Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Benetton nationality

An editor has suggested that Benetton were at first British, then Italian, then British again. You are welcome to participate in the discussion at Talk:Benetton Formula/Archive 1#Benetton at first British, then Italian, then British again. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Link specificity

Hi! In order to get an overall good quality level in linking, the MOS suggests (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Link specificity) to avoid links like

• [[Maserati in motorsport|Maserati]] [[Maserati 250F|250F]]

and use instead a simpler

• [[Maserati 250F]]

Moreover linking many times on consecutive rows the name of the same company is just plain overlinking (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking and underlinking). I know the first link seems "more complete", but from the point of view of the reader is pointless to link also the company, he is going to find it on the car article. For these reasons I suggest to adopt also in this project (eg. Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Tables) links like [[Maserati 250F]]. I'm running a bot in order to fix wikilinks like these, so we are not going to spend human time on them. What do you think? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No, not cool, and some of the bot "fixes" have already been undone. This is, unfortunately, an example of the MoS creating more problems than it solves, and of people trying to force square peg solutions into every hole they find no matter what the shape. The existing conventions used by this WP have been developed over nearly a decade now, and are there for very good reasons. To deal with your points in order, the separate manufacturer and model links given reflect the fact that there are many Formula One cars for which no article exists (or have any prospect for there ever being an article). Therefore, rather than providing no link, only a redlink, or an easter egg link to the manufacturer's page, the two are separated. Hence, when a car page exists it can be linked clearly, when it does not there is a redlink to show that there is no specific page for that car, but the manufacturar's page is linked so readers are not 'left hanging'. The link structure is clear and explicit. Trying to combine them into one single link would lose either clarity or function, and in many cases both.

Secondly, I'm afraid that your statement that "linking many times on consecutive rows the name of the same company is just plain overlinking" isn't a cogent argument, but rather suggests that (like so many who simply invoke MoS diktat) you haven't really put your brain in gear when considering the functionality of Wikipedia, and particularly how people use and interact with tabulated data. Generally, when reading a table, a reader will scan down a column that gives some sort of sequential ranking (finishing positions, years, race times, whatever) or individual ID (driver name, team name, and so on) and then read across the row when they find the entry they are interested in. People don't commonly read a table from right to left, top to bottom. Hence, imposing an overlinking protocol that was developed for prose to tabulated data is fundamentally flawed. If someone finds a particular year that they are interested in, then reads across to find out what the driver was driving that year, they then should also be able to simply click that entry for more information should they want it. It is very inconvenient, and not a little disrespectful, to force your reader to have to go searching for a link further up the table. In tabulated data there is no problem with overlinking from an aesthetic aspect (actually, an even table of similar blue links actually looks smarter than a hodge podge, to my eye), no readability issues (unlike multiple blue links in prose), and there is no markup or other functional reason why each entry shouldn't be linked. So why not do it as it makes life much easier for someone actually, you know, using the thing to inform themselves?

I'm sorry if the above seems abrupt and discourteous, but I'm getting heartily fed up with the MoS and people trying to invoke its precepts without actually considering individual applications. As time moves on and Wikipedia develops, it is increasingly apparent just what an ill-conceived dogs' breakfast the MoS is in places, and unfortunately because of dogmatists and the self-appointed MoS defence league that situation is unlikely to change. If you can come up with some sort of reasoned argument as to why we need to change things then please do, but if all you are going to do is refer to stale MoS guides then you would be better off developing the chocolate teapot as a beverage container. Pyrope 20:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree with Pyrope, also noting that WP:OVERLINK explicitly says "... links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." (my bolding). DH85868993 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with both the above editors, and Pyrope has explained it extremely well. All of these aspects have been explored and discussed in the past, some many times, and the current situation is the result of years of fine-tuning. Absolutely no offence meant to Basilicofresco. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Twelve links to the same article within two inches look a bit punctilious, but I failed to remember that MOS allow them inside tables. Moreover your point about the random starting point in reading a table make sense, so no problems about them. Nevertheless I still feel quite excessive a link like "[[Cooper Car Company|Cooper]] [[Cooper T45|T45]]".

1. If Cooper T45 article exists, then it is the most specific article about the topic "Cooper T45" so we should link it without any unnecessary piping. It's the chassis column and should link a chassis. If the reader does not know what "Cooper" is, then he will find the link [[Cooper Car Company]] inside Cooper T45.
2. If Cooper T45 article does not exists, then a redirect should be created to the more appropriate article#paragraph. The correct paragraph is better than just the manufacturer's page (they could also be on different pages). It's the best solution if an article is going to be created, it's the best solution if no article is going to be created.

Basilicofresco (msg) 23:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In many instances the manufacturer article doesn't specifically mention the chassis type. So the redirect would be an "easter egg" redirect to the whole article. Readers could click the link expecting to find more information about the chassis type, only to find there's none there. By having separate links like this: Cooper T55, the reader can see that we have an article about Cooper, but there's no specific article about the T55 (which may encourage them to write an article about the T55). Or if the chassis article does exist, the reader has the choice of going to the chassis article, or directly to the manufacturer article, without having to go via the chassis article first. DH85868993 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

DH makes some very sound points. Basilicofresco, if a car article existed for all cars then your argument would be sound, but the facts as things stand are that there are not articles for each and every car. Hence, someone like John Watson has a combination of blue and redlink entries in his career table. What you are suggesting is that some of those links should be to a car page, and some of the links should be WP:EASTEREGG links to a manufacturer's page, and that we should be mixing the two in one table. Can you see how confusing and unintuitive that would be? A consistent and repeated style is much easier to comprehend. Using your own Cooper T45 example (a pipe to a very brief mention on the Owen Maddock page, incidentally), do note that the term "T45" appears a grand total of absolutely no times on the Cooper Car Company page. How would a piped easter egg benefit the reader there? Pyrope 23:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to get things straight. Has this bot been run on any articles of WP:F1 at all? Tvx1 (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It was run on Jack Brabham yesterday (which I reverted). That's the only one I've noticed. DH85868993 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Having scanned through the bots contributions somewhat, I have found that it has been applied to at least Michael Schumacher[1], Monaco Grand Prix[2] and Formula One[3] as well. It's likely that I failed to recognize some, because I can't possible now the names of every single Formula 1 driver there has ever been. Tvx1 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Also International Formula 3000 [4] and Brabham [5] have text altered from before his bot run. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Brabham situation is compounded by several early Brabhams official name was Repco Brabham. Whole other issue I know.

Basilicofresco does have a point. WP:LINKSTYLE specifically mentions this sort of behavior and why it should be avoided. Cooper T45 should link directly to the car article, which then can onward link to Cooper Car Company if a reader is sufficiently interested. If there is not an article on the car, then perhaps it should appear as Cooper T55 ([Cooper Car Company|Cooper] T55) instead of a redlink. --Falcadore (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move of John Barnard

An editor has proposed that the article currently located at John Barnard be moved to John Barnard (motorsport) and that John Barnard be converted to a disambiguation page. You are welcome to express any views you man have on the matter at Talk:John Barnard#Requested move 05 December 2014. DH85868993 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated

A tedious discussion regarding 2015 Formula One season is developing. The issue is how to best counter a vast number of edits to a particular section of the section. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. You can bring your input at the article's talk page. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

1960 United States Grand Prix

Hi all, Just passing on some feedback received on OTRS about 1960 United States Grand Prix-

The course diagram that accompanies this entry is wrong. Riverside International Raceway in its 1960 configuration only had nine (9) turns – officially. The turn connecting the ‘back’ straight (1.1mi inlength) and the front (S/F) straight is T-9. The two turns at the ‘top’ of the course are T-6 (a multi-apex RH turn of over 180° over the crest of a ridge), and T-8 (a long diminishing radius RH entry followed by an abrupt LH exit onto the back-straight). T-2/3/4/5 are all RH turns – each of these are followed by a left which is considered part of the preceding turn. You did get T-1 correct.

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 16:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know why the turn numbers are out, but you are right, they are. The circuit plan is correct for the 1960 USGP (i.e. the longest configuration of the pre-dogleg Riverside was used) but during drafting of that diagram the turn numbering seems to have been done by eye rather than with reference to any historical source. I'll see what I can do to correct that, although my vector graphics skills are not superlative! Pyrope 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so even a quick renumbering is stymied by there being not enough detail in that diagram, so I'll knock together another one in full. Might take a couple of days. Pyrope 20:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done There are new diagrams of the original circuit, the revised circuit, and a comparison of the two. If you or anyone else could please let me know about any mistakes or omissions I'll rectify them as soon as possible. Pyrope 20:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Separate "Baku European GP" from "European GP"

I would like to propose that we create a separate article for the Baku European Grand Prix and separate it from the European Grand Prix as its a separate race title, The United States Grand Prix West is separate from United States Grand Prix so why not separate those previously mentioned, Grand Prix titles cant be edited once a new name is used its a new grand prix in the eyes of the history books it would make a lot more sense as the European GP has never had the host city in its title. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion be continued at the existing discussion at Talk:European_Grand_Prix#Separate_Articles, so we don't have the discussion occurring in two places. DH85868993 (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Practice/Test driver numbers on Team Wikis

I've noticed that regular drivers that drove in 2014 who have taken test/reserve seats with other teams have carried their driver numbers over to their new teams, such as Gutierrez and Vergne over on the Scuderia Ferrari page. I know that a driver carries their number for the duration of their career in Formula One, but does this apply in a test/Friday practice capacity? Is their clarity on this issue, and should we continue to use their numbers if there isn't clarity?? Twirlypen (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, the McLaren page has Kevin Magnussen's career number 20 — his number he used while he had a race-day seat with McLaren... while the other driver, Stoffel Vandoorne, has number 32 — argued in another discussion regarding the addition and removal of 40 for Nasr (he ultimately selected 12) on the 2015 season page as that number being designated a team test/practice number — and does NOT belong to the driver. Thoughts? Twirlypen (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If one looks up the FIA F1 World Championship sporting regulations for 2015 and prior, there is no lack of clarity - go to: (http://www.fia.com/sport/regulations). The relevant rule is 19.1 b) which reads: "In addition to the above each team will be permitted to run additional drivers during P1 and P2 provided: i) The stewards are informed which cars and drivers each team intends to use in each session before the end of initial scrutineering, changes after this time may only be made with the consent of the stewards. ii) No more than four drivers are used in any one session. iii) They carry the race number that has been allocated to them. iv) They use the engine and tyres which are allocated to the nominated driver. v) They are in possession of a Super Licence."CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The table at the driver's chart last year suggests otherwise. Two different drivers used #45 for Caterham (and three used #46), two used #37 for Sauber, and interestingly Alexander Rossi used two seperate numbers while driving for two seperate teams. So no — I don't think the clarity is as established as even the rules state. Twirlypen (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it a case of official vs non-official OR in-season vs off-season test sessions then? If so, no clarity as you say! Otherwise must be force majeur reasons / dispensation to allow departure from the rule... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a case of drivers like Vergne (25) and Magnussen (20) having previously had established drives and thus claimed numbers, now in a reserve/test role versus drivers like Vandoorne who has been given the number 32 despite having never raced in Formula One, or Susie Wolff who has #41, which could very well be a Williams practice number not unlike the Caterham examples above and thus isn't actually Wolff's number.

Do:

A) previously established drivers keep their numbers despite their current diminished capacity with a team, and/or,

B) do last years practice numbers carry over with last year's practice drivers?

That's the clarity I'm hoping to find... and if it cannot be found, would it be in our interest to NOT include numbers for practice drivers until they are established? Twirlypen (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 (talk · contribs), Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs), GyaroMaguus (talk · contribs), The359 (talk · contribs) ... your input would be appreciated. Twirlypen (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is what we could assume happened last year: permanent race drivers got to choose numbers, then the teams were allocated numbers to give to their spare drivers. The order took the 2013 WCC order – so, working backwards from Caterham, we had:

• Red Bull: 15/16 or 16/18
• Mercedes: 23/24
• Ferrari: 28/29
• Lotus: 30/31
• McLaren: 32/33
• Force India: 34/35
• Sauber: 36/37
• Toro Rosso: 38/39
• Williams: 40/41
• Marussia: 42/43
• Caterham: 45/46

And if you look at 2014 Formula One season (which I did not use when making this), you see all the numbers agree, and even more tellingly, Vandoorne's #32 agrees with this list as well. However, I would note that none of the drivers who used these numbers last year were previously allocated numbers – so we literally don't know what will happen to those allocated numbers. I would say we should wait until any FP1 drives have been confirmed, and then report their numbers.

Going to the regulations point, every driver who is entered into an event e.g. the Brazilian GP entry list, which actually states "in accordance with Article 19.1 b)" followed by the two FP1 drivers, who have the default numbers from above. As far as I am concerned, these are the "race number[s] that has been allocated to them." So, until we know those numbers, we a limited. The numbers were initially allocated for a driver's career, and until updated further, I say we should hold those numbers. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That explains Vandoorne's 32 and Wolff's 41, but also tellingly, explains Rossi's number switch when he went from Caterham to Marussia. Would this all but confirm that these numbers belong to the team then, rather than the driver? That just leaves the question if previously established drivers (Vergne, etc) would continue to use their numbers during practice. Twirlypen (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is this an important subject to debate? No test/practice driver has a race number until they actually have a practice session. Leave blank until a reason to display the number occurs.

As with many things in wikipedia, when in doubt, await comfirmation. Simple. --Falcadore (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any numbers for test/reserve drivers on team articles, simply because, as has been demonstrated here, they don't have a personal all-season number. The number they use is determined when and if they are entered for a free practice session. If a test/reserve driver doesn't even compete in a free practice session during the entire season they don't even receive a number. The numbers are currently provided where they have the most value: on the season articles if one participates in a free practice sessions and thus receives a number. Tvx1 (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Falcadore, I wholly agree with regards towards FP drivers who have never actually raced, which is why I brought this up. I'm not trying to dissect this more than necessary, but judging by the direction this discussion seems to be going, I've removed all test driver numbers from all current teams, regardless if they have previously participated in a Formula One Grand Prix. Twirlypen (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent Ayrton Senna changes

An editor is making changes to the above article. I would like the project's opinion on whether the sources are reliable and accurately reflected (I do not speak Italian), whether the changes are excessive detail and whether the editor is trying to change the place of death by stealth. Opinions? Britmax (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, a lot of their additions and alterations seem to be 'supported' by the 8W article. However, that article itself uses very few direct quotations and is obviously paraphrasing and interpolating in places. One interesting thing to note is that the 8W article makes no claim about the relative status of the times of brain death or cardiac arrest in Italian law (as it is being used in the text), just that Dr. Fiandri made an annoucement at 6:40pm and that apparently the time of death would be recorded as 2:17pm. However, this is directly contradicted by the Libero Quitidiano article wherein Fiandri herself is quoted as saying "l’elettroencefalogramma che non dimostrava attività, cosa che oggi consentirebbe di dichiarare la morte, ma allora non potevamo farlo perché per la legge italiana la morte coincideva con l’arresto cardiaco: e finché non si è fermato il cuore, noi non potevamo constatare il decesso." (English: "the electroencephalogram showed no activity, which today would declare death, but then we could not do it because under Italian law death coincided with the cardiac arrest, and until you have stopped the heart, we could not ascertain death."). That's pretty clear cut. The legal time of death under the law in 1994 was the time of cardiac arrest, and that was when they turned off the machines. It seems that possibly today they have changed the law, but these things aren't retroactive. Pyrope 20:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I have no issue with some undoing of my revisions on the basis of "excessive detail" but I do resent the "trying to change the place of death by stealth" claim. It is all referenced and it is unfortunate that we don't all speak all foreign languages but that's no basis for the latter claim. The above response is definitely constructive. In 1994, this accident caused a huge scandal within the Italian institutions and investigating bodies because the time of death was 2:17pm and the circuit should have been shutdown as a crime scene... on the Sunday or, indeed, on the Saturday of Roland's death. Of course, commercial rights took priority and this is why, still today, we have the apparent but justifiable inconsistency that Britmax seems worried about.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that we do not all speak foreign languages may not be the basis for a claim, but it may be the basis for querying whether there is a claim to be made. I am satisfied that no such claim exists. I must say that your reply to my having queried you in this way was quite measured: some would be spitting feathers. I expect to see you around here for some time if you can maintain this calm demeanor in such circumstances. Britmax (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that there is this Senna's-death-wasn't-declared-until-hospital-for-commercial-reasons story going around, and people claiming it was a "scandal" at the time, but I have yet to see much in the way of evidence for it beyond some halfwit charlatan posturing from a supposed professional or two, none of whom were connected with the accident or its investigation. People keep mentioning the autopsy that was read at the trial, but they never give a verbatim transcript and, as we have seen above, when it comes to a good conspiracy theory only verbatim will do. Paraphrasing by a journalist or unconnected party is hopelessly flawed. Fiandri and Watkins both report that he had a pulse, and Watkins was involved in restoring his airway, so as far as action at the track is concerned in terms of a First Responder's ABCDs they were good to go. Fiandri's comments indicate that Senna was legally alive when he reached hospital, and this has always been the position of the Italian authorities. As things stand there is no confusion about the time of Senna's death. The accident happened at 2:17pm and Senna died later in hospital. If you have evidence to the contrary please do provide it, and I do mean hard facts not speculative (and, speaking as someone who has some fairly high-end emergency medicine training, very odd) ramblings from a medic who is not only unconnected with the investigation but doesn't even work in the same jurisdiction, as unfortunately seems to have become incorporated into some of our coverage here. One thing this discussion has prompted me to do it take a good, critical look at our Death of Ayrton Senna article, and I'm troubled by what I see. Pyrope 16:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

All I can make up from the "new" sources is what we already knew. Senna's brain activity stopped (and thus brain death occurred) at the moment of impact, while legal death occurred in the hospital when life support was switched off after it was determined his condition was irreversible. Tvx1 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Short of accessing Court files, this source is as detailed as it gets and supports the "official time of death" of 14:17 - see The Senna files (and another in Portoguese search "A hora oficial da morte") - as submitted to the Italian Courts on 18 March 1997 published throughout. Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that as currently drafted (my doing), it gives the impression that Dr Fiandri came out at 16:40 saying Senna passed away but then clarified that his official time of death is 14:17. That is not so. It was only during Italian court proceedings, after the medico legal experts and autopsy report came out in 1997, that it was found the death was caused by celebral death, which was instant upon impact with the wall at 14:17 on 1 May 1994. The link above is a thorough collection of happenings at the time. At the risk of being told off (I am a wiki newbie but realise that defence does not apply on here!) I will redraft... but feel free to revise, obviously.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is exactly what it pointed out in my last reply. Brain (or cerebral) death officially occured at the moment of impact. Legal death however is something completely different from official (biological) death, and you are incorrectly mixing these up here. Legal death is generally declared through issuing a death certificate. Tvx1 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no incorrect mixing up, there has been imprecise editing on my part (now changed) and the subsequent attempt (with all due respect) by some of you purporting to interpret the situation on "medicine" without regard to the Italian law. The link to official (biological) death is all well and good - but generic and irrelevant to Italy. See instead - current Italian regulations on this topic. "Legge 29 dicembre 1993, n. 578" (a "code"; another distinction from case law systems from where I assume most of you English-speaking editors are) is what applies in this case. N.B. Inter alia, this "code", which was enacted in December 1993 and therefore applied in full in 1 May 1994, stipulates that: "In medicina legale la morte si identifica come la cessazione non reversibile delle funzioni dell'encefalo" = "in forensic law, death is identified as the irreversible cessation of all brain functions". That is all I attempted to add - a distinction between the biological death referred to above (caused by cardiac arrest at approx. 4:37pm and announced 3 minutes later at 4:40pm), and the subsequent court finding that "legal death" was on impact at 2:17pm. What is indisputable is that it is good to see Senna still being remembered and spoken about, 24 years on.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you're again mixing up terms. Firstly, biological death is not a black and white situation like you claim and does not occur per definition by cardiac arrest. Brain death is just as much a case of biological death and that was what occurred at the moment of impact according to the Italian laws. Legal death is entirely different principle you still fail to understand. The legal death is the moment when someone ceases to exist as a legal person and thus ceases to be subject to their rights and restrictions determined the laws. A person is legally dead (≠biologically death by law) when a certified (i.e. the doctor) declares them to have died (no matter at which second exactly) and issues a death certificate. Tvx1 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

So, is there enough agreement to revert the changes now? Tvx1 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Forza Rossa Racing AFD

I have nominated Forza Rossa Racing for deletion as there is absolutely no evidence that the team exists beyond paper. The deletion discussion can be found here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're not jumping the gun a bit here. It was never their plan to enter in 2015 or never in the first place. Just like Haas, they were granted the permission to enter the sport in either 2015 or 2016. In fact, I thnink we jumped the gun a bit by at one point hinting they were scheduled to enter 2015. I'll leave this up to you though. Tvx1 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If they intend to join in 2016, then we can recreate the article at a later date. For now, it's premature and apparently only exists on paper. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I do think deleting now might be a little premature. If this entity does end up purchasing Caterham's assets, as has been rumoured, it could yet turn up next year, or at least have a real team in place that will deserve an article. I'd rather keep the article in place for a month or two to see if anything happens, rather than go through the hassle of deleting it and then possibly having to recreate it. QueenCake (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be keeping articles alive based on a rumour of what might happen. And the article is a stub - it's not like I'm proposing that we delete McLaren. Recreating it if need be won't be a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think recreating the article if needed isn't so much of a hassle either. If necessary, one of us could copy the entire current article to their sandbox. And if it should prove to be required than they can recreate it from their sandbox within 30 seconds. Tvx1 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the AFD ended with a merge. Yet, I don't see anything regarding Forza Rossa on the owner's article. Tvx1 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "He is the owner of Forza Rossa Racing, a motor racing team." - last sentence in the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Wolf Canadian team after all ?

There are two primary sources referring to Wolf nationality that contradict each other. On one hand authentic Entry list of 1978 and 1979 United States Grand Prix ( http://www.racingsportscars.com/covers/_Watkins_Glen-1978-10-01e.jpg and http://www.racingsportscars.com/covers/_Watkins_Glen-1979-10-07e.jpg ), both claiming Wolf as British, and on the other hand original statement of Walter Wolf himself quoted by Montreal Gazette on November 10, 1976, that claimed Wolf as Canadian team: " I´m very proud to be in a position to own and operate a Formula 1 team, and even more proud to launch the first Canadian team on the Grand Prix circuit." ( http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19761110&id=Qk8xAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y6EFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3218,2715219 )

Two years ago I found through internet only Entry lists at http://www.racingsportscars.com/ that claim Wolf as British team, so on the basis of that I suggested to regard Wolf as British and F1 community at wikipedia approved this. But now I find another primary source that opposes this and claims Wolf as Canadian. What of them would we prefer ?

Claim Wolf as British is backed only by US Grand Prix Entry lists and it is possible that American organisers simply made a mistake (misled by fact that team was based in England), on the other hand original intention of Walter Wolf to register his team as Canadian might have been later changed for some reason or simply the FIA didn´t approve it and registered Wolf as British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucullus19 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

StatsF1 also identifies Wolf as British. (I'll keep looking for other sources). DH85868993 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wolf was Canadian in the same way that Brabham was Australian, McLaren was New Zealander, Toro Rosso is Austrian and Leyton House and Footwork were Japanese. Owned by people from one country, registerred and based in another. --Falcadore (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore nailed it, but I think he means Red Bull is Austrian? Toro Rosso is Italian. Registration is the key, which is also why we still see Manor on entry lists even though the Marussia owners are out.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Toro Rosso is owned by Red Bull of course, Austrian ownership, but lives in Italy. It's not just British registerred teams that can have foreign ownership from the country they live in. --Falcadore (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

DH85868993, StatsF1 seems to only reproduce nationality that we have already made at wikipedia. When we had changed Shadow´s nationality to both American (1973-75) and British (1976-80) here at wikipedia, StatsF1 repeated this change according to wikipedia as well. Before that, StatsF1 identified Shadow just as American. Remarkably, http://www.racingsportscars.com/f1/entry/Buenos_Aires-1977-01-09-14178.html identifies Wolf as Canadian.Lucullus19 (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there is simple answer to this question. Which flag was raised for their podium finishes and which national anthem was played for Wolf's three race victories? Tvx1 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that no such film records of those three races providing national anthems exist. Btw, both our only primary sources that identify Wolf as British (1978 US Grand Prix Entry list and 1979 US Grand Prix Entry list) proved to be not entirely reliable referring to participant´s nationalities, because, for instance, identified John Watson as Irish and in fact he is British.Lucullus19 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I know it's not definitive, but the commentators at the time always called it a Canadian team. (And it made me so proud... ;p ) Johnny Canuck ^{Maple Leaf forever} 21:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether it's me or whether it's coincidence. But all sources produced to claim they're Canadian seem to relate to 1977, whereas all sources produced claiming they're British seem to relate to 1978 and 1979. It's it possible that they changed their nationality during their existence? Tvx1 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To solve the Benetton dispute, I looked at the Grand Prix Data Book. For Benetton, it helped. Here, it doesn't as much. The book states that Wolf was both Canadian and British (in that order). However, it says nothing about when any change was made. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Season in Progress

I see an editor has removed or suppressed outdated season in progress notes. My question would be, do we need these at all? Put simply, aren't most people aware of what year it is and which season is running? Britmax (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Racing seasons do not correspond to a calendar year, nor to each other. Some series are short and run only for a few months, others run for pretty much the entire year. While I think most people are aware of what year it is, I don't think even most motorsport fans could tell you offhand what the end date of more than a handful of series seasons would be, let alone a non-specialist coming here with little background knowledge. Pyrope 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

They also assist the reader in cases where a results table is not up to date. For example, if a reader sees a Formula One results table like this:

Year	Entrant	Chassis	Engine	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	WDC	Points
2014	McLaren Mercedes	McLaren MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid 1.6 V6 t	AUS 2	MAL 9	BHR Ret	CHN 13	ESP 12	MON 10	CAN 9	AUT 7	GBR 7	GER 9	HUN 12	BEL 12	ITA	SIN	JPN	RUS	USA	BRA	ABU	11th	37

in December 2014, even if they know the season is complete, it's unclear whether 11th/37 were the driver's final championship position and points score, and they just didn't contest the last 7 races of the season, or whether the table is out of date. However, if they see a table like this:

Year	Entrant	Chassis	Engine	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	WDC	Points
2014	McLaren Mercedes	McLaren MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid 1.6 V6 t	AUS 2	MAL 9	BHR Ret	CHN 13	ESP 12	MON 10	CAN 9	AUT 7	GBR 7	GER 9	HUN 12	BEL 12	ITA	SIN	JPN	RUS	USA	BRA	ABU	11th*	37*

* Season in progress.

then it's almost certainly the latter case. (I am "the editor" by the way). DH85868993 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

1952 Formula One season

A proposal has been made for renaming the article 1952 Formula One season. You can leave your opinion on the article's talk page. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

New DYK for F1 portal?

I wonder if we should add another DYK to the portal? There are several good suggestions available. I would be willing to put them together. How do I create a new set of DYKs? Zwerg Nase (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Article requests

Why you don't site with full article requests? I see only some red links in Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/To-do but there aren't all needed. Check how it see on Polish version of Wikipedia. I know you have more articles than Polish version. Eurohunter (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, 1:10 scale radio-controlled Formula One car is a terrible idea for an article. --Falcadore (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I also. Radio-controlled Formula One car would be better ever needed. Eurohunter (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Article+redirect nominated for deletion

FYI, Planet F1 has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Formula One Podcasts has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Forza Rossa Racing has also been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion, though since the article has been deleted I doubt it would be a long discussion... QueenCake (talk)

Massive issue with pretty much a whole museum's collection of "F1 cars"

• We appear to have a fairly large problem with a lot of the Formula One images across most of the Wikipedias. Basically, it seems to myself and a friend that Auto und Technik Museum Sinsheim appear to have a huge amount of F1 cars that have either been modified into incorrect (ie newer) liveries, or are just plain fake.

Some of the examples I've seen include:

• File:2001_Red_Bull_Sauber_Petronas_C20_pic2.JPG - I'm sure that I don't need to tell anyone here that, not only is this clearly not the right car, it isn't even a 2000s F1 car. A comparison image of the real car: [6].
• File:2001_BMW-Williams_FW23.JPG - same issue as above. File:Ralf Schumacher 2001 Canada.jpg is small, but very quickly discredits the museum-based FW23.
• File:Toyota F1 2002 Museum Sinsheim.jpg - Rather more subtle, but the airbox is wrong, the front wing is wrong, etc. Compare that image to File:Toyota_TF102.jpg, for example.

The question is; what should we do about this? There's far too many fakes to go through manually and remove/replace, but we can't really let such obvious fakes sit in articles (I started removing/replacing them myself, but gave up due to the large scale of the problem). Now, I'm not saying that every car this museum has is a fake, but most of the ones I've looked at are either marginal at best, or miles out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see your point with the FW23 (which seems to be rather a 1990s Williams). But as for the Sauber C20, that might easily be a real 2001 car. There might have been slight modifications during the season to the model you posted... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And then again, they prove how little they know about F1 cars with this [7] ....... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are at least two more pictures of the C20 at File:2001 Red Bull Sauber Petronas C20 pic1.JPG and File:2001_Red_Bull_Sauber_Petronas_C20_pic3.JPG. I've found this image, which only further discredits the fake C20; the sides aren't even close, and nor is the livery for that matter. Front suspension is wrong, and the rear wing shouldn't be linking into the bodywork like that! These are more than just minor modifications, they're pretty major. Here is another good shot of the C20 from another angle. Good find on the MP4 thing, that's a pretty big nail in their coffin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree at least on the rear wing build in part. I will write an email to the museum (seems appropriate since I'm a native speaker) and inquire about this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's actually a repainted Sauber C19. Tvx1 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The museum reacted swiftly, the answer goes as follows (translated by yours truly):

Thank you for your email. Your notes are partly correct. The cars are on loan in the museum and we need to abide by the information given by the hirers. The Toyota is no longer on display, but it was a direct loan item by Toyota and we were bound by what they told us. The Sauber is a C19 with the livery of the C20, but the sign in front of the car made reference to that fact. You are however right about the Williams, we did not pay enough attention here. It is a FW21, we will change this shortly.

Regards, Roland Boeuf

Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I do however doubt it is a FW21, rather a FW19.Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

See! Told you it was a C19. Tvx1 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good call there Tvx1. Obviously their hirers don't have a clue what they're talking about, if that claim is indeed legit, since so many cars are so badly wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess we can agree that photos from this museum's exhibition will only be used with extreme caution from now on. Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have requested the C20 images to be renamed. I think that you're right as well that the Williams is a FW19, even though the air intake (above the cockpit) is different. Tvx1 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

They have been renamed. Tvx1 (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Full Technical Specification tables

I notice the recent addition of very detailed "Full Technical Specification" tables to Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid, Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid and Caterham CT03. Personally, I don't think these are necessary. What do others think? DH85868993 (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As I stated on Talk:Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid, begone with them!! All necessary information can go into the infobox. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, someone added 2015 Australian Grand Prix as debut to every 2015 car. I feel like that is getting ahead of ourselves. No one says it's certain all teams will make the grid in Australia. I say we should take that out as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There may be a place for detailed specs. but not in the body of the articles as they stand. Maybe in a separate subsection, somewhat reduced & condensed. In most instances the infobox should be used as far as possible anyway, as stated above. Also I note there is a template "cars that WILL compete in 2015". Is this OK or WP:CRYSTAL? Eagleash (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, most cars are confirmed planned to race in 2015, so maybe we should rephrase it Cars set to compete in 2015? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that helps much really. My view is that it is a pretty pointless template as in a few weeks time it will become obsolete (once the season starts). The template is found via Template:F1 cars 2015 but has been re-named, so perhaps it should be hidden until the season has actually begun? Eagleash (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that the Manor MR01 is included in that template. It should be removed since Manor's participation has not been confirmed yet. Tvx1 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Caterham are included also; have they been confirmed as yet? However this is not getting DH's original point answered. (& yes I know, I sidetracked it in the first place :P ) Eagleash (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Caterham haven't even announced a 2015 contender yet, so there is no way they should be included. Regarding the other questions that have been raised. No, the technical specifications tables should not be included they way they currently are and no the debut fields should not be filled in yet. Technical specifications can be incorporated in the infobox, like we have always done, and debut fields should not be filled in until the cars have actually made their debut since Wikipedia deals with facts. Tvx1 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see TheriusRooney has moved to F1 cars. He has added these data tables to tons of race car articles, it's hard to keep them in check, and he readds the information even if it is removed. My thought is, if it doesn't have a section in the infobox, it's probably trivial information anyway. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

They weren't added by TheriusRooney but by Everready Jim. By the way, an editwar has occurred over this on the Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid article. Tvx1 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have sufficient power to block those who put in the tables from doing it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've re-removed the table since consensus seems clear; that they're not appropriate. TheriusRooney was behind the Caterham CT03 edits, whilst Everready lim made the edits to the Merc articles. And not unilaterally without going through an ANI thread or anything like that, I'm afraid Zwerg. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Let's hope it stays this way. I saw that my photo of the W05 was removed since I misunderstood the licence back then. There is a Mercedes motorsport exhibition in Berlin atm, I'll go visit it tomorrow and see if I can get a nice shot ot the car on display :) So long, Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I removed all the debut entries. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And I removed the Caterham and the Manor from the template. Tvx1 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The tables returned earlier today on W05 Hybrid and W06 Hybrid but they were removed again. Tvx1 (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Copersucar

Our 1975 Formula One season article lists the Copersucar-Fittipaldi team using just the FD01 chassis. Yet the articles on Fittipaldi Automotive and on Wilson Fittipaldi Júnior list them as using a FD02 and FD03 chassis during the 1975 season as well. So what's the correct version and if they the did indeed use all three chassis, which was used for which races? Tvx1 (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Steve Small (Guinness Complete Grand Prix Who's Who) lists (Wilson Fittipaldi) FD01 Argentina only. FD02 Brazil to Sweden. FD03 remainder (practiced FD02 at Zandvoort). (Merzario) FD03 for his one race at Monza. Eagleash (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This from OldRacingCars.com agrees with the above. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Formula One French engine manufacturers

You may be interested in the recently-created article Formula One French engine manufacturers. DH85868993 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The language in this article is really bad. Tvx1 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what this article adds next to Category:Formula One engine manufacturers and Formula One engines. It's just a sprawling list of engines stats from French manufacturers. QueenCake (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Most of which are unsourced, at that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article Formula One French engine manufacturers is a translation of French equivalent article on French Wikipedia (Its English language is certainly weak and can be better). All the sources come from this French article and are in French language (Renault is a major motorist, Gordini, Matra, Peugeot and Talbot were major motorists).--BarthAndMary (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Eleven out of twelve references are now in English. Thanks to all those who have improved the English language.--BarthAndMary (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed that the article be renamed. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Formula One French engine manufacturers#Article name. DH85868993 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As a result of the discussion, the article has been moved to Formula One engine manufacturers from France. DH85868993 (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect position numbers List_of_Formula_One_driver_records?

Hi all

Long time no see :(

I am in the middle of some work and cannot get away until tomorrow night.

Someone posted a link to the list on a Facebook group site (12,000+ "followers") I am a member of.

I have posted on the talk page there about the seemingly incorrect position numbers in some of the tables contained therein.

If anyone has time to take a look at it before tomorrow night when I am free, I would greatly appreciate it.

The issue is really whether someone has maliciously deleted a driver or two (thus leaving the nubers incorrect) or if it is simply a mistake after changing some of the entries to reflect real-time changes.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, no problem with the tables. Your problem is reading the table simply as a list of drivers, rather than (as shown) a combination of driver-event or driver-season records. The issue is why nobody within a "12,000+ follower" Facebook group managed to work this out. Pyrope 03:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the tables is that while they have some position numbers for the relative position in the table, not every position is numbered. My own view is that whilst the data is correct and the numbering is correct, as currently presented, the methodology and thus the content is a little unclear. Whether or not 12,000+ Facebook followers are having sleepless nights about this is irrelevant, ultimately we should be striving for clarity. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ordering the team and drivers table from 2014 onwards

Last year we were confronted with the FIA introducing a new way of determining driver numbers. This created an issue for us as we could no longer use our usual system of ordering our tables by car numbers once an entry list was published simple because the numbers would no longer be sequential. So after a difficult debate in search of a solution for the problem at hand on short-term we settled for the solution of ordering the table in alphabetical order of constructor name (a default system we would actually use in previous seasons as well until the entry list with the numbers would be published). A year has gone by since and we now have been able to get accustomed to the FIA's new system as well a taking a long-term view on the issue. This is were I would like to propose a tweak to the current practice. We could change the base layout of the table to reflect the teams order in the outcome of the Constructor's Championship at the end of the season (e.g. 2014 WCC order for 2014). This would echo the pre 2014 practice were we would have a temporary layout period and a permanent layout period with the point were we make the change being shifted from start of the season pre-2014 to end of the season 2014 onwards. Note that this option has been raised as recently as last month. Alternatively we can simply provide WCC order as sortable option using the "teams" column without rearranging the default order of the table, like this:

Nat.	Team	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Nat.	Race drivers	Rounds	No.	Nat.	Free Practice drivers
	Caterham F1 Team	Caterham-Renault	CT05	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9 46 10 45		Marcus Ericsson Will Stevens Kamui Kobayashi André Lotterer	1–16 19 1–11, 13–16, 19 12	45 45 46		Alexander Rossi Roberto Merhi Robin Frijns
	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7 14		Kimi Räikkönen Fernando Alonso	All All	—
	Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India-Mercedes	VJM07	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	11 27		Sergio Pérez Nico Hülkenberg	All All	34		Daniel Juncadella
	Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault	E22	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	8 13		Romain Grosjean Pastor Maldonado	All All	30 31		Charles Pic Esteban Ocon
	Marussia F1 Team	Marussia-Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	4 17		Max Chilton Jules Bianchi	1–17 1–16	42		Alexander Rossi
	McLaren Mercedes	McLaren-Mercedes	MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	20 22		Kevin Magnussen Jenson Button	All All	—
	Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	F1 W05 Hybrid	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	6 44		Nico Rosberg Lewis Hamilton	All All	—
	Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull-Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1 3		Sebastian Vettel Daniel Ricciardo	All All	—
	Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21 99		Esteban Gutiérrez Adrian Sutil	All All	36 37 37		Giedo van der Garde Sergey Sirotkin Adderly Fong
	Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso-Renault	STR9	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	25 26		Jean-Éric Vergne Daniil Kvyat	All All	38		Max Verstappen
	Williams Martini Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	19 77		Felipe Massa Valtteri Bottas	All All	40 41		Felipe Nasr Susie Wolff
Sources:

Any thoughts? Tvx1 15:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

My first thought is that, of course we could have used the previous number based system, why on earth would it have been that difficult to understand? Numbers had been non-sequential before and it never prevented us from doing so. The alphabetical system was adopted as a compromise between editors who (myself amongst them) could not come to consensus.

My second thought is that changing the format AFTER the season is complete is revisionism. The entire seasons has passed and we want to change it?

Third thought: why does it have to follow constructors championship order, isn't that why we have the results matrix/points table for?

Not strictly speaking a fourth thought, call it 3B. Why do folks have an obsession over constructors order? We've not used it except when it co-incided with number order. If you look back prior to the previous change to numbering systems when teams kept the same number each year we never once ordered those tables in either constructors or alphabetical order.

There are a few editors here who want something to be true that just isn't. --Falcadore (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Some editors want something to be true that just isn't? Where is AGF in that? Could we please have a discussion based on the content instead of on the contributors? I would love to have a friendly constructive discussion here. If the outcome is not to change the order, then so be it. I just wanted to mention an option we overlooked last year and might satisfy the more users than the compromise we settled for with which many users were not that happy with. Tvx1 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Might I also say, you actually haven't tried sorting the table you've just created by the teams column have you? If you sort the team column, it sorts them by the alphabetical order of the flags, not the teams. And bearing in mind whether a country is typed out in full or using the three letter code changes that order again. It's completely arbitrary. --Falcadore (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Falcadore. I've coded the team's column so that it sorts them to the constructors championship order. Click it and you will see. Flags don't even remotely come into equation here. Tvx1 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You asked for thoughts. There they are. If you are going to dispute them then you weren't after thoughts were you? Where is the AGF in that? --Falcadore (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've said I want thoughts and that I'm not after a change by any means. If no change is agreed upon so be it. I want a constructive discussion. So let's please stop commenting on the contributors and keep it to the content. Tvx1 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

All good, but how on earth is the viewer meant to tell that the teams column sorts itself out by the WCC order? I had to read the rest of the text post to work that out, and text explaining it can't be put in the article. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Here were the table is out of its context it's not that obvious of course, but in the article itself you have to pass three notices who the champions are before encountering the table. It's really difficult to miss the champions and with that information it's obvious it's the WCC order. Tvx1 00:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Let us say I pass those three notices. How do I know which column to sort (surely the "Constructors" column, since they are the "World Constructors Champions")? But really? There is no actual link between a column labeled "Team" and the fact that it sorts in WCC order or that the WCC champions are mentioned above. Sure, it is a useful addition, and it'll make sense once sorted and brain is applied, but you really have to apply brain to make the link (I mean, you have to think (I'll look down the page, find a WCC order, then go back, realise it is the WCC order, be happy). When I first saw the sortable column I thought it meant to sort by team name, even though I have been sort-of following these discussions. It'll confuse people and is unnecessary in my eyes. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's really not an effort to switch the sorting criteria in between the "Team" and "Constructors" columns. Like so:

Nat.	Team	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyre	No.	Nat.	Race drivers	Rounds	No.	Nat.	Free Practice drivers
	Caterham F1 Team	Caterham-Renault	CT05	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9 46 10 45		Marcus Ericsson Will Stevens Kamui Kobayashi André Lotterer	1–16 19 1–11, 13–16, 19 12	45 45 46		Alexander Rossi Roberto Merhi Robin Frijns
	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7 14		Kimi Räikkönen Fernando Alonso	All All	—
	Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India-Mercedes	VJM07	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	11 27		Sergio Pérez Nico Hülkenberg	All All	34		Daniel Juncadella
	Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault	E22	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	8 13		Romain Grosjean Pastor Maldonado	All All	30 31		Charles Pic Esteban Ocon
	Marussia F1 Team	Marussia-Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	4 17		Max Chilton Jules Bianchi	1–17 1–16	42		Alexander Rossi
	McLaren Mercedes	McLaren-Mercedes	MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	20 22		Kevin Magnussen Jenson Button	All All	—
	Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	F1 W05 Hybrid	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	6 44		Nico Rosberg Lewis Hamilton	All All	—
	Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull-Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1 3		Sebastian Vettel Daniel Ricciardo	All All	—
	Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21 99		Esteban Gutiérrez Adrian Sutil	All All	36 37 37		Giedo van der Garde Sergey Sirotkin Adderly Fong
	Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso-Renault	STR9	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	25 26		Jean-Éric Vergne Daniil Kvyat	All All	38		Max Verstappen
	Williams Martini Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	19 77		Felipe Massa Valtteri Bottas	All All	40 41		Felipe Nasr Susie Wolff
Sources:

Tvx1 18:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Iso is Italian marque, in 1973 and 1974 constructors championships tables should be Italian flag at Iso marque

At Formula One engines we mark Ford with US flag and in this list of F1 engines we include for Ford wins also all Cosworth wins. British Frank Williams constructor in 1973 and 1974 seasons built chassis for Italian Iso marque, just as British Cosworth built engines for American Ford marque . Why then we do not give British flag to Ford name in the list of F1 engines ? Or Luxemboutg TAG marque paid to German Porsche that built for them engines, but in the list of engines is only listed Luxembourg TAG marque, not German flag, although engines were German-built by German company PorscheLucullus19 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

First, the engines page shouldn't have flags, and this is partly why. Because engine manufacturers aren't part of a championship, they don't really represent a country. With teams, they have licences and represent a particular country. Williams always had a British licence, hence the British flag. It doesn't matter what cars he ran. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Iso was merely a sponsor for the team, they were not the constructor. I do wonder however why there is no entry for Cosworth in the table on Formula One engines. After all, we correctly distinguish between Honda and Mugen as well. Tvx1 16:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

StatsF1 lists Iso as constructor and as constructor with Italian nationality. Lucullus19 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Then that particular website has the facts in a muddle. Frank Williams Racing Cars, as it was then, raced under a British licence, using cars named "Iso-Marlboro" after the team's sponsors. Iso's nationality has nothing to do with it. I removed the flags from the Formula One engines page, as Bretonbanquet quite rightly pointed out engine manufacturers do not represent a country.

To Tvx1, that particular table is only for manufacturers who have won races. Unless I'm mistaken, a Cosworth-branded engine has never won a race. QueenCake (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding, Iso. For clarity I would be best to produce sources who identify them as being FWRC rather than an independent constructor.

Regarding, Cosworth. It's really unclear whether they have won races or not, most of them are considered as Ford wins. It doesn't help that the results table on our Cosworth article is desperately incomplete. Tvx1 21:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt Tvx1. The DFV and its derivatives (ok, only the DFY ever won anything) were all Fords, as were the HB and Zetec motors. Latterly Stewart-Ford and Jordan-Ford were the last pair of wins, and they were both definitely FoMoCo branded. Pyrope 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

2000 Belgian GP Peer Review

I've opened a Peer Review on the 2000 Belgian Grand Prix so that I can hopefully get some feedback regarding improvements to the article before I take it to FAC. Your comments and opinions are most welcome on this race and can be put at the article's peer review page. Thanks. Z105space (Talk to me!) 17:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. I hope you don't feel my wording is too harsh. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Villeneuve/2003 Malaysian Grand Prix: Ret or DNS

We currently have some internal inconsistency regarding Jacques Villeneuve's result at the 2003 Malaysian Grand Prix: Jacques Villeneuve and 2003 Formula One season say "Ret" whereas 2003 Malaysian Grand Prix, British American Racing and Honda Grand Prix results say "DNS". External sources are also split: formula1.com, grandprix.com and ChicaneF1 say "Ret" whereas StatsF1 and FORIX (subscription site so I can't provide a link) say "DNS". What's our preference? DH85868993 (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. If memory serves correctly, Villeneuve's car was one of two which failed at the beginning of the parade lap, not at the start of the actual race (lights out). Checking the video footage online also, only the other stalled car (Da Matta) attempted to start from the pit lane. If Villeneuve's car did NOT attempt a pit lane start, as it seems, then for me it would be "DNS". If there was a failure at, or soon after, the pit lane start, then for me it would be "Ret". Orphan Wiki 13:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The BBC highlights here says right at the start that da Matta and JV were both forced to start from the pit lane. However at the start as the cars leave the grid it can be clearly seen (helps to pause the footage — in "full-screen") that there is only one car waiting in the pit lane. I'm not sure which one it is, maybe someone else can identify it. Eagleash (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• [8] gives a paragraph to the incident. Villeneuve's spare car had a buggered gearbox, whilst da Matta started from the pit lane. I'd go with DNS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd also go with a DNS. I can't find any evidence that he got off the line. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I watched the BBC highlights and as the camera was on Jarno Trulli, at about 1:08 on the video, a Toyota very far behind the remainder of the pack drives past. Hence, the car in the pit lane looks to be Da Matta, so DNS. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, DNS it is. Thanks for your input everyone. I have updated the relevant articles. DH85868993 (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

2004 United States Grand Prix

Hopefully to a better standard than Belgium 2004, I've given this a markup. Can someone give this a once-over please, and if possible, do some digging, as I can only find a few sources for this race. I haven't linked it yet, so here is the article in question. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Spa-Franks, I did quite a bit of overlink cleanup. I let links in the lead be linked again in the article if they were mentioned, but aside from that, links should typically only appear once in an article. Information in tables and photo captions can be linked again. Other than that, it appears to be pretty well written. Good job. Twirlypen (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Solicitation of comments/opinions

Hello everyone. I have put forward a proposed method in my sandbox of how we could improve the quality of our season articles over the past couple years (at least starting with 2015). I am looking for a broader audience in this matter as the current concensus seems to favor omitting certain information, but I feel its inclusion would not be detrimental to the quality of the article, so replies can either be made here or in the appropriate section of the article's talk page. Regards, Twirlypen (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Biggest problem I can see is that it is not a review of the Formula One season but is a piecemeal, one-race at a time look at the season. This basic misunderstanding is not what we should have. When we have an individual article describing each race, a series of tiny race-by-race summaries are frankly redundant. The article, 2015 Formula One season has a holistic title and the contents should reflect that. Replace the one-race-at-a-time review with a season review. --Falcadore (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This was modeled after the 2012 article, which currently has a GA rating. This is not to say that I'm right or you're wrong, just that's why I chose to use that as my basis. I get your side, being a general review of the season, and that other sports' season articles obviously wouldn't have a match-by-match review. I am trying to just get an idea of what we could do differently because, as brought up on the talk page, the 2013 and 2014 style is very difficult to follow, and essentially has the results in 11 different spots of the section for each of the 11 teams. It just feels like a much needed improvement is out there. Twirlypen (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Then it needs to be written better. Describing one race at a time is a very lazy way of describing the season and does not deliver a story of the season. Perhaps it just needs to be plotted out. --Falcadore (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Tables

It seems to that the basic design op wikipedia tables on the mobile site has changed (I don't know exactly when it happened.). They now have a border, grid lines (= row and column borders) appear even if they're coded not to do so and header cells no longer have a background color. On a somewhat related issue, a long standing issue with flags and line breaks has been solved. Tvx1 02:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Races that never happened

I have noticed that the 2015 season article currently details the circumstances behind races that will not take place: the Korean, Indian and New York races. They appear to have been included on the grounds that they have a contract, but given that they were not held in 2014 and will not be held in 2015, I am bemused as to their inclusion. If they do not feature as part of the season, why is it so important that they are mentioned there? In ten years' time, will it really matter that the Korean GP was on the calendar for six weeks, but never run? Surely that's a detail that is better-suited to the Korean GP article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a short discussion at Talk:2015 Formula One season/Archive 7#Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015 about whether Korea/Gp of A should still be there. I personally think having 1-2 lines on them is fine, they were reasonably notable events, as these were Grands Prix with a contract to race this season, which didn't happen. I also think the German Grand Prix bit should be shortened, but not until when we know for sure if it's on or off. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that if, in ten years time, someone comes across a reference to the "2015 Korean Grand Prix" (of which there are plenty), 2015 Formula One season is one of the two most likely places to which they would go to find information about the race. It also seems that our de facto standard is for season summary articles to mention races which never happened, e.g.

• 1955 Formula One season mentions the cancelled French, German, Spanish and Swiss Grands Prix
• 1956 Formula One season mentions the cancelled Dutch and Spanish Grands Prix
• 1957 Formula One season mentions the cancelled Dutch, Belgian and Spanish Grands Prix
• 1959 Formula One season mentions the cancelled Argentine, Belgian and Moroccan Grands Prix
• 1960 Formula One season mentions the cancelled Moroccan Grand Prix
• 1961 Formula One season mentions the cancelled Moroccan Grand Prix

etc

DH85868993 (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Joseph and DH85868993. As long as it is reasonably short, these races should be mentioned in the season article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being included either. Tvx1 17:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a race being cancelled mid-season as a response to the Le Mans disaster, as was the case in 1955, and a race being dropped from the provisional calendar before the final version is published. If the change impacts the season, then of course it should be included. But I fail to see how races that weren't run in 2014 and won't run in 2015 are in any way relevant to the 2015 season. We might as well list the drivers who didn't race in 2014 and tried to get a seat in 2015, but couldn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, whether there are 20 or 21 races on the 2015 calendar determines whether the teams get 4 or 5 power units for each car.12 So whether or not the Korean, Indian and New York races are run does impact the season. DH85868993 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Except they're not being run at all, so there is no impact in this case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what the issue is. The Korean Grand Prix was scheduled and has since been cancelled, and was the subject of a little bit of conversation (particularly due to Bernie Ecclestone spouting yet more conflicting rubbish, if I remember correctly). Likewise, it's worth noting that the Indian Grand Prix was officially supposed to happen, but again was shifted. The Grand Prix of America is different; it was never officially confirmed as a 2015 race, whereas the other two were at separate points, and it probably shouldn't be mentioned. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And that's my issue—they have been cancelled. They have no bearing on the 2015 season. I don't think that "they were officially supposed to happen" is enough of a justification. In the case of India, there are multiple contradictory sources claiming that the race was variously supposed to rejoin in 2015 and 2016, making it an open-ended question. And the Korean race was only included on a draft before being removed from the final version.

I think that the standard we should use here is changes from final version one year to final version the next. Anything in between is a detail better suited to the individual race articles, not the season articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can't be covered with one or two sentences. More detailed version belongs, I think, on the pages of the races themselves. --Falcadore (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there are more than enough users that have stated their support for including this type of information to do so. I understand your opinion, but many more users have stated their preference to include it. As long as we keep it concise and leave the detail of the (failed) negotiations for the Grand Prix's article I have now problem with it. Tvx1 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But you're giving the same weight to Korea as you are Germany—and the outcome of the German situation will affect the season because it represents a tangible change to the calendar. On the other hand, Korea will not affect the season because it is not taking place. Until now, this hasn't been a problem. We have always included changes on the basis that they had an actual effect on the season. If we continue including details of events that do not happen, the end result will be details of races in France, South Africa and Thailand (among others) that may have an agreement in principle, but never happen. Giving coverage to New Jersey, Korea and India now amounts to RECENTISM. They have no effect on the season, and therefore should not be included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to have missed the historic seasons listed above there... Also, there's a difference between an "agreement in principle", and something initially being on a calendar, but removed (Korea), or were officially sanctioned, but axed before the calendar appeared (India). Certainly, Korea practically has to be mentioned in the article in some form; it was on the official calendar at one point, after all, and I can't see any logical argument for not including that race. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me take a view on some of PMs issues: firstly, it is notable (because there was substantial media coverage and it could have affected the season) and well sourced. Secondly, the Korean GP was officially on the provisional calendar and the GP of America's contract runs into 2015 and well beyond, as does India's, so they have been removed (by choice or by force), so something happened. Thirdly, something not happening ≠ something not worthy of inclusion (rather, something not relevant = something not worthy of inclusion). Fourthly, something that has no bearing on 2015 ≠ something not worthy of inclusion (again, rather, something that has no relevance on 2015 = not worthy of inclusion, and there is definitely relevance). Fifthly, we should be giving the same weight to both Korea and Germany, as both could have been on the calendar. Webber's retirement from F1 at the end of 2013 got mentioned in 2014 despite him having equivalent relevance. The horse was already dead over a month ago put the goddamn stick down. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A month ago, the article had mistaken a regulation change for a calendar change and had developed into a news feed by updating every time a story on Manor was run, and had changed the markup in the table without recognising its function and thus rendering parts of it unreadable on mobile devices. So pardon me if I am questioning the wisdom of decisions that were made at the same time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What's that problem with the table markup? Tvx1 00:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed now. As are the other issues. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

But what was it? Tvx1 02:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The nowraps were removed, and while a linebreak was put in place for the time being, the table got an overhaul. I saw someone mention something about needing to change the coding between 2014 and 2015 to recreate the effect of the 2014 table in 2015, so that might have had something to do with it. Probably because the appearance of the site in mobile browsers - especially tables - has been overhauled in the last six weeks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:Recentism is, as I have pointed out to you before, an essay (≠policy, ≠ guideline) and one that doesn't even take a major no-no position. So hardly a concern. Tvx1 23:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't mean that you take a major yes-yes position. The season articles aren't written just for the season in question. They fit into the broader context of Formula 1 seasons, which is why we have contextual links between articles. I have always felt that articles should be written with one eye on what they will look like when the season has finished and the page stops being regularly edits. When that happens, what will be the significance of the Korean GP being on the calendar for five weeks? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Manor F1 Team article

I think that a separate article should be created under the name of "Manor F1" for (Manor-Marussia) just like Virgin Racing and Marussia F1 have separate articles from Manor Motorsport, we also shouldn't include the teams results with Marussia's as the team is identified as "Manor" even though the teams constructor name is still "Marussia" it can be compared back to 2010 when Sauber still had to compete under the "BMW Sauber" even though the team was independent and was mass identified as just "Sauber" this is the exactly same situation. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't create anything until they actually race. Also, I don't see why Manor F1 needs to be separate from Manor Motorsport. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessarily "exactly the same" as the BMW Sauber precedent. Currently their constructor name is still, like the previous three years, Marussia. It seems more like the change from Midland to Spyker Midland in 2006, or from this team's history Virgin to Marussia Virgin. So for it looks like the FIA is going to continue crediting the results to Marussia, so would should follow that practice. But at the end of the we don't know for sure yet. It's best to wait and see until say their car is revealed or the entry list for the Australian Grand Prix is published. Tvx1 20:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

On this subject, I have notice that someone has been changing Marussia to be "Manor" in the 2015 driver table, adding a note that they are officially called "Marussia". This is completely unacceptable—we must create the table in such a way that it represents the grid as the FIA recognises it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Constructors' column in the Signed teams and drivers table

Can anybody explain why we highlight constructor's section, using "!" instead of "|"? The table looks easier to read when the constructors are left-aligned. Cybervoron (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I proposed in May 2012 that the columns should be de-bolded but there was no consensus at that time for that to occur (the discussion got a bit sidetracked from whether or not the column should be bold to a discussion about the distinction between constructors and makes). Which is not to say that the issue shouldn't be discussed again now. For the record, I'm still in favour of the columns being de-bolded. DH85868993 (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I would be against de-bolding them. It might not be as relevant nowadays, but in seasons from the 60's, 70's or 80's, you can often not tell the constructor from the team name. So it's nice to have a visual incentive to tell me where to look at. As for Cybervoron's initial question, I feel very unemotional about that. But when in doubt I'd say leave it as it is (as long as it's the same in every table). What bugs me a lot more is that the teams and drivers section is not at the same position in all the season articles. Someone should give them all a consistent content order. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

But we are already highlight the difference between them by wiki-linking only constructors' column, while previously both teams' and constructors' columns were wiki-linked. So what's the point for this now? Cybervoron (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Zwerg Nase, you have a good point there. Tvx1 18:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Driver results legend template

I have proposed a slight change over at Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2#Did not participate. Having seen that the last activity on the talk page there was in 2012, I have reached out to you here for your comments and opinions, which would be greatly welcome. Thanks. Twirlypen (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

F1 car results tables

It's been brought to my attention that the results tables for the 2013 and 2014 F1 cars, e.g. the one for Lotus E21:

Year	Entrant	Engine	Tyres	Drivers	Grands Prix																			Points	WCC
					AUS	MAL	CHN	BHR	ESP	MON	CAN	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	KOR	JPN	IND	ABU	USA	BRA
2013	Lotus F1 Team	Renault RS27-2013	P	Kimi Räikkönen	1	7	2	2	2	10	9	5	2	2	Ret	11	3	2	5	7	Ret			315	4th
				Heikki Kovalainen																		14	14
				Romain Grosjean	10	6	9	3	Ret	Ret	13	19†	3	6	8	8	Ret	3	3	3	4	2	Ret

do not conform to the project standard format as documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Tables#Car results table:

Year	Team	Engine	Tyres	Drivers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	Points	WCC
2008	Ferrari	Ferrari V8	B		AUS	MAL	BHR	ESP	TUR	MON	CAN	FRA	GBR	GER	HUN	EUR	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	CHN	BRA	172	1st
				Räikkönen	8†	1	2	1	3	9	Ret	2	4	6	3	Ret	18†	9	15	3	3	3
				Massa	Ret	Ret	1	2	1	3	5	1	13	3	17†	1	1	6	13	7	2	1

(notice that the round numbers have been replaced by "Grands Prix" and the race abbreviations have been included in the header row). What do we want to do?:

• Change the 2013 and 2014 cars to match the standard format?
• Update the standard format to match the 2013 and 2014 cars and go and update the 500-odd other F1 car articles to match?
• Leave things as they are?
• Something else?

Points to note:

• including the race abbreviations in the header row doesn't work for cars which are used for multiple seasons (because the races change from year to year), and
• almost all other motorsport (not just F1) results tables (driver results, team results, etc) list round numbers across the top - see Jean Alesi#Racing record, Tyrrell Grand Prix results as examples

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I think we should ditch the one rule fits all idea. Our guidelines even present two variants than can be used. I think we should amend them so that they more closely match the needs. So a one year version and a multiple year/chassis variants version. The one race version should look more like the following one instead of the one in use for 2013&2014. Tvx1 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Year	Entrant	Engine	Tyres	Drivers	1 BHR	2 AUS	3 MAL	4 CHN	5 ESP	6 MON	7 TUR	8 CAN	9 EUR	10 GBR	11 GER	12 HUN	13 BEL	14 ITA	15 SIN	16 JPN	17 KOR	18 BRA	19 ABU	Points	WCC
2010	BMW Sauber F1 Team	Ferrari 056 V8	B	de la Rosa	Ret	12	DNS	Ret	Ret	Ret	11	Ret	12	Ret	14	7	11	14						44	8th
				Heidfeld															Ret	8	9	17	11
				Kobayashi	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	12	Ret	10	Ret	7	6	11	9	8	Ret	Ret	7	8	10	14

Of course this applies as well for drivers and constructors which have competed in only one season (e.g. Brawn GP, Spyker, Kevin Magnussen,...). By the way shouldn't we discuss this at WT:F1/Tables? Tvx1 23:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I started the discussion here for maximum visibility - I'm not sure how many people have Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables on their watchlist. DH85868993 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I much prefer the original version of the table. The new one which is being used makes the table much more bulky, and aesthetically I don't like the one Tvx1 just created. QueenCake (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason why the first table shown above is so bulky is because that one has three drivers as opposed to two in the other examples. Tvx1 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No. The reason for the additional bulk is the inclusion of a drivers first name, forcing it to wrap onto a second line. --Falcadore (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That can easily be solved by either putting a nowrap around the driver names or by removing the first names. None of which are issues with the fundamental design of the table. And I can easily make my table look more faithful to the old one. Tvx1 19:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Year	Entrant	Engine	Tyres	Drivers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	Points	WCC
					BHR	AUS	MAL	CHN	ESP	MON	TUR	CAN	EUR	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	KOR	BRA	ABU
2010	BMW Sauber F1 Team	Ferrari 056 V8	B	de la Rosa	Ret	12	DNS	Ret	Ret	Ret	11	Ret	12	Ret	14	7	11	14						44	8th
				Heidfeld															Ret	8	9	17	11
				Kobayashi	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	12	Ret	10	Ret	7	6	11	9	8	Ret	Ret	7	8	10	14

Speaking personally, and somewhat as one of the folk who was involved in setting the "original" style (not that it was our first, we used to have a black-and-white version), I think the new format is great. The numbers don't really mean anything to someone who doesn't know much about racing seasons, and having "Grands Prix" up there as a proper title makes much more sense. There is absolutely no extra bulk in this format than the one we have been living with for the better part of a decade (using full names vs. surnames only has never been truly standardized). Most modern cars are only used for one season so the repeated header issue doesn't and isn't likely to arise, and even where it will (and does for older cars) adding exactly the same syntax as we have been for the subsequent years will work fine. You could use the "!" shorthand to set them as title boxes, but I reckon that's personal choice. After seeing this new format somewhere a couple of years ago (I forget where, but I don't claim that it was my invention!) I tried implementing a multi-year version at March 701 just to see, and I think it works. It has certainly been the stable version there for two years now with no complaints, and I put that down to its self-explanatory format. Pyrope 19:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is a fourth way to present our tables. An example can be found at Volkswagen Polo R WRC#In detail. That way would allow us to save space while removing the need to even have different "one-year" and "multiple years" versions. Tvx1 02:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that version saves space, actually quite opposite. Each event abbreviation is repeated for each driver, making the table much taller than it needs to be. For example, the 2013 results are eight lines high whereas this would be four lines using the method above and at March 701. The 2014 results, also at eight lines in the Polo WRC example, would only be five lines high using the March 701 model. Pyrope 18:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

2014-15 F1 Financial Crisis

I've noticed the recent creation of a 2014-15 F1 Financial Crisis article, concerning the recent financial troubles which have overcome Marussia and Caterham, and various other issues about individual Grands Prix and team finances. It is broadly accurate and well referenced, if rather requiring a complete copyedit. My concern though is whether or not there is a legitimate topic here. While there has been plenty written about the financial state of Formula One in recent months, I have not come across anything that suggests an all-encompassing crisis. This suggests that the article is essentially original research, and indeed another editor has already tagged it as an essay.

I am tempted to send it for deletion, but before I do has anyone got any thoughts on this? QueenCake (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• There's no such thing as a "2014–15 F1 Financial Crisis", as you correctly stated. The article itself is a blatant essay of personal opinion, and has absolutely no place here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello, I'm the editor that created the page. My intention was not to create an essay but create an encyclopedic article on the financial crisis of Formula One. Is the title misleading? I would be OK in changing it. You're also welcome in rewriting the article to make it look more encyclopedic. Please keep in touch FordDixon (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I found some more sources verifying the fact that there is a "crisis" in F1, as seen here and here. I think it's a topic well worth expanding on. Again, please keep in touch. FordDixon (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • If you are going to call it 2014-15 F1 Financial Crisis, then it has to be specific to the time period, and the time period has to be specifically mentioned in sources. Like, in the headline.
    • Wikipedia does not draw conclusions from multiple sources, like there are lots of team being financial squeezed, there must be a crisis. We report upon the conclusions that others have already made. Creating an article from multiple sources on different subjects and drawing a conclusion is WP:Original research. And that is what F1 editors are concerned about. --Falcadore (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Would a better title be to simply remove the "2014-15" bit in the article title? That would make sense concerning the suggestions you have made. Also, would merging the info to the 2014 Formula One season be a good idea, rather than having its own article? The only problem with that is that it's a bit big to be merged into the 2014 page. Maybe the copyedit that was suggested earlier would solve that problem. FordDixon (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, it would not be a better title, because then you've replaced a purely OR title with a totally ambiguous one. Also, the main 2014 page already has most of the actual information that we need. Furthermore, I'm not convinced by how reliable those two sources are... and they're certainly not mainstream ones. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• At the moment, it looks a lot like WP:SYNTHESIS. The issue you're writing is still ongoing, which means you shouldn't derive any conclusions from aggregating topics like you did. Take a look at the references in FISA–FOCA war, and you'll see it references books and not press articles. Which means whoever wrote the Wikipedia article was citing somebody else's research. This isn't an article that should exist here while the supposed crisis is still going on, it needs a proper time distance to be researched independently from Wikipedia. --Pc13 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree as well with the crisis notion. This article is purely based on the storm in a tea cup that arose during last October-November as a reaction to Caterham-Marussia financial troubles. The reason that these two teams got into financial troubles within a short period is pure coincidence resulting from two events. On one side Caterham being sold to a buyer who did not fulfill it's promises, on the other side the Russian automobile company Marussia Motors collapsing living leaving their and Marussia F1's common shareholder Andrey Cheglakov (the F1 team's main backer) without the necessary funds. That the three 2010 entrants all ran into troubles is no surprise either. They were not designed to compete under the financial conditions they eventually were subjected to. When they applied for entry into the sport, they were promised a cost-cap which never materialized. That was going to catch them out sooner rather than later. Now four months later Marussia/Manor have nearly sorted out their problems and two new teams are scheduled to join the sport next season. All in all I feel that there is no need for this article. Tvx1 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started a deletion discussion for this page. Please add any comments on the deletion page. QueenCake (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The article has returned and the recreation of it is under review. Tvx1 05:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hello. The re-written article has been incubated in draft space at Draft:F1 financial crisis. We at WikiProject Articles for creation are a little out of our depth in assessing this one. The draft could use expert attention. It could possibly be moved to mainspace (perhaps under a less sensational title) after some editing and discussion. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Matrix colours for the colour-blind

This started as a discussion as part of the above point raised by Twirlypen, but I have spun it out into its own discussion so as not to distract from that topic.

I have some concerns about the use of some colours in the results matrices, in particular blue (non-points) and purple (retired). People who are red/blue colour-blind may have trouble distinguishing between them; I am red/green colour-blind myself, and that's bad enough, so I can't begin to imagine what it's like for the red/blue among us. The full discussion is here:

Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2#For colour-blind people

Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Which colors would you propose? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a detailed description and explanation in the link provided... Twirlypen (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to expand this to WP:MOTOR. The style of the template and its colors is used well beyond the sphere of F1 on Wikipedia. It would make no sense to change the colors of one and not the rest. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of GP Update as a source

Lately I have noticed the increased usage of the GP Update website as a source in articles, but I feel that it is no longer appropriate to do so in light of the current van der Garde situation. GP Update has an inherent pro-Dutch bias, which I feel means that it fails WP:RS. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How exactly are they biased? I mean, being a Dutch-based website would lend them to be a bit more in touch with Dutch topics (what few there are in F1), but how exactly are they "pro" anything? If they report the news just like any other website, how are they not NPOV? Would you consider Autosport to be pro-British simply because that's what they inherently cover better? The³5₉ (Talk) 06:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I try to use a process of triangulation in establishing the usefulness of sources. If a story is run from three sources owned by different publications, I can be confident that it is reliable. But I have noticed that GP Update runs pro-Dutch stories that I cannot triangulate, and when I can, I can only trace them back to rumour and speculation.

I am trying to find specific examples of it now, but I find that they are no better than those Spanish sources claiming Alonso would move to Ferrari in 2010 as early as March 2009. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A website that states rumors does not inherently make the entire website unreliable. We don't have a ban on Spanish sources in F1 articles, we simply warn not to use them to report rumors. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What then, do you call it when that source reports "news" that is really a press release from the driver trying to keep his name in the sport? It happened all last year - every time Max Verstappen or Robin Frijns rated a mention, Giedo van der Garde's name would come up like clockwork. It was obvious that he or his people were the source.

I'm not saying that GP Update shouldn't be used, but that when the same story is run by another source, then that other source should be used. I find it extremely questionable as a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the GP Update logo has appeared on cars before as a personal sponsor of drivers. I would seriously question how they can maintain reliability when they are financially backing a driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If the same story is run by another source, why does it matter what source it comes from? If the story has no bias, if the story is neutral, if the stories are identical, the specific source it comes from should not matter. And news websites copy press releases all the time. I'd take a wild stab in the dark and say they probably copy press releases that don't involve VDG as well.

How exactly is GP Update *un*reliable? Mentioning rumors (and stating them as rumors) and copying press releases is not unreliable. What facts have they made errors on, what point of view are they presenting? Being Dutch and having articles on Dutch drivers is not a point of view. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources are either reliable or unreliable. You cannot try to judge every single article on individual reliability when you know that the source itself is compromised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an incredible waste considering the proper avenue for disputing RS has been provided to you. Please use it if you're serious about your dispute. Twirlypen (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We know the source is compromised? Do share.

By the way, are we no longer going to use Autosport then? They do promote the McLaren Autosport BRDC Award which grants drivers money and F1 tests, and the award is co-sponsored by McLaren. CNN is clearly an unreliable source as well for sponsoring Caterham and McLaren. Sauber is sponsored by Sports Media Group who own formel1.de and motorsport-total.com.

And here's your helmet. Christijan Albers sponsored by F1Racing.net, which is now GPUpdate.net. And also Tiago Monteiro, because he's pro-Dutch, right? The³5₉ (Talk) 09:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, the problem is deeper than I anticipated. We should not be using sources with such a connection to any driver or team because it is a conflict of interest between the two. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(Copy/paste) Until you raise (AND RESOLVE) this issue at the appropriate noticeboard, GP Update can and will continue to be used. Twirlypen (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have noted something on the 2015 talk page. I will simply bring my words over here. I believe we should avoid using sources with obvious COI. So, for example, we don't report on VDG via GPUpdate, but we can using other sources, because, no matter how reliable the sources are, there will be an inherent bias. However, GPUpdate remains valid as a source. This is because they don't have COI with everyone. If I recall correctly, Autosport have a COI with a team, I believe Lotus. So, assuming that my memory serves me correctly as to it being Lotus, we simply use other sources (which, of course, exist in abundance) to report on Lotus. Of course, we shall continue to source from Autosport, because we know that they are a reliable source. We can probably make a WikiProject subpage on the matter. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sources are not either reliable or unreliable. Autosport is a reliable source for motorsport - but it would not be a reliable source for particle physics. Likewise, the Royal Society of Chemistry are a reliable source for chemistry things, but would be useless for Formula One. GyaroMaguus' comment hits the nail on the head. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ there. There's no hint of bias whatsoever in the contested story. I don't think it's right to assume an inherent bias in a source just because they're from a certain country. Doing that would corrupt our neutral point of view regarding which sources to use and would ultimately lead us to advertising particular sources. I'm sure we can easily spot bias in stories and thus can determine whether they can be trusted or not. How much asking is to read and if in doubt compare sources? Tvx1 17:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• There are certain circumstances where the nationality of a source would constitute a COI, but those are very unlikely to crop up for this Wikiproject. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course all my comments are made in the context of this WikiProject. Tvx1 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

After giving the site a critical look, I fail to see anything that suggests GPUpdate should be considered an unreliable source. It appears to be a professional organisation, with its own news generation (although there are no identified writers, which could suggest the content is syndicated, I cannot find the same articles on other sites) and editorial control. In general, GPUpdate is a reliable source.

On the particular issue of its reliability in relation to Giedo van der Garde, I again do not see anything to suggest GPUpdate is unreliable. I have not come across any current relationship between VDG and GPUpdate, and the former one does not immediately disqualify the site by itself, neither is there anything to suggest there is a bias or unreliability on the site in relation to Dutch motorsport topics. QueenCake (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive sock on the loose

Just so everyone is aware, there is a disruptive sock on the loose. He showed up two days ago as "Tvx11" and started vandalising articles Tvx1 had edited. He got blocked, but has since reappeared under a new name and is trying to stir up trouble on the 2015 talk page. He is clearly someone who has been watching discussions and project activity; he may or may not be DeFacto or Lucy-Marie. The admin who blocked the Tvx11 account cautioned that he could become a recurring problem because trying to imitate another editor is a very specific behaviour and is not typical of short-term or first-time socks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Excessive numbers column

I strongly oppose to the numbers column in the drivers' standings, because it's a excessive information that we already have in a teams and drivers section. Also it unreasonably increases width of a table and creates a precedent to adding them everywhere (this previously was a problem in the racing record tables). Cybervoron (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In effect, almost all the result tables in the constructors' and articles have had these numbers added as a result of this. Tvx1 05:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably, we don't needed a detailed constructor's standings at all, as it duplicates driver's standings and gives absolutely nothing to an article. I see no reason why it can't be just the same table as in the Grand Prix report articles (but including all constructors, of course). Cybervoron (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Drivers and Constructors Championships are two independent championships. The order can be quite different. Tvx1 06:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a reason for keeping a table where the same results are differ only by the order of the rows. If you need to pick out individual race result you can use drivers' standings. The only thing for what we need constructor's standings are constructors' points. Cybervoron (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a case as prior to 2014 the race number belonged to the car so the race number could be used to describe at what point a driver moved to another racig team, but now that race number belong to the driver the is no point in having the numbers in the points standings as the drivers number does not change anymore when moving to another team. --Falcadore (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of driver you're talking about. If you're talking about one who started the season with a team and picked a career number and changes team midseason, than no the number wouldn't change. If you're talking about a driver who replaces a regular driver for one race and is allocated a temporary number, who then goes on to replace another driver from another team later in the season, (s)he would get a different number because different teams are allocated different replacement numbers. Tvx1 02:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Side issue. --Falcadore (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Renault factory team

It's been reported that Renault are considering a return to full "factory team" status by purchasing either Toro Rosso, Force India or Sauber, but "if" they do purchase one of these teams their will be some conflicting information on the Renault in Formula One article, take note that it says "last name: Benetton Formula" and "Next name: Lotus F1 Team" due to the old Renault team being formally Benetton and subsequently Lotus, that would need to be changed due to a new team competing for Renault. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

These parameters should simply be removed. It already conflicts as it is, since Renault has already had a factory team on two occasions. Tvx1 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It was something DeFacto added, for whatever reason best known to themselves. I'd scrap them. Too much potential for inaccuracy. QueenCake (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those should be taken out. "Previous name" suggests before the first Renault team, so before 1977, which is obviously nonsense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing information

I find no information in Wikipedia about why Williams did not replace Valtteri Bottas with a reserve driver at the Australian GP. Shouldn't this be explained somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.77.222 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that for eligibilty to replace a driver during saturday or sunday of the weekend, the replacing driver must be entered for the weekend andmust haven driven during a saturday session. Tvx1 06:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Formula One engines

An IP editor keeps editing Formula One engines#World Championship Grand Prix wins by engine manufacturer, changing Ferrari's tally from 222 to 217 and adding Lancia to the table with a tally of 5. (Presumably the 5 races in dispute are Ferrari's 5 wins in 1956 with the Ferrari D50). FORIX, StatsF1 and ChicaneF1 all credit Ferrari engines with 222 wins and Lancia engines with none. I've started a discussion at Talk:Formula One engines#Lancia/Ferrari in 1956 - I'd appreciate some input there so a consensus can be established. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Teams' results articles

I noticed a separate article was created for Manor's Grand Prix results. I thought we had achieved consensus not to create these articles unless a team had competed for certain amount of seasons resulting in results tables become impractically big in the team's main article? So why was this created then? Tvx1 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Worth asking User:Speedy Question Mark before the inevitable merge/deletion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You can certainly try asking him, but he never responds. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I just merged it into Manor. We all know the consensus. QueenCake (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A similar article currently exists for Lotus F1 team. Tvx1 14:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

IP adding inaccurate info

We have an IP adding inaccurate information at random to articles. Heads up, chaps. Britmax (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Country codes for tables

I had noticed that we use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes for a vast majority of the countries in our results tables to link to various Grands Prix. I also noticed that there are instances where this isn't the case, as follows (ISO code in parenthesis):

MON being used for Monaco (instead of MCO)

POR for Portugal (PRT)

GER for Germany (DEU)

MAL for Malaysia (MYS)

SIN for Singapore (SGP)

NED for Netherlands (NLD)

SUI for Switzerland (CHE)

MOR for Morocco (MAR)

RSA for South Africa (ZFA fails to produce a flag)

Races named after cities or broad areas would be unaffected by this proposal, such as DET for Detroit or EUR for European. Same would go for the European, Pacific, US West Grands Prix, among others. Do we have a set standard of codes we should be using (with exception to ZFA, since it doesn't work) and, if not, should we? Twirlypen (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the list of country codes we use, along with links to the various discussions over the years which led to the list. The basic conclusion was that since we have races which don't have ISO 3166 codes, we shouldn't feel compelled to use ISO 3166 codes where they do exist, if another abbreviation is more intuitive (e.g. "MAL" insread of "MYS"). DH85868993 (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I wasn't sure if we had a standard. Glad I asked before I jumped the gun on the early years. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Twirlypen (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Numbers table

I had some free time today, so I made a table listing driver numbers. I realize as this is the second season under this format, there wouldn't be much use or even a place for it in this project right now, but I think something along the sorts might be useful in a few years. You can view it here. Let me know what you all think. Twirlypen (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! You forgot Adrian Sutil though. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and good catch! Yeah, I'm not looking for its immediate inclusion, seeing as currently there are only 4 drivers occupying 50-99. This may be useful in the coming years as a stand-alone chart as more drivers race in Formula One. But regardless, it's far too long to be included in any article. Speaking of Sutil, any idea what he is up to these days? I can't seem to find recent news on him on a quick Google search. Twirlypen (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In December he was contemplating WEC, but was also considering taking a sabbatical. [9] Fun fact: He seems to also have had a valid contract with Sauber for 2015. What a mess... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I knew something very fishy was afoot when both van der Garde and Sutil nearly simultaneously interjected with their 2015 claims after Sauber announced their new lineup in October. But [this] seems to suggest that Sutil may have breached his contract. I could not read the full article. Twirlypen (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Kaltenborn -- referring at the time to the sport generally -- reportedly said in Austin early this month that "contracts in F1 are worth nothing." Famous last words? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah OK Monisha, tell that to Peter Sauber when he inevitably has to pay 3 drivers premium, raceday money to drive 2 cars right after getting zero points for the first time in team history. Twirlypen (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well at least she will be able to comfort him with the fact that they score more points in this year's Australian GP alone than during the entire previous season. Tvx1 12:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And, as one commenter pointed out, being the most successful team this week wearing a Chelsea badge... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha! While that's true, unless each event pays prize money, Sauber won't see a single penny from those points until next year. She's still costing the team a lot of unnecessary money that's already stretched thin. Twirlypen (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the practice numbers have changed this season, as Raffaele Marciello drove number 36 in today's free practice, which was a Force India number last year. See here: [10] Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase — that's because the test driver numbers are assigned to the teams, not the drivers. They're based on whatever two sequential numbers are still available after the personal numbers are allocated. The first two available are #15 and #16, then #23 and #24. Any numbers that were used last year, but not this year (like Magnussen) will be set aside in case those drivers return in 2016, but if they do not, then those numbers will go back into rotation in 2017.

The catch this year is that Stevens is using #28 and Verstappen #33, both of which were reserve numbers last year (Ferrari had #28 and McLaren #33). So now those two numbers cannot be used, and the numbers #29 and #32 taken out of rotation because they're not paired up.

By my (admittedly very crude) estimation, these are the combinations of numbers given to teams for third cars:

1. 15 and #16
2. 23 and #24
3. 30 and #31
4. 34 and #35
5. 36 and #37
6. 38 and #39
7. 40 and #41
8. 42 and #43
9. 45 and #46
10. 47 and #48

Sauber had #36 and #37 last year and have kept them this year, so it looks like the numbers are assigned to the team until one (or both) gets taken by a full-time driver, in which case they get pushed back to the first available combination. It's confusing, but I can't see how it would work any other way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, 36 was a Sauber number last year just as much as this year. Where did you get it was a Force India number? Tvx1 09:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In another similar discussion, it was deduced (assumed?) that practice numbers were assigned by results of the 2013 WCC final standings. Thus, Red Bull got the first pair of available numbers (15 and 16), Mercedes got the next available pair (23 and 24), Ferrari got third (29 and 30), and so on. Given that none of this has actually been verified, that is nonetheless the calculation I used when constructing the table. Given that, #36 should have gone to Force India (36 and 37), as Sauber would have gotten the pair of numbers after FI (38 and 39). For the sake of keeping my sandbox as tidy and up to date as possible, I simply swapped Force India and Sauber's practice numbers as a quick fix. Twirlypen (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Renault's Grand Prix tally

Should the 19 Grand Prix that the team entered as "Lotus Renault GP" be separated or distinguished from the "Equipe Renault" and "Renault F1 Team" Grand Prix tally, as the team wasn't a factory effort in 2011 and was a privateer, have it distinguished from the tally similar to how the Sauber/BMW Sauber tally is. Also I'm questioning if that tally is correct because I've looked on many different stat websites and most of different numbers; 300, 303, and 304 races. Check out the www.renaultf1.com website and it shows that Renault itself doesn't include 2011. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC}

No it should not be counted for Renault. Tvx1 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the 2011 races should be included in Renault's total, with no separation/distinction, for the following reasons:

• the cars were still called "Renaults" and continued the Renault chassis numbering scheme ("Rxx")
• by my recollection, the team was still very much considered "the Renault team" (as opposed to the contemporary "Lotus team")
• for consistency with external sources such as FORIX and StatsF1. (The 300/303/304 discrepancy is due to the fact that some sites (e.g. FORIX) count races started whereas we count races entered. On that basis, our number should probably be 303 - we probably shouldn't count the 1985 South African GP, where Renault's entries were withdrawn).

The situation is slightly different to Sauber/BMW Sauber, where the chassis make changed (from "Sauber" to "BMW Sauber" and then back). DH85868993 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

And how will you justify is crediting the those results to them while they themselves don't credit them to themselves? Tvx1 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

They were "Renault" cars, so the races count for Renault's tally. We had an exhaustive discussion over this issue a couple of years ago. QueenCake (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The "Renault" constructor name was still used because another team was already using the "Lotus" name at that time, the team itself wasn't Renault it was a separate company "LRGP Ltd." which was owned fully by Genii Capital, you can compare it to the Manor/Marussia issue the team is initially "Manor" but it's constructor is still "Marussia" due to contractual issues, To sum it all up the team competing under the "Renault" name in 2011 wasn't competing as a Renault factory team so the results shouldn't count towards the factory teams tally as Renault themselves even the F1 community don't count 2011 as a Renault factory team year. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Max Verstappen

If anyone would like to weigh in at Talk:Max Verstappen in a very tedious discussion about the flag shown in the infobox, please do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

The case with Talk:Max Verstappen is a striking confirmation, that field Nationality is confusing now. So I propose to change this field to "Racing license", because it's a thing that we actually show in the driver infoboxes. At least we should rewrite this section to make it more clear. Cybervoron (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the nationality field is what caused the confusion in this case at all. It's just one user who misunderstood the correct meaning of a statement from Verstappen's mother. It has worked perfectly for other drivers (e.g. Nico Rosberg, Romain Grosjean,...) who have the exact same nationality situation as Verstappen. As I have already stated in the section on top op this page, I firmly oppose to renaming the field to "racing license" because that's absolutely not what we actually show. F1 Drivers do not use their racing license nationality over (one of) their legal nationalist(y)(ies). It's actually the exact opposite. A prime example of this is André Lotterer, who is a dual Belgian-German national who races under the German flag despite holding a Belgian racing license. Like I have stated in the aforementioned section as well, I would have no problem with renaming it to "Racing nationality". I also fail to see why we should rewrite the section you linked to. Firstly, it accurately reflects what the rules stipulate and is sourced to the currently used edition of the Sporting Code. Secondly we can't just write our own assumptions of what the rules are. Tvx1 11:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Article 9.5.2 of the FIA's International Sporting Code states: " All Drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their Licence, participating in any FIA World Championship Competition, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, publications and prize‐giving ceremonies." It is proven that Verstappen only has a Belgian passport. According the official FIA rules the question whether Verstappen also has Dutch nationality (which is not proven but only a theoretical assumption) is not even relevant, nor the fact that he has a Dutch racing licence. --Wester (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's not proven he only has a Belgian passport, just that he only has a Belgian ID Card, which are not the same things. In fact the FIA is actually proof that he has a Dutch one as well, otherwise they would not register him as Dutch. They are quite strict on that. Eddie Irvine was forced to race under the British flag because he only held a British passport, despite preferring to have raced under a neutral flag with regards to his Britishness and Irishness. Tvx1 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, passport = ID. And it is said he travels with Belgian ID. That means a Belgian passport (the booklet with the stamps) since you can't travel abroad (outside Schengen) with a Belgian ID.

And as for the Eddie Irvine-case: he wanted to race under a non existing flag.. That's an odd request anyway. Sure the won't allow that. That does not mean they are always strict. And in this case they don't follow their own Official Rulebook. --Wester (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You can have two passports simultaneously. Tvx1 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You can certainly. But we have a convincing source that he only has a Belgian ID and passport (since that's what he travels with). I am quite sure that Verstappen does not have a Dutch passport. Otherwise he would travelled with that since apparently he's so keen on his Dutchness. If he had already a Dutch passport he would not have to request anything at the age of 18 and it's clearly states that he wanted to become Dutch at the age of 18.--Wester (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't have a convincing source he only holds a Belgian passport. You have only brought something regarding his ID card, which holds little value. I'm not even certain what you are even arguing for. His article does not mention anything regarding a Dutch passport, nor did it ever do. Tvx1 14:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because the article talks about 'becoming Dutch' at the age of 18. If you have a Dutch passport you are already Dutch and no such choice would be necessary. The article also says he travels under Belgian passport.

Two clear indications that he does not have a Dutch passport.--Wester (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Another article on the subject appeared in De Morgen: [11] "Volgens zijn Belgische moeder bezit Max alleen een Belgisch identiteitsbewijs. Hij heeft geen Nederlandse reisdocumenten". Also note that the argumentation of Jos Verstappen is complete against the official FIA Rules. Racing licence is nothing and nationality means also nothing. Passport is leading according Article 9.5.2.

Could it be more clear? --Wester (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Internet Archive Wayback Machine – Formula1.com

I have discovered while doing race reports, it has become problematic to archive formula1.com links through the Internet Archive because of the robots.txt issue. Are other members having the same problem? Z105space (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Need help identifying car

Can anyone identify the car in this image: File:Benetton B195 2.jpg? Despite the image's name and the sign in front of the car, I'm pretty sure it's not a B195 - both the airbox opening and the lower element of the rear wing are the wrong shape. Until recently, the image was in the Benetton B195 article with the caption "B190 with B195 livery on display in Sinsheim,Germany.", but I'm not convinced it's a B190 either. I'd like to identify the car so the image name can be corrected. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As you can see here under "Massive issue with pretty much a whole museum's collection of "F1 cars"", this is not an unknown problem. I guess it is a different Benneton with a 1995 livery or maybe even a complete bogus car. The museum does not really care, they simply put them on display with whatever the provider tells them... We should simply not use any pictures from that exhibition unless we can say for sure it is really the car it claims it is. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This is indeed a Benetton B190. Albeit with a different nosecone. Tvx1 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't consider the possibility it was a mashup. I'll request the file be renamed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the nosecone might strem from a B193. Tvx1 13:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of DNA in legends table

On a hunch, I went through all of the season article's drivers' and constructors' tables to see if DNA (Blank) has ever been used. The only time it's ever been used was in the 1961 non-championship results section which, for some reason, exists in the first place as a points tally table even though no points are awarded for non-championship races (see other seasons for the correct table style for NC races). On the other hand, WD (Blank) is used fairly regularly before 1980, yet is not included on the legend.

I propose that the 1961 non-championship table in its current format be eliminated and replaced with formats consistant with other seasons, and that DNA be replaced with WD in the legend template. Thoughts? Twirlypen (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Before removing DNA from the legend, someone should check that it's not used in any of the F1 driver, team or car results tables, which also use the same legend ({{F1 driver results legend 2}}). DH85868993 (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree a more thorough check should be taken first. I just proposed this on the assumption that all the individual driver and team/car tables ought to match the results table used on the season article. At the very least, WD should be added. Twirlypen (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Straight away I have found a team article using DNA. Tvx1 13:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

DNA is also the standard entry in race tables to report cars entered but not arriving. See 1950 British Grand Prix or 1960 BRDC International Trophy for examples. WD and DNA are two distinct things and you can't simply replace one with the other. Pyrope 17:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Then these need to be reflected in the season articles. The 1992 example I must have just missed when going backwards. The 1950 British GP example is shown in the race article, but not the season article despite it being a championship event. WD still needs to be added to the legend regardless if DNA is removed or not. Twirlypen (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the non-championship event race articles do not use a points tally table, and thus do not require a legend. Those examples do not apply to this. Twirlypen (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel like my proposal is being misunderstood. I am not asking to eliminate DNA entirely from the project, just simply from the legend template. The template appears to be displayed almost exclusively in the season articles for the points tally tables. The 1950 British Grand Prix article example shows that the team/driver DNA for qualifying, and thus, was excluded from the race table directly underneath. This in turn meant that Felice Bonetto's cell in the 1950 article for the Britsh Grand Prix is empty. The 1960 example is not a championship event, so this and all other non-championship events do not apply to this argument as the results legend template is not used for non-championship results. The 1961 non-championship table needs to be amended to reflect all other non-championship tables in the season articles. As a result, the only other instance is the Andrea Moda example from 1992, which I could suggest we reflect it the same way Bonetto is reflected – put DNA in the event's articles' qualifying table, omit them from the race table, and in the season article leave their cell blank.

Again I just question its inclusion in the results template, and results template only, when it has only 1 or 2 cases in the possibly tens of thousands of entries in the over 900 Grands Prix championship events in the past 66 years of Formula One, while WD is left out. Twirlypen (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The template is only displayed in the season summary articles, but it's also used for every driver, team and car results table (it's linked from the word "key" above the table). My suggestion would be to leave DNA in the legend (because it is used), and just add "WD". DH85868993 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is DNA in and WD is not? DNA is a unique mode. Most WDs are actually DNS, DNP or DNQ. You wanted to know, that's why. --Falcadore (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Very early on in this, I conceded that even if we leave DNA in the legend, WD should be added nonetheless. Also Falcadore, if most WDs are those, then they need to be changed as well since there is a pre-existing key for them. But there are other reasons for withdrawal that are not covered by official FIA reasons. Twirlypen (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't debating the claim, merely informing why previous the status quo stood where it did. --Falcadore (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

DNA is obviously used, albeit not everywhere, for some reason. As Falcadore says, WD can always be more accurately termed in other ways, which is why WD is not used. These are terms used to describe results, and WD is not actually a result but a reason / cause for a result. We got rid of "Inj" for the same reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Snap! What Bretonbanquet said. --Falcadore (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, all these "results" are not simply race result, but results of the entire Grand Prix entry of that team/driver. So if a team was entered for a Grand Prix, but DNA, that should be reflected in the championship table. Tvx1 18:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's that then. Twirlypen (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Safety cars

Why all of a sudden in the last week or so has all this excessive trivial detail about safety cars shown up? How does knowing what type of car it is affect the Formula One racing season?

Is this anything other than stats creep? --Falcadore (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely trivial. It is information relevant to the particular Mercedes-Benz model pages, and has no affect on the season's set up or outcome. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

CtrlXctrlV has added all of that information. Tvx1 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tvx1, yes, added most of that information (and fully referenced as per your advice). Safety cars are now part and parcel of F1 now and, quite often, their pace (or lack thereof) has had adverse impacts on race outcomes - best example, the first Safety Car in 1973 or even the Vectra at Imola 1994 where it's been speculated that its slow pace may have caused Senna's tyre pressures to drop. What's the harm of specifying which it is anyway? They aren't just Mercedes-Benz. Falcadore I see they have reverted your full on deletion from Safety cars where I see no possible content dispute. Wanna tell the FIA this information is trivial? Start from this page [then] and make sure you also tell all F1 publishers who yearly report on what car it is. What would be trivial is listing medical cars and track marshal cars, which only have an incidental role - the safety car is ingrained in the rules CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This information has been deleted as being trival from this article before. Someone then spun it off into it's own article and it was trivial deleted again. YOu said it yourself it was only speculation about the Vectra. And speculation has never had a place in wikipedia. And a Puff Piece on the formula one website about how Mercedes has paid them a lot of dollars to use there cars is not even remotely a justification.

What has changed? What is so important about the badges on the back of the safety car that it needs tabulating? Is the fact that its a Mercedes and not a Zil, or Cizetta or TVR affect the races?

Or do you think we should also tabulate what cars are used for the Medical FIVs? Or the senior marshals car? What about the cranes that retrieve the parked F1 cars when the break down or crash?

Why is the identity of ANY officials vehicle important at all? --Falcadore (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Because the FIA makes a big deal about the type of car used and its modifications. See the link provided, which answers whether or not it can be performed by any other car as you suggest without basis. I don't know what you're referring to about other changes and it was me to assert that listing any other vehicles would be trivial - I don't see why you're repeating that valid point. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

So because they've put different suspension and radios on the safety cars but not on the medical cars that makes it worthy of inclusion in an article about how the 2014 season was won and lost? Really?

Those same modiciations could be made to a Maserati or Porsche and have the same effect. So again I ask, why is the specific model of car important? The modifications are what's important by your own reasoning, not that car they are applied to. --Falcadore (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The FIA does not make a big deal of anything. Formula One (not the FIA) signed a contract with Mercedes-Benz as a sponsorship deal. No different than all the champaign being supplied by Moet, or timing by Rolex. The sponsorship deal with Mercedes-Benz could just as easily be replaced by another company who could use any type of car. See BMW's contract with Formula E or MotoGP as similar instances. However do not for one minute think that only performance cars can be pace cars. Oldsmobile Bravada – enough said. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in your link describes modifications other than radios which are used by safety cars in every motorsports series in the world.

Which car Mercedes-Benz chose to wheel out for each respective season is trivial. Just because news websites report press releases from Mercedes-Benz does not mean the information must be repeated on Wikipedia, at least specifically on the season article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Information on specific models which serve as safety cars are relevant only to articles on those models of car. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

CtrlXctrlV, I modified your reference into an external link because it was going to put a reference at the bottom of this talk page until the discussion was archived. While I'm here, I have to say I agree with your detractors. The make and model of the safety car is insignificant. It bears no outcome on the progression of the season. While the physical presence of the safety car can affect the outcome of a race, its make and model does not. Twirlypen (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Also CtrlXctrlV, web forums, of any description, do not meet WP:Reliable Source criteria, so those f1.1tv.com.ua/forum references are worthless. --Falcadore (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should keep different issues apart here. On one I side I have no problem with having a specific article on Safety Cars. In fact the existing article includes information on Safety Cars in different categories of autosport and does tend to mention the models used in all of these categories. On the other hand I tend to agree with my colleagues that the Safety Car models used holds little value on the F1 season articles. Tvx1 14:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. It really doesn't matter what Mercedes choose to use as their safety car in each season. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No-one is saying there should not be an article about Safety Cars. This is about the appearance on multitude of articles in the last week of excessive detail concerning what model of car has been used as safety cars. --Falcadore (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• No problem Twirlypen, I struggled linking it right! And thanks too Tvx1 and others who debated constructively. Pity some others choose to act in a rather overzealous manner, which makes me wonder whether it is a reflection of their lives and desire to win at least in the virtual world (e.g. via blank deletions) because of their incapacity to do so in the real world. I won't mention names ;) By sheer coincidence, and not to fuel this topic further, I just came across this Safety Cars reference [[12]] (go at at 25") that also led to "Pace Car"... enjoy! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Youtube videos don't satisfy WP:RS either. Tvx1 14:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, it was just to share with the rest of you CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You both need to stop edit-warring while the discussion is active. Twirlypen (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This information regarding the safety cars is better suited in the Safety car article, which it already is, and/or the actual vehicle articles. As in "The SL 55 served as the Formula One safety car in 2001 and 2002" in the car's article which, again, is already mentioned. Aside from that, it is at best nothing more than a piece of trivia for it to be mentioned in the season articles. Twirlypen (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest not even in the Safety Car article. If there is a list of all the Formula One safety cars, why not a list of Indycar Pace cars? And NASCAR? Le Mans, WEC, WTCC, MotoGP... and suddenly the article is now a list article. If there is a place for this data, I would suggest this website --Falcadore (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Twirlypen, I do not and did not consider Tvx1 edit-warring with me and I hope this feeling is mutual. He's been one of the few to alert me to the need for referencing instead of engaging in total deletions. Anyway, I will refrain from making these short replies in case they are miscontrued. Except to say, just because other sections of articles aren't as factually complete, I do not see how those sections that are, should be removed altogether. It's like saying (and this may be a poor example on my part), since not all articles are as detailed as Ayrton Senna's, the contents of his article should be deleted or scaled back. ADDENDUM: looks like for the Indy 500, not only is there a full list but also pictures for each car used pre-dating F1's introduction in 1993. Off tangent - didn't F1 adopt pace cars after the appeal it had on F1 fans now following Mansell across the pond? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

CtrlXctrlV, I was referring to you and Falcadore on the 2014 page. You both should have gotten a warning on your talk pages for that. Right now, concensus seems to be on the side that specific safety car model information should not be included in these articles. In either case though, it's unwise to revert to a preferred edit over and over while a discussion on the matter is active. All I've seen supporting its inclusion are forum posts, reddit posts (which also falls under forum), and YouTube videos. These, as pointed out earlier, fail WP:RS. While there may be a Formula1.com article stating the model of safety car has changed, it is of negligible importance to the seasons in question. It is akin to sources coming out that Sauber has changed its livery. Twirlypen (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning the safety cars that have been used in the sport through the years in the Safety Car article. However, a detailed list of every model and type for every year is just overdoing it. The Indianapolis and NASCAR sections of the article give a much better example on haw it can and should be done. By the way, I didn't edit war at all. Tvx1 16:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyone other than User:CtrlXctrlV (originating editor) in favour of keeping the additional detail on Safety Car page and on F1 season pages? If not I think we can consider a consensus having been formed. --Falcadore (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

copypasta of my comment on Talk:Safety car: the inclusion of the F1 lists (or any other series) is simply not appropriate on Safety car. Perhaps on a page related to F1. But even then, I don't think so. There's a long list of models of cars which is basically trivia. If relevant, the page for each race should note which model of safety car is used. There's another long list of races which either started or ended under caution, which is not even trivia. It's just part of the rules of the series. If it's important, it should be noted with a footnote in the table of season results. We have plenty of those already. Simishag (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Podiums in F1 car infoboxes

The recent addition of a "Podiums" field to {{Infobox racing car}} has led to some toing-and-froing at Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid and Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid over:

• whether the field should be used, and
• if it is used, whether it should contain the number of individual podium finishes the car scored (e.g. 31 for Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid), or whether it should contain the number of races in which the car scored one or more podium finishes (e.g. 19 for Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid).

Opinions? DH85868993 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• I favour the latter, if we must include podiums at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Whichever one is chosen, it needs to be consistent with the races box. You can't have a car scoring 31 podiums in 19 races. As Mercedes built two cars, you could reasonably count the car twice for each race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Surely, if a car can score up to 43 points in the same race, it can score up to two podiums. Tvx1 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps adding a "No. of cars" field to the infobox as well? Personally, a casual reader seeing "701 points and 31 podiums" in 19 races would be confusing. Though, the table at the bottom would clearly show that each Grand Prix had two cars entered, unless noted by a DNS. Either way, it should be cumulative totals. It would not make sense to only count the first place car and ignore the third place car if it's the same vehicle. Twirlypen (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find "Races: 19, Podiums: 31" confusing - as Twirlypen identifies, the results table makes it clear that there were 2 cars in each race. I'm not sure a "No. of cars" field would work for all cars, as there would be many (especially older cars) where the number changed from race to race. Perhaps we could have an "Entries" field containing the total number of entries for the car (e.g. 38 for Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid), but, as I say, I don't personally find it necessary. DH85868993 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is not necessary. But I would propose to make it a tooltip instead of linking it to Podium. Like this: Podiums. What do you guys think? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines for attendance figures

Lately I have been doing some work on 2014 Russian Grand Prix, which I would like to nominate for GA—or maybe even FA—status. However, there is one issue that I think needs to be resolved before that can happen: the question of attendance figures.

The article was the scene of an edit war over the inclusion of attendance figures. It was resolved with the understanding that the subject would be revisited when a more precise figure could be found. Since no such figure has been provided, I have moved to delete the content, but this has opened up a wider question: what is our stance on the inclusion of attendance figures?

Looking through other articles, they are applied inconsistently. When they are included, different numbers are being used. Sometimes they are taken from the race itself. Other times, they are the cumulative total across the three days of a Grand Prix. Sometimes the figure is calculated based on the number of people going through the turnstiles, while other times, it's taken from the number of tickets sold. And other times, as in the case of the Russian Grand Prix, it's an estimate.

So first of all, I think we need to decide whether or not we should include attendance figures. And secondly, assuming that we do keep including them, then we need to decide on which figure we use and the method of its calculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If an exact number can be reliably sourced, then I see no reason to exclude it. As far as what figure we want to use, race day only or weekend total, we must first agree on what the subject our Grand Prix articles are. Is it the race, or is it the weekend itself? We report on qualifying and, if necessary, any unique and/or substantial events that may happen in practice. Therefore personally, I see it as the latter, so I would tend to go with weekend totals, but again only if an exact total can be reliably sourced.

Also, I don't see it as a "well we can't put it in some articles and not others" situation, because there are other figures we include if the sources are readily and reliably available and exclude if not, such as weather and temperatures. It's nice to have if it's available, but not critical that we make an "everything or nothing" situation out of it. Twirlypen (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't know much about the criteria, but I do know that if this article is going to pass GA review (forget FA), would you mind if I went through and eliminated all the overlinks? Twirlypen (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hear hear! What Twirlypen said in that last paragraph is common sense personified. --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Second last now :P Damn postscripts. --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the confusion of which attendance figure we use (entire weekend or race) seems to strem from the fact that the attendance paramater is not properly defined. If we simply change the parameter in the template to "race attendance" that's the first question already answered. As for the second question, that's a really really obvious one. The words says it all. Attendance is the number of people who actually attended. Those who went to the circuit. Not simply those who bought a ticket. You don't attend an event simply by buying a ticket for it. Tvx1 03:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, I had actually thought about bringing this up in my original post. Many sporting venues will announce an attendance figure based on tickets sold or otherwise given away, not how many clicks the turnstile counted. I've been to many baseball games where an attendance has been announced at 35,000+ while it was plainly obvious that there were no more than 20,000. At least here in North America, this isn't unusual. For that, we might just have to go with it if it's to be used, because on the official record, 35,000+ people attended. And Falcadore, my apologies. Didn't mean to jam you up there. Twirlypen (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering we state only the date of the actual race in the infobox, we should accordingly only put race attendance in the box as well. Also, I absolutely agree with Twirlypen, it is not all or nothing. There are plenty of races, especially in the deep past, where we'll never find a lot of information in the first place. So let's include it if we find it. If there is no valid information to be found considering the 2014 Russia race then in my opinion that should not exclude it from achieving GA status. It's the same with pictures: If there are simply none to be found, it does not mean the article cannot become a Good article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I myself have no problem with adding the figures when they are available, but I do think we need a consistent way of drawing on the figure. In the case of the 2014 Russian Grand Prix, it's an obvious estimate, and there are multiple sources out there claiming everything from 55,000 to 65,000, which is a massive range, and I don't think that such a variation is acceptable, even for vital pieces of information.

Ideally, I think that figures for the race day based on actual attendance (rather than sales) would be best, but I appreciate that this is a very narrow window and would probably result in the exclusion of a lot of data. So cumulative total would be okay, but I think that we need to go off actual attendance—data based on ticket sales is better than an estimate, but it's still a fuzzy area. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen, I have no objections to you delinking as you see fit. The attendance figures are really my concern at the moment. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Any figure we decide to use should not be any sort of estimate or guess. Twirlypen (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliably sourced estimates are acceptable. Dential (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to give a reason why? Perhaps you could back that up with a policy guideline, given that there is the start of a consensus in favour of removing estimates. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? Attendance is of general relevance to the subject, which is presumably why there is a field for it. The crucial requirement per policy is verifiability. This figure is verifiable, so would you now care to give a reason why you are apparently so keen to omit it? Dential (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Addition of title years to F1 team navboxes

I notice that a list of drivers' and constructors' titles have recently been added to {{McLaren}}, {{Scuderia Ferrari}}, {{Williams}}, {{Benetton Formula}}, {{Red Bull Racing}}, {{Team Lotus}}, {{Brabham}}, {{Tyrrell}}, {{Brawn GP}}, {{Cooper Car Company}}, {{Alfa Romeo F1}}, {{Renault F1}}, {{Mercedes in Formula One}}, {{BRM}} and {{Honda F1}}. Is this necessary/desirable? Some of those navboxes are already pretty big. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. Especially list of consturctors' titles that duplicates {{Formula One World Constructors' Champions}}. Cybervoron (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Then remove other team personel and "other notable drivers" in some aspects and other jibberish that is of "even less" relevance as well? I think title years are defining successful periods of the team's history and therefore are certainly important. This Wikipedia non-info culture is frankly sickening at times. If looking at a template it might help people not knowing all the title years in their heads to figure out which periods the team was successful. What is the problem with that? It also takes only two rows of space, way less than former team personel and all the cars the team has ever built - which frankly is not so relevant. Better to have "title-winning cars" and "recent cars" if so. Lommaren (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I would agree with the last post. Title years are probably more important than listing out every car designation, which takes up a lot of space -- for the major teams anyway. Perhaps car "names" could have a template which could be shown or hidden as desired? Eagleash (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I too actually think this information has its merit there. Tvx1 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lommaren, I am afraid that you forget that the main purpose of the {{Navbox}} is navigational, not informational. So, it has sense to add in the navbox links to the articles only that contain the navbox. The "successful periods of the team's history" belongs to the article. P.S. I think it's a good idea to create in some cases separate templates for the cars. Cybervoron (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cybervoron, with all due respect I feel that title years are so fundamental to the team's history that it's relevant as a navigation tool too. Given that is takes so little space in the template compared with other things and cover a relevant aspect in the team's stature and history, I think it's fair to say that those season links have a strong place in the Navbox. I agree with Eagleash in that only title-winning cars or a link to a subpage for cars should be displayed in the templates. That would definitely save some space, since I definitely agree that the templates are a bit long-ish. However, that doesn't merit a user being unable to navigate to the defining title years of the team through the navbox in my firm and honest opinion. Lommaren (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's a bad thing to navigate our readers to the articles for the years during which teams won titles. The only navbox that considerably increases in size as a result of this is Ferrari's, which is entirely normal given that they been around since, well, as long as the World Championship exists. Tvx1 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cybervoron does raise an interesting point. The entire point of these templates is to provide an ease of navigation amongst related topics which might not be revealed in the text of the articles. Driver and car articles would have links to the championship years and other years as well. While not irrelevant it certainly isn't neccessary. --Falcadore (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with car articles as navigation to seasons is that it is not particularly easy to code Ferrari F300 or McLaren MP4-13 to 1998 just based on car numbers. That is only possible when cars are named after the year like Benetton always did and Ferrari have done on many occasions, but not always. Therefore to the average user the car numbers will mean absolutely nothing. Even myself having followed F1 for 17 years still had to check up which MP4-number the 1998 McLaren car that won their last Constructors' title had. Therefore I see no sense in regarding car codes as a proper navigation tool. Lommaren (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Car codes are not meant to navigate to season articles but to those cars' articles. Tvx1 17:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

GA nominations

Dear all, after what I felt was a successful peer review I have submitted 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix as a GA nominee. Help would be appreciated! I also saw that Z105space nominated 2000 Hungarian Grand Prix. So two chances to add to our GA tally! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• And one further point, if anyone will be willing to contribute to the FA nomination of the 2000 Belgian Grand Prix, I welcome all feedback whether positive or negative and it would really benefit the achievements of this WikiProject. Z105space (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Six (!) new F1 GAs over the last couple of days. We are so good :) Congrats to User:Z105space in particular for his impressive 2000 season project! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On a different note, I saw that the FAC for 2000 Belgian Grand Prix has been archived. Any chance to bring it back? I would do a review if noone else is interested... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did a great deal of work today on 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix and I believe that with a little more work it can go to GAN some time soon as well. Maybe one of you guys can take a look at it and leave comments on what could be improved? I bumped the article rating up to B already since I felt it met the criteria. Feel free to change it if you think otherwise. Cheeris, Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Silverstone Circuit needs you...

...or at least its article does. It tells you something about my lack of editing in the last couple of years, but somehow the complete rearrangement of the Silverstone Circuit page had passed me by. Having been taken there by another topic yesterday I will admit to being startled by what I found. Gone is the discussion of the circuit, its origins, the history of its development, and a sensible look at the major competition developments. In its place I find a "stuff that happened at..." article apparently written by the motor racing correspondent for Hello! The circuit development issues have been hived off to another page entirely (now called Development history of Silverstone Circuit) and barely rate a mention at the parent page. In contrast, it seems that almost every international-rated race, and a fair few domestic events, at the circuit in the last 40 years has a brief report, commonly in the most gushingly floral of purple prose, riddled with POV and with very little consideration given regarding the significance of the event to the article subject. Hence, we now have an almost indiscriminate screed of unencyclopedic peacocked trivia that doesn't give a thorough overview of the article topic, but misses much out entirely and buries the rest under a mountain of cruft. Obviously someone has put quite a bit of time and effort into this reworking, so I am reluctant to charge in and just delete like crazy (no matter how tempting), but I'm struggling to see an alternative.

This raises the question: what to do? Quite apart from the non-NPOV, peacocked, reportage writing style (which could simply be rewritten), this article's current state begs the question of what should an article like this look like? What content does a good Wikipedia racing circuit article need? Answers on a postcard, please. Or here, here is good too. Pyrope 19:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather transient at the moment so I won't be able to give a full reply. After having a brief look however, I just have to say charge in and delete like crazy. The whole history section - which is just a collection of race reports, not the history of the circuit - is unsalvageable. I would suggest that the content currently on the "Development history of Silverstone Circuit" page be merged back in, as there is no justification for hiving off the only information that actually concerns the circuit. We don't need an overview of every international and domestic event on this page - if you want a history of the British Grand Prix read that page. QueenCake (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

On future races

Consider the following template:

On a casual glance it would not be immediately obvious which of the current season's races have been completed and which have not. Therefore I suggest italicising the links to races which have not been raced:

Is this OK with you people? Parcly Taxel 09:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was something done for this precise issue and believe it was, or at least should have been, the solution. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Tvx1 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Formula 1" or "Formula One"

See talk:Formula One where someone has requested it be renamed to "Formula 1" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Lap chart - how to?

Hi everyone! 2015 Spanish Grand Prix does not have a lap chart yet. I cannot seem to find an instruction anywhere that specifies how I can create it. Shouldn't that be included here? It would be great if someone could tell me. Thanks in advance! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Tvx1 17:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you still tell me how it's done though? ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting to completing doing it, I'm on a little break from editing (if that wasn't too obvious). Basically just copy from the above race, correct the race it links to and the "period" (the number of laps), and insert the laps lead. The first driver to lead has from:start, the winning driver has till:end. Because it is continuous, the start of a driver's stint has to be coded to start on the previous lap (so someone who leads from lap 10 gets the coding from:9), and they end on the lap the stint ends. The "shift" parameter is the positioning of the text label (leave at (20,-5) unless the text is cramped together, in which case alter the -5 to separate them. The rest should seem clear. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still too stupid for this. My main problem was, that I did not find where the page lies in which I edit. The article links to a template called F1Laps2015|ESP. Where is that? How do I access it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Template:F1Laps2015. Shouldn't have assumed that. Hopefully your stupidity will leave once you see the coding. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was searching for! That should really be made more obvious... Or maybe that is just because I don't know much about templates yet. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, normally me or Cs-wolves do it (and occasionally others), so normally it gets dealt with anyway, but clearly this is flawed. It is however, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Updates, so that needs to be placed somewhere (or somewhere more prominent) on the main WikiProject page. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I did not know that page either. That should really go in the Project Main Page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I put it somewhere. Hopefully that is good enough for now. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Monaco circuit changes

For this year's Monaco Grand Prix there have been some modifications to the Circuit de Monaco. These involve shortening of the lap by 3 metres, and consequently the track data needs updating, along with the background to the race. I have little spare time to do this, so if somebody could look into it and help, that would be very much appreciated. SAS1998―Talk 10:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sam Tingle

Tingle's page has had the flagicon altered from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, which makes it different to how it appears on the LDS (automobile) page and different again to how it appears on the 1963 South African Grand Prix page (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland), but the same as 1969 South African Grand Prix. 1965 South African Grand Prix has Rhodesia again as does 1967 and 1968. Tingle's career seems to bridge the time when the independence of the region was in dispute, and he was born in Manchester, UK, so using his DoB as a base for the flagicon might not work. Furthermore the Zimbabwe flag on Tingle's page is again different to that shown on the Wiki Zimbabwe page.

If it helps any; Small, Steve (1994). The Guinness Complete Grand Prix Who's Who. p. 382. ISBN 0851127029. calls him Rhodesian and says he raced in his 'homeland' from 1950. My own initial thought would be to go with the 'Rhodesia' flagicon (as displayed on the LDS & '65, '67 & '68 SA Grands Prix pages). Thanks, Eagleash (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it cannot be Zimbabwe as that did not exist at the time he competed. Different flags were used by the country during the period he competed. It was the flag of Rhodesia and Nyasaland for his 1963 race, the flag of Southern Rhodesia for the 1964-1968 part of his career and the flag of Rhodesia for 1969. Alternatively, we could use the UK flag as the country was unrecognized and still an official colony of the UK and they did always use the Union Jack combined with the aforementioned flags. Our rule is to always use the flags that were used at the time the driver in question achieved the results in question. Hence why Jody and Ian Scheckter use the pre-1994 flag of South Africa. Tvx1 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, 1969 has Zimbabwe which it seems cannot be correct at any time in Tingle's career, so that should be Rhodesia by Tvx1's answer; '63 seems correct at Rhodesia & Nyasaland. '65, '67, and '68 was Southern Rhodesia and '69 Rhodesia. Next question is...was/is the Southern Rhodesia flag/flagicon different to the Rhodesia one...? Eagleash (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: OK experimented in sandbox and both Southern Rhodesia and Rhodesia flagicons exist so not a problem. I also confused myself by somehow looking at an old version of Tingle's page and the Zimbabwe flag has been altered subsequently, but to 'Rhodesia' the later green and white one, not the Rhodesia (1964) mainly blue one. However is this correct for his overall page as he was racing in Rhodesia (or Fed. of Rhodesia and Nyasaland as then was?) as early as 1950. Or should his page show either Fed Of Rhodesia and Nyasaland or Rhodesia 1964? Eagleash (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It should show all the different flags he raced under with the corresponding years between brackets behind them. Just like for instance Bertrand Gachot. Tvx1 21:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OK that can be fixed. It seems that the flag for S. Rhodesia is the same as that for the earlier Federation and it was replaced on the break-up of the Fed. in 1964/5 by the Rhodesia (1964) flag/icon as S Rhodesia then ceased to exist. Will update the pages accordingly. Many thanks for help. Eagleash (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad I have been of help. Now, while I was strolling through the aforementioned South African Grands Prix's articles I noticed there are more Rhodesian drivers. They might need to have their info checked as well. Tvx1 00:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I had it in mind :P Eagleash (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

All the ones in *Category:Rhodesian Formula One drivers* have been updated with the exception of Gary Hocking where the lead box is Motorcycle related, so up to that proj. to decide how they wish to display flags if at all. Eagleash (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Renault's racing heritage

I've brought this subject up before but it seems to always get ignored, The Renault in Formula One article is meant to provide information on the Renault car companies participation of the Formula One World Championship and for some reason the 2011 season when the team competed as "Lotus Renault GP" is included, The team was fully bought off Renault by Genii Capital which made the team a privateer and no longer the official Renault factory team despite still using the "Renault" constructor name, this being due to their already being a team that year using the name "Lotus" and how the money is shared out at the start of a new season, going back to my original point is that it shouldn't be included as the "Renault" team that year had nothing to do with the actual Renault car company apart from them still providing the team with engines, The Renault F1 article should only include information about the factory teams participation and engine supply, Just because the team still used the name "Renault" doesn't really make it a valid reason to be there, just look at the current "Manor/Marussia" situation, this also goes towards the total Renault race count tally it shouldn't really include the 19 race entry by "Lotus Renault GP", Renault themselves don't see the 2011 season as them participating. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Their situation is actually identical to BMW Sauber in 2010 and to Marussia Manor right now. The Lotus constructor that competed in 2011 is the exact same as the Lotus of today. The main argument that has been always presented for counting the 2011 constructor as Renault is that it continued the chassis naming tradition of Renault. But the most obvious proof that it shouldn't be counted so is that they themselves don't see as themselves participating. Tvx1 19:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It makes more sense having the "Lotus Renault GP" 2011 season information on the Lotus F1 article, It was really a transition year for the Enstone team as Renault reverted to just an engine supplier thus "Renault Sport F1" was created and "Renault F1" became "Lotus Renault GP" no longer the Renault factory team and fully owned by Genii Capital and sponsored by Group Lotus becoming a privateer. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a complicated situation and there are arguments both ways whether Lotus Renault GP's 2011 activities should be included in Renault in Formula One or Lotus F1. In my view, they should be included in Renault in Formula One:

• for consistency with external sources like ChicaneF1, StatsF1 and FORIX (subscription site) which include the 2011 results on their "Renault" page, and
• to minimise confusion for non-experts. I think non-experts would find it very confusing if clicking on the word "Renault" in 2011 British Grand Prix takes them to an article entitled Lotus F1.

Regarding Speedy Question Mark's statement that "The Renault in Formula One article is meant to provide information on the Renault car companies participation of the Formula One World Championship": With due respect, that's your interpretation. Personally, I consider the scope of the article to be the Formula One involvement of all things (i.e. teams/cars/engines) named "Renault", which therefore includes the 2011 cars. DH85868993 (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Previous discussions on the topic may be found here, here, here and here. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

DH85868993, the argument is not exclude the 2011 activities at all from the Renault in Formula One article. The argument is that it is labelled under the works team/constructor section of the article, while it should actually be put under the engine supplier article along with such teams as Red Bull, Toro Rosso and even Lotus' post 2011 activities. Tvx1 14:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the 2011 stats should be included in Renault's infobox stats:

• (at the risk of semi-repeating myself) for consistency with external sources like ChicaneF1, StatsF1 and FORIX (subscription site) which include the 2011 results in their "Renault" stats, and
• in line with our general principle of aggregating results based on chassis make (which we often incorrectly refer to as "constructor name") - the 2011 cars were called "Renaults", so in my view, their stats should be included in Renault's totals.

(and if the 2011 stats are included in Renault's stats, then it follows that discussion of the 2011 season would be included in the "constructor" section of the article, rather than the "engine supplier" section). DH85868993 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

DH is making some good points here. Broadly, the situation in 2011 was that Genii took over the works Renault team, lock stock and barrel. They continued to operate it as Renault for a further year, before switching to Lotus. In 2011, as Robert Kubica put it, Lotus were just a sponsor. I think the page structure as it is is perfectly fine, and accurately reflects the operational and chassis history of that entity. Pyrope 18:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

However, neither ChicaneF1, nor StatsF1, nor Forix have the official authority to credit results. In fact, we have found StatsF1 to be using Wikipedia themselves as a source occasionally. And what about Renault's own view on the matter? Why is that continuously ignored? And if we always follow our tradition of "chassis make", then why are crediting results the Marussia MR03 achieved to Manor? You see, there are always exceptions. There's just no such thing as "one rule fits all" Tvx1 09:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Very true, also. However, the only provider of truly official data is the FIA, and so far as I am aware its files are not accessible to the general public. Also, do you have a source for Renaults own opinions? Failing that, and even where that source may differ from the majority of reliable sources, Wikipedia's practices are guided by aspects such as WP:V, WP:OR, the principle of least astonishment, and others. The fact that most of the accessible reliable sources treat 2011 as a continuation from 2010 is therefore the reason that the same practice is followed here. You are right to say that each case is considered on its merits, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the way we usually handle these instances without a decent discussion. The new Manor team does indeed seem to be currently treated as a clean break with the old Marussia, but to be honest I think that situation (bankruptcy, sale of assets, complete ownership restructuring, etc.) is unusual in F1 history so using it as a template would be a bad idea. The situation with Renault's sale to Genii is much more like that which occurred when Jordan was sold to Midland (the Midland-owned Jordan cars are included in Jordan's results), when Midland itself was sold to Spyker (Spyker-owned Midland cars are listed under Midland results), the post-bankruptcy Team Lotus entries in 1994 (David Hunt-owned Lotus entries are listed under Team Lotus results), Marussia's purchase of Virgin in 2010 (cars were run and recorded as "Virgin" entries for 2011), the Project 4 'merger' with McLaren (McLaren International and Bruce McLaren Motor Racing Team results are all counted as "McLaren"), the sale of Brabham to Bernie Ecclestone and from him to Middlebridge (everything is just "Brabham" to us), and so on. Put simply, Genii continued to run Renault as "Renault" for the 2011 season. It wasn't just that the chassis were "Renault", the team name was Lotus Renault GP as well. Lotus had no technical involvement and were simply a title sponsor. Do we split Williams Martini Racing results away from BMW WilliamsF1 Team? Your example with Manor doesn't make me think "oh yes, we should be treating Renault this way too." Rather, I wonder that Manor has managed to be treated at odds with almost every other similar example I can think of yet there hasn't been much discussion on the topic. Pyrope 19:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

List of FIA licensed circuits

I found [this] list updated by the FIA on 6 February 2015. It doesn't seem to be featured on their site and is available to view as a PDF download, but it is a treasure trove of nearly every circuit in the world and their FIA grade that could be used to add to their respective articles. Cheers. Twirlypen (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So there are whopping 37 circuits worldwide that could currently host a Grand Prix. Even one in Thailand. And if Monza wouldn't be able to sort out a deal for beyond 2016, there are two alternatives for hosting the Italian GP. Tvx1 11:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Interlagos is not listed at all. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nor are Montreal or Mexico City. Tvx1 16:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mexico could be explained as the upgrades were likely incomplete at the time of publication, thus the FIA couldn't grade the circuit. But yes, very strange that Interlagos and Montreal aren't listed. Also, 4 of those 37 are alternate Bahrain setups. I suppose this is why this list was buried on their website. Twirlypen (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Only one Australian circuit listed. Interesting. --Falcadore (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There are also no ovals listed, with the exception of Rockingham's oval circuit. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That could explain why Mexico City isn't listed as a Grade 1 circuit, but it isn't listed at all. And it has been used for other categories these last few years. Tvx1 23:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

[Here] is the same list from November 2012. Interestingly, this one DOES have Interlagos and Gilles Villeneuve, but still no Hermanos Rodríguez and no Austin even though they had just completeled their first races less than a month prior. Twirlypen (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits to distance fields in race report infoboxes

Over the past month(?) or so, IP editors (possibly one editor under a range of IP addresses) have made minor changes to the "Lap Length" and "Race distance" fields in the infoboxes of numerous race reports, like this. The articles I've noticed these edits in are:

• 1995-2007 Spanish Grand Prix
• 2004-2015 Chinese Grand Prix
• 1999-2009 Malaysian Grand Prix
• 1996-2015 Australian Grand Prix
• 2004 Bahrain Grand Prix

Is anyone able to confirm whether these changes are correct? In most cases it's the most recent edit (old race reports typically don't get that many edits). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well the 2005 Spanish Grand Prix example you gave was an incorrect 'correction'. 4.627 km is 2.875 miles (actually 2.87508) so the IP's alteration to 2.876 was erroneous (I've reverted). Some edits are more complex. For example, the 2007 Spanish Grand Prix article was altered by incorrectly 'correcting' 4.655 km to 2.893 miles (2.892 was correct), but in the same edit they altered the total race distance to 302.575 km (65 x 4.655 km) from the previous 302.449 km. As our race data is very rarely sourced it is difficult to know where any of the numbers come from, but when even the 'official' data don't make sense and contradict themselves (66 times around a 4.655 km circuit should be 307.230 km, as our infobox shows for scheduled length, not the 307.104 km that the F1 website gave that year) it is clear that some decisions have to be made here. I note in that latter case that GEL and Forix both list 302.449 km, which contradicts both simple maths and the number on F1.com. I can't find the official FIA record of that event (their new website seems to have expunged the past) but I suspect that may be the source for the latter two. So what do we do? Revert to previously stable and assume that whoever originally entered race lengths was operating from a reliable source (FIA?); revert most of the IP's circuit length 'corrections' but take the opportunity to calculate the race distances for ourselves (OR territory here); or what? As a final note, it appears that the FIA allow for the physical distance between the start line and the finish line when quoting race lengths, as this year's Spanish GP is shown in official FIA documents as 66 laps of a 4.655 km circuit adding up to 307.104 km. Pyrope 17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This gets more confusing. While an awful lot of their edits are simple incorrect distance corrections, there are some very confusing ones. The 2008 Bahrain edits are incorrect, but they get closer to the official record than the previous data in that box. Quite how someone managed to provide a proper, archived source for the number on this occasion and then enter details that don't agree with that source is something I'll have to dig about in the page history to discover! Pyrope 17:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason why a race distance is not always exactly x times the circuit length is because often the finish line is not the same one as the start line. Basically the first lap of a race is often not an entire circuit length. If you look at the map in the 2008 Bahrain Grand Prix example you linked to, you'll notice very cleary that different start and finish locations are marked. That's why there is an apparent discrepancy and that means the official data are correct and that doing the maths ourselves is a major no-no. Tvx1 19:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

2014 Malaysian Grand Prix was recently affected as well. Tvx1 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case the corrections were fine. I think what this goes to show is that we need to be getting better about sourcing and citing technical information in our articles. That way it is much easier to check both at the time and should someone alter things at a later date. Pyrope 22:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought there was template that automatically generates the distance in miles next to a distance entered in kilometers as well as the other way around. So why aren't we using that for those infoboxes instead of using separate fields for distance in kilometers and in miles with manual conversions? Tvx1 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, {{convert}} would work well. I imagine that, like so very many things on Wikipdia's technical side, the structure of the infobox is very largely influenced by things handed down from its original incarnation/s from the mid-2000s. One issue with changing would be updating all the existing instances, but that's not something that needs to happen right away, if ever. Probably the easiest thing to do would be to add another triggered field for both lap and race lengths that would appear instead of the current fields. Pyrope 22:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I've altered the syntax so that the trigger fields are no longer "Distance_laps" and "Scheduled_laps", but now can be either "Distance_km" or "Distance_length", and either "Scheduled_km" or "Scheduled_length". I've also made "Course" a triggered field, with the triggers being, similarly, "Course_km" (to preserve functionality for existing template transclusions) or "Course_length" (for future use with a single {{convert}} template rather than separate km and mi fields). I'll alter the template documentation to include the new options. Pyrope 23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Source

Hi I am wandering, that why doesnt the stats of a F1 driver doesnt have a reference even in FAs. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of Formula One drivers and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve accurate data. Here are two examples of Wikidata profiles for notable Formula One drivers: Alain Prost and Jackie Stewart. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 19, 2015

A summary of a Featured Article on Formula One racing will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that you guys would like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, Dank! Twirlypen (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)