Talk:2011 Australian Grand Prix

Lead

is a scheduled Formula One motor race - this new wording is clumsy. Why did we change from the previous format, which at least made sense as a sentence. --Falcadore (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed--Offfspring227 (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Background

Why is the fact that the Bahraini GP was postponed completely redundant to the Australian GP background. The race was scheduled to be the second in the season, and it became the first. As it's mentioned in the lede, it should also be covered in the body of the article per WP:LEDE. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. There is nothing more that can be said. It was scheduled to be the second race of the season, but dur to the cancellation of the Bahrain Grand Prix due to civil unrest, it became the first. There is no more background that can be given. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why it was removed. It is relevant information, and was fully referenced. It also had a material effect on the Oz GPs position in the race calendar. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it was already covered, almost word-for-word, in the introduction of the article - "originally planned as the second race of the season, it became the season opener with the cancellation of the Bahrain Grand Prix following political unrest in Bahrain" (not an exact quote, but you get the gist). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Team by Team qualification data table.

I propose adding into the reports on this season's races a new section beneath the qualifying info box which details the difference in qualifying times between team mates; eg.

Q1 Vettel -> 0.704 -> Webber Q2 Vettel -> 0.568 -> Webber Q3 Vettel -> 0.866 -> Webber

If anyone has any objections, please let me know. If there is no feedback, then I will add the section on Friday 1st April 2011. Leor klier (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I object - it's too low a level of detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia - see WP:NOTSTATS. If people are really interested, they can do the maths themselves. DH85868993 (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have an objection on the basis that this level of analysis is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I feel you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for.

First of all, it is not primarily relevant to the topic, which is the 2011 Australian Grand Prix. A session-by-session analysis of the two Red Bull drivers is of possible interest to the Red Bull Racing article, if there was one for example that focussed exclusively on the 2011 season. Additionally any conclusions drawn from these statistics would be opinion, and thus not objective.

Wikipedia is not a news or speciailist motorsport magainze. Wikipedia is not for analysis. It is not a repository of statistics of minor import that is not useful in understanding the topic. Wikipedia if a general purpose encyclopedia which reports on, but does not anaylse events. I refer you to: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and specifically WP:NOTSTATS.

There are specialist motor racing wikis and forums out there that this would be more appropriate for. --Falcadore (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I also object, not only on the above grounds, but also that these bare stats do not really contribute any sensible level of information, since there could be any number of reasons why one driver is faster than the other in a particular session, and no explanation is given. So what's the point? Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the input. I am not sure that such a statistic would necessarily breach the nostats guidelines which give no indication of what would constitute excessive statistics. I also disagree with the contention that such statistics would be opinion and thus not objective - the bare statistics would enable a reader to judge how team mates fared against each other, and would give insight into how well the drivers actually performed. For instance, we cannot really compare Vettel to Di Resta given the disparity in their machinery, but we could compare, say, Schumacher and Rosberg.The problem as I see it with the specialist motor racing wikis and forums is the inherent bias between fans of the various drivers making unfounded claims (BBC's 606 site for instance will give some indication of what I am referring to) whilst my understanding was that wikipedia should primarily contain facts free of interpretations, and I do not see how bare statistics would make for an inferior article, or an article containing bias. Bretonbanquet makes a very good point in that the bare statistics will not point to any underlying reason why their might be a disparity in qualifying times, but in the absence of any information, bare statistics are indicative, if not fully explanatory. Having said that, it seems from the comments that I am in a minority and so will not press the issue further, but if anyone sees any value in such a comparison now that I have fleshed out my thoughts in more detail, I would be grateful. Leor klier (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're further misinterpreting here by taking objectivity is the most important point. To quote myself Additionally any conclusions drawn from these statistics would be opinion, and thus not objective. The objectivity referred specifically to any analytical conclusions, which may or may not be drawn.

It is however, far from the most important objection. --Falcadore (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I object as well. What does this proposal contribute to the article? How does it make it better? What essential information does it contain? I can't really see the purpose of it, except to compare team-mate over one lap ... which isn't really all that important. The disparity in lap times is obvious to anyone who gives a cursory glance to the article. We don't need to detail it further. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

File:2011 Australian GP Start.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2011 Australian GP Start.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2011 Australian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101226163243/http://www.formula1.com:80/races/in_detail/australia_844/circuit_diagram.html to http://www.formula1.com/races/in_detail/australia_844/circuit_diagram.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210020300/http://www.formula1.com:80/news/headlines/2011/10/12604.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/10/12604.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120419135730/http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11213.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11213.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110407195430/http://www.formula1.com:80/news/headlines/2011/3/11874.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/3/11874.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)