Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Classification in the Championship

While looking at the table work being done recently, I've noticed some inconsistency in championship tables. Nowadays every driver is included in the championship as long as they finish a race, but in the past this wasn't the case. However some seasons, like 1950 Formula One season, have got the drivers classified even if they didn't score. Now as this was before my time and knowledge, I'm wondering if there is someone here who knows when exactly drivers, and constructors, were classified without scoring points. QueenCake (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before but I don't think we ever found the exact season when non-scoring drivers and constructors were first classified in the championship tables. It was some time in the late 1990s, or 2000. Certainly no WDC or WCC from 1950-1995 classified non-scoring drivers or constructors, and the season articles should reflect that. I spent a long time a while ago changing all the driver results tables to remove things like "48th in the WDC in 1955" because it was not the case at that time. But I didn't realise some of the season tables still showed those errors. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed the drivers being classified as well, but like Bretonbanquet says, I'm not sure which seasons had them classified. I've only been redoing the constructors tables from 1958 onwards, and for each one I've just kept the same format as the driver's table. Allypap81 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no consistency at all on Wikipedia, regarding this point. Take, for example, Minardi, who are classified every season according to their page (despite not scoring any points in 85-87 and various other years). Also, the 1950 season has all drivers classified in the championship, as long as they have had a classified race finish, and in the teams and drivers section, it states that 24 of the 79 entered drivers were not counted (which fits with the 55 classified in the championship). We either need some sort of rule to cover all seasons, or a reliable source - interestingly, the official F1 website numbers all drivers and constructors in all championships, even if they didn't achieve a classified finish - maybe that would be easiest? «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The F1 website does list them all, but in its infinite wisdom, it applies today's rules to past championships in that respect, and I don't think that's something we should do here. We should try as best as we can to reflect the championship standings as they were at the relevant time. Ideally we need the big annual end-of-season retrospective books that cost a fortune, and only a select few editors have those! Not me, sadly... Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at my collection of Formula 1 Yearbooks, published by Parragon then later by Chronosports, the 2003 season is the last to have only points scorers classified in the Drivers' Championship. All following seasons have all drivers classified as long as they at least finished a race. This does however, coincide with the change of publishers in 2004...Schumi555 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'll change the few I notice before the late 1990's when I come across them, I haven't been able to find an exact answer myself either. QueenCake (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to worry, all done now (up to 1999). «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an IP been altering "NC" to eg. "20th" on several pages for minor constructors or drivers who had scored no points during the season (example). In the majority of cases, they're not listed in the end-of-season tables in Trevor R. Griffiths book (which goes to end 1997) - these tables only give classifications to drivers and constructors who scored points, so I've reverted. There's one which I haven't reverted, because 2001 & 2002 are later than my book: this one - revert or leave as is? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the transition takes place around 1999-2000, so I would leave that as it is. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibility for a new list?

I thoroughly enjoy looking through the excellent lists about F1 winners / champions / drivers / points systems, etc. One I would love to see on Wikipedia would be a list of drivers according to points scored. Am I fantasising or is it a realistic idea? Orphan Wiki 19:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That information is easily seen on List of Formula One drivers. Just hit the button at the top of the points column and it'll list the drivers according to their points totals. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's brilliant. There also a top ranking for the teams as well, which is nice. Many thanks, Orphan Wiki 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WDC Indy drivers

As some of you will have noticed, Cs-wolves and Bretonbanquet have done a wonderful job of adding F1 driver infoboxes to the articles for all the drivers who competed in the Indy 500 during the years it was a round of the WDC (1950-1960). Now that the infoboxes are in place, I propose to delete the "World Championship Career Summary" sections from those articles, on the basis that they just duplicate the information which is now present in the infobox (see Sam Hanks as an example). Any objections? DH85868993 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, though I must concede the glory of the Indy drivers infoboxes to CS-wolves, while I concentrated on the regular F1 drivers. He did a fine job. I totally agree with you that the little WDC sections can go - they are pretty redundant now the infoboxes are there :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dominant F1 car lists

Several F1 car articles (e.g. McLaren MP4/4, Ferrari F2002, Lotus 79, etc) include lists of "other dominant F1 cars" in a "See also" section. I think these lists are unnecessary. What do others think? DH85868993 (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - mspete93 15:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Highly subjective. Delete. --Falcadore (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 4u1e (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Cs-wolves(talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted them. DH85868993 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Williams FW12

The infobox states that the designer was Adrian Newey. The car was designed for the 1988 season, wasn't Newey at March back then?  Dr. Loosmark  13:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ChicaneF1 identifies Scalabroni as the FW12's designer. I'll change it. DH85868993 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the same with the Williams FW13.  Dr. Loosmark  14:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Updated. DH85868993 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Category for deletion

I have nominated Category:Expatriate racecar drivers in the United States for deletion - please have your say. I'd like to nominate all the "British/French/German etc expatriates in the US" categories as well at some point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there, all those categories are not really useful, I support deleting all of them. QueenCake (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Drivers' Points

Hello everyone, I wanted to suggest that in articles, especially in infoboxes, we should split the career points for drivers into 10 point and the 25 point systems categories because the new system grossly deflates the points that the great drivers scored.

So the career point field will say – 10 point system (points scored), next line 25 point system (points scored). Career points should link to the article that explains why there is a split.

Let me know if this could be an option. Sumanch (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And no seperate line for when the points system was 10-6-4-3-2-1? Or how about 9-6-4-3-2-1? But seriously, no, splitting career points just because the system has changed is silly. This is not the first change to the points system, and really how deflated or inflated the career points are matters little, it's a minor piece of trivia. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there have been several points systems, and no doubt it will change again before long. It would be a lot of work for what is essentially trivial info. It is a pain that over the 60 years of F1, the drivers cannot really be compared on points totals, but it's something we can't synthesise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, I have thought of this myself. OTOH, it's much work and we don't know when the next change in points will be made, so I will still advocate against it. However, I think all the old systems were similar enough to be comparable, while the change this year is something completely new. I would have prefered if they had introduced half and quarter points for the 9th and 10th place instead of making the change they did, but now we have to live with it. It could be advisable to always have links in the text to the page which describes the changes in the points scoring system over the years. John Anderson (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You could do an actual points list incorportating the changes to the points system over time, and then a second list with an artificially homologated points system for every race ever run using either the current or an old points scoring system, such that it is fair and comparisions can be made by pretending each season had the same scoring system whatever that is chosen to be. Officially Mr X (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That is entirely beyond the scope of an Encyclopedia. We're not creating fantasy points totals by adopting schemes to races in which those schemes did not apply. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We show the total points scored by each driver in their infoboxes. If you are interested in how this has changed over time through different points systems, then good for you. Set up your own site to detail it or something. It is just not needed here. - mspete93 17:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is your contention that the different pointscore systems make different season non-comparable and therefore should not be combined in a single points total, then it is my contention that different seasons have NEVER been comparable. In 1963 Jim Clark, using the pointscore of the day made a perfect point score. He could not have scored any more points no matter what race results eventuated. And yet last year, under the old points system, no less than four drivers, with significantly less than perfect seasons, scored more than Clark in 1963, and yet for decades people have not cared about the inequities of differences from one season to the next.

And besides, splitting the pointscore up on any basis probably constitutes Original Research. --Falcadore (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd echo the 'why now' calls above. Otherwise, should we also try and take into account the fact that there were less races in earlier seasons, allowing a driver to build up less of a total? Different eras cannot really be compared - we shouldn't be trying to facilitate doing so. AlexJ (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth bothering with. As has been stated in the comments above; point systems have always moved around, and to further blur the picture, we've gone from an average of 7 - 10 races in the 50s / 60s, to an average of 17 - 19 races in recent years. It's something we have to live with, rather than create unecessary work. The fact is, it's still a points system, and they all add up, and those who get more come out on top. I prefer the new points system; it actually, it works better. Orphan Wiki 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If sources only cared about wins and podiums, we woudn't have this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.73.32.3 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking "points" in the tables

Following the discussion above, I set out to link the word "points" in the tables to the article List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems as I thought this would be an easy way to solve what might be a problem for the reader. I hope everyone think this is a good idea. Would you help out in linking this or could a bot do it? John Anderson (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that, good call. Pyrope 12:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to help out with this task, but I notice there is some inconsistency with the existing column titles - some say "Points", some say "Pts" and other say "Pts." Should we make them all the consistent as we add the links? Or just add the link to the existing column title? Note that the "WP:F1 standard" tables complicate the issue somewhat - the driver table says "Pts" whereas the Constructor/team and car tables say "Points". I'm open to the idea of changing the "standard" tables to be consistent if people think that's a good idea. DH85868993 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Grand Prix race reports

In the past week, several Grand Prix race reports have been created which need upgrading to our standard format: 1947 French Grand Prix, 1948 Monaco Grand Prix, 1948 Swiss Grand Prix, 1948 French Grand Prix, 1949 French Grand Prix. I'll get to them eventually, but I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone else felt like helping out. DH85868993 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

They seem to by WP:COPYVIOs from the listed reference. Bots might delete these right quick. --Falcadore (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

All done now. Thanks to those who helped out. DH85868993 (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I created a page on Sauber Petronas Engineering and a bot identified parts of it as too similar to http://wikicars.org/pl/Sauber. I had taken these parts from our page on Sauber. Is there a copyright infringement in that Wikipedia article? John Anderson (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The wikicars page has copied material from the Sauber article, not the other way round. There's a free GNU license box at the bottom of the wikicars page anyway, so I'm not sure why the bot would be reporting it as a copyright infringement even if this was the case.--Midgrid(talk) 09:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you simply copied stuff from the Sauber article...why does this need its own article? The³5₉ (Talk) 10:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just the start of the article. I wanted to create this article instead of having links to Petronas oil company from the table in the Sauber article. John Anderson (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the GNU Free license is no longer accepted on Wikipedia since July 2009. See WP:Licensing update for more information. User:John Anderson, by copying the content from the Sauber article without providing attribution in the edit summary, you violated WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Please don't forget to include a wikilink to the source article in your edit summary the next time you copy content from one article to another. Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I copied about three lines, User:Theleftorium, and then I rewrote them. It was just to start the article. Had I rewritten them before I saved the first time, this wouldn't have been an issue I suppose. I agree, however, that this might be seen as a violation of WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't as free to edit as it used to be some years ago. John Anderson (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, copying text within Wikipedia without providing attribution to the original authors has never been allowed on Wikipedia. It's part of the GFDL/Creative Commons license.Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, so GFDL/Creative Commons is more restrictive than ordinary copyright laws then, which allows you to be inspired by someone else's text when you write something new. John Anderson (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, "ordinary copyright laws" don't allow that. See derivative works. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, there we can read that '[c]opyright infringement liability for a later work arises only if the later work embodies a substantial amount of protected expression taken from the earlier, underlying work. The later work must take enough protected expression (it does not matter how much unprotected material is taken, for the latter is open to the public) for the later work to be "substantially similar" to the earlier work'. John Anderson (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and Sauber Petronas Engineering clearly "embodies a substantial amount of protected expression taken from the earlier, underlying work". Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. How many words do you mean are too many? John Anderson (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Standings after the race" tables

The recent addition of the "Championship standings after the race" tables to the 1984 F1 race reports raises an interesting point: Our "Championship standings after the race" tables reflect the results as retained by the team/driver at the end of the season rather than as they actually were on the day following the race. For example, Martin Brundle's Tyrrell finished 5th in the 1984 Brazilian Grand Prix. The Tyrrells weren't disqualified from the Championship until several months later. So on the day after the race, Brundle was 5th in the Championship, with 2 points. However, our table shows Tambay 5th in the Championship with 2 points, which reflects the situation after the Tyrrells were disqualified. My initial reaction was that our current approach is incorrect, and that our tables should reflect the tables as they actually were at the time. But upon further consideration, I think that would be too confusing - consider that for the 1984 Brazilian Grand Prix, the race results table would show Tambay 5th, scoring 2 points, whereas the Championship table would show Brundle 5th with 2 points. Apart from the 1984 season, another instance where points tables "as they were the day after the race" would differ from points tables "based on the results retained at the end of the season" is 1976: Hunt was disqualified from victory in the British Grand Prix 2 months after the race. What do others think? DH85868993 (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. I've just been putting the results into the tables based on each race result, and since the individual race results don't include the Tyrrells I've not included them. However, I will say I do agree with you, especially as there is precedent from 1997, where the "standings after the race" tables still have Schumacher, despite his disqualification at the end of the season. If you agree, I have no problems going back and changing them (I don't think it will affect too many, since the Tyrrells didn't score many points). On the plus side, I think all seasons are now done! :) Allypap81 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Difficult one, this. Maybe include the Tyrrells in the standings with a note to say that they were disqualified much later? Same could work for Hunt, perhaps. It's hard to think of a way which wouldn't be at least slightly misleading. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is again an example of where we need more prose, to explain these sorts of situations. Tables should be additions to aid text, not the other way around. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! 100% agree. We are in many case trying to get tables to explain things they should not. Each asterisk, superscript number annotation, each exception requiring an alteration to the key, is a place where a table is trying to perform the functions of text. Many edittors fail to understand this. --Falcadore (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't believe it's difficult at all. These are articles on individual Grands Prix. What happenned in races subsequent to the one featured in each article is of limited relevance. Tyrrell points should be included riught up to the point they are disqualified. Any annotation that they were subsequently disqualified from the season belongs on the season article page.

Indeed perhaps the race results of Tyrrell drivers throughout the season should be reinstated with annotations suggesting that they were later (in some cases months later) disqualified from the race? --Falcadore (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That last point is a good one Falcadore, if we do include them, we're gonna have to alter the race report tables as well. Like I said above, if we use Schumacher as a precedent, we should include them until the time they were disqualified. Allypap81 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on the race report, if I understand the premise correctly. The championship standings are "this was the situation after the race" and there is a case for showing them as they were when the race finished, and showing the disqualifications at the later date. The race report articles are supposed to show the final result, i.e. the provisional result is irrelevant - whether someone is disqualified an hour after the race or a few months afterwards, it's the result after the disqualifications that matters. The Tyrrells should be listed where they finished, with the DSQ next to them. E.g. - 1984 Belgian Grand Prix should read 3. Arnoux, 4. Rosberg, 5. de Angelis, DSQ. Bellof, 6. Senna, 7. Tambay etc with Brundle being shown in the position he retired, also with DSQ next to his name. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, although it's gonna be difficult to work out where they did finish, as with your example, the table (and indeed the source at F1.com) only shows the laps completed, meaning that just going by the tables, Bellof could have finished 4th, 5th or 6th. How do we know he finished 6th originally?

Also, my Schumacher comparison is a different story as I've realised. He was excluded from the championship, kept his points tally but lost his c'ship position, and his points weren't redistributed. Tyrrell, however, were disqualified and their points redistributed.

So just to clarify, we should alter the race result tables to show the Tyrrells' original position, with DSQ next to their names, and include them in the "standings after the race" tables until their disqualification. Is this correct? Allypap81 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I recommend not making any changes to the tables for at least another 12 hours, to allow all interested parties a chance to see and comment on this thread. Regarding "listing the Tyrrells where they finished" in the race results table - are we suggesting only doing this for cases where the cars were disqualified a long time after the race, or for all disqualifications? I actually favour doing it for all disqualifications, but that would affect a sizeable number of articles. I think it shouldn't be too hard to find out where disqualified drivers originally finished in each race - for example, Autocourse shows that information for the 1984 races. DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the better sources, like FORIX/Autosport (and Autocourse as per DH), list where the drivers finished prior to their disqualification. Here they are, for the hell of it:

Brazil - Brundle 5th, Bellof Ret

S.Africa - Brundle 11th, Bellof Ret

Belgium - Bellof 6th, Brundle 8th

San Marino - Bellof 5th, Brundle Ret

France - Brundle 12th, Bellof Ret

Monaco - Bellof 3rd, Brundle DNQ (i.e. not DSQ)

Canada - Brundle 10th, Bellof Ret

Detroit - Brundle 2nd, Bellof Ret

Dallas - Bellof Ret, Brundle DNQ (injured)

GB - Bellof 11th, Johansson Ret

Germany - Johansson 9th, Thackwell DNQ

Austria - Johansson DNQ, Bellof Excluded

Netherlands - Johannson 8th, Bellof 9th

Italy, Europe & Portugal were no-shows.

The occasions when Tyrrells failed to qualify were left as DNQs, i.e. they weren't disqualified from the races as they never took part. Bellof was excluded during qualifying in Austria because he was underweight, a separate issue from the water / ballast issue that got them disqualified later. It's easy to find out when the retirees retired as well, to establish a position in the table for them. I would agree with your conclusion, Allypap81, that they should be listed in their finishing positions, but with DSQ next to their names instead of their track position. Also, yes, to include them in the "standings after the race" tables until their disqualification was applied. I agree with DH that this should apply to all disqualified cars in all races. I also agree with DH that we could leave it until everyone has had their say though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It should perhaps be pointed out that the results of those Grand Prix with the Tyrrells as classified finishers and would have been declared final. To call them provisional results is misleading. The disqualifications of Tyrrell were punitive penalty for a season long infringement, not a race-by-race penalty and were in some instance applied what six months after the event? To suggest that results are held back for six months and not declared final because of the possibility a team might later be rubbed out for the season would be to suggest that we should mark every 2010 race held thus far as provisional.

Schumacher in 1997 is not a precedent. The penalty was applied to a driver, not a team, Ferrari's constructor's points were unaffected. Additionally Schumacher was not disqualified from those 1997 races, he had his season pointscore only annulled. Just the pointscore. He kept his wins and other finishes. Points were not re-allocated for all races as if Schumacher had been disqualified from the races. In 1984, each race result was re-ordered around the Tyrrells. --Falcadore (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe Schumacher even got to keep his points (i.e. his points total of 1407 as recorded at FORIX and elsewhere includes his 78 points from 1997) - he only lost his championship position. DH85868993 (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I used the word "provisional" simply because those results did not turn out to be the final results. Obviously they weren't declared provisional at the time. But the Wikipedia race reports are not in suspended animation some time in 1984, they are supposed to show how the result stands now. There's no sense in them showing a result that wasn't final. Of course no-one's suggesting that the 2010 results so far are provisional, but they are not set in concrete either. If a team is found to be cheating, those results could be changed.

Schumacher did get to keep his points, his career points tally was unaffected. I'm sure DH is right. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Driver article debate

There's a debate going on at Talk:Mark Webber#Summary of 2010 season about the level of detail recorded for each race in the driver articles. I know some people here are trying to prune the driver articles as race by race, the articles get really lengthy. Other editors want a full story of each race, whether a driver was second or 16th. Please have your say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Motorcycle racers who have driven F1 cars

Category:Motorcycle racers who have driven F1 cars has been proposed for merging into all its parent categories. Please add any thoughts you may have on the matter at the discussion page. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

help

i need 1 million $. http://gglotus.org/blog/?p=1409  Dr. Loosmark  20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Lola

I've started a discussion about the inclusion of various cars in {{Lola}}. I'm advertising the discussion here because I'm not sure how many people would have {{Lola}} on their watchlists. DH85868993 (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

March

I have created a new template:

. Should I add the F3000, F2 and F3 cars built by March as well?  Dr. Loosmark  10:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would normally say yes add them in, but is there much point having a template with only one actual page existing? QueenCake (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope other articles will be created.  Dr. Loosmark  12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It might prompt some article creation. Might have a go myself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Should the template include the CG901 and CG911? I believe these cars are usually referred to as "Leyton House"s, and note that they are included in {{Leyton House}}. Also, should the template be formatted similar to the other F1 team templates, e.g. {{McLaren}}? DH85868993 (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lola built the Honda RA300, and it's included on both their template and the Honda F1 template. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Spooky. I've been considering starting a discussion on that very topic (among others) for the past few days, but just hadn't got around to starting it yet. DH85868993 (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, if you're going to create a template called simply "March Engineering", it's silly to include just the Formula One cars. March built many other successful cars. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, add the F3000, F2 and F3 cars. DH85868993 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• cough* The sports cars too, including the ones badged as Nissans. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And wasn't there a March-Porsche for the Indycar as well?  Dr. Loosmark  12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cooper and Lotus have everything. Why not March? Why not Lola? Why not Reynard? Why not Ralt? --Falcadore (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the Lolas are split into three templates: {{Lola}} (which only covers the F1 cars), {{Lola Formula Cars}} and {{Lola Sports Cars}}. DH85868993 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MasterCard Lola

I've just ruthlessly reduced the information on the V12 (or V10) engine Al Melling produced for this project. I may have gone too far but feel we really need to say no more than "the engine didn't appear and they had to use the Ford". The removed text claimed the engine was 6,995cc (?) Britmax (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reference for any of this? The³5₉ (Talk) 18:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I'll keep digging. Britmax (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)MasterCard Lola

Austin again

I notice the recent creation of Austin F1 Circuit. This one seems somewhat better-referenced than the previous incarnations. DH85868993 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the article was deleted because it was previously deleted. I couldn't find the previous deletion to see why it was deleted. At this point, it seems there is enough information available to create an article. We know the location of the track. That source also has a price and capacity of the track. We know the financiers of the project. We even know when the groundbreaking will occur. All that's really needed is a course design, but even that may be revealed soon. What else is needed for the article? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the previous deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it will be best to start the article once the diggers actually start moving earth. Plans that haven't started yet aren't the best basis for an article. QueenCake (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I reckon we should have an article. Because as mentioned above plenty of information is given. And even though the ground hasn't been broken there are many other notable building structures were ground hasn't been broken. Such as another set of Dubai planned towers a Cricket Stadium in India and this is even more notable. There is enough information as mentioned above for the article. The track design can still wait. People who come to wikipedia such as school kids for there research should have a standard place to look Plenty of information is available so let's go ahead and we'll build a sample article instead of a full one so everybody's concerns can be answered partically. We'll build it in a Sandbox page I've created User:Wiki id2/AustinF1Circuit I don't mind you can come and write article work but make sure you leave a history in the log. Let's see if we can get enough information on this article. I've also created a discussion page on that sample page so if you are not sure about typing something you can ask a question on the discussion page and we'll be willing to help. So once we've done that and we think information is sufficient enough let's come back here for approval. Any agreements? (Wiki id2(talk) 09:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

No problem at all with starting the article in a sandbox, it's much better to have the whole article in place when the time does come to create the article on the track. I'm just erring on the side of caution here, I've seen too many projects fail recently to support the creation of an article on something that doesn't yet exist. QueenCake (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Formula One teams 2009

An editor has created Template:Formula One teams 2009, listing the teams and drivers who participated in the 2009 season. I've nominated the template for deletion. Please contribute any thoughts you may have on the matter at the TfD discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

F1 grid layouts

I notice the recent addition of a grid layout to 1950 Monaco Grand Prix. Is this something we would like to see in other F1 race reports? As far as I'm aware, the only other race report that currently has one is 1950 British Grand Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the grid layouts would be useful for earlier F1 race reports, which are quite lacking content-wise. However, I wouldn't recommend adding them to recent race pages, where there is already enough information, such as a more thorough report about the race (e.g. for the British Grand Prix there are sections of text for background info, practice, qualifying, a summary of the race, and post-race, as well as the various tables - adding a grid layout would clutter it a bit too much). «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably not the best idea. When the grid is based on speed shown in practice/qualifying (as should be the case for the vast majority of cases since the 1930s) a simple order list is probably the best means of displaying it. Seems pointless to have both. Apterygial 09:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not keen on the grid layouts - just a duplication of the list of drivers and their grid positions, which all race articles have or should have. I don't think they really contribute anything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If it is a race from before the standard era of staggered two-by-two starting grids, then the formation of the starting line-up can easily be given in one sentence in the article.--Midgrid(talk) 12:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

More tables? Is it neccessary? Really? The other F1 reports get on fine without it. No, remove. --Falcadore (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Midgrid. It will probably be clearer for the reader to describe this in text. John Anderson (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick Heidfeld to Pirelli

Today I have reverted some changes, based on the feeling that the fact that Heidfeld now works for Pirelli does not mean that his period as Mercedes test driver vanishes into the ether as though it had never happened. Do members of the project agree with me or should an ex test driver be removed from the table? Britmax (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as you're test driver at one point it should be in the table - same way drivers are present when they're changed about. QueenCake (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

1950 entrants

I split the 1950 entry list into three categories - works teams, independents, and private entries, to make it more clear. Any feedback as to whether it should be changed back or applied to other 1950s pages? «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that that is overkill, actually. Plenty of the "independents" were actually just privateers with delusions of grandeur, and there really isn't much of a dividing line between the two. If you must split it (and I'd seriously argue that it is just hair splitting in any case) then just the two categories would be better: works teams, and "others". Pyrope 04:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Korean International Circuit and Silverstone

Hey everyone, the graphics for the Korean International Circuit and Silverstone need to be updated. The KIC layoung has changed; the first turn is now a sharp left into a gentle exit, rather than a gentle left into a sharp corner as depicted in the current picture (which is a shame because the original was way better ... anyway). As for Silverstone, the turn names need to be updated. In order the new section is Abbey, Farm, Village, the Loop, Aintree and the Wellington Straight. There is no corner known as "Arena"; "Arena" is the name of the configuration. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll recommend taking it up with the graphic creators on Commons, it shouldn't be a hard fix. QueenCake (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Shiny. I wasn't sure what the system was, and I'm not very handy with graphics programs myself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Brabham BT60Y

Started a merger discussion at Talk:Brabham BT60Y‎ about merging the BT60Y and BT60B articles. The 'B' is just and update of the 'Y', yes? --Falcadore (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Austin F1 Circuit"

Hey everyone,

I found this page this morning. It's original research (we don't know the name just yet), hardly sticks to NPOV, does not have the proper format for a circuit article and uses an image Wikipedia has no claim to. I trid to submit it as an AfD, but for some reason the deletion log showed up a previous version, "Unnamed Austin International Circuit". I'm hoping someoen can do it for me as a) I have no idea what I'm doing and b) I'm slightly hungover. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied it up a bit, although further suggestions as to an appropriate name are welcome! I think we should keep the article this time around, now that the track layout has been publicised.--Midgrid(talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd call the circuit Wandering Creek, because the land was originally set aside for a subdivision to be known as Wandering Creek. But that's just me; it's a very specific name, and I don't think that's what you're asking. Like I said, hungover. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the artiste-formerly-known-as-Diniz; it is very clear that this is a real project, with plenty of coverage in reputable, reliable, citable sources. As we've seen lately this article will continue to be remade, so we ought to keep this one as basis to build on and as a lightning rod. For now I have no problem with "Austin Formula One circuit" as a title, as all of Austin's other race tracks are defunct and none ever held an F1 race there ought to be little room for confusion. Pyrope 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The media interest and circuit plans probably warrant an article now. As for a name, I'd go with "Austin Formula One circuit" or my personal preference, "Austin Grand Prix circuit". Maybe having circuit spelt with a 'c' rather than a 'C' would show this is not the formal circuit name, but instead just an informative title for the page about the subject(?) - mspete93 23:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but in the meantime, I'll try and refrain from naming the page in other articles. Like the United States Grand Prix page; rather than saying "Austin Motorsport Circuit", I've gone for "the circuit". I know it's generic, but I'm trying to keep down the prevalence of what might be interpreted as original research.

Also, we're going to need a circuit map drawn up. Tavo Hellmund said that they wouldn't release the plan until after it had received FIA approval, which means that even if this is a draft, only minor changes will be made from here on in. And it shouldn't be too difficult to alter an image if it does change. We're going to need one because, as Pyrop said, this article is going to continue to be remade - and based on what I found this morning, people are going to keep including the image released by Hellmund and his people, which we don't have the rights to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what has really changed in two weeks since we last debated the subject, just two weeks ago the previous debate stopped. Why not set it as a redirect to US Grand Prix#Austin? Let the US Grand Prix carry the subject matter until construction begins. It could fall into a US F1 style heap in the meantime. The deletion discussion from June was overwhelming in fvour of delete. If an AFD was restarted it could well fail again. Wikipedia is not a news website, we don't have to cover information because a web-zine and print news-zine carries an article or an executive holds a press conference. --Falcadore (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not intending for the page to be created as news. Come on, you've seen the way the Formula 1 section of Wikipedia is run - the regulars hardly treat it as news. Sure, if a driver is announced as joining a new team, then he'll be added to te relevant pages and tables within five minutes of the annoucement, but we're never making Wikipedia out to be a news website. With regards to your question about what has changed in the past two weeks, the answer is a lot. We're talking about the circuit page, and now that a circuit plan has been released, we have a whole lot of substance for an article. The only thing that's missing is an official title for the place, and if we had that, then we wouldn't be discussing this much. As has been stated, there's not going to be much to prevent people from simply creating the Austin circuit page if we delete this one, so unless you want to go through AfD every other day, I'd keep it. I might have called for the page to be deleted to begin with, but I've since been talked around. I see no reason why the page shouldn't exist other than a lack of a name and the "Wikipedia is not news" argument - neither of which I think will hold up too long in AfD. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that Austin Motorsport Circuit is a poor choice for the rename, sorry Midgrid. Austin has had a number of motorsport circuits over the years, so this title lacks specificity. So far this circuit is being built specifically for, and funded by, a Formula One race promotor, so I see no issue with including the term "Formula One" in the title. Undoubtedly it will end up as the "Texaco/Dell/Exxon/Continental Airlines Motordrome", or whatever, but for now this circuit is Austin's one and only F1 venue (albeit in development) so it would seem to make sense to identify it as such as that will be how most people think of it. For now I have limited myself to merely removing the capitalisation (after all, an informal name can't be a proper noun) until we can agree on whether the name changes, but I for one would prefer to see the title revert to Austin Formula One circuit. Pyrope 03:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)