Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Max Mosley image being questioned

Priority: Low

So this image of Max Mosley is under consideration for deletion. It was released under a Wikipedia-acceptable license, but the issue was raised if it is just a photochop of a copyrighted photo, or a photochop with a head placed on a fake body. If anything, fair use? The discussion can be found at this link on Commons

Guroadrunner 07:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The head certainly seems legitimately attached to the body. But yes, there should be a photo that is not done up like that. I seem to remember there being a normal photo there a few months ago? The359 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use cannot be claimed on an image of a living person. The main problem is that fact that it's proving hard to establish whether the original photo was released under a free licence. The original isn't published on the creators flickr account. As for the head on fake body - check out the heavy compression artifacts on the suit, but crystal clear image of his face. If these parts were always one photo, it should all either be clear or have the compression on it. AlexJ 09:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a fake image and should be deleted. The Flickr user also created a similar photo of Alex Wurz, which was uploaded and deleted within 24 hours or so.--Diniz (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So wait, what is up for FAC/GA nomination?

Let's make a list:

• GA: 2007 British GP (on hold), under consideration: Toyota F1
• FAC: 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix, (soon) Brabham BT19,

I'd like to get a full list and then stick them on the taskbox/to-do list for the "evaluate" section. Guroadrunner 07:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19 is undergoing peer review at the moment. I assume it'll be nominated for FAC soon. The359 07:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 French Grand Prix passed GA (although it shouldn't of been!!), but needs more improvement so that it goes against GA guidlines. 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix is in urgent need of comments otherwise that could be getting failed. Yeah, depending on how the PR goes Brabham BT19 could be nominated for FA end of September. Ah, 2007 British Grand Prix failed because nobody improved it......... Davnel03 08:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick question on the race reports, why did we go from saying "The YYYY Venue Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held on Month DD, YYYY at the Circuit Name in Town, Country." to "The YYYY Venue Grand Prix was the (rdnumber) race of the YYYY Formula One season. It was held on DD Month at Circuit Name."? The former opening told those who are unaware what F1 is that it was a motorrace, and gave the location of the track. The newer one seems more assuming that the reader knows what F1 is and knows the circuits. AlexJ 11:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. I always tended to use the first example, see the Malaysia race, while the newer ones was written by other users and put onto articles like the British one above. Davnel03 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Toyota F1 for GA nomination?

Separated discussion to its own section Guroadrunner 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In a month or two, I think we should put Toyota F1 up for GA status again. It's significantly improved since last time. Lradrama 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to nominate it for GA in a few months, I suggest you remove the statistics section. Davnel03 15:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree. I think the stats section should be fleshed out more instead of being axed. My issue is the "Notable drivers" section, which overlaps tremendously with the individual articles of Trulli and R. Schumacher. I personally would recommend shrinking that section a bunch, but I add that as a passive criticism (i.e. I'm not going to fight for it). Guroadrunner 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we also agree to making the current season report more of a summary? It's getting a bit more like a log don't we think. I think I'd better suggest that before it gets out of hand. Lradrama 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, ahould be a summary. Davnel03 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Members list

Just thought I'd let you all know that I've re-ordered the members list and put all the usernames in alphabetical order. I think it looks better presented and neater that way, and it makes it easier to find specific Wikipedians if you need a certain user. I've also put an alphabetical order notice in the introduction to that sub-section so it'll be kept that way. :-) Lradrama 11:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Guroadrunner 05:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible additions to {{F1 driver}} and {{Former F1 driver}}

Following the lead of {{Infobox racing driver}}, what do people think of the idea of adding the following fields to {{F1 driver}} and {{Former F1 driver}}?:

• date of birth
• place of birth
• date of death
• retired
• related to

Obviously the fields would be hidden unless populated, and you wouldn't populate them for drivers like Timo Glock, who also have {{Infobox racing driver}} in their article. DH85868993 08:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on consideration, I'm not keen. I can see where you are coming from but I firmly believe that an infobox should contain only the essentials, and too many details just serve to obscure the relevant information. We certainly do not need "place of birth", "retired" and "related to", although I can see some biographical merit in the birth and death dates. However... we already have these displayed prominently at the top of the vast majority of articles, is not as if you have to go burrowing through a mountain of prose to find them. Keep boxes punchy and to the point. Pyrope 09:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

+1 with Pyrope's comments - no need for birth date/death date in the box. I don't understand what would be in the "retired" field? I suppose a yes/no parameter? Guroadrunner 10:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The doc for {{Infobox racing driver}} indicates this field should be populated with the year the driver retired. DH85868993 10:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you define that??? Is Mansell retired? He still competes now and again in some pretty potent machinery. Is Moss retired? He still goes hammer and tongs in those historic races that he contests. Do you stop a driver's career when they drive their last race, or when they stop looking for a new race drive? And how do you know that they have actaully stopped? The concept is far too nebulous. Pyrope 11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While that's a good point for the motorsport infobox, wouldn't the F1 infobox already have "retired" covered in some way with the "last race" marker -- i.e. "retired from F1" like Katayama and Berger -- barring the drivers killed on-track in F1? (and furthermore barring those active F1 drivers killed elsewhere, like Mark Donohue). Guroadrunner 11:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Both "last race" and "Participated" already cover that information, and in a far more definite way. Pyrope 11:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As part of the rationalisation of motorsport driver templates, I've been working on a combined F1 driver and former F1 driver template brought in line with the new IRD style to allow them to be stacked nicely. A WIP is here. AlexJ 12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice, just needs the name a bit bigger and you are pretty much there. Going to be interesting constructing a pro forma and instruction page! Pyrope 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BMW in Formula One

I'm considering creating an article called BMW in Formula One (akin to Alfa Romeo in Formula One) to describe BMW's involvement in Formula One throughout the years, i.e.:

• engine supplier to Brabham, ATS, etc in the 1980s
• engine supplier to Williams in the 2000s
• BMW F2 cars and engines which raced in World Championship events in the 1960s
• BMW's current F1 involvement via BMW Sauber

My proposal is that:

• the BMW Sauber article (and links to it) would remain "as is"
• F1-related instances of "BMW" which are currently linked to BMW, BMW Motorsport or BMW in motorsport would be updated to link to BMW in Formula One instead (unless they're specifically referring to the car manufacturer)
• the F1 content of BMW in motorsport would be condensed to a summary, with a "Main article" link to BMW in Formula One
• BMW in Formula One would contain a brief description of the BMW Sauber team, with a "Main article" link to BMW Sauber.

Thoughts? DH85868993 07:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. John Andersson 10:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

+1 for this idea, but BMW in motorsport is very convoluted and will require extensive editing to separate F1 from non-F1. I'm concerned the F2 info should move over as well. but would take out a lot from the article. Guroadrunner 11:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is good idea, but I would not move anything else than F1 related, so not sure about the F2. And the F1 section will need maybe some more new text, otherwise it will be too short--— Typ932^{T | C}  11:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, again, my instinctive conservatism leads me to ask, what for? Once you have filleted out BMW Sauber (which already has its own page so no need to duplicate that information), what is left of BMW's F1 involvement except for supplying engines on a couple of occasions? As that engine development and their relationship with Williams is key to their later Le Mans entries I would be very cautious about splitting the two up. I really don't think that there is enough material for a whole separate page, and in doing so you would fragment some otherwise linked themes. Pyrope 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea yes! But, then for consistency, wouldn't we need something like Honda in F1 and other manufacturers who've ahd a long participaton history in the sport? Lradrama 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Honda F1 covers both their past and present involvement. And we don't need consistency, we need appropriate articles. I still don't think there is enough BMW F1 material to fill more than a couple of paragraphs, and keeping it in the general motorsport page is a far better way of setting their F1 involvement into its proper context. Pyrope 12:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - do you mean that we should work it into the BMW article better with something like the Origins (date - date) section in Toyota F1? Lradrama 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You can structure an article using a chronological base with thematic details, or a thematic base with chronological details. I reckon that BMW in motorsport is probably best handled in the first manner, as BMW M, Schnitzer Motorsport, BMW Sauber, BMW V12 LM/LMR and Formula BMW all exist already covering specific aspects of BMW's history, so the thematic bases are covered before you even start. All you then need do is to work these into some sort of coherent historical narative for the company, to provide an umbrella parent page. As I said above, the fact that you can sum up BMW's pre-Sauber F1 involvement quite adequately in a single sentence suggests that it will not support an article of its own. I think that rather than look at Toyota, which is still rambling and confused, far better to look to the Honda F1 article as an example of how BMW's F1 history could be worked into the BMW Sauber article (taking care to include Sauber, but not to duplicate too much of that company's page). Pyrope 12:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I change my vote - let's improve BMW in Motorsport to make that better and then see if we can split off F1. Perhaps we could make it sectioned into two main parts: closed-cockpit and open wheel. I would have preferred F2 to move with F1 to the proposed new article since they were often intermingled back when BMW was in F2. 71.226.60.137 22:40, 23 August 2007 / aka / GURoadrunner

So which category does the LMR fit into? And I still don't get the desire to hive off the F1 section as though it were a separate entity, which it isn't. You point out the problem very nicely in your last sentence! Keep them all together and present a thorough, complete history. Pyrope 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As the one who raised the idea, perhaps I should reply to this. I'm not necessarily passionate about having an article called BMW in Formula One. But I would like to see a single point to which we can link all the F1-related instances of "BMW", so the links won't need to be changed, even if the place where BMW's F1 involvement is described (currently BMW in motorsport) does change. I'd be quite happy to see BMW in Formula One as a redirect to BMW in motorsport (akin to Porsche in Formula One which is a redirect to Porsche in motorsport). I just thought I'd present the idea of an article first, to see if there was any support for that. And why do I think there's a risk that the place where BMW's F1 involvement is described might change? I have a sneaking suspicion that sometime in the next 12 months, we will start describing the cars we currently refer to as "BMW Saubers" as just "BMWs" (as www.formula1.com already does) which will possibly/probably lead to the creation of an article called "BMW F1 team" (or something like that - maybe BMW Sauber will be renamed) and we'll say "Hey, why don't we include all of BMW's F1 history in that article, like we did for Honda Racing F1 and Renault F1" and then we'll need to go back and change all those links to BMW in motorsport to point to BMW F1 Team instead. Or even if that doesn't happen, perhaps we'll decide that BMW's involvement in F1 has always been under the auspices of BMW Motorsport, so all the F1 references should link to there. If all the F1-related instances were linked to a redirect called BMW in Formula One, then we'd only need to make the change in one place. Most of the F1-related instances of "BMW" currently link to the wrong place (BMW) so we need to change them; I'm keen for us to only have to change them once. DH85868993 00:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone speak Japanese ?

It's a pet project for me, but I'm looking for articles that have personal information about Yuji Ide - the guy's upbringing, if he's married, etc. I haven't found anything in English, so these articles are probably in Japanese. So, all I need are the links and then I can use Altavista Babelfish to translate and (in theory) use as best-case-scenario references.

Let me know if you can help out by posting here. Guroadrunner 11:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translation might be of some use.--Diniz (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Adelaide track map

The Adelaide circuit map shown in the 1986, 1989, 1991, 1994 and 1995 Australian Grand Prix articles depicts the current (short) version of the circuit rather than the long version of the circuit which was actually used for those races. What's the best way forward:

• update the image (Circuit Adelaide.png) to show the long version of the track (I think those 5 articles are the only place that image is used), or
• replace the image in the specified race reports with the (not quite as pretty) "long circuit" image included in Adelaide Street Circuit?

DH85868993 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the image included in Adelaide Street Circuit. It'd make the process easier anyway. But yes, the race-report versions do need changing. Lradrama 10:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you need a new map made, I'm quite willing to do it providing you can give me an example to show what it looks like. AlexJ 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The track looks like this: http://www.etracksonline.co.uk/Australasia/Australia/adelaide85-95.html so it's an easy fix.

Anyway, here's what we've got. The track seen on 1994 Australian Grand Prix is vertical, the track seen on Adelaide Street Circuit is horizontal and arguably nicer looking. All we need is to blacken the gray part. Heck, give me 10 minutes and I'll post something.

I would say the horizontal map is better overall, so a modification of the short track map is what I'd use throughout from 1985 Australian Grand Prix to 1995 Australian Grand Prix. Guroadrunner —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Results table for March Engineering

I'm currently making the results table for March Engineering, but I have 2 doubts.
The first is: since March built chassis for many teams, I only deciced to list results for the "official" team. Is it right?
The second is: what I write as points and WCC? Look at the 1970 season for example, March obtained 48 points in total but only 23 with Amon and Siffert who were driving for March Engineering... anyone has some idea?
Asendoh 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fow a team like March, who supplied so many others, to focus on the works cars is missing some really important competitors, as you point out. I would prefer that we find a way of including all results...

Year	Entrant/s	Chassis/ Engine	Driver/s														Pts.	WCC
1970				RSA	ESP	MON	BEL	NED	FRA	GBR	GER	AUT	ITA	CAN	USA	MEX	48	3rd
	March Engineering	701 Ford V8	Jo Siffert	10	DNQ	8	7	Ret	Ret	Ret	8	9	Ret	Ret	9	Ret
			Chris Amon	Ret	Ret	Ret	2	Ret	2	5	Ret	8	7	3	5	4
	Tyrrell Racing Orgnisation	701 Ford V8	Jackie Stewart	3	1	Ret	Ret	2	9	Ret	Ret	Ret	2
			Johnny Servoz-Gavin	Ret	5	DNQ
			François Cevert					Ret	11	7	7	Ret	6	9	Ret	Ret
	STP Corporation	701 Ford V8	Mario Andretti	Ret	3					Ret	Ret	Ret
	Antique Automobiles/Colin Crabbe Racing	701 Ford V8	Ronnie Peterson			7	NC	9	Ret	9	Ret		Ret	NC	11
	Hubert Hahne	701 Ford V8	Hubert Hahne								DNQ

What do you think? (p.s. Nice choice of season... a fascinating list of drivers running a March in '70!) Pyrope 14:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think including all the results (as in the above table) is the best solution. DH85868993 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, nice one! But the final table will have considerable dimension and I have concerns about the overall page size, since the article is already long... Asendoh 15:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

At Brabham Grand Prix results, we had a table for the works team and a table for other entrants. Readro 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to have just the works March Engineering results in the main article, and then have the full results of all March cars in a separate article (similar to Brabham etc.) AlexJ 16:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to go even further, and just have a season-by-season summary in the main article, and keep detailed results for the separate page. I don't think that there is any justification in separating out non-works entries, after all, the most successful March runner in '70 was Tyrrell! Something similar to the McLaren page. e.g...

Year	Entrants	Drivers	Chassis	Engines	Pts.	WCC
1970	March Engineering Tyrrell Racing Organisation STP Corporation Antique Automobiles/Colin Crabbe Racing Hubert Hahne	Jo Siffert Chris Amon Jackie Stewart Johnny Servoz-Gavin François Cevert Mario Andretti Ronnie Peterson Hubert Hahne	March 701	Ford V8	48	3rd

(outdent) One question: Do we want to use a consistent approach for all the constructors who provided cars to other teams (i.e. March, Lotus, Brabham, McLaren, Ferrari, etc), or are we happy to treat them on a case-by-case basis? If we do want to use a consistent approach, I think we've reached the point where we need to agree a common format. DH85868993 06:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, the best approach is the one used in the forementioned Brabham results page, showing different tables for works and non-works teams. Asendoh 11:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to present "Constructor" results then you really can't justify leaving out non-works teams. If you just want to present the team results then what are you trying to show? They aren't eligible for either drivers' or contructors' points. Pyrope 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just one picky observation - don't forget to disambiguate Ford to Ford Motor Company or preferably Cosworth :) Bretonbanquet 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits

My recent edits to 2007 Formula One season were for the Turkey GP not the Hungary GP. I just made a mistake in the edit summaries. Sorry! chem_tom 15:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries but thank you for adding to the article. Most users don't even add an edit summary, when they should. Minor inaccuracies in the edit summary is nothing to worry about. Guroadrunner 05:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say that it bugs me also when users don't use the edit summary, even for minor edits. It saves all the checking to see what they've done that way. Lradrama 09:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course, the people who would be reading this page are the ones who do the right thing... DH85868993 10:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, too, but sometimes, I just accidentally forget. Davnel03 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You can change a setting somewhere that prompts you if you don't fill out the edit summary. AlexJ 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Formula One 2008 (Prodrive Numbers)

Some users find it necessary to keep adding 24 and 25 next to prodrive for the 2008 season. This should be left blank until at least the end of the season. Is there anyway we can stop this happening? Eddie6705

To the best of my knowledge there will definitely not be a car 25 on the grid next season. Whether Prodrive get 24 or not is also not yet decided (as a possible McLaren 'B' team, who's to say they won't end up with Alonso as WDC next season, or will Super Aguri's financial problems (as speculated by ITV's coverage) mean we'll have 22 cars on the grid next season?). Anyway, if it's sustained vandalism by an IP address you can try and make a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. AlexJ 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if 12 teams do enter then one team (eg. prodrive) will have the numbers 24 and 25 as the number 13 is not used. Eddie6705 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Readro 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet on Prodrive being given #24 and #25 next season, but it's really not pertinent to add it to Wikipedia articles as if it were already confirmed. The only way they'll be given any other numbers is if the WDC drives for them or another team disappears - neither is likely, but possible. Bretonbanquet 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, of course forgot about the avoidance of No. 13. Still, there's a possibility it won't be 24&25 so until we get a confirmed reference (i.e. the FIA entry list) it doesn't belong in the article. AlexJ 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend against posting any car numbers for the 2008 season, even once this season ends. Imagine if Spyker or Super Aguri shuts down -- that changes everything. Guroadrunner 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We can add numbers for the top six or seven teams at the season's end though, those that will definately be there, because Spyker and Super Aguri will surely finish near the back of the standings. Lradrama 14:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise: I'd say that all the teams that finish above Super Aguri or Spyker, if they truly are under threat. I figure if a team drops out before the start of the season, everyone else's numbers move up?? Guroadrunner 06:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fag packet benefit-loss analysis. Benefit of speculative numbers: nil. Potential for confusion and inaccuracy: high. Result, don't do it. There is no point adding guessed (yes, you are just guessing, no matter how well-informed) numbers to any article. When the entry list is published then add the numbers, not before. And if I see them there I'll delete them, there is far too much speculation in the future season articles as it is without adding this rubbish. Pyrope 09:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well...I think he's made his point. Lradrama 09:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just couldn't believe that this was even being debated! Pyrope 09:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it, you are quite right. Wikipedia's got enough enreferenced guesswork as it is without those who know what they're doing (most of the time!) doing the exact same. Thanks for your statement! ;-) Lradrama 09:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

+1 for Pyrope's comments. Guroadrunner

New Lap Charts

I'm working on the 1999 Formula One race reports, and as some of you may know the 1999 San Marino Grand Prix has a lap chart that was added by Diniz last year. I was wondering about the other races so I recently asked him about this (see discussion on my talkpage) and he kindly pointed out the previous discussions on WP:F1 about adding lap charts, here and here. Basically the outcome was that lap charts are welcome, but because it's very time-consuming to build them, nobody has added any new ones since then.
I've spent quite some time working on a lap chart for the 1999 Australian Grand Prix, and the first 'presentable' version is currently in my sandbox. I'm looking for some feedback before I make the final changes and add it to the article: my source uses a different background colour for every driver and I've adopted this for my chart because it greatly improves readability - the only problem is finding the right colours. If possible they should resemble the team/car colours, while they can't be too dark, too light or too similar, and the HEX codes should be kept simple as well. The current version needs some more fine-tuning (Sauber and Minardi) but overall I think it looks pretty good. Bobby Doorknobs 22:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you could get the colours to remsemble the team colours, but be different from others and not be too dark, then i think it would be very effective. Eddie6705 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, "explosion in a paint factory" springs to mind! I really disagree about universal colours improving readability, I reckon Diniz has it right to restrict colours to points finishers only, that way their progress through the field is much more apparant. Pyrope 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

→ I can imagine that it's a bit of a 'colour shock' when you see the chart for the first time, but it's something you get used to pretty quickly. In fact, I already got so used to all the colours that I kind of forgot about the shock effect it would give :) I don't really see the point in only 'painting' the top 6 - obviously it would be clearer for the top 6 drivers, but what about all the others? Backmarkers would be difficult to 'follow' through the table when everything is white, while the reason for having a lap chart in the first place is to clearly show what happened to all the drivers. It's better to get the most out it and use 'full colour'. Bobby Doorknobs 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless full colour actually detracts. I have now (on your suggestion) stared at the chart for a while now and, apart from feeling a bit ill, my position hasn't changed. Colour can be a powerful way of highlighting, the numbers do the identification so you are currently doubling up the information and reducing the readability of the chart. Also, as I am sure you are finding, it is almost impossible to find 22-26 colours which all look reasonably distinctive in isolation on a computer monitor. As it stands, your table has so many shades that, while they can be distinguished in the key, once you split them apart in the table they lose an individual identity. You are saved in the example you chose by the number of pale yellow cars which dropped out, and the turquoise blues, oh, and the deep blues/mauve as well. The reason for highlighting the top six/eight is that it makes the significant finishers easier to spot. Not all runners have equal significance (read WP:NOTE), so why confuse the table by splurging colour on everyone? Bear in mind that, while you might be able to get your eye in after looking at it for a while, this is a general reference encyclopedia, for use by non-specialists as well as those (like us) who are used to perusing the pages of Autosport every week. You need to concentrate on communicating important information, and back-markers just aren't important in the context of 99.9% of F1 races. As Davnel03 and The359 point out, you are verging on providing too much information, we are not a stats site (read WP:NOT). Prose is the byword. Following that theme... as for your comments about the number of "stub" race reports, if you check up this page you will see that these are in need of more discursive content or they may well fail notabilty and be deleted! Davnel03's comment about the work involved, while poorly phrased, does make a valid point. In terms of current project priorities, your time would be better spent taking half an hour looking up a few old race reports and adding 200-300 words of prose to each of the stubs, not taking half a day composing a marginally useful lap chart. Pyrope 07:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a serious look at this (hope you're feeling better) I can understand what you're saying and I must admit that I got myself a litle side-tracked; see also my reply to Davnel03 below. I think that if we're deciding against the colours then there's no point in using lap charts at all really. The numbers alone may do the identification but building a whole chart only for the top 6 is not worth the effort. I don't agree on your comments about the colours I chose: if you pick a different one for the Minardis, this scheme would do fine for all the races in 1999. But colours or not, we need a consensus about wether or not lap charts are too indepth. About the Stubs: I understand the risk of deletion, but doesn't that argument apply to all articles, and not just the ones that have been labeled as Stubs? Bobby Doorknobs 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that a lap chart is the sort of thing that "External links" sould pick up. As for the stub issue, you are bang on the money. Sooner or later some unsympathetic editor is going to notice all the sub-stub race "report" pages and PROD them. Pyrope 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify, this has already happened to an entire season of Le Mans Series race reports stubs, although they were voted as Keep. So yes, concentrating on improving the articles that need it most should be priority over expanding factoids for articles that can stand on their own. The359 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, although the deletion process for them was closed due to WP:SNOW. The reason given for deletion was: Article provides little to no context about the race itself. 95% of the article is simply a table on the results of the race, with some statistics thrown in at the bottom. Violates WP:NOT#INFO.. For us at least 95% of race articles would fall under that description. Davnel03 11:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm to be highly honest, I really don't think lap charts are needed at all. Davnel03 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

→ Could you be more specific? Is this your opinion or are you saying that lap charts don't belong in the encyclopedia? In my estimation they do - lap charts provide information that is not in the result tables or the report, so I would say they are a welcome addition. Bobby Doorknobs 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Davnel. The lap charts are, quite frankly, too indepth. Just because we are an Encyclopedia does not mean we need to include every single bit of information. A race report should, if done properly, explain the positions of important drivers at important parts of the race. Anything more does not really improve the article. The359 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks fantastic. I think that having colours for the whole field improves readability after the initial "shock" of colour; the only reason that my earlier lap chart just has the top six coloured is becuase that is how it is portrayed in AUTOCOURSE. There are a couple of minor things I would change, though:

• I would prefer the Safety Car laps to be bordered by yellow (yellow flags)
• The "Formatting" column in the key is unnecessary
• The lapped line might look better if it was black
• The key as a whole can probably be put in a hide/show template

Apart from that, you've done a really good job. Lap charts might not be as important as the final results, but I see no reason to exclude them from race reports.--Diniz (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

→ FYI This is what my lap chart actually looks like on paper. As usual you have some good suggestions, so let's have a look.

• Safety Car laps in yellow instead of red: good idea. I'll see how it goes on clarity, but with a dark kind of yellow it should be allright.
• Key: I forgot to mention (sorry) that the key was just something I slapped together at the last minute and not intended as 'the' key. Work in progress :)
• Lapped line would look better in black: I thought about that as well, even though it's red in my source. The problem is that it conflicts with the current display of pitstops, and you will lose some information if you change the lapped line to black. For example M.Schumacher pitted on lap 37 and 38 and was lapped after his first stop; if you use a black line you can't tell exactly when he was lapped.

Maybe it's trivial, but I think I'll just have to find my way around things like that while I'm completing the other articles and charts. This is just one race, and the 'situations' like M.Schumacher's pitstops and also that cluster of stops around lap 31-33 forced me into a certain way of displaying things. I'll see how it goes in other races and adjust if necessary. Bobby Doorknobs 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we are going to have to have lap charts on every race report article, then? Hey, that's going to take a whole lot of work. Davnel03 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

→ We don't 'have to have' anything. Stop complaining about what's missing and be happy with new additions to WP:F1 - please. And yes it's a lot work but that's never an issue. I don't know if you've seen the Stub list recently, but it contains almost 400 race reports. Now that is a lot work, and it's only going back to 1982 so far. Obviously this is a long-term project, and again I would say don't worry too much about what 'needs' to be done but concentrate on what you can and want to do. Bobby Doorknobs 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, I just believe that we don't need lap charts. This is an encylopedia, not a huge Formula One statistics site. Personally, I think we should get race reports up to scratch instead of venturing off into different areas. Currently, when I have time, I try to improve race reports by inserting info, as I had been doing with this years reports. I appreciate your work Bobby, but in my view, I believe lap charts should not be in F1 race report articles. To add to that, yes, we might understand them, but other Wikipedians might not have a clue about lap charts. Plus, adding lap charts to our current race FAs and FACs could affect the quality of the articles, as well as taking up too much room. That's my opinion. Davnel03 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining yourself Davnel03. I see what you mean now and I must say that you do have a point. Wether or not lap charts are too indepth for Wikipedia - I don't know. I think it's just our personal preference that we happen to disagree on. Don't get me wrong - I did ask myself this question when I first ran into Diniz' chart, and even checked the definition of unencyclopedic content, WP:NOT. To me it seemed like there were no objections, and I figured it would be better to add new content rather then remove somebody else's hard work. I've spent most of my time on Wikipedia helping to improve the race report articles and like you point out there's enough to do, so whatever is decided is fine with me. I had fun building this chart and as a wikitext-newbie I'm happy enough knowing that I pulled it off :) Bobby Doorknobs 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why did you add +OR to the 1999 Australian Grand Prix article? No offense - this is a serious question. The text needs some work but all the information I added is 100% covered by the references (wikipedia:assume good faith) and correct me if I'm wrong, but just because other people may not have access to this source that doesn't mean it's original research. Bobby Doorknobs 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there are no references in within the text. Yes, there are some at the bottom, but looking at the main body it reads like a essay. By the way, it's not like I hate lap charts, because I think they are actually good, it's just that I don't think they should be in a encyclopedia. Davnel03 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see, but there is no need for many references in the text. According to WP:REF such referencing should be used for directr quotes and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. See also the discussion here. I should add a couple more references but I'm not planning to fill the text with footnotes like in some of the other reports. I think maybe this tag is not necessary. Bobby Doorknobs 20:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy and real-world differ here in my experience - I've found that generally if you have a fact you should reference it, even if it appears relatively obvious. For starters, in-line citations are pretty much a requirement for FA status and highly recommended at GA. Secondly, it means should someone wish to verify something they can easily and if someone adds false info (esp. changing of figures) it can be easier to detect which version is correct. Lastly, it's often really useful to have the refs in the article in case you forget the site yourself. I've found myself a few times looking at references to remind me of website address and also found new useful resources through other people's references. AlexJ 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First, good job creating this lap chart. Very colorful (and perhaps pastels should be used instead) -- BUT where are we getting the info from? I'm just worried this borderlines on a copyright violation unless we can say "look this is okay to post, here's my source". Lap charts are different than results in the record books as someone had to specifically generate all of this chart information, instead of working with basic, non-copyrightable facts. Guroadrunner 07:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Could FIA's lap charts be used under fair use? --Sporti 13:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the sources and availability of information. My source (hardcopy) is a Dutch Formula One magazine (their website) and I can reference all my work. I'm not sure exactly what you mean about a possible copyvio; this data is timed (measured) and the charts are computer-generated, so how is this different from the result tables? In the end, all information is coming from the FIA anyway. I didn't know about the on-line lap charts but that's exactly what's printed in my magazines this season. Before 2004 the charts were 'old style' and look like the one I made. It would be great if we could use the on-line charts on fair use, but my guess is no...? Bobby Doorknobs 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio as long as the formatting is original. The contents of a lap chart are facts, which can't be copyrighted. It is the way that the data is presented that can be copyrighted. As long as the table is different to the one which the FIA use then there is no problem. Readro 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Readro. Makes sense. Guroadrunner 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, so some people like them some dislike, I think we need to come to a consensus about whether lap charts are really needed in articles as I think there is mixed opinion here.

Support - Lap Charts are needed in articles

Oppose - Lap Charts are not needed in articles

• Davnel03

Further Comments

• Hoefully we can come to a consensus on this so that we know whether they should be in articles or not. Davnel03 11:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• This vote is unhelpful and unneccessary. Reaching consensus is not about voting, it is about debating. You have made your points, I have made mine, and others have reposted and counter argued. There are still a few loose ends, and the format of any potential lap chart is not at all clear. In addition, we cannot say that lap charts are or are not universally "needed", that has to be decided on a race-by-race basis, and if they are to be used then they should certainly be restricted to those races where they might actually communicate complex information in a more managable way than prose alone. For races where there was little overtaking a lap chart would be complete overkill, for example, while for a race where a driver made a "thrilling charge up the field" (e.g. 1983 United States Grand Prix West) then proper use of colour for highlighting purposes (see my discussion with Bobby Doorknobs above) might be an interesting and visual way of communicating their progress. I still say that using colour throughout the table harms their usefulness and detracts from their ability to communicate pertinent (note, not "all") race position changes, but I can see that for certain, limited, circumstances they might be benefitial. Can we please try to use common sense and not dictat? Pyrope 12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Davnel, several times people have explained that consensus is not the same thing as voting, but each time you try to take a vote. A compelling argument one way counts for more than a simple WP:ILIKEIT vote the other. We'll keep discussing until we come up with an acceptable compromise to everyone. As such, I've struck out the vote section. AlexJ 12:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Davnel03 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still like to see lap charts included, but I take the point about prose being being more important. Perhaps lap charts should only be added to articles which are of FA or GA quality, as that would be an objective measure of deciding whether or not the prose is good enough? I have to disagree with Pyrope's suggestion of basing the decision to include a lap chart on how exciting/chaotic the race was, as I'm sure that disagreements like this will occur in every instance of it being brought up. As a potential problem with the lap charts is the ability of non-motorsport fans to decipher them, is there a way that they could be discussed somewhere outside this WikiProject as well?--Diniz (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the many different opinions about the use of colours, it may actually be a good idea to organize a vote on this in the future, but for now there are too many loose ends and some potential problems with the lap chart format have not even been adressed yet (for example: the difference between the 'old style' charts and the new ones). Although I've decided for myself to put this lap chart business on hold for a while and concentrate on my assesment drive and 'Stub-work' instead, I do think we should continue this discussion and try to reach an agreement on the use of lap charts; if the outcome is 'yes' we can work from there.

I very much agree with Diniz that deciding this race-by-race would give rise to endless discussions, and I think it's better to use a simple policy: either we allow them or not. At the same time this 'simple policy' turns out to be quite a difficult question. The main arguments against the use of lap charts are possible violations of WP:NOTE and WP:NOT but I think the latter is not really an issue. A lap chart is intended as an addition to improve a fully written article and it makes a lot of sense to allow them, but limit their use by imposing a requirement, like GA-Class or better. This is an insurance against 'overkill' and would also prevent people from venturing off into less important areas of the project.

As for explaining the lap charts to unfamiliar users: how about giving the key a seperate page (like the season result tables) and include some text on 'how to read a lap chart' along with a few examples? Bobby Doorknobs 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)

Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, notability seems pretty simple - if the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" it is notable. The guidelines will have to say what is almost certainly notable as opposed to what isn't. For example, I don't think we can say all drivers in xxxx series are not-notable because there's occasionally an exception to the rule with someone who at a low level receives a lot of coverage. We could give criteria for topics we definitely know will meet the notability guidelines e.g. every F1 race will have a race report in Autosport, Autocar and Auto Express magazines as well as at GrandPrix.com and other major F1 websites so it will meet the significant coverage in reliable independent sources criteria. Similarly all F1 drivers will have features on these websites and in the specialist magazines so are notable. But to be honest, this has all been pretty much established already. AlexJ 23:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hans Ruesch the dead grand prix driver

Terrible headline, but Hans Ruesch raced in grand prixs before F1's formation. Should he get the "Former motorsports driver" template on his page? Guroadrunner 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who drove an 8C in anger in period has my respect! I'd say he deserves it. Pyrope 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Renault RS27

I'm planning to propose Renault RS27 for deletion. Any objections? DH85868993 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

None. Ironic really, considering the remarks about notability above. To be provided with something so obviously crufty so soon! Pyrope 15:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me. It made me laugh though :) Bretonbanquet 15:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

None. I'd never think we'd ever see an article on an engine! Davnel03 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Porsche 3512 on the To-Do list? The359 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, stumped me a bit when I saw that. But Cosworth DFV has an article, and I think that goes a lot of the way to demonstrating how relative notability works. The DFV is famous as an entity in and of itself. Pyrope 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can significantly improve it with their sterling knowledge of that particular engine, then give it the chop, because I've never seen such a feeble excuse for an article! ;-)  ;-) Lradrama 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty (or rather very annoyed....

Because of this. I'm unhappy with the decision. Sorry if this comes accross as stubborn, but I'm rather annoyed right about now. Davnel03 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right to be annoyed with the decision. It is a fine article in my opinion. Although I do think the whole discussion got a bit childish and out-of-hand and didn't help with the outcome. Lradrama 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion did get a bit out of hand before the nomination started, but that wasn't my problem. I just improved the article, unfortunately other users, without naming who exactly, decided that some things, including the FA candidate was a "joke" without taking it too seriously. My saying: You work hard, reference properly, you reap the reward; or; you mess around and get literally no where, and in this case, the FAC got no where, as the article is missing a star in the top right hand corner. And that's no fault of my own. Davnel03 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are spelling mistakes, i.e. "aggresive", "hydralic", You really need to watch out for things like that before nominating. Readro 20:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Readro, why wasn't that brought up in the FAC? Davnel03 07:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC

Because I have only read the article since you started this discussion. Readro 10:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't really nominate an article for FA just to find out what other people think to improve it. It should run through Peer Review first. The359 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, FAC is not a first stop peer review process, and GA is a weak system, as we have already found out lately. My principal complaint with this article is that the prose is a mess. It lacks a coherent narative thread, and really could use an awful lot of work trying to make it flow a little. It doesn't come close to being "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" as required for FA. It really shouldn't have been relisted without significant improvement. Pyrope 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a point I have raised with Davnel03 before. Too many articles are being rushed to FAC. Most of them in a very poor condition to be generous. Mark83 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, we'd much rather have one quality article that someone has taken the time and properly gone through all procedures with, rather then just boosting our count of FA and GA articles for the project. The359 01:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did go through the proceedures. It's not compulsory to do a Peer Review, is it? Davnel03 07:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the smart thing to do. FAC's are supposed to be presented on the assumption that they are thoroughly read over and corrected. FAC is not for you to submit decent work and expect them to tell you how to make it FA. The same applies to GA. The359 07:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So many of you are saying Peer review? Here we go. I look forward to you comments on the article (that's if you have any seeing as i completed the comments in the FAC). Davnel03 07:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You most certainly did not. There is one glaring comment that the article "requires a re-write to the extent that I don't think the prose is currently good enough for GA, let alone FA" which stands out as being incomplete. See my comments on the PR page. Pyrope 12:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The user in question never said any specific points, they just said "the prose". By the way all the comments before the restart I completed. Davnel03 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Specific points? How can you be specific about an entire article? This process is called "peer review" not "please rewrite this article". Pyrope 12:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Davnel, your attitude here is a bit much. It's a good well referenced article, but it's not 'brilliant'. The article failed because no-one felt it was good enough to support. Before the restart it was 2 Support and 4 Oppose and after the restart there were no supports. One of the supporters added some issues with the article after the restart perhaps because of your slightly aggressive comments towards him. In fact I think part of the fail was due to your attitude during the FAC process - it's no good getting all defensive and hostile when someone comments, you've got to grit your teeth and do everything you can to accommodate their suggestions. They are the only ones who can decide when they believe their concerns have been addressed so my suggestion would be to stop using Done after each comment. Instead state what you've done to address their concerns and word it so you're inviting them to say if they think it's a good enough solution. Go easy on the WP:F1 references. Wikiprojects support articles, but don't own them or dictate how things are done. Wikipedia's editors that do that. The best thing to do is show (via a link) where consensus was reached on doing something a certain way. This carries more weight than saying "WP:F1 do things this way" and is more likely to be satisfactory to the reviewer. Finally (and it's been said many times before) don't go straight to FAC/GAC. Have someone copyedit the article first. Every minor niggle picked up at this stage is one less thing for the article to be flagged up on. For a FAC, I'd recommend running it through a PR first as well (again everything picked up here is one less thing to object to at FAC). I'll leave some comments at the PR now it's up and running (yes I do have some). AlexJ 10:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've addressed the issues raised so far. Davnel03 09:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Negative, you've addressed one example of one of the points raised (citations). AlexJ 09:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I'll do that bit now. I've done the rest of them now. BTW, 2007 Canadian Grand Prix is a FAC candidate. Davnel03 10:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I've added it to the to-do box. Guroadrunner

I should make comment since I posted on the 2nd FAC. Also, it appears like Raul restarted it, not Davnel. Mind I didn't want to make it sound like I was taking the mick on anyone, but if it fails the first time around, it does not logically correlate that if no-one gives comment that it is an automatic pass, which was what my main thing was. Guroadrunner 11:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox issue - lap leaders

While in the middle of the Malaysian GP Peer review, AlexJ brought up a point to do with lap leaders, which I have decided to bring here to get a wider opinion on. Here is his point:

• The notes section. I know it's common across race reports to do this, so this comment is not aimed at this article specifically, but I think the article demonstrates particularly well why it's perhaps unneeded. It's pretty much a trivia section by any other name, and duplicates what's already said. Fastest lap is already featured in the infobox. This was the first victory for Fernando Alonso in a McLaren. and This was the McLaren's first 1-2 finsh since the 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix. are already mentioned in both the lead and in image captions in the body. That leaves just the lap leaders which perhaps should be shifted to the infobox (new field would be required). That's probably something that needs to be discussed with a wider audience though.

I think his idea suggested is quite good, but I want to get other opinins. Personally, I don't see any reason why not to have lap leaders mentioned in the infobox. What do you think about this? Davnel03 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not too onerous a proposal for modern races, which are usually dull as ditchwater with maybe two or three leaders, but what happens when you have older races where people actually could overtake and there were mybe as many as five leaders each lap! Also, what does it really tell us? Especially in modern races where lap leaders are, more often than not, determined by differences in pit stop strategy, and not by any skill or mechanical advantage. If there are significant leardershipchanges, they should be emphasised in the text. If they are insignificant then they should be left out entirely. Neither suggests, to me, that this is significantly important for inclusion in the infobox. Pyrope 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

F1 season cars templates

Do we want the "F1 season cars" templates to appear in the related category, e.g. do we want {{F1 cars 1993}} listed in Category:1993 Formula One season cars? If we do want them included in the category, should they appear at the start of the category, or in alphabetical order under "T"? There's currently a variety of implementations. DH85868993 23:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The category description reads: "Formula One cars that competed in the 1993 Formula One season." which to me means it shouldn't include the F1 season cars template. The template doesn't need categorising because the articles it appears in are already categorised. If someone goes to the category they expect to find articles on the cars competing in that year, not templates and other clutter. The categories are primarily to help the reader find things, and they shouldn't have to know of the existence of the template IMO. AlexJ 11:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Alex on that one. Davnel03 11:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That was my feeling as well. I just wanted to see what others thought. I'll update the templates so that the templates themselves aren't included in the category, but the articles in which they are transcluded are. DH85868993 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 14:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

F1 team templates

I've noticed there's a degree of inconsistency between the various F1 team/constructor templates:

• some (such as {{Prost Grand Prix}} and {{Scuderia Ferrari}}) contain a list of Notable Former drivers
• some (such as {{McLaren}}) contain Founder
• some (such as {{Jordan Grand Prix}} and {{Simtek}}) just contain a list of the cars

Do we want the templates to be more consistent? DH85868993 01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Personally, I prefer the Prost and Ferrari ones. Davnel03 08:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. How do we define notable former drivers? Just WDCs? If that's the case, then most smaller teams would lack any notable drivers and we wouldn't have consistency. I think though, that's our best option, else we come up with our own list of favourites for each team which is most probably original research. AlexJ 09:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some more standard look, but I like to have cars that used Alfa engines in template {{Alfa Romeo F1}}, because

its much easier to find all stuff related to the team/brand and its quite hard to include all that info to the main article.

So maybe like: Personnel:,Current drivers:,Notable Former drivers:Formula One cars (team names),engine users (these texts/headlines :::could also be same in all templates), but then there is templates also with other classes like {{Brabham}}, so gonna be quite :::hard to make all look same. But just general rule what could (or should) be included would make them look more consistent also that hide/V.D.E option should be included to make possible to hide long templates--— Typ932^{T | C}  10:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing about the term "notable" is that is demands some human interpretation, which I regard as a good thing. For instance, I'm a little surprised that Richie Ginther isn't on the Ferrari list, as he was instrumental in developing the Dino 156 "Sharknose", that icon of early 1960s F1 and the chassis that propelled Phil Hill to the WC. Ok, so he didn't win much, but he is certainly a "notable" person in Ferrari's history. But that is just my interpretation. I am a bit leery about being too dictatorial with these boxes. Why do we need them all the same? If you feel that having key team personnel listed for Jordan would be a good idea, then do it. For some teams their F1 involvement was the be all and end all of their existence, for others (like McLaren and Ferrari) it used to be just one string to their bow (harp? that metaphor always did confuse me). So long as the box format is sufficiently clear to be able to properly differentiate the different classes of page then I think a little flexibility in layout should be preserved. Pyrope 10:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

FISA-FOCA war

Someone recently made this change to FISA-FOCA war. Does anyone know which version is correct? [Obviously this discussion really belongs on the article's talk page, but I suspect that this particular article probably isn't on many people's watchlist]. DH85868993 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The revision is correct. Pyrope 11:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pyrope. DH85868993 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pflanzgarten

He's back! [1] -- Ian Dalziel 10:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be reported to ANI. Davnel03 17:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reported to ANI. Davnel03 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for 12 hours and Jim Clark's page semi-protected for a while. Davnel03 20:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1977 South African Grand Prix

A bit of a headache as you can see from the top of the infobox. Please can someone tell me how one can get the South Africa flag to be appropriate for that year, thank you.--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The formatting isn't intuitive I'm afraid. You need {{flagicon|RSA|1928}}, which will produce . Pyrope 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made two edits to the article: the current version has the flag after the words "1977 South African Grand Prix"; the previous version has no flag at all. I couldn't figure out a way to get the correct flag to appear before the words "1977 South African Grand Prix". We probably need to modify the template to allow a modifier for the flagicon argument. DH85868993 13:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! Here's the documentation I added to the talk page

Optional fields (for historic races)

|Flag suffix        =
|Fast flag suffix   =
|Pole flag suffix   =
|First flag suffix  =
|Second flag suffix =
|Third flag suffix  =

For example, in the 1977 South African Grand Prix, "Flag suffix" should be set to 1928 to produce the correct historical
South African flag.

Readro 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Never know what I'd do without you :) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Readro. You also added "Fast flag suffix", which I've added to the list above and the template doc. DH85868993 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for catching that. Readro 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The infoboxes for all the South African Grands Prix and all the races where Scheckter appears in the infobox have been updated. DH85868993 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Renault template

What do people think about the recent addition of the "Renault S.A. template" ({{Renault}}) to Renault R27, in addition to the existing "Renault F1 template" ({{Renault F1}})? Do we want to add it to all the other Renault F1 car articles as well? DH85868993 08:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added it as I happened to have seen it lately, I'm not really fussed either way. Pyrope 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed either way, but the only relevant bit in Renault S.A. IMO (the F1 models) is already in the Renault F1 template. AlexJ 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Noteworthy collection of 1990s racing news stories

(Edited) I've found a collection of useful news reports from the 1990s that I wanted to share. It appears to be part of an archive. Covering many series but especially F1, it includes statistical goodness for race reports, and fresh news reports from the races.

The main link is http://www.silhouet.com/motorsport/ and the news stories archive is at http://www.teamdan.com/archive/almanac.html

I've added material to Argentine Grand Prix, 1994 Formula One season and 1994 European Grand Prix - there was apparently an aborted 1994 Argentine Grand Prix, causing the race to move to Jerez under the Euro GP banner. I also saw information about how the 1994 Italian GP at Monza was canceled in light of the Imola tragedies and then un-canceled after agreements to remove trees lining the track, not yet covered at 1994 Italian Grand Prix.

For more info, see my post on WP:MOTOR -- Guroadrunner 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's part of The GEL Motorsport Information Page's Motorsport Almanac. Readro 20:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added that Damon Hill was announced official test driver for Williams in 1991, not just 1992, with source. This is an unintegrated section stub. -- Guroadrunner 23:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

McLaren excluded from '07 Championship

This is by no mean a forum, but this is breaking news. Watch out for obvious vandals targeting Ferrari related articles, thanks. Davnel03 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No official confirmation has yet been issued. Hold on. The idea was mooted about an hour ago but this is not in any way confirmed. Read the weasel words in the Sky article. Pyrope 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it? I'm stuck to Sky Sports News at the moment, but they've had zero coverage on it. And Autosport website (for me) has gone down, every other websites working, but Autosport is not. :( Davnel03 16:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Try 5live, they have a guy standing outside. Nothing official as yet, and the "full exclusion" was only one option that was in discussion over an hour ago. The Sky story is just that, fiction. Pyrope 16:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Autosport have issued a retractment of the initial article which sparked the fuss, stating that no verdict has been decided on yet. Readro 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

5live just announced that McLaren have been knocked out of the 2007 constructors champ, and fined $100m (!!!!!!). The drivers will retain their points. That's official apparantly. Pyrope 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about that, as it's not been announced anywhere else. Readro 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd trust this more than I would some second-hand acount on Sky's site. Pyrope 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that appeared after I posted my last comment! Readro 17:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sky News, ITV News and Sky Sports News reporting it now. Davnel03 17:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 WCC only as far as I have heard - I've edited this section title as a result. Mark83 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so how exactly are we going to mark this? McLaren moved to just above Toro Rosso on the constructor's championship? To last? People are going to be screwing with these numbers a lot now. The359 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The initial report was that they were excluded from the WCC., i.e. they aren't in it at all. Lazy journos have mutated this into the funkier-sounding "stripped of all their points", but that is just news jargon. Pyrope 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When Schumacher was stripped of his championship, was he excluded or did they remove all of his points? Point is, for Wiki's purposes, we kept him on the chart. The359 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, I'd have to look it up. But in this case McLaren are certainly excluded so either they go right at the bottom with the appropriate note or, and this is the option which I prefer, they don't appear at all. Pyrope 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine removing them altogether will just lead to more hassle. For now I've removed their rank ("11th") from the chart and merely put a dash, as we do for driver's who have yet to finish Grands Prix. The359 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to adjust all articles as necessary. There's a press conference in half-hour. Keep and eye for vandalism on all Ferrari related articles. Davnel03 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The359 & Pyrope: My understanding is that when MS was disqualified in 1997, the points he earned during races still counted towards his career total as did his race wins etc. and he was also allowed to keep the trophies. Therefore having him appear on the second line in our championship table with position listed as DSQ is correct IMO. If McLaren have the same punishment then I say we should do the same, however if in addition to their disqualification, they have to forfeit all the points and return constructors trophies then they should go at the bottom. I am not in favour of deleting them all together from the list and pretending they never took part in the constructors championship. AlexJ 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read, McLaren will be allowed to keep all of their TV revenue earned for the season. I believe this is a good sign that they will keep the trophies and such as well. The359 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Selected quotes from the FIA Statement: "“The WMSC has stripped Vodafone McLaren Mercedes of all constructor points in the 2007 FIA Formula One World Championship and the team can score no points for the remainder of the season," "Furthermore, the team will pay a fine equal to $100m, less the FOM income lost as a result of the points deduction." “However, due to the exceptional circumstances in which the FIA gave the team’s drivers an immunity in return for providing evidence, there is no penalty in regard to drivers’ points." “The WMSC will receive a full technical report on the 2008 McLaren car and will take a decision at its December 2007 meeting as to what sanction, if any, will be imposed on the team for the 2008 season,” AlexJ 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FOM income = TV revenue? The359 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, effectively. That, to me, says bottom of the table at the very least. Pyrope 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep or lose points was my criteria on where to place them, they've lost them so I agree with placing them bottom of the table (with 0 points). I don't really care where they go in relation to Spyker and STR - is the criteria teams are decided by wins if the points are tied? Or does EX trump 0 points to put McLaren last? I don't know but suggest we go along with the FIA when they update their standings. AlexJ 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for the time being though, I think they should be last until we get official confirmation on their position. Davnel03 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The decision now seems to be how to mark them. I've already changed their rank to a dash and listed them as "EX" instead of 0 points. However, for the Hungarian Grand Prix, their cars were colored blue to denote that they scored no points even though they finished 1st and 4th. Should the entire row of McLaren results be marked as blue now? The359 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would guess so. Also, I'm guessing they should go straight to the bottom of the table as they score 0. Finally, can BMW still win the constructors title (mathmatically?) Davnel03 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari is 5 points away from securing the constructor's championship. The359 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

5 points? Wooooo....! :) Davnel03 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I say do whatever we did when Schumacher got excluded in 1997. Guroadrunner 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is different to the Schumacher case however, as Schumi kept his points and therefore held 'virtual 2nd place' in the table while McLaren have been stripped of theirs and therefore have 0 points putting them near the bottom of the table. Formula1.com have now updated and show McLaren in position "9=" and lists them below Spyker & STR. FIA have yet to update their website. AlexJ 22:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is different - MS was excluded from the 97 championship altogether so holds no position in it at all. He does however maintain his wins and points, for the purposes of his overall scores. I guess we don't yet know whether that will be the case for McLaren - I haven't heard that the points or wins are being reallocated (so different to the various incidents in 76, for example). Welcome to the parallel universe of the FIA. 4u1e 09:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how McLaren can be 9th=, that makes no sense. Firstly, the standings don't allow for equal positions, one team is above the other based on the results achieved. Hence, Toro Rosso are above Spyker. Either McLaren are 9th ahead of the other teams with no points because their results are better, or, as I understand it, McLaren are fully excluded, i.e they are 11th and will stay 11th, having taken part and been excluded.Bretonbanquet 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The FIA is supposed to release a full report on the whole thing tomorrow. I would suggest, for now at least, to simple move McLaren to last and marked as "Excluded". It's far better then keeping them in first, I think. The359 22:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is one of the silliest tables I've ever seen. I am mistaken for McLaren aren't actually shown last, confusingly they only show a table of 10 teams on the main page! The full table containing the 11 teams (because fitting one extra line on the main page would have been too much clutter) shows McLaren as "9=" but with STR-Ferrari above them and Spyker-Ferrari below them. No logic at all can have gone into that positioning (unless they wanted to show McLaren on the front page, so had to put them 10th due to their silly design), so I guess we'll have to wait until the FIA clear things up tomorrow. AlexJ 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Formula1.com is not a reliable source for points classifications. They always mess up the listing of teams/drivers with equal points, and now this. The classification at fia.com (when updated) will be a much better source. Majin Izlude ^talk 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, 2007 Formula One season and McLaren have been semi-protected for a week to keep down the IP vandals. The359 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, is the note about the no scoring of points in Hungary (on constructors' tables) still required? chem_tom 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Report has been published: http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/17844641__WMSC_Decision_130907.pdf chem_tom 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know it's now on the "In The News" section on the front page. Davnel03 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it was breaking news all over the world, so it was only a matter of time. Increased vandalism imminent. Lradrama 18:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Effect on constuctors results tables in 2007 Formula One season and McLaren articles

At present, the tables in both 2007 Formula One season and McLaren show McLaren's position as "EX" with a black background, which is not in line with the legend template (EX is used with a "blank" background). In the talk page for the 2007 article, User:Daniel77o suggests that we change the legend to have EX on a black background. However, that is not feasible, as we would have to change every other EX result in all the result tables in which it appears (since the legend is a template).

Instead, I suggest that we change the "EX" in those McLaren results to "DSQ", as it would be consistent with our usage in other results. In the past, we have used "DSQ" when participants are excluded from a GP (or season) after it has begun (see 2007 Canadian Grand Prix, 2005 Canadian Grand Prix, or Michael Schumacher in 1997), while "EX" jas been used only as a reason for a driver's/team's non-participation in an event (see Honda's two-race ban in 2005), which is why it's in a blank background just like any other missed race.

Note that our use of the term "disqualification" (and that of the media) differs from the FIA's; a true FIA disqualification is a ban from all FIA-sanctioned competitions, and it would not normally apply to a penalty in F1. I believe that in all the examples cited above, the official term used by the FIA (or race stewards) was "exclusion". Majin Izlude ^talk 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: The 2005 BAR Honda penalty was "exclusion" from the San Marino Grand Prix (which we have labeled DSQ) and "suspension" from the next two grands prix (labeled EX). Source Majin Izlude ^talk 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, BT19 again. Sorry

Not I've got a hope in hell of wresting anyone's attention away from the headline grabber above (Out come the Ferrari conspiracy theories again...), but can anyone tell me why the car infobox at my latest obsession now takes up half the page when viewed in Firefox?! I assume it's something to do with the recent changes to the wins/poles/FL bits. It's fine in IE and Safari for Windows (I'm experimenting). 4u1e 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, me too. I think the term "non-championship" in Firefox's font might be the culprit? The359 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that would be my recent tweaks. Most cars just have numbers so having side-by-side data actually takes up less room and looks neater. When you have as much information as you have put into the BT19's results you will have to be a bit careful about how you format it. (p.s. I will give BT19 a review, but it will take a few days before I have a single block of time long enough to really give it proper attention.) Pyrope 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine in IE. I'm also sure many of you have had enough of me talking about 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix (yes you're probably wanting to somehow shut me up), but if anyone wants to leave any additional comments on the peer review, please do! Back to the infobox issues, I dislike the table in the infobox, and in my view, I feel it should be a standalone table. My screen size is 1280 x 800 pixels, yet it seems a little bit of a squash in the infobox. Davnel03 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "standalone"? If it is part of the infobox then it is inside, if it is outside then it ceases to be part of the infobox. I made the changes having seen the German Wiki site, and their solution (very efficient and Germanic, stereotypes ahoy!). I personally disliked the acres of white space that resulted from the older format, and the way that important data got lost in a long list. As my experimental results looked quite swish I was "bold" and made the change straight off. The boxes are currently formatted specifically so that they don't "squash", and always give their contents room to breathe. Pyrope 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's better than before. Davnel03 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Do others think that the table would look better if it was centred within the infobox? AlexJ 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Small difference, Alex, but probably yes. I think Pyrope's revised version (with the mini table) looks good. Pyrope's fixes to BT19 look fine to me - is that something that can be implemented in the standard template, or is it just a case of shrinking the text as and when necessary? Presumably IE and Safari are somehow reading a maximum width for the infobox, where Firefox isn't? (Struck by 4u1e - hadn't understood the changes properly!) 4u1e 08:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Firefox won't break a hyphenated word, where the other rendering engines do. Odd. 4u1e 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Race infobox crossing into content for F1 race stubs

I use 800x600 and what happens is that the right-side infobox collides and overlaps with the race results table on F1 race stubs that don't have anything to push the results table down. Seems a bit relevant here, not sure. Guroadrunner 19:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This can be fixed by adding {{clear}} before the results section heading. AlexJ 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I will do that when I see the overlap issue. (I think it might be an issue with lower resolution screens)

Porsche 3512‎

This was on the article requests in the to-do box, and has just been created. Given the fact that a Renault engine (can't remember the exact name now) was prodded and deleted, my question is that is the Porsche 3512 page really needed. In my view, it is not needed. Davnel03 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be better off as a section in the Footwork FA12 article (should such an article ever be written). AlexJ 22:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've just created Footwork FA12 (a bit stubby, but meh), and have suggested a merge between the two articles. The discussion for merging is here. Davnel03 09:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Formula One up for FAR

Discussion here. Davnel03 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GP winners listed on Circuit pages

Tonight I was creating the 1000 km Buenos Aires sports car race, which (mostly) ran at the Autódromo Oscar Alfredo Gálvez, the same circuit used for the Argentine Grand Prix. It struck me as odd that this circuit, as well as a great number of other circuits on Wikipedia, seem to only mention the F1 races which have run there. That obviously is a problem of editors from other motorsports disciplines not adding the appropriate information.

However, a second problem that I see is the fact that racing circuits list the winners of the F1 events. For a large number of events, this list is pretty much identical to the list that would appear on the event page itself (Argentine Grand Prix). So it begs the question, why are F1 winners listed on circuit pages? Certainly a circuit can have events just as important as their Grands Prix. Although I'm not advocating adding winners for every event ever taking place at a course, I do feel that race winners belong on an event's page (such as my 1000 km Buenos Aires) and not on the circuit's page.

Basically, I think we should remove Grand Prix winners from Circuit pages because I feel it is redundant. The359 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. List race winners on the event pages, not the circuit pages. DH85868993 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that. Pyrope 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, the circuit article should be far more general in saying what races were held there and the winners should only be on the race event page. AlexJ 09:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

McLaren as the Winning Constructor?

I am jus wondering if McLaren should be listed as the winning constructor of any of the races in the 2007 season. Since the team has been excluded, can they technically win? Of course if a McLaren driver wins a race, the winning car is a McLaren, though that would be car and not constructor. Also because they are not permitted to accept a constrcutor trophy on the podium, they certainly would not seem able to win. I do not know, maybe I am jsut reading into things too much. Technically though because they have been excluded, they were not and will not be the winning constructor in any race in the 2007 season. I would propose we change the winning constructor in the past races to the team which finished next in line, that is Ferrari or BMW. Dale-DCX 17:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - the other teams' points have not been upgraded, McLaren's have simply been blanked. -- Ian Dalziel 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the other teams have not gained points. I would certainly not refute that. Though, if McLaren was excluded from a race (which they were) they can not win the Constructors' trophy can they? So I do not think it right to show they were the winning constructor when they were excluded from the results. Dale-DCX 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They've been excluded from the Constructors' Championship, not excluded from the races. You can't exclude a car from the race without excluding the driver, otherwise you have a winning driver having driven, well, nothing. I think their race results stand as normal, it's just that their points were taken away. Bretonbanquet 18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to look at this from the perspective of someone new to F1 in a couple of years time reading the articles. If no constructor is shown when Alonso or Hamilton won it will confuse readers who didn't know that they were McLaren's drivers this season. I think McLaren have to stay in the results for that reason alone. Kelpin 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the judgement was that McLaren had been excluded from the races - their points were cancelled, which isn't the same. They score no points from the rest of the season either - but they are going to be racing, which they wouldn't be if they were excluded. -- Ian Dalziel 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, nothing I've read so far says the McLaren have had to hand back their constructors trophies or their Wins/Podiums stats will be affected - my understanding is that if a McLaren car wins, McLaren are the winning constructors and are awarded winning constructors points, the points are then instantly forfeited. They are also prohibited from getting the trophy but they are still technically winning constructor. Again, we should see how other sources handle it and follow them. AlexJ 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

2005 United States Grand Prix up for FAR

Discussion here. Davnel03 17:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Image negotiation

As part of my efforts to improve the Forti article, I recently came across these two Flickr images of the team's drivers racing at the 1995 British Grand Prix. The images are copyrighted, but it may be possible to persuade the author to change the licences. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of thing?

P.S. The Flickr user has a large number of photos from the 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1995 British/European Grands Prix, for those who aren't interested in Forti! ;)--Diniz (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had some, but not much, luck with this. The pic at the bottom of Brabham BT19 came from a polite request from me to it's owner on Flickr. On the other hand, several other requests have not been responded to - I think it helps if you compliment the picture or pictures and if you don't come across as someone just there to 'steal' their pictures! Then again, I suspect many Flickr accounts (like many Wikipedia ones) just aren't that active, so your request may never be read. You need to be quite clear about what you need, which is presumably for them to re-license the pictures to one you can use on Wikipedia. I think cc-by sa 3.0 is appropriate (Alex, could you comment?) 4u1e 13:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Alex has already posted on my user talk page and I have sent the author a message on Flickr. I did describe their F1 photo sets as "excellent" and pointed out that one of the images could eventually appear on the main page, as well as saying that Wikipedia and the Commons depend on the kind actions of amateur photographers (I hope I didn't lay it on too thick!). I specified CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as the only Flickr licences allowed, so that shouldn't be a problem.--Diniz (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a small technicality - on Flickr the CC licences are v2.0 (e.g. cc-by-sa 2.0) not 3.0 - doesn't make any difference really afaik and both are accepted on Wikipedia but just to let you know if you get a successful response when it comes to uploading it. AlexJ 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Success! Both images have been uploaded using CC-BY-SA 2.0 and are now in the appropriate articles. It seems to me that the author would be willing to release more images in the future, so here is a link to his photo sets in case anyone is interested (the 1995 British GP is not in a set): [2].--Diniz (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done! 4u1e 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, the article looks much better with the pictures. The only thing now is that the fair use picture might be challenged as you've shown free use pictures of F1 cars can be found. I'll keep an eye out for a potential free use image of the other car. AlexJ 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Bull Technology

I came across this article while looking over 2007 car articles (most notably the customer car constroversy). I have a feeling it's not really a necessary article since the only thing Red Bull Technology has done is acted as a front to design the RB3 and STR2. I'd suggest deletion. The359 09:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a notable company in its own right. The article contents aren't perfect by any means but I'm not sure there's grounds for deletion. Readro 10:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Typing in "Red Bull Technology" on Google gets you over 2 million hits. I think the article just needs to be cleaned up and expanded a bit, then it'll be OK. Davnel03 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase "Red Bull Technology" only returns 4040 results. Your search is for pages containing the words Bull and Red and Technology. (For example "Red Bull Air Race: Technology & more" was the first result) AlexJ 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe we should AFD it as 359 suggested. Davnel03 17:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It can still be a notable topic if those 4040 results contain multiple reliable sources that can be used to write an article on the topic (WP:GOOGLEHITS). I'm still not sure, I did find several good websites with an article primarily about RBT so I think if someone adds a few references and possibly expand it a bit, then I'd want it to stay. AlexJ 11:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Standings after Grand Prix revisited

I notice that "Standings after Grand Prix" sections have recently been added to several of the 2003 F1 race reports, e.g. 2003 Monaco Grand Prix. We discussed this back in July and consensus at that time seemed to be to delete these sections. Is that still the prevailing view? DH85868993 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No need for them. Delete. Davnel03 15:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not needed. If we want this, they can be sort of incorporated into the report (word form obviously). Lradrama 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19

Brabham BT19 is up at FAC at present. My thanks to all those who contributed massively, including (deep breath) AlexJ, Davnel03, DH85868993, Diniz, GURoadrunner, James086, Mark83, Pyrope, Readro and The359. And, of course, my agent. Please comment at the FAC, whether you feel it is good, bad or indifferent. Cheers. 4u1e 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy getting praise, I don't actually remember contributing anything! Are you sure? I might well have done something and then forgotten about it. Readro 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I definitely saw your tag in the edit history - I think it was corrections on the results tables, from memory. If not, well take it as general thanks for work around the project. And if you think you didn't contribute, I have to say my agent really isn't earning his fee! ;-) 4u1e 07:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Trojan (Racing team)

There is currently a proposal here to merge Trojan (Racing team) with Trojan (automobile). As far as I know, the racing team evolved from within the automobile company after they had given up road car manufacture but was a quite distinct enterprise and Ron Tauranac was involved somewhere, somehow. The Trojan (Racing team) page is very weak at the moment but if anyone out there has any citable material to beef it up a bit so that its worthy of its own page or can vote for or against the merger, now would be a good time to do it. Mighty Antar 10:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The line is a bit blurred, as Trojan (Racing) Ltd. got into building racing cars by constructing customer McLaren cars from 1971. This was under the management of Ron Smith (incidentally, the inventor of the Burt strut, godfather of the whoosh-bonk McLaren M3A, and former manager to Stirling Moss), who had been a mate of Bruce's since the very beginnings of McLaren cars. Quite how the road car and racing car arms of Trojan are linked I'm not sure, but it is clear that the two were concurrent and distinct for at least a few years. I think that there may well eventually be enough material to retain Trojan (Racing) Ltd. as a separate entity, with a {{main}} link from the Trojan (automobile) page. Demerging is always a more complicated process, so let's not be too hasty. Pyrope 10:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

DBR4 = DYK

It's on the front page, yay! I've got to go to bed now though... please keep an eye on it if you can. Thanks! Pyrope 01:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hill team results table; need help

At this link here, I've built what more or less is a results table to be plugged in to Hill (constructor), but it's not done yet.

I'm looking for a good source for which tires they used, what points classification they had and other elements. The table also needs to get "combined" -- right now each season has its own table.

I see it as a community sandbox of some sort -- feel free to edit or add to the table.

If anyone has objection to adding a results table to the Hill team page (Hill was a privateer), discuss below.

Thanks, -- Guroadrunner

Try ChicaneF1.com or GEL. Plenty of data in those two sites. Pyrope 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Injuries

I also noticed that many driver results are given as INJ, when they did not take part in a Grand Prix due to an injury beforehand. I do not believe this is the appropriate result and if anything is misleading. They did not take part in the Grand Prix and the space should be left blank as they are meant to be. Having the result as INJ would suggest the driver competed in that event and then was subsequently injured. A driver not taking part in a race because they are injured is the same as a driver not taking part due to family obligations. They were not in the race and they had no result, this should be reflected in the relevant articles. Dale-DCX 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with it not being 'ING', but I don't think it should be left completely blank. I was just looking the ITV Sport Guide - Grand Prix 2002 book. Giancarlo Fisichella was injured before the 2002 French Grand Prix and it refers to his non-participation as 'W' (i.e. withdrawn). Then, before the start of the 2002 Japanese Grand Prix, Allan McNish suffered as large crash and was unable to take part, and his non-participation is referred to as 'NS' (i.e. non-starter). So, would any of those be appropriate (assuming we could have 'DNS' as well as 'NS')? Lradrama 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on the circumstances. If the driver competed in the practice and qualifying sessions, only to not take the start they should be listed as DNS. If a driver did not take part in any aspect of the weekend they should not be listed as being involved at all which means a blank space. At least I think that makes the most sense. Dale-DCX 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Dale. In Fisi's case he took part in practice, but didn't qualify, hence the "withdrawn".--Don Speekingleesh 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Though in that case, he could be listed as DNQ as well. Though that really only applies to a race where drivers needed to qualify to compete in the event. It would also implied he failed to qualify. I think in his case withdrawn would be correct. I would suggest we need to look at all of the drivers who have ILL or INJ listed as a result and give them a proper result based on the extent which they competed in during the weekend. Dale-DCX 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've never been keen on the "INJ" in results boxes, and I've brought this up before. It's not a result. I always change INJ to DNS or DNQ where I spot it and it's relevant. However, in Fisi's case, it's most definitely a DNS - there's no reason to invent a WD designation when DNS means exactly the same thing. Bretonbanquet 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I completely agree. DNQ is not invented, it is a real classification. I understand what you mean though. Dale-DCX 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I didn't say DNQ was invented though. Bretonbanquet 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that is what I thought you had implied. Dale-DCX 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let's just keep it simple! Bretonbanquet's ideas are fine - just keep the DNS for an injury involved in the weekend and blank for total non-participation. DNQ for practice but non-qualifier? I think that's what you're all saying? Alright let's keep it at those three. Perhaps on using those, one can elaborate on why that driver didn't participate in the 'Time/retired' column of the results table. Lradrama 08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No! "DNQ" can only be assigned to a driver who tries to qualify and fails. A driver not taking part in qualifying should be listed as "withdrawn" or a blank space. 82.92.73.193 02:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Makes sense. Lradrama 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually. It depends on what the sources say. If the sources say DNQ, then that's what we put, regardless of what we may think the result should be listed as. We can always put explanatory notes in to explain anomalies. Bretonbanquet 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

<div> tag

Some people add a div-tag to the results tables in the articles on Formula One teams and drivers, making a scroll list at the bottom of the table. Please don't do that, it just makes the table harder to read when you are reading at the top of it. I have just removed a bunch of these. John Anderson 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - these <div> tags mean you can't see the season-at-a-glance for drivers or teams. Guroadrunner 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - yes, I hate scrolling through to see one season then scrolling back to read another. Thanks for bringing this to attention, I'm glad to be rid of that. Lradrama 08:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- Race articles

I was just editing the 2004 Australian Grand Prix article, and on clicking 'Edit this page' I noticed this - - above the race classification. What does it mean? Lradrama 09:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Force Table of Contents". Table of Contents boxes usually do not show up until you have at least 3 (I think...) sections to an article. Adding that text forces a table of contents box to show up regardless of the number of sections. The359 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see! OK, thankyou very much! Lradrama 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Circuit Infoboxes

For those that don't participate over at WP:MOTOR, we're planning on creating a universal infobox template for racetracks to replace the current F1_circuit, National_Circuit and Infobox_Nascar_Circuit infoboxes. The design allows for all the fields from the current F1 and National circuit templates as well as the majority of Nascar fields. Can you take a look at these examples of it's use and let me know your thoughts on it? Thanks, AlexJ 17:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Great work! Some of those examples were quite inventive, as well. ;) The only additional thing I can think of is the option of having a caption for the circuit image, for example if only one of the layouts is shown (as is the case with Silverstone Circuit, where the image only shows the Grand Prix Circuit).--Diniz (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a very good job! It'll make things simpler and easier, and that's what we're always on the lookout for. Diniz has a good point above though. Lradrama 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've now added the ability to include a caption, as demonstrated on the sandbox and on Silverstone Circuit. AlexJ 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to update people, all uses of F1_circuit have now been replaced by Motorsport_venue. Currently all infoboxes look identical to before the change although they can now be updated to include any of the new parameters (image caption, date opened, owner, multiple track layouts etc.) Are there any objections to the Template:F1_circuit being nominated for deletion as redundant? AlexJ 13:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No objections have been raised in a week so it's now up for deletion. AlexJ 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-current drivers

What do people think of the idea of adding Vettel and Albers back into Template:Formula One teams (probably on a separate line at the bottom), on the basis that they have participated in the 2007 season? DH85868993 13:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me.--Diniz (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree with this, seems as the title of the template is "Constructors and drivers competing in the 2007 Formula One championship" - both fit within this description. Might be a challenge to make it look tidy though. AlexJ 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added Albers and Vettel back into the template, and added the template back into their articles. DH85868993 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Recent results" on team pages.

I have just reverted the addition of 1990-1999 results on McLaren

1. Because even 1999 is on the borderline of "recent" and 1990 certainly isn't!
2. It pushed the article up to 91k - and it was already very large.

Anybody disagree/agree? Mark83 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is 1999 the first year? 9 years seems a somewhat arbitrary number to pick. It should be a number like 5 or 10. Readro 16:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please readd them. There is absolutely no meaning with not having them there. The only reason it says "recent" results, is because noone have had time to add all the previous years yet. If the article is to big, split it up in subarticles instead of just erasing useful information! John Anderson 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The results table should be split out into a separate article, as was done for WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results (and has been discussed above for Ferrari). I would recommend calling the new article McLaren Grand Prix results. Note the deliberate use of an "inclusive" name, so the article can include non-works entries and non-championship races if desired. DH85868993 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree on using a similar solution to that used for Williams. Suggest last 5 seasons on main article page and full (including the last five years) on a separate page. The name DH suggests was discussed previously to be able to include NC races etc. so it has my backing. AlexJ 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. Reduced to five seasons' results with main link to McLaren Grand Prix results as suggested. Thanks again. Mark83 18:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to work tomorrow on the "backlog" of results for the McLaren results article ;-). Oh, btw should we have a MoS for these, I mean should we use the flagicons like in the "Williams version" or the none flagicon "McLaren version"? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of having the last 5 years' results listed in two different articles - I think there's a risk of them getting out of synch (and it does feel somewhat "wrong" to have exactly the same info in two different places). If we definitely want to display the information in both places, perhaps we could put the last 5 years' results into a template? Note that we'd only need to do this for current teams which have a very long history, i.e. Williams, Ferrari and McLaren. In terms of an MoS, we do have the standard constructor results table format, although I recognise that some of the existing tables don't comply. DH85868993 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice idea. I am not sure wether it is better to split out the results table or some of the texts, but I suppose either is OK. Flags are always nice, but no necessity in this kind of table. Just don't add a <div style="overflow: auto; overflow-x: scroll; width: 100%;"> string. John Anderson 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On that topic, I'm assuming that the scrollbars were originally added because you can't see the whole table with a 1024x768 screen resolution. So maybe we need to take that into consideration. DH85868993 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That topic can be discussed under its own headline a bit up on this page; so far, noone have advocated to keep the added scroll bars. All in all, on a small screen you can always scroll the browser window itself just as you can on a big screen, but if you have this scroll bar you cannot scroll the table to the side if you are looking at the top of the page. I have a small screen at home which makes me resent these div tag scroll bars. John Anderson 10:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we have a full results table with scroll bars? Better encyclopedia that way. Lradrama 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the scroll bars which makes a great encyclopedia, it's the information provided. Without the div tag generated bottom scroll bar, it is easier to access all the information, especially if you have a small screen. John Anderson 20:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm not saying that! I just meant it'd be better if he had a full results table, showing their finishes for every one of the seasons they've competed in from the 1960s rather than just recent results. No, I was just suggesting scroll-bars becuase the table would be pretty huge. I hate the scroll bars really because of the mucking about when looking at a table, but we might have to improvise for a full-results table for a team like McLaren. Lradrama 20:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Internet browsers acctually generate scroll bars by them selves. What I am trying to say is, we don't have to make additional ones. – Of course we should have full results tables, preferably for all teams. John Anderson 02:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

German GP 2007: cancelled or not held?

The German Grand Prix was originally sheduled for 2007, but was later cancelled, so I think it should be labeled as such in the list. However, some anonymous people keep changing it back to not held. As long as they don't explain why, I will undo these changes. Please discuss on the talk page of that artice. John Anderson 11:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the German Grand Prix is now alternating between Hockenheim and the Nurburgring? I thought it was still called the German Grand Prix? That means it is still held. However, some media sources (in the run up to this event) are calling it the European Grand Prix, because that's where it was held in recent times. I'm really confused now. Lradrama 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a dispute over who owned the rights to the name "German Grand Prix", so this weekend's race at the Nurburgring is called the "European Grand Prix". See this discussion. DH85868993 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the confirmation! I've just been on F1.com and ITV.com/f1, and they all refer to it as the European Grand Prix. B.T.W. I prefered it the other way, but since when do things go as you want in F1? (As a Toyota supporter, I'm used to it... ;-) ). Lradrama 16:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe they will change the name of the Grand Prix back to the German Grand Prix eventually as that would obviously be preferable for marketing reasons. Though as mentioned above, I think there is some sort of legal issue. So for now we have the European Grand Prix. Dale-DCX 16:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Another option I've heard (can't remember where exactly) is that the race on the Nürburgring returns to the use of "Grand Prix of Luxembourg." The Grand Prix of Europe will be held in Valencia from 2008 or 2009 onwards, and Hockenheim indeed seems to hold the rights to the name German Grand Prix. But that's crystalballing, since the next Grand Prix on the Nürburgring will be held in 2009. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Luxembourg name will make it all the more muddling to new viewers. Remember, the Luxembourg name was only used in 1997 (and 1998 I think) because there was already a German and a European Grand Prix (Hockenheim and Jerez respectively). Lradrama 20:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernie has stated the dispute arose from the AvD believing they hold the rights to the name German Grand Prix. They refused to allow this race to be termed as such. However, Bernie did state the event will return to being called the German Grand Prix soon. Dale-DCX 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Driver article assessment drive

While I'm waiting for one of my articles to get through the Good Article review process, I'm working my way through the driver articles that are unassessed by the project. I did 'A' yesterday, so today will be 'B'. Lec CRP1 09:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. The pile of unassessed articles is huge. Thanks Guroadrunner 15:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reached up to the end of 'M' now. Example - Stirling Moss hadn't even been assessed, but David Murray had been. Strange. Someone else will have to assess John Miles, as I wrote most of it.--Lec CRP1 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just polished off the last one (Ricardo Zuniño). The only ones I haven't done are John Miles (see above), David Walker (wrote that one too), and all those Indy 500 drivers who's races in 1950-60 counted towards the world championship even though they probably neither knew nor cared (outside my knowledge)--Lec CRP1 19:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Practice lap times?

On the IMS page, we have reference of the fastest lap ever turned on the oval course, set by Arie Luyendyk in a practice session in 1996. I was wondering if there was any source to look up the fastest practice lap times for F1, specifically date as well as time for Trulli's lap, so as to have the fastest lap ever turned on the road course at Indianapolis. Thank you in advance. --Chr.K. 10:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally on a road circuit (in F1 and most forms of European racing at least) the lap record is set under race conditions as opposed to practice/qualifying conditions. AlexJ 10:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:F1 race report

Just a heads up on the change to the F1 Race Report template (the one that allows you to go to the previous and next GPs from within a race results page.) I had made a post over at the Succession Box Standardization WikiProject regarding using their layout for sportscar races due to the irregular length of race titles causing the box at the bottom (based on the F1 template) to appear disjointed and uneven.

It appears a user from the project decided to be bold and edit both the Sportscar template and F1 template. If anyone has any problem with the changes, feel free to change it. The359 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the appropriate changes to Template:Grand Prix race report as well. Readro 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the color might be worth changing, the yellow stands out a bit. The359 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The header in yellow is unnecessary and, quite frankly, dumb. I can go for if it's in white and in a smaller font, but otherwise it detracts from the template box. The standardisation project also appears to have not been made with wide consensus. I will consider reverting it. Guroadrunner 06:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to have jumped to editing it even though that isn't what I had requested.

As for the color and layout, I already modified the Sportscar template to be a white background, and moved the Series title into the top (replacing Sportscar Report) so that just the year remains in the middle. The359 06:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it for the F1 template. The bold action also has raised my eyebrows to the WP:SBS project due to its lack of introducing discussion with the WikiProjects affected (the change was the first I had heard of WP:SBS' existence). I have invited its members to discuss it here. I may also introduce a discussion with Wikipedia administration regarding the WP:SBS project. Guroadrunner 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to personally apologize for my edits that seem to have went astray here, there was no intention to damage any work. WP:SBS has been working for about 2 years now trying to standardize the looks of succession boxes across wikipedia and your template was actually looking pretty good and I just changed some of the settings to make them sync more and to fix a problem that The359 pointed out that the template in its current state gets very uneven when a long race title precedes or succeeds the race title. To fix that problem, I took the code from our project and edited it some to work with yours without really changing the intent or layout much. Using a new guideline created at our project, I added a header bar to the succession box to categorize it, and that seems to be the major form of discontent. I didn't mean to cause any problems, I just was trying to straighten the template up a bit. If you don't like the header, you may remove it (which I see you already have). I think placing some colored header at the top may disambiguate it a bit more than just listing the race title, but this is not my realm, I just came from an indirect request and wished to help out a bit.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Archie Scott(-)Brown

Should Archie Scott(-)Brown's name have a hyphen or not? Currently the article is named Archie Scott-Brown (i.e. with a hyphen) but within the article, his name is consistently written without a hyphen, and indeed the article contains an (unreferenced) statement that there should not be one. A discussion at AtlasF1's Nostalgia Forum claims there's no hyphen on his birth certificate and that Scott is in fact a third given name, but do we need better evidence than that? -- DH85868993 05:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The book about him uses no hyphen. Here's an image of the front cover - [3]. Readro 10:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that it should be without the hyphen. Perhaps we should request a page move so we can get opinions from those outside the "Motorsport editor's circle"? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 12:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I've already renamed (moved) the article and updated the links. Oh well, at least it's now consistent everywhere. DH85868993 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Test drivers

This has come up before and I figure it might help if there was a more clear-cut definition of what makes for a test driver for the teams.

Should drivers who participated in a testing session for the team be considered test drivers? I point to the example of Sebastien Bourdais, who has obviously tested out Toro Rosso's car on a few occassions. However, as far as I know, Bourdais is not actually employed by Toro Rosso as a test driver, he is merely participating by invitation.

So should he be listed as a test driver if he's not actually one of the team's test drivers? The359 18:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: This applies to some other test drivers as well. The359 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In one word: No! There is certainly no way that Bourdais should be considered a test driver, but you could say in his bio that he had tests with STR during '07. I think that there should be a very basic line drawn for this: As long as there is a reference, from a reliable source, that says that "x is a test driver at y". --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Murray Walker drove a McLaren once in the early 80s but I'm sure he'll agree he's no test driver! Readro 21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Many, many people test drive cars, not just racing professionals, but also celebrities and TV Presenters (e.g. Martin Brundle and Mark Blundell.) The only drivers who should be named test drivers are the ones who are kept on as permanent by the team. For example, Marco Andretti has done some tests for Honda, but Christian Klien, who has been the regular tester throughout the year so far was the one announced by the team as being THE test driver. Do you know what I'm getting at? Sounds confusing doesn't it, but do you get the picture? ;-) Lradrama 21:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my same type of thinking, Lradrama. Basically, if you're on the team payroll as a test driver, you should be listed. Just driving the car is not criteria. I believe this also means that Sébastien Buemi, who is replacing the injured Michael Ammermüller in GP2, is testing for Red Bull this week but is not actually a test driver and should be removed from the 2007 Formula One season. The359 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because he has not played a key role in the team's test / development programme this season and has only been drafted in as a replacement. Thus, he shouldn't be listed as Red Bull's test driver. Lradrama 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the views expressed above. Bourdais is not a test driver, but he has tested with a view to a seat next year. Buemi however, may well be replacing Ammermuller as Red Bull's test and reserve driver at GPs... he has done enough mileage for a superlicence. If he applies for one, it can only be to serve as first reserve for Red Bull. It's a "wait and see" thing though :) Bretonbanquet 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with qualifying section in 2007 season article

Several mistakes here. Just looking through reveals that often two drivers are holding the same spot. I suppose you haven't enough interested editors for these unglamourous sections. There are also anomalies between driver results and results in the season article pages. 194.150.177.9 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, that is a lot to look through to try and spot mistakes! Can you provide any examples from what you've seen? Lradrama 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If your referring to this table, then I think we should simply get rid of it. Like I said on the talk page, I don't think it brings any significance to the article and the only thing people care about qualifying is the guy who's on pole, which has been established twice in the article: On the calender table and on the Drivers' Championship tables. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, should we not have a table or a list that says who qualified on pole for what event? Lradrama 14:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean a table just for who was pole when then no. I believe This table does that job perfectly IMO. If that's not what you meant, sorry - I'm not really in a my usual "Phill mood" - whatever that is... --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

On seeing the table you have just shown me, I am wondering why the other table is in existence? The one you indicated does the job perfectly. Lradrama 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you actually agreed with me? Sorry, that hasn't happened in a while :-P. Anyway, I believe it doesn't serve much purpose and I do apologies to 4u1e for copying what he would say, but in 10 years time will anyone care where Nico Rosberg started on the grid for the 2007 British Grand Prix? (No offense to Nico of course!) Or to put it in a context for the present day, does anyone care where Eddie Irvine started the 1997 Spanish Grand Prix? (Once again, no offense to Eddie!) Anyway, let's wait and see what others have to think about this - We can't just go and delete a whole table off the 2007 season article without proper consensus from the rest of the community can we? ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the qualifying results belong in the race reports as opposed to the overall season article (perhaps with the exception of the Pole Position for each round. AlexJ 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The qualifying results table in the main season article doesn't really add anything to the article, I say get rid of it. Davnel03 08:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality in driver infobox

I've had a discussion with someone at Talk:Ralph Firman about the nationality of drivers as stated in the ex-F1 drivers infobox. He/she considers the term "nationality" to be misleading, even though I have explained that it refers to the racing licence as used while the driver in question was in F1. The editor then changed the infobox template to satisfy his/her problem with it, not to the infobox's benefit, in my opinion. Rather than get into a big argument with that editor, I brought it here for discussion. Bretonbanquet 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't change a infobox developed and maintained by a Wikiproject without discussing it with them first. Totally agree with your revert there Bretonbanquet. "Nationality of Formula 1 Racing Licence" is far too long and makes it look ridiculous. It's an FIA Superlicence for starters not a 'Formula 1 Racing Licence' and also in a infobox about a driver's Formula One career it seems pretty obvious it refers to their nationality as used in F1 racing. AlexJ 20:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was pretty obvious too, but I wondered if it was just me being too close to it. Firman's nationality is also clearly explained in the article text anyway. As for the infobox, I was originally going to leave it as changed by the editor I was in discussion with, but it got on my nerves so much I had to revert it :) I am sure that people here can do a better job of adjusting it if they feel there is a need. Bretonbanquet 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alain Prost

Formula One World Championship career
Nationality	French
Active years	1980–1991, 1993
Teams	McLaren, Renault, Ferrari, Williams
Entries	202 (199 starts)
Championships	4 (1985, 1986, 1989, 1993)
Wins	51
Podiums	106
Career points	768.5 (798.5)
Pole positions	33
Fastest laps	41
First entry	1980 Argentine Grand Prix
First win	1981 French Grand Prix
Last win	1993 German Grand Prix
Last entry	1993 Australian Grand Prix

I'm afraid to say I don't think it is all that obvious. I think when the casual observer sees the infobox at right, they interpret it as saying "Alain Prost is French", not "Alain Prost drove in Formula One using a French racing licence". I've thought for a while that it would be good if we could clarify the meaning of the "Nationality" field in the infobox, but I couldn't work out how to do it without making the infobox look ugly. Here are some options I considered; perhaps a modification of one of them might be suitable:

• add "(as specified on the racing licence)" (or something like that) in teeny-weeny text under the word "Nationality"
• add "(as specified on the racing licence)" as a footnote for the word "Nationality" - but then every page including the template would need to have a Footnotes/References section (note that most of them probably already do)
• Put an asterisk after the word "Nationality" and include " * as specified on the racing licence" in teeny weeny text as a note inside the infobox, at the bottom

Other points to note:

• Nationality used to be beneath the "Formula One World Championship Career" banner, but it was moved above the banner so that it could be used as a common attribute for drivers who had multiple motor-racing infoboxes, e.g. John Surtees. Perhaps that was a bad move; maybe we should move it back under the banner (although I don't think that would necessarily stop people misinterpreting it, if we don't add some kind of explanatory note).
• Drivers (like Ralph Firman) who have used multiple racing licences with different nationalities are going to be tricky no matter what we do.
• I support Bretonbanquet's action in reverting the change, pending discussion and agreement here.

DH85868993 11:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur with DH. Guroadrunner 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How about putting an invisible note in the template?--Diniz (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with this, but what would th3 hidden text say? Guroadrunner 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious for most people, that the "nationality" specified for any sportsman is the nationality for which he/she competed. This is not true just for motorsport, it's the same in many other sports too. Footballer Michael Owen lived in Wales as a boy but has always been playing for England in international tournaments, so he should be deemed as English. And what about someone with double citizenship, like Nico Rosberg, I think it is obviously better just to state that he is German in the infobox and go to a lengthier description in the artice text. I have another possible solution from the ones DH85868993 sketches above: make the word "nationality" a link and link it to an article about the FIA super licence. John Anderson 17:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We should just get rid of the "Nationality" bit, and have "Place of birth" instead. That removes all the ambiguity of it. Readro 20:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really solve the matter either though, because it's possible to be born in a country having never lived there, and having no citizenship and/or passport relating to that country and nothing to do with the country other than having been born there. AlexJ 21:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... Ian Ashley, Mike Beuttler, Lorenzo Bandini for example. I like John Anderson's idea about making "nationality" a link which leads to a superlicence article. Bretonbanquet 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I also like John Anderson's idea, although perhaps the target of the link should have a broader context, e.g. Racing licence, which means it could also be used for non-F1 and motorcycle racers. -- DH85868993 02:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the link, although I don't think it would completely solve the problem. Would changing the text to read 'Racing Nationality' not do the job? ('Competed for' would be another option). It would also defuse the arguments over politically charged nationalities. A very few drivers might then have more than one racing nationality (I've a vague recollection that Bertrand Gachot raced under two different flags in F1 (Luxembourg and Belgium?), and Firman raced under different flags at different levels.) In the very few cases where this is relevant it could be footnoted appropriately. 4u1e 09:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Another variation would be to replace the word "Nationality" with "Racing licence". DH85868993 13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gachot was the only driver in history to be given dispensation to run under the European flag due to his unusually multi-cultural background. Readro 11:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to say that I'm opposed to having the racing license nationality in the infobox. I think it should be the driver's actual nationality. For instance, in GP2 there is Andreas Zuber. He is Austrian, but races with a United Arab Emirates license purely because that is where he lives. It seems daft to me to describe him as Arabian but that is what would happen if the racing license nationality was used. I would rather have Zuber down as an Austrian as that is what he identifies as. Readro 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not entirely correct. The nationality that appears on your racing license is the same one that appears on your passport but not the same thing as the country of your racing license. If you are a Frenchman living in Germany, you can race with a German license, but the nationality displayed would still be French. In order to race as German, you would need to have German nationality as well. --Pc13 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're both right. The rules differ at different levels. In international competition a driver competes for the country which issues his racing license, which has nothing to do with his own nationality. However, for FIA world championships (including F1) it's the passport nationality of the driver that is used. The relevant regulation is at para 112 of the FIA International Sporting Regulations. In Zuber's case, GP2 doesn't seem to be an FIA championship (it doesn't appear on the list here), so I assume his license is issued by the UAE racing authority. 4u1e 09:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the nationality should be in the infobox, as the nationality competed for. The link should go to an article on racing licenses, as 4u1e suggested. If the driver have multiple citizenships, that could be mentioned in a footnote. As for myself, e.g., here on Wikipedia as in most other circumstanses, I see my self as an American, but I also have Swedish citizenship. John Andersson 10:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)¹

¹ John Anderson is also a Swedish citizen, but write on Wikipedia as an American.

Issues with section headings brought up on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

User:SandyGeorgia has brought up the fact that, per MoS on Headings, section names must not repeat, which in the Malaysian article, and I believe in most of the F1 article that have race reports have sections repeating. I tend to use:

• Report
  • Pre-race
  • Qualifying
  • Race
• Classification
  • Qualifying
  • Race
• Notes
• References
• External links

I've brought up the point that 1994 San Marino Grand Prix passed FA status despite sections repeating. Nethertheless, if she decides not to support the article, it could well be heading for a FA-fail. Is there any alternatives we could use? I'm struggling to think of ay at the moment.... (on a side note I've nominated 2007 French Grand Prix for FA status) Davnel03 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for this is incase of [[2007_Malaysian_Grand_Prix#Race]] style links. The Mediawiki engine can now handle sections with the same title providing that the capitalisation for both is exactly the same, in this case, the Table of Contents links correctly manages to link to 2007_Malaysian_Grand_Prix#Race for the first one and 2007_Malaysian_Grand_Prix#Race2 for the second. However manually linking to [[2007_Malaysian_Grand_Prix#Race]] will always go to the first reference section, which is why the MOS advises against it. Possible solution would be to swap Classification for Results and then change subheadings Qualifying > Qualifying Classification and Race > Race Classification. The terms Qualifying Classification and Race Classification are used by the FIA. AlexJ 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

F1 race report categories

We currently have two schemes for categorising F1 race reports. The Argentine, Australian, Austrian, Bahrain and Belgian F1 race reports are included in categories called "<country> Grand Prix race reports", which are subcategories of Category:Formula One race reports, e.g.

Category:Formula One race reports

Category:Australian Grand Prix race reports

1985 Australian Grand Prix

The race reports for all the other countries are included in categories called "<country> Grand Prix", which are subcategories of Category:Formula One race reports, e.g.

Category:Formula One race reports

Category:British Grand Prix

1985 British Grand Prix

Obviously, we should standardise on one scheme or the other. One point to note is that using either scheme, we will have subcategories of Category:Formula One race reports containing articles which are not Formula One race reports, e.g. Category:British Grand Prix contains Silverstone Circuit (which is not a Formula One race report) and Category:Belgian Grand Prix race reports contains 1931 Belgian Grand Prix (which is not a Formula One race report). Maybe we care about that; maybe not. If we do care, I think the only practical way to ensure that Category:Formula One race reports (and its descendents) contains only Formula One race reports would be to remove all the "xxx Grand Prix" and "xxx Grand Prix race reports" categories from Category:Formula One race reports and put all the F1 race reports directly into Category:Formula One race reports. (Another option would be to have separate subcats for F1 race reports and non-F1 race reports for each country, but that feels like overcategorisation).

Thoughts? (Apologies if I haven't explained this very clearly) DH85868993 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't have just one big category - that would be too difficult to navigate. The pre-F1 Grand Prix reports should stay because, in the example you use, the category is "Belgian Grand Prix race reports", of which the 1931 race is. Don't forget that categories can be subcategories of more than one category, for instance, "Belgian Grand Prix race reports" is a subcategory of "Formula One race reports" and "Grand Prix race reports". Readro 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure whether the fact that Category:Belgian Grand Prix race reports was a subcategory of Category:Formula One race reports implied that everything included in Category:Belgian Grand Prix race reports was a Formula One race report. If it's generally understood/accepted that the parent category only has to apply to some of the contents of the subcategory, then that's fine. DH85868993 23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should just be Category:Australian Grand Prix. Get rid of the race report part. Davnel03 14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the best thing is to keep "<country> Grand Prix" and change the other ones. The categories will contain mostly race reports but also everything else that has to do with the Grand Prix, like the name suggests. Right now, the "race report" bit is only confusing. Bobby Doorknobs 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved all the race reports out of the "race reports" categories into the "<country> Grand Prix" categories. DH85868993 04:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

<year> in <country>

BTW Some reports also have the category "<year> in <country>". Should they be there? Bobby Doorknobs 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think <year> in <country> should stay. DH85868993 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I just started an attempt to help out with the category adding & sorting, but I'm not entirely sure about the order.
<year> F1 race reports, <country> Grand Prix, and <year> in <country> -- right? Bobby Doorknobs 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Race report issues: consensus needed

Hello everyone. I have recently joined wpf1 and as you may have noticed, I've spent some time working on the 1999 race reports. There are still a lot of things that need standardizing, and before I start working on other seasons, there are some things I would like to point out/discuss here. Thanks! Bobby Doorknobs 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bug in race info box? I noticed that the "fastest lap" entry in the race info box is automatically completed with the total number of race laps, like this: "on lap 25 of 60". This works fine as long as the fastest driver has completed the full race distance, but in any other case the displayed number of laps is incorrect. Am I missing something here, or does this need an additional entry in the info box template?

Upon consideration, why do we need "of N" at all? The total number of laps is listed in the infobox anyway. I suggest we remove it, to avoid any potential confusion. DH85868993 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The "of xx" does seem a bit redundant with the race total already listed under distance. Removal to avoid confusion gets my support also. AlexJ 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with AlexJ the "of xx" part isn't really needed. Davnel03 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me; could someone fix this please? Bobby Doorknobs 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 06:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Text alignment in result tables. I don't know if this has been suggested before, but I think the result tables would look a lot cleaner if some of the columns would be aligned differently. The Time/Retired column in particular would read a lot better if it was aligned right, and using right or center on the other "number columns" (car no, laps, grid position) would also improve the overall look. I realize that adopting this would mean making a lot of changes, but as it is, the vast majority of race reports has hardly been touched and needs processing anyway. I've created some examples in my sandbox to give an idea of what it looks like. Comments anyone?

I actually prefer the current alignment. I don't really like centred columns where the contents go wide, narrow, wide, wide, narrow, such as in the "Grid" column. DH85868993 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Same as DH; the current alignment is OK as it is. Davnel03 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok well it was just an idea. We'll see how things develop in the future :) Bobby Doorknobs 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hour format in race time: in the example race report, the race time of the winner is displayed like this: 1:35:25.651. I think this: 1'35:25.651 reads better - not here, but it does in the tables - especially if the alignment isn't changed. Objections?

The Hour Format in race time came up at WP Motorsport a while back. Apparently the Manual of Style recommends using the colons as opposed to the apostrophe/quotes. AlexJ 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, here is the discussion. The consensus was to use colons throughout all the motorsport articles. DH85868993 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well at least that means I don't have to change everything :) Bobby Doorknobs 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• How to deal with disqualifications? There doesn't seem to be a real standard for this (?). The problem with "officially" listing disqualifications in the result tables is that blank cells should be used, and some information is lost because of this: laps, time/retired and grid position. I found that the 2004 Canadian Grand Prix has a nice solution for this by listing both the official and unofficial results, and I'm thinking of adopting this strategy (don't like the strike through text though). The only downside is that pages get filled with (too) many result tables, and that's why I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a [show/hide] function in the result tables. This would also make it easier to add more tables and merge them into the report, because they will no longer disrupt the layout of the article. I have no idea how to do this or if this is even possible, but hopefully someone else does :)

Anyone care to comment on this? Another question regarding dsq's: some comments on race report talkpages claim that disqualified drivers do not autmatically get moved to the bottom of the list, i.e. the classification is the same, but with DSQ as result and "Disqualified" as description. This sounds logical to me (see for example M.Schumacher in the 1997 Formula One season), but there are many variations in the race reports - a standard is required. Bobby Doorknobs 02:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference is to leave disaqualified drivers in their "correct place" in the table, along with details of laps completed, race time, etc and just change the contents of the "Pos" column to "DSQ". Then it's immediately obvious where they would have been classified if they hadn't been disqualified, and which drivers benefitted from the disqualification. I don't like the idea of having two separate results tables for each race which had a disqualification. I'm ambivalent about the show/hide for results tables, but it seems like a lot of work for probably not much gain. If we hide the results tables, many of our race reports won't currently have much to show! DH85868993 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - after some thought I agree that your 'treatment' of disqualified drivers is the best option, although it may not be clear enough for people who are unfamiliar with F1. Perhaps a background color would help (again like the 2004 Canadian Grand Prix), but we'll get to that later. For now I will revert some of my earlier edits and put the dsq's back into their 'correct' position. As for the [Show/Hide] function, that's not really useful right now and you make a good point about the stubs - hiding the results would make the article disappear :) Still, I don't think it's a bad idea. Personally I am in favor of putting the results in their corresponding sections instead of at the bottom of the article, i.e. qualifying results after the qualifying summary, etc. The only problem is that doing this breaks up the article unless you float the tables or use show/hide. I would like to experiment with this but I don't know how it works. Bobby Doorknobs 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Other

I've noticed you put a flag on the 1999 Hungarian Grand Prix race report. No offence, but we have never put flags there before. Davnel03 19:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know. The flags are just temporarily to make it look a bit better - I remove them again once a race info box has been added. Just being creative but I'll stop doing it if more people object. Bobby Doorknobs 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the flag up top, personally. Anyway, new topic: on the 1999 Hungarian Grand Prix page, the race results box conflicts with the side box on 800x600 screens like mine. How do we fix this? (I'm thinking "col-begin / col-1-of-3 / etc / col-end" code to force it to the left). Guroadrunner 10:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the wikitext you refer to, but the best way to fix this is adding a race report :) Some similar stub-articles appear strange because of the infobox on higher resoltions as well. It's a bit annoying but I don't know how to fix it. About the 'flags' - I like them too but it's silly to have two flags (once an infobox has been added) so they're gone now. As a 'solution', perhaps it would be nice to make the flag in the infobox appear a bit larger? Bobby Doorknobs 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Time for an archive?

I think it's time for an archive, this page is now incredibaly long and has been going since April. I would go and do it myself, but I don't know how to. Davnel03 12:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've archived all discussions which have been dormant since the end of June to Archive Page 10 (which is 199kb in size!). That includes a few discussions which hadn't reached a resolution - feel free to transfer back any discussions which you think should still be on this page. -- DH85868993 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this -- may we consider having a bot do the archiving work? Werdnabot does archiving for some WikiProjects (and user pages) Guroadrunner 10:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've archived it - a bot could be used if really wanted, but personally I prefer to have more control over such things. violet/riga (t) 10:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari Formula One car articles

Amedeofelix has expressed the opinion (on various talk pages) that some of the Ferrari Formula One car articles (specifically Ferrari 312B, Ferrari 312T, Ferrari 126 C and Ferrari 412T) are misleading, because they suggest that all the cars in each series are the same design, when they are not, and that the articles should be split (e.g. Ferrari 412T should be split into Ferrari 412T1 and Ferrari 412T2). (Amedeofelix, please advise if I have misrepresented your viewpoint). What do others think? DH85868993 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

One alternative to splitting the articles would be to add "series" to the end of the article name, e.g. rename Ferrari 312T as Ferrari 312T series (with appropriate updates to the article text). DH85868993 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You put accross exactly what I was getting at. Another alternative is to have the cars listed individually and correctly on the main page (in this case Scuderia Ferrari) e.g. 312B3-73 and 312B3-74 etc. (in exactly this way), but have them all link through to the same page which is titled in the manner suggested above using "series". --Amedeo Felix 15:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of project banner to article talk pages

Over the past couple of weeks, various members of the project have added the project banner to quite a few article talk pages. On the assumption that there are still some further articles which need to have the banner added, for future talk page updates, would it be a good idea to add the talkheader template at the same time? DH85868993 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I (among others) am working to put the project banner on all race report articles, and subsequently rate them. As an addition (or alternative) for the talkheader, you may want to take a look at the To-do list that some of us recently started using. Right now they have been added to the 1997 and 1999 season race reports, and I've also used them to get some 2000 race reports up to "Start-Class". Bobby Doorknobs 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

F1 disambiguation

An editor recently redirect 'F1' away from Formula One to the F1 (disambiguation) page, without discussion anywhere that I can see. I have reversed the change, but am bringing it up here in case I'm out of tune with the hive mind ;-). My reasoning is that on the 'google test', Formula One motor racing is overwhelmingly the most common usage of the term F1. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article."

I can see that a case might be made that other usages being jointly prime (F1 key for example), but the google test - which is outside the Formula One bubble that I probably live in - seems to disprove it.

I will contact the editor who made the change and ask them to discuss as well. Cheers. 4u1e 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of checking out links from within Wikipedia. So far I can report that the vast majority of wikilinks direct to 'F1' concern Formula One motor racing and not other meanings. I'll have a look at the stuff on the disambiguation page as well. 4u1e 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also looked at the number of pages linking to the other meanings of F1 on the disambiguation page. Formula One has upwards of 6000 pages linking to it. The next highest contender is Fujita scale, which has around 250 pages linking to it. The Fujita scale has six levels, of which F1 is only one, so it is likely many of those links do not specifically relate to the use of the term 'F1' either.

Sorry to have gone on at length, but I want to be sure that I wasn't taking a unduly narrow view of the use of 'F1'. However it seems clear that on the internet at large and within Wikipedia, massively the most common usage of 'F1' is to refer to the sport of Formula One motor racing, so by Wikipedia's own guidance 'F1' should link to the Formula One page. Cheers. 4u1e 15:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I Googled F1, and the first 5 pages of result contain 49 Formula One related links and one link for Bluetooth headset with the model number F1. It's by far the most common definition than any of the others so the auto redirect to Formula One with the disambig. link at the top seems to be the correct interpretation of policy. AlexJ 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i redid the change, i agree with F1 refering mostly to Formula 1, and i agree with the google results too; if we had just a few other F1 topics, then direct redirect to Formula 1 might be ok, we have Fujita, Help key, and many more. however, if that's the policy, you can change my changes back to the original!! Kmanoj 17:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at FM which I think a similar situation to F1. The most common usage of FM is to refer to Frequency Modulation in radio. However there are many other uses of FM (Ferrous metal, FM Towns computer, a domain name .fm, a book, several bands etc.) but because Freq. Mod. is by far the most common usage it auto redirects to that. In the case of Formula One we have something similar, perhaps even more so because F1 as in the computer key goes to the Function Keys article and F1 as in the Fujita scale goes to Fujita scale so the F1's in each case aren't notable enough to have their own topics. The relevant guideline is "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." - for me that describes F1/Formula One. AlexJ 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You had me at FM.

Scuderia Italia

During Scuderia Italia's time in F1, was the team only ever refered to as Scuderia Italia, or did the official entry lists and stuff list them as BMS Scuderia Italia, which appears to be their full name. I asking this because I am considering changing the title of the Scuderia Italia article to reflect the team's correct name as it stands at the moment at least. The359 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the season articles, the team seems to be entered most often as just Scuderia Italia. If those listings are correct, I think this name should be used. It is also the most commonly known name and I would imagine best reflects the team's identity. We could be very technical, though I believe the current format works best. Dale-DCX 06:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," which to me means the most common name which in this case is Scuderia Italia. AlexJ 10:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Which, by way of precedent, is the logic we used for Brabham. The normal name on the entry list was Motor Racing Developments, but that would be horribly confusing. 4u1e 17:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari templates

All the Ferrari F1 car articles now contain the (recently-created) "Scuderia Ferrari" template: {{Scuderia Ferrari}} and the older "Ferrari Formula 1 cars" template: {{Ferrari Formula 1 cars}} I think they probably don't need both. Which one should go? (Or could/should they be combined in some way?) DH85868993 12:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the latter should go. Perhaps the first should have the cars split up into decades? AlexJ 12:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The new one is more like other F1 boxes--— Typ932^{T | C}  12:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, when I said the latter I meant the 2nd one shown above which is the earlier one. To clarify, keep the one which looks like the current style (first one shown above). AlexJ 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ferrari cars one should go. Davnel03 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Any further views on this? If not, I'll remove the "timeline" template soon. DH85868993 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "timeline" template from the articles. DH85868993 10:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated {{Ferrari Formula 1 cars}} for deletion. Discussion here. DH85868993 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

McLaren's results in Hungary

The results tables in McLaren, McLaren Grand Prix results and McLaren MP4-22 currently show McLaren's results in Hungary as "EX". I think this is incorrect; I think the results tables should show the results as 1st and 4th, but with footnotes indicating that no constructor's points were awarded. What do others think? DH85868993 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; that's how I originally entered the results before they were changed.--Diniz (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The results table in the McLaren article now show the results as 4th and 1st, but McLaren Grand Prix results and McLaren MP4-22 still show "EX". chem_tom 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think consistency is required whichever way we decide to go. I think the positions should be given (after all the cars entered by the team did finish 1st and 4th, just the constructors points weren't awarded.) with the constructors championship footnote added. Of course the appeal could succeed and none of this will be needed. AlexJ 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the articles should all read that the cars finished in 1st and 4th. However, there should be note stating the car and the constructor (in their respected articles) scored no points. A note similar to the one on F1.com would be wise: Note - McLaren were not allowed to score constructors' points in the Hungarian Grand Prix as penalty for allowing Fernando Alonso to impede Lewis Hamilton during qualifying. After the appeal (if it does happen) we should adjust the results accordingly. Since the team was not excluded, they should not be listed as such. Dale-DCX 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated McLaren Grand Prix results and McLaren MP4-22 as per this discussion. DH85868993 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Question on Forti article

I just came across this article a short while ago. While the article looks nicely set out, I think there is one distinct problem with it. The table located here, wouldn't it be better if it was located near the bottom of the page. I think the table splits up the text and makes it harder to read. I think it would be better at the bottom of the page. What do other users think about this table located in it's current position? Davnel03 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I put the table there is so it keeps the F3000 involvement of the team in the same place, so if someone wants to cross-reference the text and the results, they won't have to jump between the top and bottom of the article. I appreciate that it breaks up the article text, but I believe it makes more sense for the results tables to correspond to their relevant section, rather than grouping them together in a big lump.--Diniz (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just came across this article a short while ago? You mean April? Anyway, I'm inclined to agree that the results should go at the bottom to avoid breaking up the prose. Be interesting to hear what others think. AlexJ 19:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the table should be moved so as to be consistent with other F1 articles. I can't find an example for a constructor (admittedly I haven't looked hard) but Juan Pablo Montoya and Jacques Villeneuve are examples. BeL1EveR 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I'll move the table as requested.--Diniz (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Toro Rosso's cars

I proposed this question a while back and I don't think I ever got a conclusive answer. The articles on Scuderia Toro Rosso's cars has them titled as Scuderia Toro Rosso STR1 and Scuderia Toro Rosso STR2. This has always bugged me because of the fact that the full team name is used. We have Ferrari F2007 and not Scuderia Ferrari F2007, Red Bull RB3 and not Red Bull Racing RB3. So why are these cars not Toro Rosso STR1 and Toro Rosso STR2?

I would prefer to see the articles titled "Toro Rosso STR1" and "Toro Rosso STR2", on the basis that we describe the cars as just "Toro Rosso-Ferraris" in the race reports. DH85868993 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm 50/50 with this one, but I think we should just leave it as it is now. Davnel03 07:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Super Aguri also had me thinking as I'm not sure if those should be shortened as well. However Super Aguri does seem to be the short name of the team, but a lot of people refer to them as just Aguri as well.

I prefer to see "Super Aguri" in full used everywhere. DH85868993 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see Super Aguri everywhere too. Davnel03 07:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Davnel and DH regarding Super Aguri -- in the States, we call it the Super Aguri team (or, colloquially, the Super Best Friends team). Guroadrunner 10:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? The359 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with shortening the Scuderia Toro Rosso articles to just Toro Rosso - as that is what they are more commonly referred to, but Super Aguri should say the same, definately. Lradrama 12:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lradrama - Toro Rosso. Super Aguri. Bretonbanquet 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Toro Rosso and Super Aguri seems right as Scuderia means team (not literally but in this usage) and we don't say Williams Team FW21. AlexJ 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Readro 15:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since most of the "regulars" seem to be in agreement, I'll make the change to the two Toro Rosso articles. DH85868993 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the articles. DH85868993 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Formula One Results

I'm adding the F1 results to the Zakspeed page but i'm finding conflicting results. On Jonathan Palmer's page, it says he RET from the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix and says he did not enter the last 5 1985 races (blank). But on the Zakspeed 841 chassis page, it says he DNS the 1985 San Marino GP and says he was INJ for the last 5 1985 races. Can Someone help? Eddie6705 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Palmer's page is slightly wrong. He DNS at San Marino 1985, after a misfire in warm-up. After the Dutch race he broke his leg at a sports car meeting, the same meeting at which Stefan Bellof was killed, I think. Zakspeed did not attend the Italian GP, and after that Danner drove for two races. Zakspeed did not go to South Africa or Australia. Bretonbanquet 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so i will put down that he was injured for the two races that the team turned up for and blank for the rest. Eddie6705 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds perfect :) Bretonbanquet 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Alonso-Hamilton spat

If this becomes an even bigger issue, might it be appropriate for the rivalry and falling out between Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton to warrant its own article, similar to 2007 Formula One espionage controversy?--Diniz (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there would be enough for a separate article, with all such details put in the 2007 season article. violet/riga (t) 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If Alonso or Hamilton leaves McLaren at the end of the season, we should create one. We could create one at the moment, but what would be a suitable title? Infact, I was thinking we merge the espionage controversy into a article called 2007 Formula One season controversies. There has been quite a few this season:

• Customer car row.
• Alonso/Hamilton.
• Espionage.

There might be one or two that I can't think of right now, what do you guyz think of that idea? Davnel03 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have an article, nor has it been suggested, for the Alain Prost/Ayrton Senna spat that occured during their time at McLaren and that if anything was worse than this (at least at present). AlexJ 17:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not nearly big enough for a separate article. Readro 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 Formula One season controversies is a possibility, but Senna-Prost doesn't have an individual article, which I think should set the precident. I'd also like to add that I'm opposed to any of the proposed articles in this section being created before the end of the season; we don't know the final outcome of the espionage, or a reliable account of the Alonso-Hamilton relationship behind closed doors and its repercussions for the future. BeL1EveR 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Alonso's role/perspective covered at his article, same for Hamilton. And McLaren perspective (and the 'equality' rule which is provoking the dispute) is covered at that article. Nowhere near complicated enough for its own article - in contrast to the highly complex espionage case. Mark83 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, McLaren issued a press release from Lewis Hamilton claiming that Hamilton and Alonso are back on speaking terms, have discussed things, and are even planning to spend the 3 week "holiday" together a bit. This makes it seem to me that this is hardly worthy of its own article, unless things escalate more in the weeks to come. The359 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, and if they make up again and go skipping into the sunset hand in hand after all and live happily ever after, then I think no such article need be created. If the situation between the two worsens, and especially if it results in vicious quarrells, or one of the pair leaving the team, then yes, an article should be created. Lradrama 10:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename for Category:Formula One tire manufacturers

Someone has suggested that Category:Formula One tire manufacturers be renamed as Category:Formula One tyre manufacturers (i.e. tire --> tyre) on the basis that "Formula One has always been far more weighted towards Europe and Great Britain than America, and [they] believe the American spelling is innappropriate given the context". What do people think? DH85868993 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. violet/riga (t) 07:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a need for this category? This could just as easily be Motorsports tire manufacturers, and the list would be nearly exactly the same with a few choice additions. The359 10:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A good point - it's a little misleading too considering that there is only one manufacturer now. Perhaps there could be an article about Tyres in Formula One, giving a history of the manufacturers and being linked to from their respective articles. There would be enough content for a separate article, detailing the different types of tyre, the sizes and compounds, delamination (if specific enough to F1), etc. violet/riga (t) 10:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would consider a category called tyres in F1 as leaning towards current day events, which would be pretty trivial because there's only one manufacturer now. (P.S. I would favour it as 'tyres' not 'tires'.) An article would be better, or perhaps a section of the same name in the Formula 1 article. Lradrama 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Davnel03 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started that article using content from Formula One car. violet/riga (t) 10:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a todo list on the talk page with ideas on how to expand the article. violet/riga (t) 11:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - renaming it is a very minor issue and violates the "spelling revert" rule Wikipedia has (i.e. don't edit things just because they are spelled differently). It's borderline "who cares?" in my humble opinion. However, I would say the category may be unnecessary to begin with and may be worth either

• A) renaming to Motorsports tire manufacturers or
• B) putting up for a CfD

Guroadrunner 10:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to go through CfD as it has been discussed here. I've deleted it because the consensus appears to be against it and agrees that it is misleading. violet/riga (t) 11:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think deleting the category was a bit hasty - I think the discussion above contains just as much support for renaming the category as it does for deleting it. Some further thoughts:

• Regarding the suggestion that the category was misleading, I would point out that (a) there was a clear statement at the top of the category that it included both current and former F1 tyre manufacturers statement at the top of the category that it consisted of manufacturers whose tires had been used in Formula One and (b) Category:Formula One constructors contains mostly former F1 constructors; Category:Formula One drivers contains mostly former F1 drivers; Category:Formula One circuits contains mostly former F1 circuits - well, you get the picture...
• I'm not super-keen on the "F1 tyres records" table being included in both List of Formula One records and Tyres in Formula One (as well as half of it being included in Bridgestone) - I think it's duplication of information and that there's a risk of the tables getting out of synch. If we really do want it in both places, perhaps we should include it in a template?
• Consider whether Tyres in Formula One should be renamed as Formula One tyres, for consistency with Formula One car and Formula One engines

And finally:

• If the category is to remain deleted, I suggest the associated talk page is also deleted.

Just my $0.02 - DH85868993 12:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Lewis Hamilton talkpage

There's a discussion going on on the talkpage of Hamilton's article, with an editor suggesting that the neutrality of some of the article is disputed. The discussion is here. Davnel03 13:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Portions of the lede are trying to create a storybook it looks like:

• When he was nine, he approached McLaren team owner Ron Dennis at an awards ceremony and told him he would drive for McLaren one day; four years later, Hamilton was signed to the McLaren driver development support programme. (non-sourced)

Guroadrunner 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also in the lede:

"Hamilton became European karting champion in 2000 with maximum points and made a successful transition to racing cars the following year."

Aren't karts a form of racecar?? Guroadrunner 10:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think many people make a distinction between karts and "proper racing cars" - consider Nick_Heidfeld#Career_history which is divided into 2 sections: "Karting" and "Formula". DH85868993 13:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Guroadrunner 07:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2011 Speculated Race Schedule

I 've just looked at the 2011 season page and there is now 24 speculated grands prix. How much evidence is needed before a grand prix can be added to the list? Eddie6705 11:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is getting a bit ridiculous. Currently none of the rounds are sourced - I suggest we have an extra column to differentiate between confirmed rounds (that is circuits which have already signed a contract that goes as far as 2011) and rumoured rounds. Each round must have a citation from a reliable source. Thoughts? AlexJ 11:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that 2011 is too far in the future to have a page. If there's any content worth saving it should be put in Future of Formula One. Readro 11:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good idea Alex J. I think that extra column should be added as it would make the list clearer. Eddie6705 12:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Having an article for a Formula One season four years in the future is taking things rather far. I agree with the idea that it should be placed in Future of Formula One. The article could be very misleading, with only speculation fuelling the content of the article as of yet. Lradrama 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fussed either way, but I suggest we do try and come up with an agreed time period for future seasons articles (2 seasons in advance perhaps) which barring exceptional circumstances and a discussion means we only have articles for 1/2/3/4 seasons in advance, creating a new one at the end/start of each season. Any stuff that's further ahead than this would go in the future of F1 article. Having an agreed guideline would make things easier IMO. AlexJ 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We had this discussion earlier. Anyway, I think the 2011 article should be deleted or merge. Davnel03 19:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree we should have future articles, like say, for 2008/09 but as I said before, 2011 might be overstepping-the-mark. Lradrama 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion didn't agree on what would be a reasonable period, only that 2011 is too far ahead. AlexJ 22:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

F1 driver birth and death date references

In the F1 driver articles, do we need/want references for dates of birth and death? If so, are we happy with oldracingcars.com Where Are They Now? as a reference? DH85868993 11:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In the words of WP:REF, we only need provide an inline citation for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I can't see that birth dates are in question for most drivers. They are supurious. As for the reliability of oldracingcars.com I would say that it is as good as the web gets. The site is updated frequently, and has had material contributed by some big names in motorsport journalism. Pyrope 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a claim of plagiarism on the AtlasF1 forum because some of the dates of birth and death, particularly for North American drivers, had never been published before and were obtained through hard research. These were then taken from the Where Are They Now site and published on Wikipedia without acknowledging where the information had come from. The situation seems to have died down a bit now, but out of courtesy, we really ought to acknowledge our souces. Readro 11:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I always find the ITV Sport Guide - Grand Prix (year) book useful for driver birth dates and other such details if you want to consider using non-internet refs. Don't know if any of you have read/purchased those guides but it's very useful. Just an idea. Lradrama 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For some obscure drivers the actual dates may be challenged. On that basis you should cite. However, you can't plagiarise a fact! They either were or were not born on the date claimed. If the information is now in the public arena, through AtlasF1, ORC or anywhere else, it is fair game. As an example, map makers have to introduce deliberate errors to their products so that they can be legally protected. By all means be polite and cite them as a general source, but they don't require inline citation. Pyrope 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an old saying better to be safe than sorry, in this case better to be safe by inserting the references or to be sorry by having somebody possibly removing them. Yeah, references do need to be added. Davnel03 13:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty low priority to get DOB referenced. Do it if you happen to be working on an article but I wouldn't say we need a drive to do it. I can't think of any challenges/disputes since the WP was set up three years ago. AlexJ 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

References & Footnotes

I was totally unaware of the clause about "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" in WP:REF. In hindsight, I've probably been adding lots of unnecessary inline refs to the race report articles for things like pole position times, lap on which fastest lap was set, etc. In future, when updating a race report, I'll just add a blanket ref to the sources used (e.g. the specific race report page at www.formula1.com, the relevant issue of AUTOCOURSE, the relevant volume of Lang's Grand Prix!, etc) in a "References" or "Sources" section at the bottom, and discuss any errors in or conflicts between the sources on the talk page, as Bobby Doorknobs has been doing for the 1999 race report articles, e.g. talk:1999 Australian Grand Prix. -- DH85868993 04:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point - I meant to bring this up earlier. There are race reports that have 50+ footnotes, and that's just not necessary when you look at the explanation in WP:REF. Al it does is make the articles harder to edit and verify. If you start off with a few references that cover most of the article and use footnotes for errors and exceptions, that should be enough and it keeps the articles accessible. About the listing of reference errors on the talk pages: this is always a good idea but I was under the impression that mentioning errors on the talkpage alone is not enough (because it's not part of the article), and you would still need some footnotes in the text. I haven't done this yet in the 99 season articles because I'm not sure if it's necessary; does anyone know if you could get away with 'talkpage only'? Bobby Doorknobs 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't. A reference can be more specified and discussed at the talk page, e.g. discussions about the accuracy of the source, but the real reference should always be noted in the article proper. John Andersson 10:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19

Per a discussion with 4u1e; we've agreed to put the article on peer review; feel free to comment on possible improvements that could be made here. Thanks. Davnel03 15:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Monaco GP Redirect

Currently Monaco GP is redirecting to Super Monaco GP, a video game. Compare this to most other Country GP which go to Country Grand Prix. Are we happy with this redirect, or should we discuss with the Video Games Wikiproject changing it to a disambiguation page containing Monaco Grand Prix, Monaco Grand Prix (video game) and Super Monaco GP (and it's sequel)? AlexJ 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the redirect pointing to a disambiguation page called Monaco Grand Prix (disambiguation) containing links as described above. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to create disambiguation pages for most of the Grands Prix, to address the issue discussed here. DH85868993 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, disambig. The359 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look and decided I don't like the current situation at all. I fully support the disambiguation page idea. Lradrama 12:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I don't think that altering a redirect page to point to a disambiguation page justifies faffing with another project. For now the page just links to the computer games, but we can alter that as needs be. Pyrope 13:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Pyrope. Does anyone have any objections to me creating similar disambiguation pages for other F1 Grands Prix where there are other reasonable claimants to the "<country> Grand Prix" title (typically a motorcycle or speedway Grand Prix)? DH85868993 04:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. There are plenty of other xxx Grand Prix claimants out there. Motocross, MotoGP, athletics, powerboats, and even squash all have a "British Grand Prix", for example. Pyrope 07:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created (and linked) disambiguation pages for all the F1 Grands Prix which have corresponding motorcycle and/or speedway GPs. DH85868993 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 British Grand Prix

Is currently on hold for GAC. The main author is currently AWOL. Is anyone interested in filling out the lead and the main body of the race? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: GA failed. Guroadrunner 11:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 French Grand Prix GA status

Hmm, finally had a read of this. Quite how it made GA status I'm not sure, it fails on quite a few criteria. It appears that it didn't go through any sort of review process beyond one single editor giving it a unilateral thumbs up. I was half in mind to nominate for delisting straight away, but I realise that it does reflect a large amount of work even as it stands, so I think it should be given time for improvements to bring it up to standard before that happens. It makes no sense to delist, alter, then relist. I have left quite a few comments on the talk page. Pyrope 09:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is how the GA process works, the system falls down if the editor that reviews it doesn't enforce the criteria strictly enough. It's recommended that the reviewing editor gives a review of how well it meets each criteria, but that is optional. AlexJ 09:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this obviously fails on points 1 (Well Written) and 3 (Broad), and is marginal on another couple. I realise that LordHarris probably had the best of intentions, but there is no evidence that he did anything more than equate length with quality. Pyrope 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I would have failed it on the above and also on MOS things like excessive Wikilinking of every instance of a drivers name and some other terms, also possibly on a dodgy fair use claim on an image that probably doesn't meet FU criteria. As you say, makes sense to give it some time to be fixed until going through the delist process. I suggest in future, people wishing to nominate an article for GA/FA should ask someone from this project for a second opinion before submitting it. AlexJ 09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous comment, I believe the problem here is this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force/GAC backlog elimination drive. I'll try to assume good faith, but the number of articles reviewed in that period, and also the fact that articles that were failed straight away didn't count towards individual totals may suggest that the review wasn't of the thoroughness that should be expected. AlexJ 09:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Some background: This was the article User:Davnel03 improved to show that he was worthy of being unbanned. He further nominated several other 2007 season articles for GA, including attempting FA for the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix. I wrote to him initially asking him how he could think these articles were in good enough condition to pass GA, let alone FA, especially without asking for anyone else's assistance. I later when to User:Spartaz, the admin who unblocked Davnel03, requesting that he have a discussion with him regarding his jump to making sweeping changes to articles only days after being unbanned.

Spartaz specifically told him not to further nominate articles for GA or FA without discussion on their talk pages. This was in early July. French GP passed GA, Malaysian GP failed FA. However, the French GP was nominated for FA in August. No mention was made on that talk page nor here on WP:F1. That article also failed FA. Another user who I believe is not a member of WP:F1 has nominated the Malaysian GP for FA, which is failing miserably. The359 09:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He did on the other hand ask me about nominating Brabham BT19 for FA, and we agreed to peer review it first. (By the way, I really am interested in others comments on that article! I hope by now people know that I usually respond positively to criticism (in the constructive sense!) ;-)) I agree that the current year race articles being nominated at the moment aren't our best work as a project. I also firmly believe you should get a wide variety of views on articles before each stage in their development towards FA - to which end I've recently peer reviewed articles as diverse as Alexander Graham Bell, Rattray Castle, Youngstown, Ohio and Thoughts on the Education of Daughters to elicit views on BT19 (Did I mention BT19?) from editors 'cold' to F1. I don't, however, believe that editors should have to ask for views from here before submitting articles for GA or FA. Of course it makes much more sense to do so (which is why I asked Davnel to raise BT19's peer review here), but there are editors who do good work, but who also very much plough their own furrow and I'm not sure they should be held up by WPF1. 4u1e 10:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not required that they talk to WP:F1 before nominating. Really, if you alone have worked on an article, then you can nominate yourself if you feel adequete. But if the work has been done by committee, then I think the committee should certainly be aware of it. And I tend to think a lot of the 2007 race results pages are actually done by committee.

Also, BT what? British Telecom belongs somewhere else... The359 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pah! You just haven't appreciated the beauty of the single seater as opposed to the sports car yet. :D 4u1e 12:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't necessarily that WP:F1 should be asked, just it seems common sense to ask someone to look over it (most obvious choice would be someone from the WPF1, but it could be another editor with nothing to do with the project or at Peer Review) before submitting it so any mistakes that might have been missed can be cleared up and feedback can be received and actioned before putting it up for good/featured status. It was intended as a suggestion, rather than a requirement. AlexJ 10:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that personal pride ought to mean that most people ask for opinions of others (those in the know and the disinterested) before seeing their beloved articles shot down in flames at FA nomination. And isn't BT19 somewhere near Belfast? ;-p (I'll take a look later, I promise...) Pyrope 10:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The one I'm thinking of was in Australia last time I looked. :) I would have thought personal pride would have had the effect you describe, but apparently not. The reaction of some editors to comments at review remind me of someone I knew at University. I forget the exact terminology now, but when the compiler threw up errors in her coding, she just deleted the offending line. Hey Presto, problem solved, although six other errors would promptly show up as a result......She tended to end up with code that was compact, but minimally functional. ;-) 4u1e 11:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It works the same way in academic publishing in general, trust me! Pyrope 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I probably should of come here first so I apologise. However, I worked mostly on that article (see this diff), and thought it could pass GA status. I wasn't expecting it to go through with blinding colours - I knew there were one or two minor problems. I was expecting for the reviewer to possibly put the article on hold and tell me some problems with the article. I wasn't going to complain when it passed GA. Same with Malaysian article, although I did mention it further up the page, I made most of the edits round the race weekend (you just need to look at the history to find it out), so I nominated it for GA a while back. It passed. I nominated it for FA - which is still going on now (discussion [4]). Oh, and Canada 2007 is up for FA, and it seems like the nominator has failed to mention it on this talkpage. Davnel03 12:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't really have anything to apologise for, if these is any fault it lies with Lord Harris for passing it for GA without checking that it met the criteria! Pyrope 12:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I can't see the point of delisting it now, like Pyrope said earlier, I think we should improve the article until it meets GA level. Davnel03 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Brabham results

Diniz has very kindly done a full table of results for Brabham, which exists as a separate page at Brabham Grand Prix results. I was just double checking the details when I ran into an issue - Jack Brabham competed for the Brabham Racing Organisation at the 1963 Monaco Grand Prix, but he was driving a Lotus that day. For consistency in having the complete results we can go one of two ways:

1. Give all results scored for the constructor Brabham. (Two problems: Firstly, the table will be big for the early years, because in the mid 1960s there were up to seven Brabham cars entered in each race, albeit by different teams, and the team doing the entry would have to be specified. Secondly, in some seasons more than one engine type was used, so Brabham appears several times in the constructors championship (i.e. Brabham-Repco, Brabham-Climax, Brabham-Ford, all for the same year) This option is probably quite a lot more work.
2. Give all results scored by the Brabham team (Two problems: Firstly that occasionally in 1962 and 1963 Jack Brabham was entered by BRO in various Lotuses, Secondly that in some years other teams using Brabhams scored constructors' championship points for Brabham. Both problems mean that the points 'scored' by the Brabham team do not equate to the points scored by Brabham the constructor. In reality it's only the constructor that counts, there is no 'teams' championship)

Anyone got a view on which is the best way to go? 4u1e 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Be as inclusive as possible. All entries of BRO as a team (including uses of a Lotus chassis) and all private entries, and explaining everything at the bottom of the table. --Pc13 21:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Do both, you mean? Now that really is a mammoth task! (and would be deserving of being a featured list or similar). 4u1e 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pc13. And likewise for McLaren, Lotus, Ferrari, March, etc. The trick is to come up with a format that's accurate and makes sense but is not too confusing for non-experts. I'd recommend identifying non-works entries by putting the driver's name in italics. An alternative would be to add an "Entrant" column, but that would add extra width to the table, which is generally discouraged (I guess it depends how important we think the names of the non-works entrants are). Regarding the BRO Lotus, I'd suggest giving it a separate line within the 1963 section of the table, so it can visibly excluded from the totals shown in the Points and WCC columns (although it's a bit moot, since Jack didn't score any points with the car). Regarding the different engines, we could either just list all the engines in the same cell (as currently done for 1966) and just have multiple values in the same cell in the Points and WCC columns (with an explanatory note) or we could subdivide each year section into a row for each engine supplier (which would sometimes result in the same driver being listed multiple times in the same year). DH85868993 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on something in my sandbox - here. Only got as far as 1965 tonight. Readro 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that it would be best to include all team and chassis results. Of the current existing tables, this would also affect WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results, as several ex-Williams chassis were used by RAM. Perhaps an option would be to put the Brabham team results in one table, including non-Brabham chassis, and private entries using Brabham chassis in another, similar to how championship and non-championship results are separated in Fittipaldi?--Diniz (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a second table to Brabham Grand Prix results detailing all the non-works Brabham results in the World Championship. One thing I'm not quite clear on - was Rolf Stommelen's Auto Motor und Sport entry in 1970 run by the works team? Readro 20:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Max Mosley image being questioned

Priority: Low

So this image of Max Mosley is under consideration for deletion. It was released under a Wikipedia-acceptable license, but the issue was raised if it is just a photochop of a copyrighted photo, or a photochop with a head placed on a fake body. If anything, fair use? The discussion can be found at this link on Commons

Guroadrunner 07:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The head certainly seems legitimately attached to the body. But yes, there should be a photo that is not done up like that. I seem to remember there being a normal photo there a few months ago? The359 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use cannot be claimed on an image of a living person. The main problem is that fact that it's proving hard to establish whether the original photo was released under a free licence. The original isn't published on the creators flickr account. As for the head on fake body - check out the heavy compression artifacts on the suit, but crystal clear image of his face. If these parts were always one photo, it should all either be clear or have the compression on it. AlexJ 09:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a fake image and should be deleted. The Flickr user also created a similar photo of Alex Wurz, which was uploaded and deleted within 24 hours or so.--Diniz (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So wait, what is up for FAC/GA nomination?

Let's make a list:

• GA: 2007 British GP (on hold), under consideration: Toyota F1
• FAC: 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix, (soon) Brabham BT19,

I'd like to get a full list and then stick them on the taskbox/to-do list for the "evaluate" section. Guroadrunner 07:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19 is undergoing peer review at the moment. I assume it'll be nominated for FAC soon. The359 07:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 French Grand Prix passed GA (although it shouldn't of been!!), but needs more improvement so that it goes against GA guidlines. 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix is in urgent need of comments otherwise that could be getting failed. Yeah, depending on how the PR goes Brabham BT19 could be nominated for FA end of September. Ah, 2007 British Grand Prix failed because nobody improved it......... Davnel03 08:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick question on the race reports, why did we go from saying "The YYYY Venue Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held on Month DD, YYYY at the Circuit Name in Town, Country." to "The YYYY Venue Grand Prix was the (rdnumber) race of the YYYY Formula One season. It was held on DD Month at Circuit Name."? The former opening told those who are unaware what F1 is that it was a motorrace, and gave the location of the track. The newer one seems more assuming that the reader knows what F1 is and knows the circuits. AlexJ 11:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. I always tended to use the first example, see the Malaysia race, while the newer ones was written by other users and put onto articles like the British one above. Davnel03 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Toyota F1 for GA nomination?

Separated discussion to its own section Guroadrunner 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In a month or two, I think we should put Toyota F1 up for GA status again. It's significantly improved since last time. Lradrama 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to nominate it for GA in a few months, I suggest you remove the statistics section. Davnel03 15:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree. I think the stats section should be fleshed out more instead of being axed. My issue is the "Notable drivers" section, which overlaps tremendously with the individual articles of Trulli and R. Schumacher. I personally would recommend shrinking that section a bunch, but I add that as a passive criticism (i.e. I'm not going to fight for it). Guroadrunner 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we also agree to making the current season report more of a summary? It's getting a bit more like a log don't we think. I think I'd better suggest that before it gets out of hand. Lradrama 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, ahould be a summary. Davnel03 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Members list

Just thought I'd let you all know that I've re-ordered the members list and put all the usernames in alphabetical order. I think it looks better presented and neater that way, and it makes it easier to find specific Wikipedians if you need a certain user. I've also put an alphabetical order notice in the introduction to that sub-section so it'll be kept that way. :-) Lradrama 11:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Guroadrunner 05:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible additions to {{F1 driver}} and {{Former F1 driver}}

Following the lead of {{Infobox racing driver}}, what do people think of the idea of adding the following fields to {{F1 driver}} and {{Former F1 driver}}?:

• date of birth
• place of birth
• date of death
• retired
• related to

Obviously the fields would be hidden unless populated, and you wouldn't populate them for drivers like Timo Glock, who also have {{Infobox racing driver}} in their article. DH85868993 08:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on consideration, I'm not keen. I can see where you are coming from but I firmly believe that an infobox should contain only the essentials, and too many details just serve to obscure the relevant information. We certainly do not need "place of birth", "retired" and "related to", although I can see some biographical merit in the birth and death dates. However... we already have these displayed prominently at the top of the vast majority of articles, is not as if you have to go burrowing through a mountain of prose to find them. Keep boxes punchy and to the point. Pyrope 09:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

+1 with Pyrope's comments - no need for birth date/death date in the box. I don't understand what would be in the "retired" field? I suppose a yes/no parameter? Guroadrunner 10:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The doc for {{Infobox racing driver}} indicates this field should be populated with the year the driver retired. DH85868993 10:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you define that??? Is Mansell retired? He still competes now and again in some pretty potent machinery. Is Moss retired? He still goes hammer and tongs in those historic races that he contests. Do you stop a driver's career when they drive their last race, or when they stop looking for a new race drive? And how do you know that they have actaully stopped? The concept is far too nebulous. Pyrope 11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While that's a good point for the motorsport infobox, wouldn't the F1 infobox already have "retired" covered in some way with the "last race" marker -- i.e. "retired from F1" like Katayama and Berger -- barring the drivers killed on-track in F1? (and furthermore barring those active F1 drivers killed elsewhere, like Mark Donohue). Guroadrunner 11:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Both "last race" and "Participated" already cover that information, and in a far more definite way. Pyrope 11:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As part of the rationalisation of motorsport driver templates, I've been working on a combined F1 driver and former F1 driver template brought in line with the new IRD style to allow them to be stacked nicely. A WIP is here. AlexJ 12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice, just needs the name a bit bigger and you are pretty much there. Going to be interesting constructing a pro forma and instruction page! Pyrope 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BMW in Formula One

I'm considering creating an article called BMW in Formula One (akin to Alfa Romeo in Formula One) to describe BMW's involvement in Formula One throughout the years, i.e.:

• engine supplier to Brabham, ATS, etc in the 1980s
• engine supplier to Williams in the 2000s
• BMW F2 cars and engines which raced in World Championship events in the 1960s
• BMW's current F1 involvement via BMW Sauber

My proposal is that:

• the BMW Sauber article (and links to it) would remain "as is"
• F1-related instances of "BMW" which are currently linked to BMW, BMW Motorsport or BMW in motorsport would be updated to link to BMW in Formula One instead (unless they're specifically referring to the car manufacturer)
• the F1 content of BMW in motorsport would be condensed to a summary, with a "Main article" link to BMW in Formula One
• BMW in Formula One would contain a brief description of the BMW Sauber team, with a "Main article" link to BMW Sauber.

Thoughts? DH85868993 07:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. John Andersson 10:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

+1 for this idea, but BMW in motorsport is very convoluted and will require extensive editing to separate F1 from non-F1. I'm concerned the F2 info should move over as well. but would take out a lot from the article. Guroadrunner 11:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is good idea, but I would not move anything else than F1 related, so not sure about the F2. And the F1 section will need maybe some more new text, otherwise it will be too short--— Typ932^{T | C}  11:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, again, my instinctive conservatism leads me to ask, what for? Once you have filleted out BMW Sauber (which already has its own page so no need to duplicate that information), what is left of BMW's F1 involvement except for supplying engines on a couple of occasions? As that engine development and their relationship with Williams is key to their later Le Mans entries I would be very cautious about splitting the two up. I really don't think that there is enough material for a whole separate page, and in doing so you would fragment some otherwise linked themes. Pyrope 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea yes! But, then for consistency, wouldn't we need something like Honda in F1 and other manufacturers who've ahd a long participaton history in the sport? Lradrama 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Honda F1 covers both their past and present involvement. And we don't need consistency, we need appropriate articles. I still don't think there is enough BMW F1 material to fill more than a couple of paragraphs, and keeping it in the general motorsport page is a far better way of setting their F1 involvement into its proper context. Pyrope 12:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - do you mean that we should work it into the BMW article better with something like the Origins (date - date) section in Toyota F1? Lradrama 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You can structure an article using a chronological base with thematic details, or a thematic base with chronological details. I reckon that BMW in motorsport is probably best handled in the first manner, as BMW M, Schnitzer Motorsport, BMW Sauber, BMW V12 LM/LMR and Formula BMW all exist already covering specific aspects of BMW's history, so the thematic bases are covered before you even start. All you then need do is to work these into some sort of coherent historical narative for the company, to provide an umbrella parent page. As I said above, the fact that you can sum up BMW's pre-Sauber F1 involvement quite adequately in a single sentence suggests that it will not support an article of its own. I think that rather than look at Toyota, which is still rambling and confused, far better to look to the Honda F1 article as an example of how BMW's F1 history could be worked into the BMW Sauber article (taking care to include Sauber, but not to duplicate too much of that company's page). Pyrope 12:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I change my vote - let's improve BMW in Motorsport to make that better and then see if we can split off F1. Perhaps we could make it sectioned into two main parts: closed-cockpit and open wheel. I would have preferred F2 to move with F1 to the proposed new article since they were often intermingled back when BMW was in F2. 71.226.60.137 22:40, 23 August 2007 / aka / GURoadrunner

So which category does the LMR fit into? And I still don't get the desire to hive off the F1 section as though it were a separate entity, which it isn't. You point out the problem very nicely in your last sentence! Keep them all together and present a thorough, complete history. Pyrope 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As the one who raised the idea, perhaps I should reply to this. I'm not necessarily passionate about having an article called BMW in Formula One. But I would like to see a single point to which we can link all the F1-related instances of "BMW", so the links won't need to be changed, even if the place where BMW's F1 involvement is described (currently BMW in motorsport) does change. I'd be quite happy to see BMW in Formula One as a redirect to BMW in motorsport (akin to Porsche in Formula One which is a redirect to Porsche in motorsport). I just thought I'd present the idea of an article first, to see if there was any support for that. And why do I think there's a risk that the place where BMW's F1 involvement is described might change? I have a sneaking suspicion that sometime in the next 12 months, we will start describing the cars we currently refer to as "BMW Saubers" as just "BMWs" (as www.formula1.com already does) which will possibly/probably lead to the creation of an article called "BMW F1 team" (or something like that - maybe BMW Sauber will be renamed) and we'll say "Hey, why don't we include all of BMW's F1 history in that article, like we did for Honda Racing F1 and Renault F1" and then we'll need to go back and change all those links to BMW in motorsport to point to BMW F1 Team instead. Or even if that doesn't happen, perhaps we'll decide that BMW's involvement in F1 has always been under the auspices of BMW Motorsport, so all the F1 references should link to there. If all the F1-related instances were linked to a redirect called BMW in Formula One, then we'd only need to make the change in one place. Most of the F1-related instances of "BMW" currently link to the wrong place (BMW) so we need to change them; I'm keen for us to only have to change them once. DH85868993 00:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone speak Japanese ?

It's a pet project for me, but I'm looking for articles that have personal information about Yuji Ide - the guy's upbringing, if he's married, etc. I haven't found anything in English, so these articles are probably in Japanese. So, all I need are the links and then I can use Altavista Babelfish to translate and (in theory) use as best-case-scenario references.

Let me know if you can help out by posting here. Guroadrunner 11:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translation might be of some use.--Diniz (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Adelaide track map

The Adelaide circuit map shown in the 1986, 1989, 1991, 1994 and 1995 Australian Grand Prix articles depicts the current (short) version of the circuit rather than the long version of the circuit which was actually used for those races. What's the best way forward:

• update the image (Circuit Adelaide.png) to show the long version of the track (I think those 5 articles are the only place that image is used), or
• replace the image in the specified race reports with the (not quite as pretty) "long circuit" image included in Adelaide Street Circuit?

DH85868993 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the image included in Adelaide Street Circuit. It'd make the process easier anyway. But yes, the race-report versions do need changing. Lradrama 10:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you need a new map made, I'm quite willing to do it providing you can give me an example to show what it looks like. AlexJ 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The track looks like this: http://www.etracksonline.co.uk/Australasia/Australia/adelaide85-95.html so it's an easy fix.

Anyway, here's what we've got. The track seen on 1994 Australian Grand Prix is vertical, the track seen on Adelaide Street Circuit is horizontal and arguably nicer looking. All we need is to blacken the gray part. Heck, give me 10 minutes and I'll post something.

I would say the horizontal map is better overall, so a modification of the short track map is what I'd use throughout from 1985 Australian Grand Prix to 1995 Australian Grand Prix. Guroadrunner —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Results table for March Engineering

I'm currently making the results table for March Engineering, but I have 2 doubts.
The first is: since March built chassis for many teams, I only deciced to list results for the "official" team. Is it right?
The second is: what I write as points and WCC? Look at the 1970 season for example, March obtained 48 points in total but only 23 with Amon and Siffert who were driving for March Engineering... anyone has some idea?
Asendoh 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fow a team like March, who supplied so many others, to focus on the works cars is missing some really important competitors, as you point out. I would prefer that we find a way of including all results...

Year	Entrant/s	Chassis/ Engine	Driver/s														Pts.	WCC
1970				RSA	ESP	MON	BEL	NED	FRA	GBR	GER	AUT	ITA	CAN	USA	MEX	48	3rd
	March Engineering	701 Ford V8	Jo Siffert	10	DNQ	8	7	Ret	Ret	Ret	8	9	Ret	Ret	9	Ret
			Chris Amon	Ret	Ret	Ret	2	Ret	2	5	Ret	8	7	3	5	4
	Tyrrell Racing Orgnisation	701 Ford V8	Jackie Stewart	3	1	Ret	Ret	2	9	Ret	Ret	Ret	2
			Johnny Servoz-Gavin	Ret	5	DNQ
			François Cevert					Ret	11	7	7	Ret	6	9	Ret	Ret
	STP Corporation	701 Ford V8	Mario Andretti	Ret	3					Ret	Ret	Ret
	Antique Automobiles/Colin Crabbe Racing	701 Ford V8	Ronnie Peterson			7	NC	9	Ret	9	Ret		Ret	NC	11
	Hubert Hahne	701 Ford V8	Hubert Hahne								DNQ

What do you think? (p.s. Nice choice of season... a fascinating list of drivers running a March in '70!) Pyrope 14:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think including all the results (as in the above table) is the best solution. DH85868993 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, nice one! But the final table will have considerable dimension and I have concerns about the overall page size, since the article is already long... Asendoh 15:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

At Brabham Grand Prix results, we had a table for the works team and a table for other entrants. Readro 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to have just the works March Engineering results in the main article, and then have the full results of all March cars in a separate article (similar to Brabham etc.) AlexJ 16:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to go even further, and just have a season-by-season summary in the main article, and keep detailed results for the separate page. I don't think that there is any justification in separating out non-works entries, after all, the most successful March runner in '70 was Tyrrell! Something similar to the McLaren page. e.g...

Year	Entrants	Drivers	Chassis	Engines	Pts.	WCC
1970	March Engineering Tyrrell Racing Organisation STP Corporation Antique Automobiles/Colin Crabbe Racing Hubert Hahne	Jo Siffert Chris Amon Jackie Stewart Johnny Servoz-Gavin François Cevert Mario Andretti Ronnie Peterson Hubert Hahne	March 701	Ford V8	48	3rd

(outdent) One question: Do we want to use a consistent approach for all the constructors who provided cars to other teams (i.e. March, Lotus, Brabham, McLaren, Ferrari, etc), or are we happy to treat them on a case-by-case basis? If we do want to use a consistent approach, I think we've reached the point where we need to agree a common format. DH85868993 06:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, the best approach is the one used in the forementioned Brabham results page, showing different tables for works and non-works teams. Asendoh 11:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to present "Constructor" results then you really can't justify leaving out non-works teams. If you just want to present the team results then what are you trying to show? They aren't eligible for either drivers' or contructors' points. Pyrope 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just one picky observation - don't forget to disambiguate Ford to Ford Motor Company or preferably Cosworth :) Bretonbanquet 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits

My recent edits to 2007 Formula One season were for the Turkey GP not the Hungary GP. I just made a mistake in the edit summaries. Sorry! chem_tom 15:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries but thank you for adding to the article. Most users don't even add an edit summary, when they should. Minor inaccuracies in the edit summary is nothing to worry about. Guroadrunner 05:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say that it bugs me also when users don't use the edit summary, even for minor edits. It saves all the checking to see what they've done that way. Lradrama 09:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course, the people who would be reading this page are the ones who do the right thing... DH85868993 10:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, too, but sometimes, I just accidentally forget. Davnel03 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You can change a setting somewhere that prompts you if you don't fill out the edit summary. AlexJ 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Formula One 2008 (Prodrive Numbers)

Some users find it necessary to keep adding 24 and 25 next to prodrive for the 2008 season. This should be left blank until at least the end of the season. Is there anyway we can stop this happening? Eddie6705

To the best of my knowledge there will definitely not be a car 25 on the grid next season. Whether Prodrive get 24 or not is also not yet decided (as a possible McLaren 'B' team, who's to say they won't end up with Alonso as WDC next season, or will Super Aguri's financial problems (as speculated by ITV's coverage) mean we'll have 22 cars on the grid next season?). Anyway, if it's sustained vandalism by an IP address you can try and make a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. AlexJ 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if 12 teams do enter then one team (eg. prodrive) will have the numbers 24 and 25 as the number 13 is not used. Eddie6705 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Readro 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet on Prodrive being given #24 and #25 next season, but it's really not pertinent to add it to Wikipedia articles as if it were already confirmed. The only way they'll be given any other numbers is if the WDC drives for them or another team disappears - neither is likely, but possible. Bretonbanquet 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, of course forgot about the avoidance of No. 13. Still, there's a possibility it won't be 24&25 so until we get a confirmed reference (i.e. the FIA entry list) it doesn't belong in the article. AlexJ 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend against posting any car numbers for the 2008 season, even once this season ends. Imagine if Spyker or Super Aguri shuts down -- that changes everything. Guroadrunner 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We can add numbers for the top six or seven teams at the season's end though, those that will definately be there, because Spyker and Super Aguri will surely finish near the back of the standings. Lradrama 14:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise: I'd say that all the teams that finish above Super Aguri or Spyker, if they truly are under threat. I figure if a team drops out before the start of the season, everyone else's numbers move up?? Guroadrunner 06:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fag packet benefit-loss analysis. Benefit of speculative numbers: nil. Potential for confusion and inaccuracy: high. Result, don't do it. There is no point adding guessed (yes, you are just guessing, no matter how well-informed) numbers to any article. When the entry list is published then add the numbers, not before. And if I see them there I'll delete them, there is far too much speculation in the future season articles as it is without adding this rubbish. Pyrope 09:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well...I think he's made his point. Lradrama 09:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just couldn't believe that this was even being debated! Pyrope 09:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it, you are quite right. Wikipedia's got enough enreferenced guesswork as it is without those who know what they're doing (most of the time!) doing the exact same. Thanks for your statement! ;-) Lradrama 09:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

+1 for Pyrope's comments. Guroadrunner

New Lap Charts

I'm working on the 1999 Formula One race reports, and as some of you may know the 1999 San Marino Grand Prix has a lap chart that was added by Diniz last year. I was wondering about the other races so I recently asked him about this (see discussion on my talkpage) and he kindly pointed out the previous discussions on WP:F1 about adding lap charts, here and here. Basically the outcome was that lap charts are welcome, but because it's very time-consuming to build them, nobody has added any new ones since then.
I've spent quite some time working on a lap chart for the 1999 Australian Grand Prix, and the first 'presentable' version is currently in my sandbox. I'm looking for some feedback before I make the final changes and add it to the article: my source uses a different background colour for every driver and I've adopted this for my chart because it greatly improves readability - the only problem is finding the right colours. If possible they should resemble the team/car colours, while they can't be too dark, too light or too similar, and the HEX codes should be kept simple as well. The current version needs some more fine-tuning (Sauber and Minardi) but overall I think it looks pretty good. Bobby Doorknobs 22:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you could get the colours to remsemble the team colours, but be different from others and not be too dark, then i think it would be very effective. Eddie6705 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, "explosion in a paint factory" springs to mind! I really disagree about universal colours improving readability, I reckon Diniz has it right to restrict colours to points finishers only, that way their progress through the field is much more apparant. Pyrope 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

→ I can imagine that it's a bit of a 'colour shock' when you see the chart for the first time, but it's something you get used to pretty quickly. In fact, I already got so used to all the colours that I kind of forgot about the shock effect it would give :) I don't really see the point in only 'painting' the top 6 - obviously it would be clearer for the top 6 drivers, but what about all the others? Backmarkers would be difficult to 'follow' through the table when everything is white, while the reason for having a lap chart in the first place is to clearly show what happened to all the drivers. It's better to get the most out it and use 'full colour'. Bobby Doorknobs 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless full colour actually detracts. I have now (on your suggestion) stared at the chart for a while now and, apart from feeling a bit ill, my position hasn't changed. Colour can be a powerful way of highlighting, the numbers do the identification so you are currently doubling up the information and reducing the readability of the chart. Also, as I am sure you are finding, it is almost impossible to find 22-26 colours which all look reasonably distinctive in isolation on a computer monitor. As it stands, your table has so many shades that, while they can be distinguished in the key, once you split them apart in the table they lose an individual identity. You are saved in the example you chose by the number of pale yellow cars which dropped out, and the turquoise blues, oh, and the deep blues/mauve as well. The reason for highlighting the top six/eight is that it makes the significant finishers easier to spot. Not all runners have equal significance (read WP:NOTE), so why confuse the table by splurging colour on everyone? Bear in mind that, while you might be able to get your eye in after looking at it for a while, this is a general reference encyclopedia, for use by non-specialists as well as those (like us) who are used to perusing the pages of Autosport every week. You need to concentrate on communicating important information, and back-markers just aren't important in the context of 99.9% of F1 races. As Davnel03 and The359 point out, you are verging on providing too much information, we are not a stats site (read WP:NOT). Prose is the byword. Following that theme... as for your comments about the number of "stub" race reports, if you check up this page you will see that these are in need of more discursive content or they may well fail notabilty and be deleted! Davnel03's comment about the work involved, while poorly phrased, does make a valid point. In terms of current project priorities, your time would be better spent taking half an hour looking up a few old race reports and adding 200-300 words of prose to each of the stubs, not taking half a day composing a marginally useful lap chart. Pyrope 07:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a serious look at this (hope you're feeling better) I can understand what you're saying and I must admit that I got myself a litle side-tracked; see also my reply to Davnel03 below. I think that if we're deciding against the colours then there's no point in using lap charts at all really. The numbers alone may do the identification but building a whole chart only for the top 6 is not worth the effort. I don't agree on your comments about the colours I chose: if you pick a different one for the Minardis, this scheme would do fine for all the races in 1999. But colours or not, we need a consensus about wether or not lap charts are too indepth. About the Stubs: I understand the risk of deletion, but doesn't that argument apply to all articles, and not just the ones that have been labeled as Stubs? Bobby Doorknobs 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that a lap chart is the sort of thing that "External links" sould pick up. As for the stub issue, you are bang on the money. Sooner or later some unsympathetic editor is going to notice all the sub-stub race "report" pages and PROD them. Pyrope 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify, this has already happened to an entire season of Le Mans Series race reports stubs, although they were voted as Keep. So yes, concentrating on improving the articles that need it most should be priority over expanding factoids for articles that can stand on their own. The359 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, although the deletion process for them was closed due to WP:SNOW. The reason given for deletion was: Article provides little to no context about the race itself. 95% of the article is simply a table on the results of the race, with some statistics thrown in at the bottom. Violates WP:NOT#INFO.. For us at least 95% of race articles would fall under that description. Davnel03 11:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm to be highly honest, I really don't think lap charts are needed at all. Davnel03 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

→ Could you be more specific? Is this your opinion or are you saying that lap charts don't belong in the encyclopedia? In my estimation they do - lap charts provide information that is not in the result tables or the report, so I would say they are a welcome addition. Bobby Doorknobs 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Davnel. The lap charts are, quite frankly, too indepth. Just because we are an Encyclopedia does not mean we need to include every single bit of information. A race report should, if done properly, explain the positions of important drivers at important parts of the race. Anything more does not really improve the article. The359 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks fantastic. I think that having colours for the whole field improves readability after the initial "shock" of colour; the only reason that my earlier lap chart just has the top six coloured is becuase that is how it is portrayed in AUTOCOURSE. There are a couple of minor things I would change, though:

• I would prefer the Safety Car laps to be bordered by yellow (yellow flags)
• The "Formatting" column in the key is unnecessary
• The lapped line might look better if it was black
• The key as a whole can probably be put in a hide/show template

Apart from that, you've done a really good job. Lap charts might not be as important as the final results, but I see no reason to exclude them from race reports.--Diniz (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

→ FYI This is what my lap chart actually looks like on paper. As usual you have some good suggestions, so let's have a look.

• Safety Car laps in yellow instead of red: good idea. I'll see how it goes on clarity, but with a dark kind of yellow it should be allright.
• Key: I forgot to mention (sorry) that the key was just something I slapped together at the last minute and not intended as 'the' key. Work in progress :)
• Lapped line would look better in black: I thought about that as well, even though it's red in my source. The problem is that it conflicts with the current display of pitstops, and you will lose some information if you change the lapped line to black. For example M.Schumacher pitted on lap 37 and 38 and was lapped after his first stop; if you use a black line you can't tell exactly when he was lapped.

Maybe it's trivial, but I think I'll just have to find my way around things like that while I'm completing the other articles and charts. This is just one race, and the 'situations' like M.Schumacher's pitstops and also that cluster of stops around lap 31-33 forced me into a certain way of displaying things. I'll see how it goes in other races and adjust if necessary. Bobby Doorknobs 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we are going to have to have lap charts on every race report article, then? Hey, that's going to take a whole lot of work. Davnel03 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

→ We don't 'have to have' anything. Stop complaining about what's missing and be happy with new additions to WP:F1 - please. And yes it's a lot work but that's never an issue. I don't know if you've seen the Stub list recently, but it contains almost 400 race reports. Now that is a lot work, and it's only going back to 1982 so far. Obviously this is a long-term project, and again I would say don't worry too much about what 'needs' to be done but concentrate on what you can and want to do. Bobby Doorknobs 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, I just believe that we don't need lap charts. This is an encylopedia, not a huge Formula One statistics site. Personally, I think we should get race reports up to scratch instead of venturing off into different areas. Currently, when I have time, I try to improve race reports by inserting info, as I had been doing with this years reports. I appreciate your work Bobby, but in my view, I believe lap charts should not be in F1 race report articles. To add to that, yes, we might understand them, but other Wikipedians might not have a clue about lap charts. Plus, adding lap charts to our current race FAs and FACs could affect the quality of the articles, as well as taking up too much room. That's my opinion. Davnel03 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining yourself Davnel03. I see what you mean now and I must say that you do have a point. Wether or not lap charts are too indepth for Wikipedia - I don't know. I think it's just our personal preference that we happen to disagree on. Don't get me wrong - I did ask myself this question when I first ran into Diniz' chart, and even checked the definition of unencyclopedic content, WP:NOT. To me it seemed like there were no objections, and I figured it would be better to add new content rather then remove somebody else's hard work. I've spent most of my time on Wikipedia helping to improve the race report articles and like you point out there's enough to do, so whatever is decided is fine with me. I had fun building this chart and as a wikitext-newbie I'm happy enough knowing that I pulled it off :) Bobby Doorknobs 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why did you add +OR to the 1999 Australian Grand Prix article? No offense - this is a serious question. The text needs some work but all the information I added is 100% covered by the references (wikipedia:assume good faith) and correct me if I'm wrong, but just because other people may not have access to this source that doesn't mean it's original research. Bobby Doorknobs 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there are no references in within the text. Yes, there are some at the bottom, but looking at the main body it reads like a essay. By the way, it's not like I hate lap charts, because I think they are actually good, it's just that I don't think they should be in a encyclopedia. Davnel03 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see, but there is no need for many references in the text. According to WP:REF such referencing should be used for directr quotes and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. See also the discussion here. I should add a couple more references but I'm not planning to fill the text with footnotes like in some of the other reports. I think maybe this tag is not necessary. Bobby Doorknobs 20:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy and real-world differ here in my experience - I've found that generally if you have a fact you should reference it, even if it appears relatively obvious. For starters, in-line citations are pretty much a requirement for FA status and highly recommended at GA. Secondly, it means should someone wish to verify something they can easily and if someone adds false info (esp. changing of figures) it can be easier to detect which version is correct. Lastly, it's often really useful to have the refs in the article in case you forget the site yourself. I've found myself a few times looking at references to remind me of website address and also found new useful resources through other people's references. AlexJ 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First, good job creating this lap chart. Very colorful (and perhaps pastels should be used instead) -- BUT where are we getting the info from? I'm just worried this borderlines on a copyright violation unless we can say "look this is okay to post, here's my source". Lap charts are different than results in the record books as someone had to specifically generate all of this chart information, instead of working with basic, non-copyrightable facts. Guroadrunner 07:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Could FIA's lap charts be used under fair use? --Sporti 13:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the sources and availability of information. My source (hardcopy) is a Dutch Formula One magazine (their website) and I can reference all my work. I'm not sure exactly what you mean about a possible copyvio; this data is timed (measured) and the charts are computer-generated, so how is this different from the result tables? In the end, all information is coming from the FIA anyway. I didn't know about the on-line lap charts but that's exactly what's printed in my magazines this season. Before 2004 the charts were 'old style' and look like the one I made. It would be great if we could use the on-line charts on fair use, but my guess is no...? Bobby Doorknobs 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio as long as the formatting is original. The contents of a lap chart are facts, which can't be copyrighted. It is the way that the data is presented that can be copyrighted. As long as the table is different to the one which the FIA use then there is no problem. Readro 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Readro. Makes sense. Guroadrunner 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, so some people like them some dislike, I think we need to come to a consensus about whether lap charts are really needed in articles as I think there is mixed opinion here.

Support - Lap Charts are needed in articles

Oppose - Lap Charts are not needed in articles

• Davnel03

Further Comments

• Hoefully we can come to a consensus on this so that we know whether they should be in articles or not. Davnel03 11:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• This vote is unhelpful and unneccessary. Reaching consensus is not about voting, it is about debating. You have made your points, I have made mine, and others have reposted and counter argued. There are still a few loose ends, and the format of any potential lap chart is not at all clear. In addition, we cannot say that lap charts are or are not universally "needed", that has to be decided on a race-by-race basis, and if they are to be used then they should certainly be restricted to those races where they might actually communicate complex information in a more managable way than prose alone. For races where there was little overtaking a lap chart would be complete overkill, for example, while for a race where a driver made a "thrilling charge up the field" (e.g. 1983 United States Grand Prix West) then proper use of colour for highlighting purposes (see my discussion with Bobby Doorknobs above) might be an interesting and visual way of communicating their progress. I still say that using colour throughout the table harms their usefulness and detracts from their ability to communicate pertinent (note, not "all") race position changes, but I can see that for certain, limited, circumstances they might be benefitial. Can we please try to use common sense and not dictat? Pyrope 12:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Davnel, several times people have explained that consensus is not the same thing as voting, but each time you try to take a vote. A compelling argument one way counts for more than a simple WP:ILIKEIT vote the other. We'll keep discussing until we come up with an acceptable compromise to everyone. As such, I've struck out the vote section. AlexJ 12:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Davnel03 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still like to see lap charts included, but I take the point about prose being being more important. Perhaps lap charts should only be added to articles which are of FA or GA quality, as that would be an objective measure of deciding whether or not the prose is good enough? I have to disagree with Pyrope's suggestion of basing the decision to include a lap chart on how exciting/chaotic the race was, as I'm sure that disagreements like this will occur in every instance of it being brought up. As a potential problem with the lap charts is the ability of non-motorsport fans to decipher them, is there a way that they could be discussed somewhere outside this WikiProject as well?--Diniz (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the many different opinions about the use of colours, it may actually be a good idea to organize a vote on this in the future, but for now there are too many loose ends and some potential problems with the lap chart format have not even been adressed yet (for example: the difference between the 'old style' charts and the new ones). Although I've decided for myself to put this lap chart business on hold for a while and concentrate on my assesment drive and 'Stub-work' instead, I do think we should continue this discussion and try to reach an agreement on the use of lap charts; if the outcome is 'yes' we can work from there.

I very much agree with Diniz that deciding this race-by-race would give rise to endless discussions, and I think it's better to use a simple policy: either we allow them or not. At the same time this 'simple policy' turns out to be quite a difficult question. The main arguments against the use of lap charts are possible violations of WP:NOTE and WP:NOT but I think the latter is not really an issue. A lap chart is intended as an addition to improve a fully written article and it makes a lot of sense to allow them, but limit their use by imposing a requirement, like GA-Class or better. This is an insurance against 'overkill' and would also prevent people from venturing off into less important areas of the project.

As for explaining the lap charts to unfamiliar users: how about giving the key a seperate page (like the season result tables) and include some text on 'how to read a lap chart' along with a few examples? Bobby Doorknobs 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)