such as here. I found an extract from a statement here that reads: "Campos Meta 1 has been renamed ‘HRT F1’ Team, (Hispania Racing F1 Team) following Jose Ramon Carabante’s acquisition of Campos Meta 1 earlier in February." - mspete93 12:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're kind of making my point there - the team explicitly refer to their name as standing for Hispania Racing F1 Team. While you're right in saying that the article should reflect what the entry list says, I think using what the team refer to themselves as is much more appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, except that countermands WP:COMMONNAME. Thus far, in the English-speaking media at least, pretty much everyone is referring to them as "Hispania Racing". Pyrope 21:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One existing case to look at would be Red Bull and Toro Rosso, which for championship naming purposes were referred to as RBR-Renault and STR-Ferrari [1], yet are given their full titles on their Wikipedia articles. AlexJ (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How does it countermand COMMONNAME? The FIA is the only entity that refers to Hispania as HRT. And this isn't so much about the name of the article, but its appearance in the table of teams and drivers. The table is the only place on the 2010 page where the team is referred to as HRT; elsewhere, it is known as Hispania. I simply think that because they explicitly refer to themselves as Hispania in press releases, the naming of their logo and their cahssis designation, they should appear as Hispania Racing F1 Team, not HRT F1 team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was mainly referring to mspete's insistance that we studiously follow the official entry list usage. Pyrope 00:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The entry lists do quite commonly list teams, chassis and / or engines in slightly unusual ways, and they are not terribly consistent at times. We should hold out until the first race before making any hard and fast judgements on what the team will be referred to as by the onscreen graphics etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On-screen graphics I can understand - but what about commentary? I think the name Brundle and legard use to refer to the team will be the one used by most people. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that "HRT F1 Team" should be used, because the T in HRT stands for Team, so you get "Hispania Racing Team F1 Team" (it's a tautology like TSB Bank). Either "Hispania Racing F1 Team", or simple "HRT", don't mix them. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, RAS syndrome, good call. Pyrope 14:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys - How does the team referrring to HRT as meaning Hispania Racing Team prove your point that they use Hispania Racing Team? We can't make a judgement until they get themselves a website and start issuing more press releases and news stories.

Pyrope - Unless I am mistaken, COMMONNAME refers to the naming of articles, which is not what I was arguing against, for I was saying that our entry list table should reflect the official FIA entry list when it comes to team names.

Redrose64 - It's no good complaining here about what the team is called on the entry list. Go take that up with the FIA.

It is difficult to see how they will be most commonly called yet, because they are currently commonly called Hispania because that is what the name was first revealed to be, before the entry list (and HRT) was released. Besides, I was not fighting the article name. Let's just wait until Bahrain for now. - mspete93 19:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

mspete, please give me one reason why the FIA's statement is a better representation of the team than the team themselves. While you're at it, can you explain why it is so critical for the team to be labelled as HRT in the table, but as Hispania everywhere else in the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that the team will or won't refer to themselves as HRT? We don't. Please wait and see. - mspete93 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Where are you coming from with this? Didn't you read what I wrote? The called themselves Hispania in their press release, in their chassis designation and in their logo. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Where are YOU coming from? The release I quoted earlier (the only one I have seen): "Campos Meta 1 has been renamed ‘HRT F1’ Team, (Hispania Racing F1 Team)". Please explain how that backs up your arguement. And where did they refer to it in their chassis designation? According to ITV it is just 'HRT' and according to Autosport it is 'HRT01'. We still need to wait until after this weekend before coming to a final conclusion over the common name. - mspete93 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where am I coming from? It's simple: why would they state that HRT F1 Team did not stand for Hispania Racing F1 Team if they were not going to refer to themselves as such? Why bother including it at all if they intended to refer to themselves as HRT? I admit, I was unaware of the discrepancies with the chassis designation, but how do you explain that their official logos - clearly seen on the car and in the background during the launch - give the team name as Hispania Racing F1 Team? Why would they include that in their logo if they were going to refer to themselves as HRT? And why is it that the table on the 2010 season page is the only place they are referred to as HRT? If they are indeed going to be known as HRT, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere else in the article - preferably somewhere beforehand - that the team is HRT? Because right now it stands out like a sore thumb. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence: the garages at Bahrain clearly list the team as Hispania Racing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it has previously been established that the signs above pit garages are not WP:RELIABLE sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's absolute evidence, or the only example thereof - but what with the team pointing out that HRT stands for Hispania in their press releases, the name Hispania appearing on their logo, on their cars and now on their drivers's racing overalls (see this: http://i67.servimg.com/u/f67/14/57/90/49/26187_10.jpg), I think there's a very good case to be made for referring to the team as Hispania, even if the FIA entry list says HRT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the logos in Bahrain and am happy with that. I did not feel the use of the logo at the launch was conclusive evidence considering the launch was just one day after the entry list was released, and knowing what the new teams are like they could have decided to change it. But as I keep saying, just wait until after this weekend, particularly as sources such as Autosport refer to them as HRT. The article will need to be moved to Hispania Racing rather than Hispania Racing F1 Team, as per the above section, if we decide to keep it as Hispania. With regards to the teams and drivers table I still feel it should reflect what the FIA and FOM use, which is HRT F1 Team. - mspete93 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being shouted at, why not wait a few days and see what emerges once the Bahrain GP is underway instead of to-ing and fro-ing continuously now? It's just a few short days now, might we be able to stop getting itchy keyboard fingers until then? --Falcadore (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Developments: The team has a website now: http://www.hispaniaf1team.com/ . Problem is, they cannot decide what they want to call themselves. Obviously the logo is Hispania Racing F1 Team, but in their news stories, which I feel gives the best idea of what they call themselves, the say 'HRT F1 Team, "Hispania Racing F1 Team"...'. It appears there will be no definitive common name for the team. Therefore I now fell Hispania should usually be used rather than the acronym. However, the official constructor name is still HRT, as shown by this, where Red Bull is shown as Red Bull and Toro Rosso as Toro Rosso and so in certain places (mainly the teams and drivers table) I feel HRT should be used rather than Hispania, as the governing body does not use Hispania. I have thought of two possible ways we can show this in the table:

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Race Drivers	Test/Reserve Driver(s)
HRT F1 Team (Hispania)	HRT	F110	Cosworth CA2010	B	20	Karun Chandhok	TBA
					21	Bruno Senna
Hispania Racing F1 Team (HRT)	HRT	F110	Cosworth CA2010	B	20	Karun Chandhok	TBA
					21	Bruno Senna

Preferences? - mspete93 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Option 2. Comment: their news stories don't seem to be neutral and unbiased, so are they reliable? Consider "HRT F1 Team (Hispania Racing F1 Team) has made history and successfully completed its first laps and roll out on its debut at the Bahrain Grand Prix during the first practice session. In the second practice session the Brazilian covered 17 laps with a fastest time of 2.06.968 before losing a wheel nut on the way back to the pits, after the chequered flag had dropped." What a lot of advertiser's hype. History? Schumacher's seventh championship was history. A car running a few laps and shedding a nut is not (unless the wheel then came off and killed a few spectators...). Advertisers are the second-biggest liars in the world (after politicians). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context", that is to say reliability depends on what it's being used to cite, every source will likely be considered unreliable for some purposes. For example, the FIA website might well be considered reliable for race results, but in terms of being used for objective information about Indygate or during the breakaway talks during the past few years? No. The same goes for the Hispania site, it would probably be reliable with regard to what the team identify themselves as being called, but not for a description of how well the team did. AlexJ (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well of course it's going to be biased, but it tells us how the team officially refers to itself, and its a primary source so its reliable. - mspete93 18:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Is F1.com the only reason anyone refers to the team as HRT? This should be completely discarded as they also refer to Red Bull as RBR and Toro Rosso as STR. Nobody else does, including us. Does anyone suggest that RBR is Red Bull's official name or constructor name? Hispania seems to refer to itself as both HRT and Hispania Racing at nearly all possible opportunities, so that's not much help. Logically, it is nonsense to suggest that the official name is an acronym and what that acronym stands for is somehow secondary. I know the FIA like "HRT" but that doesn't mean we need to follow suit. Incidentally, I noticed it said "Hispania" over the pit garage today and already I'm hearing Hispania on TV almost to the total exclusion of HRT. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Read my earlier comment from today and you will see how HRT differs from RBR and STR. Also, other sources do call them HRT, including Autosport. - mspete93 18:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see first paragraph of this thread. The official entry list is here and was first mentioned on this page with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Syntactically - if that's the right word for it - I like option two the best. Full name with abbrieviation to follow is mies better than abbrieviation with full name following. When you write an article - like the FIA - you always refer to the full name first and then you add the abbreviation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

template continuity and standardization

2010_Formula_One_season has a lot of templates that are all over the place. It might just be a housecleaning issue with details, but there are different styles in which the five tables in the article are laid out. It would be nice if we could standardize the appearance in how these tables are laid out. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 14:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest? We have one table for the teams and drivers, one for the calendar, one for the results, one for the points and one for the statistics, just as we have done in previous years. I don't see how you can standardise them across the page because they all have different requirements and different content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sauber and Lotus

In terms of the infobox stats, are we planning to add the achievements of the 2010 [BMW] Sauber team to those of the 1993-2005 Sauber team (206 races, 0 wins) and/or the 2006-2009 BMW Sauber team (70 races, 1 win), i.e. if Sauber win in Bahrain, will their stats be "1 race, 1 win" or "207 races, 1 win" or "71 races, 2 wins" or "277 races, 2 wins"? Likewise for Lotus; if they win in Bahrain, will their stats be "1 race, 1 win" or "494 races, 80 wins"? My suggestion is that we follow whatever the FIA does (or if there's no clear indication from them, then whatever reliable sources like Autosport and FORIX do - hopefully they will all adopt the same approach) but I thought it was worth having the discussion in advance of the first race. DH85868993 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sauber should go to the 1993-2005 Sauber team for sure, (the name will most probably be changed to drop the "BMW" out even before the season starts). Lotus i dunno, lets wait and see.  Dr. Loosmark  13:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think definately no for Lotus and definately yes for Sauber. Was there not a separate bid but together under the name Team Lotus? --Falcadore (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree Sauber should go to the 1993-2005 Sauber team. As for Lotus, most people who wrote on this talk page last year seemed to agree that the new Lotus should not be treated as a reentry of the old Lotus. Let's stick to that, at least for now (even if I didn't agree with it at the time, and I think I still don't). John Anderson (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

www.formula1.com seems to be treating Lotus Racing separately from Team Lotus: consider that http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/194/ specifies "First season" as "2010" and "Highest race finish" as "15(th place)" Are we happy to follow that lead and update the infobox stats for Lotus Racing to be "Races: 1, Wins: 0"? [Note that FORIX has gone the other way, identifying the 2010 Bahrain GP as the 492nd race for "Lotus"]. DH85868993 (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ford / Cosworth

There's been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing recently about whether the second entry in Formula_One_engines#World_Championship_Grand_Prix_wins_by_engine_manufacturer should be "Ford" or "Cosworth". Points to consider:

• WP:F1 convention is to refer to the specific engines which won those 176 races (DFV, DFY, HB) as "Fords", even though we all recognise they were actually designed and built by Cosworth.
• In similar lists, reliable sources such as FORIX (subscription site) and grandprixstats.com say "Ford"
• if we decide "Ford" is correct, how will we update the list if a Cosworth-engined car wins a race this year?

DH85868993 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Treat this year's CA-2010 engines in the same way we treated the CA-2006 engines fitted to the Williams cars in 2006. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are Cosworth engines (CR-01, CA-2006, etc.) and there are Cosworth-built Ford engines (DFV, HB, RS1, etc.). The two are different, and not just by convention. Cosworth should have their own line in the table, although with no race victories under their own name they would be at the bottom at the moment. I don't see the confusion here. Pyrope 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally!

BMW Sauber to change name: [2].  Dr. Loosmark  12:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagicon in race report infobox

Just a heads-up that the flagicon next to the race name has been removed from the template (and hence from the 100s of articles that use the template). Not sure what people's thoughts are on this - it was removed as redundant decoration, but there were occasions where it was used to add detail for non-country named races (e.g. European Grand Prix, BRDC International Trophy, Pau Grand Prix, Pacific and many others). AlexJ (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate is going on here. Those who want to keep the flags had best weigh in to the discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1976 British Grand Prix

The article seems contradictory on why was Hunt DSQ-ed. First it says it was because he was not on the racetrack when the race was red flagged and then in the notes: "Hunt, Laffite and Regazzoni were disqualified for technical infringements". Which is correct?  Dr. Loosmark  00:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"the race had been restarted after a first lap accident and Hunt was eventually disqualified after an appeal from Ferrari, giving the race to Lauda" (Griffiths 1997, p. 205)

"Race stopped after first-lap crash; Hunt, Laffite and Regazzoni disqualified for technical infringements"(Griffiths 1997, p. 211)

"Hunt, having been taken out by Regazzoni in a first-corner mêlėe, won the restarted race but was then disqualified" (Small 1994, p. 195)

"[Regazzoni made] a crass first-corner manoeuvre at Paddock Bend in the infamous British GP" (Small 1994, p. 310)

Maybe the "technical infringement" was that he wasn't on the track, in which case both are correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this page: [3] he was DSQ for restarting in the spare car, while here on another page i read that "the repair work was deemed illegal". This is a mess.  Dr. Loosmark  13:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Spare care, huh? Griffiths is silent on the matter, but Small is not:

Hunt ... dsq BRITISH GP ... used spare car in restart/1st on road (Small 1994, p. 194)

Laffite ... ret/dsq BRITISH GP ... suspension/dsq spare car in restart (Small 1994, p. 215)

Regazzoni ... ret/dsq BRITISH GP ... accident/used training car in restart (Small 1994, p. 312)

To me, these merely record a change of car, they don't give an explicit reason for disqualification. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's use a period source. A Times newspaper article from the era states "The grounds of the Ferrari appeal was that Hunt's car had been pushed back towards the pits before the original race had been halted... the McLaren team maintained that this had only happened after the red flag had been shown" Another states "Ferrari claim that the Briton stopped and then had his car pushed to the pits by his mechanics before the race was officially halted. Drivers are not permitted to have their cars pushed while a race is in progress." Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer. AlexJ (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Even more interesting, is that the period sources suggest (but don't explicitly state) that Hunt's original car was repaired, and he didn't use his spare car. AlexJ (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It was repaired. The delay caused by all the arguing meant that the mechanics had enough time to repair Hunt's race car. Readro (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, so between the restarts, the stewards announced that "no replacement cars would be allowed to start the race and neither would any driver who had failed to complete the first lap" - this included drivers who had finished the lap in the pits. After some discussion/crowd dissent/refusals to leave the grid/other influences they relented and allowed Hunt to start. After the race, Ferrari, Tyrrell and Copersucar protested the result to the stewards. Three hours later, the stewards dismissed the appeal. Ferrari then appealed to the RAC, again citing Hunt's car not having completed the lap. On August 4th, the RAC turned down the appeal, stating that as Hunt's car had still been moving at the time of the stoppage, the rules permitted him to restart. Ferrari then appealed to the FIA, with slightly different grounds - this time that Hunt car had been pushed by mechanics before the stoppage. The FIA upheld the appeal at a hearing on September 24, and Hunt was DSQ'd. AlexJ (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete: 2010 Formula One - New team entry process

I have merged a condensed form of the 2010 Formula One - New team entry process page back into the 2010 Formula One season article. The new team entry process page was never realy needed; major events like the Singapore crash incident, the McLaren spying affair and the FIA-FOTA dispute are all worthy of having their own pages, but the enty process was hardly large enough to warrant a separate page. And since it's been worked back into the 2010 season page, I think it can be deleted - the problem is that I don't know how to put it up for deletion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and follow the steps as listed. --Falcadore (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stubby F1 car articles

The past couple of months have seen the creation of numerous "stubby" F1 car articles. Specifically:

• the "very stubby" Benetton B189, Benetton B190, Benetton B191, Benetton B192, Benetton B193, Brabham BT58, BRM P126, BRM P133, BRM P138, BRM P139, BRM P153, BRM P160, BRM P207, Honda RA273, Renault RE20, Renault RE50, Renault RE60, Toleman TG183 and Toleman TG184, and
• the "not quite so stubby" Benetton B188, Brabham BT54, Ferrari F93A, Ligier JS5, Ligier JS7, Lotus 86, Lotus 87, Lotus 92, Lotus 93T, Lotus 94T, Spirit 201C, Tyrrell 018 and Tyrrell 020 (noting that some of these were "very stubby" when first created, and have since been expanded).

What's the community's view on this practice? Do we endorse the creation of "very stubby" articles, in the hope/belief that they will be expanded in the fullness of time, or would we prefer that articles were not created until they have a bit more content? DH85868993 (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it's in bad practice to try and fill out a list of cars from a team by simple creating blue links to almost no information. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If an article presents (significantly) less information than a simple Google search then it is a waste of space. Pyrope 11:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Don't create an article unless you have something about the car to put in it. Too many car articles have info on the team, drivers, race results and sponsorship (all with some relevance, but all covered in detail in other articles) and nothing at all about the car. The highly homogenised modern F1 doesn't particularly lend itself to creating articles about cars. 4u1e (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Way back when I was [redacted] most teams made a car last several seasons, and it was possible to compare a car against its rivals over a decently long period, so an article on (say) the Lotus 49 is justifiable. These days, it's one-model-per-season and comparisons against rivals are best confined to the season article. Look at the March and Toleman/Benetton model numbers; these have the year in there somewhere, so were designed with built-in obsolescence. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix - FAC

FYI, I have nominated 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix for Featured Article status. Please feel free to leave any comments here.--Midgrid(talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one has commented on the nomination during the last ten days; please take a look at the article and add your thoughts if you are able!--Midgrid(talk) 15:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New York Grand Prix

I notice the creation of New York Grand Prix. Is this worthy of an article yet? DH85868993 (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Archetypal crystal-balling. If all of Bernie's ideas had articles, there'd be no room for anything else on Wikipedia. Note that Rome doesn't have a race yet, despite what this article says. Both of these could be dodgy footnotes in the 2012 Formula One season article at best. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be the United States Grand Prix anyway? Make sure there is info there, and then delete it. - mspete93 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Now listed for AfD. --Falcadore (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 26/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 26/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Formula One sponsorship liveries

There's a discussion at Talk:Formula_One_sponsorship_liveries#Historic_teams about whether the page should be split into current and former teams, as occurred back in January. Please add any views you may have on the topic there. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that article is FUBAR... The³5₉ (Talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Splitting up of the page on sponsorship liveries

The page is getting very long, but the split which was made earlier this year was not so good IMHO. Wikipedia is an encuclopedia, not a news agency, so the page should not just focus on this year, I think. Please give your thoughts at Talk:Formula One sponsorship liveries#Historic teams. John Anderson (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Formula One fatal accidents FLRC

I have nominated List of Formula One fatal accidents for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Referencing race results

Hi, sorry if this has been asked before, but is there a policy on referencing race and championship results in the text of an article? Do they need referencing at all and if so, does it need to be with inline citations or just a single reference at the end of the article?--86.171.97.248 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix gives a good idea of the level of referencing needed in the text of an article. Generally, if a paragraph contains results or standings, one in-line cite at the end would generally cover it (as long as you find a good source with all the infomation such as Autocourse). Each table of results should also have a reference. Previously we tried the one reference at the end of an article method, but this wasn't accepted by the majority of reviewers when an article went through the Featured Article Candidate process.AlexJ (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes GP

Someone insists on moving Mercedes GP to Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team despite being told otherwise. He's a serial disruptive page mover. It can't be moved back now unless we ask for help from an admin, I think... any ideas? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Listed at WP:RM. Pyrope 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Will it not take a week for the move to happen? Anybody know an admin that can do it immediately? - mspete93 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to shift the request into the "uncontroversial" category of you like. I tend to be a little cautious about definitively stating that an edit such as this has no potential for winding somebody somewhere up. Pyrope 19:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It might annoy the vandal, but everybody else is aware of the naming standards for F1 teams, so it shouldn't be a problem. - mspete93 19:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When the move has gone through, it will leave a redirect behind at Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team. Ask an admin to protect that redir page to prevent the move occurring again. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal is now indef blocked, since I listed him at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. He might come back as an IP though, if he's particularly annoyed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The move has now been completed. DH85868993 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Formula One drivers killed while racing

I have proposed that Category:Formula One drivers killed while racing be merged back into Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing, from which it was recently spawned, on the basis that it's unnecessary overcategorization. Furthermore, I think the category name may suggest that these drivers were killed while racing Formula One cars, which many (most?) of them weren't. Please add any thoughts you may have on the matter to the merger discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1975 South African F1 championship

I've found conflicting information as to who won the 1975 South African F1 championship (some sources say Dave Charlton, others say Ian Scheckter). If anyone has definitive information, can you please participate in the discussion at Talk:South African Formula One Championship#1975 winner. Thanks DH85868993 (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Webber_Malaysian_2010_qualy.jpg for featured picture nomination?

This is an eye-popping photo:

What do you say about nominating it to the featured pictures page? Guroadrunner (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a really good photo, but it's on the bubble with regards to size, and I think it's (very slightly) out of focus, and I suspect those would be flagged up at FPC. Shame because the composition is perfect. AlexJ (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Note however, the size (resolution) issue is almost certainly a Flickr restriction due to the photographer not having a pay account. If you wanted to give this a go at FPC, I'd suggest getting in touch with him, and asking if he's willing to make his original sized image available to us. AlexJ (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it out of focus - or is that just motion blur? It seems most pronounced towards the ends of the car - the helmet detail seems dead sharp. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The most in-focus bit is the Bull on the engine cover. Ideally, the driver's helmet would have been the object perfectly in focus, and my eyes see it as being slightly out. Still, it shows that everyone sees the image slightly differently, which is why I think it would be worth a go at FPC if a higher res version could be sourced. AlexJ (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the plane of focus runs from just behind the camera pod down through the B of RedBull on the sidepod. I like the effect, it switches the centre of attention from the driver to the rampant bull on the engine cover; very dynamic. Definitely worth nominating, and even more so if the fullres version can be obtained. Pyrope 23:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, fantastic picture, especially if a higher resolution version can be found. Bdc101 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)