Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

F1 Rejects links

As some of you may be aware, the F1 Rejects site is now offline, which means all the links to it (of which there are a few) are now broken. One solution would be to replace the existing links with links to the archived versions of the pages at archive.org. I'll probably get around to doing it eventually, but I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone was looking for a little project to undertake over the holiday period. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just by way of info., there was the intention to restore the old F1R website content under the current GPRejects name. It hasn't happened (yet) partly due to permission issues (for want of a better description). There is no guarantee, however, that it will be restored. Eagleash (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Archiving is the only sensible solution. Even if they were restored at some point in the future. We'd still need to archive them them to prevent link rot in the farther future. AWB can be used to make the task easier. I've already done Norberto Fontana to kick things off. Tvx1 19:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Iso-Marlboro FX3B

I have proposed that the recently-created Iso-Marlboro FX3B be renamed to Politoys FX3 per our standard practice of naming articles after the car's original name. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the rename discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Parameters for formula1.com references

Something I probably should have sorted out before I started fixing all the broken formula1.com links (but better late than never, right?): What do we think are the appropriate values for the "work", "website" and "publisher" parameters in formula1.com references?

• In the race result references I've been updating/adding to the 1950-1999 race reports, I've used "|publisher=formula1.com", with "|work" and "|website" not set
• The year 2000 race reports (which are beautifully referenced, btw) use "|work=Formula1.com|publisher=Formula1.com Limited" with "|website" not set
• However, from 2001 onwards, there is huge variety, including:
  • "|work=Formula1.com|publisher=[[Formula One Group|Formula One Administration]]"
  • "|publisher=Formula One World Championship Limited|website=Formula1.com"
  • "|work=Formula1.com|publisher=[[Formula One Administration]]"
  • "|work=Formula1.com|publisher=[[Formula One Management]]"
  • "|work=Formula1.com|publisher=[[Formula One Group]]"
  • "|work=Formula1.com|publisher=Formula One Management"
  • "|publisher=Formula1.com"

I think it makes sense to standardise. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree on standardising. formula1.com gives its publisher as Formula One Digital Media Limited, which is part of Formula One Group, so we should use one of the two as the publisher value. I would then also add formula1.com under the website value. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I second Zwerg Nase's comments. The work/wesite is "formula1.com. While the site's legal information shows us the current publisher is Formula One Digital Media Limited. It used to be Formula One Management Ltd., though. Tvx1 16:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that up until 2003 Formula1.com was a fan site/news page, not the official website operated by FOM (or associated entities). References that cite a Formula1.com Limited may be for content originally published by the previous owners(have a look here; however as FOM would have also brought all rights in addition to the domain, the issue is somewhat moot.

For reference purposes, it is acceptable to note either the original publisher or the current holder of the rights in the citation, so none of these references are incorrect or really need changing. In addition, it is often common when dealing with large corporate entities to simply note the company or group, rather than the exact holding entity, so I would suggest using Formula One Group in the publisher field for simplicity and consistency. QueenCake (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Manor Motorsport

Someone has moved the article Manor Motorsport to Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd. Is this is an action we desire? Tvx1 16:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. The page covers Manor and their entire history from 1990, not just "Manor Grand Prix Ltd.", which was a company founded in 2008 to manage the upcoming Formula One entry. We also don't use the full legal name if it contrasts with the WP:COMMONNAME and the legal status should only be included if needed for disambiguation. I reverted the action on those grounds. QueenCake (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Season in progress footnotes

I have proposed a change to the wording of the "Season in progress" footnotes which accompany motorsport results tables which the season is still in progress. Interested editors are invited to comment at the centralised discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Section heading for championship standings

As I've been going through the F1 race reports unbreaking the formula1.com links, I've noticed we have some inconsistency regarding the section heading for the Championship standings sections. There's a mixture of "Standings after the race", "Championship standings after the race", "Drivers' Championship standings after the race" (pre-1958) and "Standings after Grand Prix". I think it makes sense to use a standard section heading for all the race reports (I'm happy to do the work - it should be pretty easy using AWB). My preference is for "Championship standings after the race", except for the 1950-60 Indianapolis 500 races, where I think it should be "World Drivers' Championship standings after the race", to clarify that it's the standings in the World Drivers' Championship, not the Champcar championship. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If we leave it at Standings after the race, all standings can be included there, no matter if World Drivers' or anything else. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer it if those headings were Standings after the race but I'm not sure which is appropriate for 1950-60 Indy 500 reports. Z105space (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

DH, I'm with you. "Championship standings..." makes the most sense as it can include any championship you like, including AAA Championship, USAC Championship, Drivers', Constructors', Jim Clark, Colin Chapman, or whatever. No need to make the distinction of pre- and post-1958. Keep it simple, and all that. Pyrope 17:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally believe "Championship standings..." to be more technically accurate than simply "Standings..." —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a consensus for "Championship standings after the race". If there are no objections within the next 12 hours, I'll start making the changes. DH85868993 (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. All done (I think). Feel free to fix any I missed. DH85868993 (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Good source for qualifying results

I believe the race results tables for all the WDC races (except maybe a few of the Indy 500s) now have a "Source" row. But some of the Qualifying tables don't. Can anyone suggest a good source for qualifying results before 2003? (formula1.com has qualifying results for 2003 onwards). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Motor Sport (magazine) archive. As detailed in post 'Rebaque' above. Although it's changed slightly (new templates) and the PDFs of the original pages are easier to read. Earlier article are by Jenks or Alan Henry. Eagleash (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It should also be possible to retrieve the results from the FIA site from the mid-nineties until the present using the web archive. Tvx1 11:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You could use motorsport.com for qualifiying results from 1996 to 2002 (as they have the 107% cut off time) like I did for the 2000 race reports. Z105space (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

See above posts re motorsport.com. Eagleash (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the issues concerning motorsport.com but those qualifying results are from the time when they did not have their own reference articles. If not than maybe News On F1? But I'm not sure it is considered an appropriate source (as I have seen it used in a few articles). Z105space (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:F1 front page

The featured content on the WikiProject's front page is outdated and will require attention. Who agrees? Z105space (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree! What first steps do you propose? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The first step is to garner agreement with other members of the WikiProject before any action is made. Z105space (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't really needed just to update something, that's bureaucracy gone mad! Harrias ^talk 16:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I need to rethink on how to appropriately call a consensus. I will update the list soon. Z105space (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Paul Rosche

Because I want to use an image for the Draft:Paul Rosche article, so how possible is it to use the images from the press releases on the right of this press release. Because I don't know if press release images are copyrighted, if so, what right am I covered under? Thanks in advance. Donnie Park (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

All of them are marked "© BMW Group", so the short answer is "you can't use them". That's also the long answer, unless you can draft a Fair Use rationale (use {{Non-free use rationale}}) demonstrating why a use of a particular image is important to illustrate a significant, unrepeatable event, the understanding of which is enhanced by inclusion of a picture. As he is still alive you can't use them simply to show what he looks like, and as his notability has absolutely nothing to do with his appearance at any particular point in his career the exclusions listed at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UUI do not apply. Sorry. Pyrope 03:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Donnie Park and Pyrope: The Wikipedia Fair Use rationale says that you cannot use a copyrighted image on a biography of a living person. So unless you can find a free image, then you cannot use one. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Not true. Go read the "unacceptable use" exclusions I pointed Donnie toward at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UUI. Pyrope 19:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

formula1.com live timing popups

Some of the F1 race reports use the formula1.com live timing popups as a reference for the weather information. All these live timing popups are now dead links. Archived versions of the popups exist at www.archive.org, but they don't seem to work on my computer. Does this link work for other people? (If the links work for other people, I'll add the archive link to the references, otherwise I'll try to find a different reference). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Does not work for me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Same for myself. Z105space (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As I suspected. I'll replace them with a different source. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

FP results?

An editor (Holdenman05) added the FP results to 2015 Australian Grand Prix. We have not done so so far. Should we start doing it now? I would opt against it, I just don't see the relevance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: No. Free practice results do not have a bearing on the race and thus tables for them should not be included. Z105space (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the FP results as the 2015 articles are much more detailed than previous years. So far this is a one-off, but I do have the time to make more. If we come to a consensus on the topic I may or may not add FP results to all 2015 articles, depending on the outcome. Holdenman05 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

While FP has little importance, it should not be included. If that importance increases it should be analysed then and not because we are writing longer. --Falcadore (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree we should not start to add FP times. For the reasons noted above and also complications with third (or even fourth) drivers and (not so much now but in the past) drivers using T cars or experimenting with chassis otherwise. Eagleash (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Third/Fourth drivers wouldn't be a problem with the current format. Past practice results wouldn't be an easy find I'd have thought. Look at the 1950s Indy 500 articles, they don't have qualifying standings - so adding practice results wouldn't be totally necessary for seasons over a decade ago, say. It's not a case of just creating a longer article, it's improving the quality of said articles by including facts and details. Holdenman05 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Practice times are available on-line for a great number of past races. See various posts above. But that doesn't necessarily mean we would add them. Some past races currently don't even have full quali times, just grid positions in the results tables. Putting up the practice times is too much detail for what is supposed to be a general encyclopedia and anyone that interested would already know where to look for them elsewhere. Eagleash (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Eagleash. We are a general encyclopedia, not a specific F1 forum. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, recent regulation changes enacted in 2015 changed grid starting positions for drivers that fail to set a qualifying time in Q2 or Q3 from previous season's Driver standings to quicker FP3 time. So to say that FP has no bearing on the race is not necessarily true anymore. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the results for now, but if another consensus is reached, they can obviously be reinstated. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In the rare case that FP results are used to determine one or more grid positions, we can surely use the prose to provide them. Tvx1 14:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Links to race reports at grandprix.com

Hi all. As some of you may have noticed, I am currently adding sources (the archived formula1.com race results page) to the race results tables in all the (WDC) F1 race reports - so far I've done up to 1972. Since I'm already editing all the race reports, I wondered what people thought of the idea of also adding a link to the relevant race report at grandprix.com - either as an external link, or an additional source for the race results table. I was thinking grandprix.com rather than (say) ChicaneF1 or StatsF1 because it gives a narrative description of the race, which those other sites don't. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I would very much support your idea. Z105space (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In correspondence with my question about the Jochen Rindt article below: Can grandprix.com be considered as a reliable source? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Yes. per WP:MOTOR/SOURCES. Z105space (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mercedes F1 editing Wikipedia

This user has sprung up, claiming to be an account for the Mercedes-AMG F1 Team's media office. Two edits thus far, the first of which was removing a legitimate picture from Paddy Lowe under the claim that "Paddy Lowe requested it." A second new account then uploaded a picture to Commons and added it to the article. A quick Google shows a Ryan Rawlings employed in IT by Mercedes F1. The second edit by the media office account was to Mercedes-Benz in Formula One to change the article title to all capitals, as Mercedes typically stylizes their name in press releases, and adding an additional director to the infobox.

As this has the potential to be a conflict of interest on both accounts, how should we handle this? I find the edit to Paddy Lowe to be uncalled for, the removed picture had absolutely nothing wrong with it. Obviously BLP is tricky, but the picture in no way violates BLP. I cannot help but question the legitimacy of the claim that the new picture of Paddy Lowe was actually taken by the IT guy and not something published by Mercedes F1 itself, possibly not under the license which it was uploaded with.

Should conflict of interest templates be added to these two users' talk pages just as a precaution? The³5₉ (Talk) 04:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

What a weird thing on so many levels. I don't see why the previous photo which I uploaded has anything wrong with it, but then again, if the new one is legally uploaded, I do not mind, it is clearly a better shot. However, I feel that a person who claims to be involved with a company and then edits pages related to them, needs to have a COI template for sure. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be reported for an inappropriate username per WP:CORPNAME and WP:ISU as well. Tvx1 14:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I nominated User:MercedesAMGF1 for a block for CORPNAME as well as warned them on their talk page, and gave User:Ryanrawlings and conflict of interest warning. We'll see what their next edits are, or if any new accounts spring up. So far there is nothing I can do about the newly uploaded picture, since I don't have access to Mercedes F1's media site, but I'm going to keep searching. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jochen Rindt - small peer review request

Hey everyone! Over the past days, I have been working on the Jochen Rindt article, trying to bring it up to GA standard. I have so far done everything except for the death in Monza and funeral part. I would appreciate if some of you could look over the article and smooth out anything that I might have screwed up. My biggest concern are the sources, really. Since I am not able to get access to any of the English literature on him (Henry, Prüller), I have been heavily relying on two documentaries that I got on DVD. They are without a doubt reliable sources, being made by respected German/Austrian TV stations, but obviously, they are not ideal for an English Wikipedia. If someone of who has access to a book that can back up the information, that would be absolutely wonderful! Also, I used Motor Sport Magazine's archive for most of the race reports, since it they appeared to me as the only real reliable sources for race reports. The ESPN ones are also good, but are called into question by the fact that they are marked with the date of the race but were definitely written later. Does anyone know other sources for that from reliable websites? Thank you all in advance! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have Alan Henry's biography of him if it helps. Eagleash (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a 2010 biography of Rindt by David Tremayne which could help if anyone has a copy of the book. Z105space (talk)

I would love to have this book, but it is very hard to come by in Germany... Eagleash, if you could add some references from Henry's book once I'm done, that would be perfect! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, one can simply order it online. Tvx1 14:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am willing to pay almost 30€ for a book that I will mainly use only for this article. I'd do it if I had a more steady income... I bought Stewart's and Moss's autobiography over Amazon quite cheaply and will use them for those articles later on. It really is a shame that there is so little good F1 literature in Germany. Most comes from Austria actually, thanks to Rindt. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

8W seem to have a good biography if you wanted to look there. We've used this site before in the past and because they're an associate FORIX site (Autosport) it should be a fairly reputable source. Hope this helps! --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 18:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Skully Collins: Thank you! Would have never guessed myself that that would be RS. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a pass over the article for you this evening. References are important and can bring about new, interesting subjects - however, I always felt that an article that reads well and doesn't list everything off (you see it a lot in football articles "On x date, subject did this" etc. During a GA review and, if you're feeling up to it, an FAC other contributors will evaluate the reliability of a source. Personally, I'm not convinced the fact a source is in another language should be off putting. It's only natural for some of the better sources to be in the subject's native language. Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now entered the article for GA review. Eagleash, can you get a chance to exchange some of my film references with ones from the book any time soon? That would be really helpful! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Notes" section in Grand Prix articles

What's the situation with Notes section in Grand Prix articles? Some people claim it should be removed and some say the opposite. Is there some kind of consensus for this? – Sabbatino (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

For the race/qualifying tables? I'd say keep them. Nearly every event has some sort of penalty. There needs to be an explanation as to why someone who qualified third is starting the race in 15th or whatever. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about this and I wouldn't ask such thing, because I know myself that these notes are needed. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe Sabbatino is referring to standalone notes sections (example here), and they should be removed once all relevant information is incorporated into the article as prose. QueenCake (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly what I had in mind. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes. At some point should we make a lap leader template for the seasons that don't have them. The other information in the example provided is TRIVIA, or at the very least needs sources. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

2015 Season Good Topic

A while ago here we had a box here tracking the progress of getting the 2015 articles to Good Article status. The thread got archived and eventually forgotten. So I'll return the box to show the progress we have been making.

2015 Formula One season

30 articles

2015 Formula One season

2015 Australian Grand Prix

2015 Malaysian Grand Prix

2015 Chinese Grand Prix

2015 Bahrain Grand Prix

2015 Spanish Grand Prix

2015 Monaco Grand Prix

2015 Canadian Grand Prix

2015 Austrian Grand Prix

2015 British Grand Prix

2015 Hungarian Grand Prix

2015 Belgian Grand Prix

2015 Italian Grand Prix

2015 Singapore Grand Prix

2015 Japanese Grand Prix

2015 Russian Grand Prix

2015 United States Grand Prix

2015 Mexican Grand Prix

2015 Brazilian Grand Prix

2015 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Ferrari SF15-T

Force India VJM08

Lotus E23 Hybrid

Marussia MR03

McLaren MP4-30

Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid

Red Bull RB11

Sauber C34

Toro Rosso STR10

Williams FW37

As you can see, the articles on the cars are mostly in poor shape. Tvx1 18:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am also always keeping that updated in my sandbox. I'd do the Force India and the Williams first, who volunteers to take care of other car articles? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Have the race articles really not been reviewed since Italy? I haven't been as active on here lately since I am currently limited to my mobile, and frankly I lack the patience to work significantly on an article strictly from it, but I'll do what I can in maybe finding some articles on the specific cars and dropping them in the talk pages. Happy new year, everyone! Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 20:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Italy was rewarded GA today, Singapore and USA are under review. Feel free to start more reviews :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow... If anyone who is involved in a WikiProject cannot review articles of that project anymore, who is gonna do it? It is always advisable that the reviews are carried out by people who know the subject matter. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that contributors to an article should refrain from performing the review. I don't remember which of the race articles I had a hand in more than others. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Twirlypen: You can review if you did not contribute significantly (a widely interpretable term to be sure). I believe that in many cases you actually did, so in those you should probably not review. But I wasn't only speaking about you in particular, there are others in the project who I believe have not worked so much at the race reports. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dead links

As some of you may have noticed, recently I have been tagging (and fixing) numerous dead external links in F1-related articles. I have created a project page listing F1-related articles known to contain (tagged) dead external links. Editors are welcome to add articles to the list, or remove articles from the list once all dead external links have been removed from the article. The Checklinks tool can be used to identify, tag and fix dead external links. DH85868993 (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

IP editor (not the old chap, I believe)

An IP changed Red Bull to Red Bull Racing in all result tables. I do not appreciate that. Thoughts? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some links so we can see if it is our old friend? I've only looked quickly at Vettel and it seems to have been RBR for some time. And the wiki page is Red Bull Racing. Often shortened to RBR in media reports. Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's all the 2015 and 2014 race reports. IP is ‎109.145.105.234. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the same editor. Our boy is aware enough not to repeat the same wording in a piped link and it's a different part of the UK. TBH I do not know what the consensus is; abbreviating it might be related to the discussion above re. car names & 'syntaxially wasteful' piped links... which might also apply in the cases of shortening driver names in results tables to just the surname. Eagleash (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We had a discussion on the matter a short while ago..Tvx1 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe we should stick with using the common short names. We also do not write Scuderia Toro Rosso and Williams Martini Racing and Scuderia Ferrari everywhere.... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Save for the fact that "Scuderia Ferrari" and "Williams Martini Racing" are no constructor names (just team names), whereas Red Bull Racing (and Scuderia Toro Rosso) are in fact constructor names. Tvx1 22:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To be more precise, "Red Bull Racing" and "Scuderia Toro Rosso" are chassis makes (listed in the "Name of the chassis" column in your link [= the official 2015 FIA Formula One entry list]) - the constructors (which are listed in the "Company Name" column) are "Red Bull Racing Limited" and "Scuderia Toro Rosso SpA", per section 6.3 of the 2015 Formula One Sporting Regulations, but I appreciate that you were probably using the term "constructor name" in the way that we (myself included) typically misuse it here at WP:F1.

Although it might seem inconsistent, I would support listing the 2015 Red Bull (Racing) cars as "Red Bull Racing-Renault"s in 2015 results and championship tables (the 2015 FIA entry list clearly states that the name of the chassis is "Red Bull Racing" - and (without checking) I imagine that they are listed as "Red Bull Racing-Renault"s in all 2015 official FIA results lists) but listing them as "RBR-Renaults" in results and championship tables for the years where the official FIA entry list specifies the chassis name as "RBR". (And likewise for (Scuderia) Toro Rosso and STR, obviously). Having said all that, I'm also happy to retain the status quo, i.e. referring to the cars as "Red Bulls" and "Toro Rossos" everywhere, for simplicity/consistency. DH85868993 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I would opt for the latter option in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No, DH85868993, Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso are the constructor names. They are referred to as such (sometime abbreviated) on the entry lists of every Grand Prix in the constructors' column as well. Tvx1 14:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. DH85868993 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, for us to be able to do that, you would need to substantiate with a number of reliable sources that they are actually most commonly referred to as such. Tvx1 14:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So where are we at with this issue? We currently have the cars listed as "Red Bull Racing-Renaults" in the qualifying and race results tables in the 2014 and 2015 race reports, but "Red Bull-Renaults" in all the season summary articles (including 2014 and 2015) and all pre-2014 race reports. My recommendation would be to revert the changes to the 2014 and 2015 race reports, so it says "Red Bull-Renault" everywhere. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It is the common name. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I will revert the changes to the 2014 and 2015 race reports. DH85868993 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My recommendation is that we use whatever constructor name the FIA credited them with for the season in question. Note that this affects the car articles as well. We are currently listing some of the cars as Red Bull RBXX while they were actually called Red Bull Racing RBXX. Zwerg Nase, if you are going to claim a common name, you have to bring sources supporting that claim. We don't just determine a commonname through someone just saying it is so. Tvx1 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I can provide plenty of examples where the car is called Red Bull RB11. I doubt that many can be found that give the full name (apart from the official Red Bull website and the FIA sheets). The fact that even the official Formula 1 website refers to it as Red Bull RB11 is quite a pointer to the fact that it is a common name. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sock-puppet

A user that has been editing a number of our articles over the last year has now been identified and blocked as a sock-puppet. Tvx1 22:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured picture nomination

I would like to turn your attention to this FP nomination. So far, there is only one F1 featured picture, it would be nice to have another one and this photo of the Force India VJM08 is kind of pretty, I think. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Williams history

I would like to take some template stuff of the Williams Grand Prix Engineering into Frank Williams Racing Cars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.246.23 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Which? Pyrope 00:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just in case anyone hadn't realised, this is our long term IP friend from the UK West Country. See also this recent draft. Eagleash (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Marussia dropped

It seems the "Marussia" name has been dropped and the team now goes by the name of "Manor Racing", does this mean a new article needs to be created as it is a new constructor? Also some user moved the Marussia F1 article to Manor Racing? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the move is fine. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Manor is a different constructor so it should have its own article, we don't keep Jordan, Midland, Spyker and Force India on the same article do we? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but we also do not have a seperate article for John Player Special, even though Team Lotus and its cars were officially called that for several years. It's a slippery slope and we have not always laid the same standards as far as I can see... I would argue that with Marussia already changing their team name last year when they were still under the same ownership, it is a different case than Jordan, were the name changed when the administration changed. But I see that one can argue otherwise. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The team still competed under the "Marussia" constructor name in 2015 it doesn't matter who the owners are, Lotus Renault GP for example competed under the constructor name "Renault" in 2011 but the team wasn't owned by the Renault car company at that time. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The constructor was Lotus though and the FIA award all the results to Lotus. The 2012-2015 results and the 2016 onwards results in this case will not be awarded to the same constructor and that's why we have to have separate articles. Tvx1 05:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, Lotus cars were never official called "John Player Special" beyond it being written on the side of the car. John Player was a normal title sponsor, e.g. "John Player Team Lotus," and the cars still followed their traditional naming scheme, e.g. Lotus 78. Eightball (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not true, as can be clearly seen in the Wiki articles of both the Lotus 77 and Lotus 78, which were officially called John Player Special Mk. II & III (just that no one called then that really). Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You're referencing a parenthetical in the header of a Wiki page? No, at no point in any season were those cars ever OFFICIALLY entered as John Player Specials. Eightball (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eightball here. According to those articles, they were just codenames and no official names. Tvx1 20:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I am confused. The 1970s season reviews always refer to them as "officially called John Player Special". But that must not necessarily be a reliable source... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. Colin Chapman had been for years experimented with methods of value adding to sponsorship arrangements. They were indeed officially entered as John Player Specials, but the practice is inconsistent - even intermitent. --Falcadore (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor

Pyrope has amended the Wolf WR5 article in such a way that the two parameters give the full name of the car (not so in the Wolf WR1 article though?). So far, this is not handled consistently in the car articles. Which shall it be: full car name or just model number without the constructor name? Note: It needs to be with constructor name at some places anyway when the constructor name changes between seasons... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've never understood why they were abbreviated, frankly. There is space for the full name, the full name is simpler for a reader to understand, and in most cases using the full name avoids having a syntaxially wasteful piped wikilink. Pyrope 19:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And the field should not be filled if the predecessor/successor was from a different constructor/constructor name. After all we don't list the models from a previous/following constructor in the navbox of a certain constructor either. Tvx1 13:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Even in cases like Force India, where the same car was run under two names? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There are always exceptions, sadly enough. There's no such thing as "one rule fits all". There obviously is no predecessor to the Spyker F8-VII. The Force India VJM02 is a successor to the Force India VJM01 edition of the Spyker car. Tvx1 19:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Any more opinions from frequent contributors (Eagleash, Bretonbanquet, DH85868993 or Cs-wolves)? If this is consensus, I'll start adjusting the articles accordingly together with my work of including the podium parameter into the infobox in all articles. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Like Pyrope, I've also never understood why they were abbreviated. I don't have strong feelings either way about whether the fields should be populated when the constructor name changes. DH85868993 (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That notion doesn't make sense, the way teams change names these days. Renault R202 lists its predecessor as Renault RE60, yet the two have nothing to do with each other except who paid the bills. Whereas it was built in the same factory, by the same people, and likely using some of the same parts as Benetton B201. LRT24 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This issue comes up again now with the Renault RS16. There does not seem to be a clear consensus on which car should be named as predecessor and successor. We should have another debate about this. I feel that it is most logical to call the RS16 the successor of the Lotus E23, even if the constructors have different names. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel that is logical at all. It's more than a simple name change. The FIA recognizes them as completely different constructor and awards their results independently. The cars constructed by the returned Renault constructor will be listed in the Renault constructor template as well alongside those constructed during Lotus previous appearances, not in Lotus' template. The Renault R31 is therefor the predecessor to their current car. Tvx1 19:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If everyone agrees on this, the successor parameter in Lotus E23 Hybrid needs to be changed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And many other articles as well. Tvx1 21:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess that depends on what you mean when you think of a succession. Looking at an evolving design philosophy and comparing the race performance of a car to those that came before and after it seems to me to be the essence of a succession, whereas tying it to the car's constructor name is, yes, just a name thing. What's it telling you? Under that thinking, the predecessor to the Mercedes MGP W01 was the Mercedes-Benz W196, and I'm really not sure what benefit we bring to our readers by stating that. There is absolutely no continuity between those two cars apart from the name. Pyrope 21:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC).

I think you are thinking this through way to much. The only meaning these predecessor/successor fields should have is the previous car constructed by the same constructor and the following car constructed by this constructor, in order to allow our readers to navigate through the articles. Tvx1 00:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what the navbox at the bottom does, as does the constructor's own page indirectly, and the links do for those constructors with prolonged periods of continuity. I still don't see what benefit there is in calling cars separated by many years 'predecessor' and 'successor' when the only thing that links them in any real sense is their name. Pyrope 03:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to omit the field alltogether in such an exceptional case? Tvx1 05:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say that makes sense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Carmen Jorda

Just wanted to notify you guys that my recent, and I believe quite NPOV, addition of a "criticism" section to Jorda's article has sparked a flush of very disruptive vandalism on her article. It was semiprotected today for two days, so I would appreciate if you could assist me in keeping an eye out for continuing behavior after the protection is lifted. Thanks! Zwerg Nase (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wolf WR7-9

In line with our recently-established convention for the Wolf cars (i.e. one article for each design, not each individual chassis), should Wolf WR7, Wolf WR8 and Wolf WR9 (which as far as I'm aware, were separate examples of the same design) be merged back into a single article, like they used to be? DH85868993 (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If they were actually the same design, then definitely, yes! Can someone provide a source for that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Page 280 of Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Volume 3 says "The car (WR7), when it was finally completed ... Shortly afterwards another car, WR8, was built to the same specification, while a third, WR9, that first appeared in practice for the British Grand Prix, differed, in the main, only by having the rear brakes mounted outboard and a revised rear suspension..." DH85868993 (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds pretty clear. I vote merge. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, merge – that IP has been creating all kinds of stuff that I've had to merge with existing articles. If Williams FW works as a single article, then these three cars can certainly co-exist on the same page without any problems. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No way of merging, separte car models. Different pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.246.23 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain how "another car ... built to the same specification" is a separate model? DH85868993 (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect they are the same models. --Falcadore (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have merged Wolf WR8 and Wolf WR9 into Wolf WR7. DH85868993 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Josephmekwunye2006

I feel that this guy should really get blocked. Keeps adding copyright vio photos to articles. Also, we should consider renaming Red Bull Racing-Tag-Heuer RB12 by convention. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition to being renamed the article should also be transformed into a redirect, although I'm no entirely sure where to. There's barely content in it and what few is there contains lots of speculation. Regarding the copyright violations, it's best to post a warning to the users talk page and report them if they make another violation thereafter. Bear in mind though that, judging by the username, we might be dealing with a 10-year-old child here. Tvx1 23:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I already warned them after they did it on the Renault article... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The RBR-TH RB12 article should be deleted outright. I prodded the article and left a notice on their talk page to use their sandbox or draft space to construct articles that already have a redirect (Red Bull RB12). There's not a single source that refers to the chassis as the "Red Bull Racing-Tag-Heuer RB12". Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Further, I had to revert edits on the Renault 31 page that listed the RS16 as it's successor (it's not, Renault 2011 and Renault 2016 are two different teams) and Scuderia Ferrari page that listed the 2016 chassis as the 667 (a now consensus-agreed project number and not what it will be called). Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am convinced this user is intentionally being disruptive. Upon RBRTG12 getting tagged for PROD, they removed it claiming " no policies are being broken", despite nothing, not just on that page, but any of their contributions whatsoever, having sources. Further, the user has ignored all warnings left on their talk page. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 11:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The removal of the PROD tag was done by me and not the user in subject (whom I don't know at all). I removed the PROD not because the article was of any value in its current state but because the PROD did not state any policy breach. I understand that an article with no references should be given time to add them. Regarding the change in name, I believe this should be discussed on the article talk page, no? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rentzepopoulos, you're confused with another article. The PROD in question here was for Red Bull Racing-Tag-Heuer RB12, which is a completely fabricated title by the way. No reference exists referring to the car as this, and was hastily created in retaliation for the correct title, Red Bull RB12, being made into a temporary redirect. Josephmekwunye2006 is welcome to contribute, obviously, but articles need to be built in the sandbox/draft space until it's even remotely somewhat presentable, not have an unreferenced blurb in article spaces and creating wikilinks to them in established articles. Further, the user in question does not participate in discussions at all. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 16:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Paul Ricard Circuit

Upon making various minor updates to the current season article, it came to my attention that the wiki article for Circuit Paul Ricard has the incorrect title, with the correct title redirecting to this. I do not know how to fix this, but it should be done. The move was made in the later half of 2015 without any discussion. I left a message on that talk page, but as it hasn't gotten attention for several years, I thought I'd post it here too. Cheers. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 13:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that person moved it, they appear to have thought it was a grammatical issue. I see no reason not to change it back, there doesn't really need to be a discussion. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I meant that it was moved originally without a discussion. I agree it needs to go back, without discussion, I just didn't know how to do it. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 19:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Engine and power unit articles

A while ago a discussion was started on an article for a power unit. In the meantime I have found more power unit and engine articles in existence. So far I have found Mercedes PU106-Type Hybrid, Zytek-Renault ZRS03, Honda Indy V8, Matra Sports V12 engine and Renault RE16 Turbo. The one on this year's Renault engine is nothing but a table of technical specifications. I feel that we should not be having such articles as they are beyond the purpose of Wikipedia. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia and not a detailed motorsport magazine. Any thoughts?

On a side note, while scanning these articles I have found that TheriusRooney is still littering F1 cars' infoboxes with unsourced additions. Tvx1 23:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that they are not all necessary, but as with most of the historic drafts our IP chap does, it will be kind of hard to argue the case. We should see from case to case whether they can be transformed into worthwhile articles or not. There are certainly engines/power units that deserve their own articles, with Cosworth DFV probably being the best example. And the Mercedes PU106-Type Hybrid will likely take a significant place in F1 history... Zwerg Nase (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure that Mercedes has a significant place in history, but going as far as having an article on it that does nothing but list technical specifactions and some awards that weren't even awarded to it? Surely, everything word noting about it can be mentioned in the articles of the cars that used it and the article of the power unit manufacterer? Tvx1 01:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As ever, the gold standard (I would argue, minimum standard) is WP:GNG. If the articles do not demonstrate that they comply with GNG they should be removed, and that means both a prose description of their notability claim and the multiple, significant, independent sources to support it. Simple, tabulated data falls squarely under WP:RAWDATA, so should be fairly easy to remove. Pyrope 07:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Two of the aforementioned articles have been deleted in the meantime. Any thoughts on how to deal with others? Tvx1 21:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Formula One driver numbers

Hello. Some of you may be aware that I am in favor of this article being created. A driver's number is notable enough to be independently reported on (eg: "Hamilton to use 44 again in 2016"), and paramount to identification on the race course.

However, as I have indicated on the article's talk page, I implore those interested to consider using the table format in my sandbox instead of the one being currently presented. Thank you. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 12:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's trivia for the sake of collating trivia. For the longest time F1 race numbers were associated with teams, similar to the franchise arrangements in use in NASCAR, V8 Supercars and other series.

However as you say the procedure is now that race numbers are associated with drivers specifically. That makes the race numbers notable to the drivers individually, not all the numbers collectively. Unless it can be shown that the numbers affect the performance somehow.

Or are we now going to collate repositories of drivers asthetic tendancies. Like haircuts, footwear brands, race helmet painters and so on.

Gossip magazines write copious articles on the romantic partners - a lot more than is ever devoted to race numbers. And broadcast cameras like to capture footage of said partners in the pits during races. Let's make that list too. --Falcadore (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If they become notable enough that they start getting their own sources and citations from outside reliable sources, then obviously yes, of course we will then make those lists too. We have articles under the Formula One umbrella for drivers that never once started an F1 race. Our F1 articles are not solely confined to what does and doesn't make a car go fast, and the content of driver's articles is not solely confined to what they do in F1. If "gossip magazines report copiously" on who Fernando Alonso is dating, that information would surely go into the "Personal life" section of his article, as it would for a film actor or musician's article on Wikipedia. It is not up to the Wikipedia community to decide what is and isn't notable. It's absolutely NO different at all than having a list of broadcasters, female drivers, national racing colors, sponsorship liveries, or video games, none of which affect performance at all either. Your argument that it's silly just comes off as IDONTLIKEIT.

You're correct that for the longest time, the numbers were associated with teams. But now they're not, and it's been that way for what is now the third season, so it's not any kind of RECENT violation, and assuming it will go back is CRYSTAL, unless you are able to cite that the FIA and teams intend on returning to the old format. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 14:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

3 seasons of driver selected numbers versus 67 season without the systems makes such a list exactly recentist writing without taking the whole history of Formula 1 into account. At the end of the day, that list is pure trivia. Whatever needs to be told about the drivers' numbers can be told on their articles. Exactly like we deal with helmet designs. A complete list of every driver number ever used is overkill. The numbers of those drivers that have left the sport are hardly notable anymore. You're right to state the we don't decide whether something is notable or not. However, it is up to us to determine whether something is notable in the mainstream sources (and thus not specialist ones). So the onus is on you that "List of F1 drivers' numbers" is a notable topic. Tvx1 15:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Note also that numbers are not that permanent as they can be easily reused. Try to imagine how this article will look like in a few years: Surely some numbers will have become "permanent", but others will be like "used by D1 (2014-2016), D2 (2017), D3 (2018-2019)" etc. Just a soup of random driver names. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The format used in my sandbox only lists numbers currently in use and that's how I feel it should be. Therefore, if Will Stevens never races in F1 again, his number would be removed from the table in 2018, per the FIA regulations, until or unless another driver selects it. It's just insane that we have other completely meaningless lists that I've mentioned above that have absolutely ZERO notability outside of the F1 wiki community (go ahead and Google "list of Formula One liveries" and attempt to find a single RS detailing them collectively as this list of numbers is being challenged under) are allowed to be here, but a list of F1 driver numbers in use, complete with sources that indeed also have them in a list format as shown in my sandbox, is considered useless trivia. I am beginning to understand why other seasoned editors have become fed up with this project and it's iron grip bureaucracy. Things are only allowed to exist if it's created or thought of by only the most established members. Obviously you have had some sort of interest in this as well, Tvx1, otherwise you wouldn't have also dabbled with it in your own sandbox and even continued to update my own, provide sources for me, and update me on the use of practice and test numbers. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 17:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have "dabbled" with it in my sandbox because I have personal interest in it. That doesn't mean I think it deserves a standalone article in a general-purpose wikipedia. My thoughts on the video games and broadcasters are well-documented as I AFD them in the past. But because some people like them, they were kept. The liveries article should be deleted as well in my opinion. Your accusation against the "most established members" are nonsense and utterly appealing. It would be better if you retract them completely. You have to learn to stop taking proposal to delete content you like personal. All the numbers that are used by current F1 Drivers are included in wikipedia despite that list. So tell me, what does this list add to wikipedia that's not already there without it? Tvx1 17:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps they were kept because the arguments for them outweighed the arguments against them, rather than a matter of simply just like/not liking them. I have shown in my sandbox RS that actually compile lists of numbers, shown how they can identify individual driver in a complete field of cars, and even background on why some drivers selected their numbers, as also written with sources in my sandbox. ALL of these (with probable exception to the list of female drivers) cannot be said for any other of the lists that have nothing to do with performance, which in itself leaves very little left to justify on my part. As for what very little there is left to justify, and given that the sources undeniably exist, it's a resourceful place for general readers of a general encyclopedia to see what numbers are currently in use (not just in the current season, but also numbers used by drivers one or two years out of the sport), as per the recent discussion on the AfD for Senna's win list. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 18:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The two articles that were kept were certainly not kept because the keep arguments outweighed the delete arguments. In fact in one of the AFD's someone even literally stated that the presented keep rationales were rather weak. They were kept because there wasn't that much input and because the person that closed them made a simple headcount instead of thoroughly reading and weighing the arguments. The other articles you mentioned have never even been nominated for deletion so there no arguments regarding them. I still question why it is so desperately important about showing which inactive drivers still have the right to use a certain number that we MUST have an article for it. Tvx1 19:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's just trivia, sorry. The fact that you can find sources concerning driver numbers does not automatically entitle it to an article; the existence of reliable sources is vital, but not the sole arbiter on article inclusion on Wikipedia. Other policies stating what Wikipedia is not, notably that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, trivia, or statistics, make it quite clear that this doesn't deserve an article here. QueenCake (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Given these policies, I'll contribute as such towards the AfD discussions that better be taking place over the weekend on the aforementioned lists with even less notability and references than this one. Thank you. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 19:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the notability of another article, then start a new discussion to state your case on the articles you believe do not meet Wikipedia policies. In the meantime, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. QueenCake (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't lecture me. I've irrefutably shown that this list belongs here moreso than ones already here and featured in {{Formula One|lists}}. Failing to convince outside administrators that they don't belong previously is not an excuse to railroad the creation and improvement of this one. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 22:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If you did, then why did no one agree with you in this discussion so far. Morover non those who have stated that the numbers list isn't needed have actually stated that we should have the other lists. So please stop using that to attempt to discredit our arguments. Tvx1 23:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I said because your arguments to get the other lists deleted wasn't successful doesn't mean you get to railroad the creation and improvement of a more relevant and quite frankly better list such as this one to avoid another AfD attempt of an article/list that didn't get the proper approval beforehand from the select few over here at WP:F1. Like I also said, ridiculous and asinine bureaucracy continues to drive away seasoned editors (which probably has a significant impact on why no one has agreed with me so far in the past 18 hours). Has been happening since I joined and I'm seeing why. What I never once stated though was that you guys wanted those lists, so please stop saying that I did. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Those are your opinion and not facts. I for one don't consider this list to be better than the other ones at all. And stop this bureaucracy nonsense. There are nothing but good faith concerns that these article is not suitable for this encyclopedia. Collaborate with your project colleagues and don't attack them. Tvx1 16:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have ultimately decided to nominate it for deletion. Everyone can weigh in their opinions here. Tvx1 15:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that the AFD's minimum run of seven days will expire later today. So if anyone still wants to weigh in their opinion here, there's not much time left to do so. Tvx1 00:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Team/constructor navboxes

Over the past few days, an IP editor has converted three F1 team/constructor navboxes ({{Zakspeed}}, {{Wolf Racing}} and {{Onyx Grand Prix}}) from our traditional "centred" format, e.g. this:

to a "grouped" format, e.g. this:

I don't have a strong preference for either format, but I thought I'd mention it here in case others do. DH85868993 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Something similar happened last year; thread here although there was not much of a discussion the IP in that case stopped when asked. FWIW I prefer the 'traditional' centred layout. It looks like the same IP...location Truro, Cornwall. Eagleash (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with either one. The "newer" one does provide consistency with the NASCAR team templates that do the same, but some groups (like the founder one) just looks weird in the new format since it's the lone entry and aligned to the right with nothing else after it. Zappa24Mati 05:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the centered layout as well. I see no good reason to change it. Tvx1 08:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Decided to see how one of the current team's navbox would look. Tested Ferrari's in my sandbox (feel free to look). This new layout looks good as everything looks better organised and tidier. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely much neater and much easier to read for bigger templates. I'm thinking of the McLaren one in particular. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Updated my sandbox with McLaren template. – Sabbatino (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely looks a lot better for the larger templates. I think the colons in "Cars:" and "Other:" should be removed, though, to keep it consistent with the team name at the top. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 19:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Red Bull (Racing)

In the hope of avoiding some edit warring in about a week's time, I'd like to establish a consensus regarding how we're going to list Red Bull Racing's cars in the results sections of the 2016 race report articles, i.e. are we going to list them as "Red Bull-Tag Heuer" or "Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer"? As some of you may be aware (and as discussed in this earlier discussion), in the 2014 and 2015 race reports, the cars as listed as "Red Bull Racing-Renault"; in the 2005-2013 race reports, they are listed as "Red Bull-<engine>". Other factors to consider:

• the "Constructor" column in 2016 Formula One season lists "Red Bull-Tag Heuer"
• the FIA entry list lists "Red Bull Racing" as "Name of the chassis".

I have a slight preference for "Red Bull-Tag Heuer" but I'm mostly interested in establishing a consensus one way or the other. DH85868993 (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with DH. Eagleash (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The historical name has always been "Red Bull". Furthermore, the sporting regulations state that the name of the chassis must be the same as the constructor name. The car is currently known as the "Red Bull RB12". 07:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Erm, no. The car is known as the Red Bull Racing RB12. The entry list list the name of the chassis/constructor name as Red Bull Racing as well. Tvx1 08:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Then show me evidence that the team lobbied to have their constructor name changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is that? It was Red Bull Racing last year and it still is this year. Just look at the many entry list for the season and the Grands Prix the FIA has published.

2016 Red Bull Racing [1][2]

2015 Red Bull Racing [3][4][5]

2014 Red Bull Racing [6][7]

2013 Red Bull Racing [8]

2012 Red Bull Racing [9]

2011 Red Bull Racing [10]

2010 Red Bull Racing [11]

You being unaware of the fact does not make it untrue. I find it quite amusing that seven months ago, you claimed the FIA had the name of the chassis as "Red Bull Racing" and we should use that and that now you claim they list it as "Red Bull" and we should use that. Tvx1 13:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So I am expected to hold to an opinion that I expressed months ago, even if I no longer believe it?

This is precisely why we achieve nothing but chasing our own tails when trying to achieve a consensus—everyone sticks to their position and bashes it out over and over again until one side gets tired and relents. Heaven help you of you change your mind, because then it gets held up as an inconsistency on your part by the very people who persuaded you to change your mind even though persuading you of the merits of their argument is what they were trying to do all along. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

More nonsense philosophy that nobody around here actually even remotely uses. There is no sticking to my position at all. I'm just pointing out what the official governing body's position is. According to them 6 six years ago, the contested constructor name was Red Bull Racing, according to them 6 months ago, it was "Red Bull Racing" and according to them right now, it still is "Red Bull Racing". So yes I find it weird that six months ago you claimed it was A and now you insist it is B, despite them having not even remotely given any hints that they would change it. Tvx1 17:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Then why mention my previous position if it has nothing to do with your current argument? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave it already. Below is constructive discussion. Tvx1 21:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out why you felt it was necessary to mention in the first place if it has no bearing on the argument you were naking. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And now Red Bull Racing has been listed in the constructors' column on the entry list for the Australian Grand Prix, just like last year. Tvx1 18:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of Red Bull, since it is the common name. We also nowhere call Brabham Motor Racing Developments Ltd..... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, that is of course not a correct comparison, since the Brabham cars are still officially called Brabham. But I still believe we should call them Red Bull in prose, but we should of course give the full name in the Entrant column. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair compromise. Of course we should the full constructor names in the "Constructor" columns as well. Tvx1 21:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus? If so, what is it? (It's not immediately clear to me). DH85868993 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be to use the correct constructor names, per the FIA, in the tables, while referring to them as simply Red Bull in prose is fine. What we have to do with the car articles remains unclear as it wasn't mentioned in the discussion although they are affected by this as well. Tvx1 12:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any need to start mucking around with car articles. Frankly I don't see much need for changing anything, as there is no obligation to follow officialdom all the time anyway, as it's often wrong or contradicts common usage. This is after all a very trivial issue. QueenCake (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The rules state (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the chassis name must be directly related to the constructor name. Smith Racing cannot call their car the Jones SR1; Smith SR1 would be the accepted name. Red Bull call their current car the Red Bull RB12, so from that we can establish that the constructor name is Red Bull. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Do you have a source to support your statement that "Red Bull call their current car the Red Bull RB12"? Red Bull Racing's website would seem to indicate that they call it the "Red Bull Racing(-Tag Heuer) RB12". DH85868993 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It's odd that they include the engine name in there. I have never seen a constrctor do that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Presumably Tag Heuer are paying RBR a large amount of money to badge the engines as "Tag Heuer", so it makes sense to me that the team would use the name at every opportunity. DH85868993 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the season entry list litterally states that the name of the chassis is Red Bull Racing and the entry list for the first grand prix lists the "constructor" as Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer. Why do you keep arguing the contrary despite the clear unsynthetized proof from the sources. Tvx1 12:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Because of the hoops that a team has to jump through to a change their constructor name. None of which appears to have happened. Unlike Marussia/MRT, a Red Bull name change has never been on the agenda for a WMSC meeting. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And who has ever claimed it changed? I have provided you 7 years worth of season and grand prix entry lists all listing the constructor name as Red Bull Racing. Do you even bother to read other people's contributions in a discussion. This seems like a clear case of WP:IDHT. Tvx1 14:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one selectively applying the sources. You're the one advocating for replicating the FIA to the letter here, but elsewhere we have the FIA saying "we're going to introduce the halo in 2017" and you refuse to accept those edits. So what am I supposed to think when your two arguments contradict one another? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you can't see the difference between these circumstances doesn't tell me you have a solid argument, it tells me that you can't see the difference between reporting a past-tense, encyclopedia fact, and reporting futurology and speculation. As this is the case, perhaps you should gracefully withdraw and accept that you lack the intellect to usefully contribute to this discussion? Pyrope 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No that's not what they're saying and you know that. Their current stance is "we would like to see it introduced in 2017". That's no confirmation at all. A lot of hurdles still need to be taken before it can be added to the rules so we cannot convey as a confirmed rule change. Provide a source from the WMSC where they confirm it will be a new rule for 2017 and we talk again. Until then we can't include it and thus this has no bearing on this discussion and my arguments here. Regarding this discussion, obviously we have to follow what's written in the many sources instead of your synthesis. Tvx1 09:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

List of F1 GP winners table

An editor has proposed reordering the table at List of Formula One Grand Prix winners. Interested editors may participate in the existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#List of F1 GP winners table. DH85868993 (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

IP editor yet again

The infamous IP editor is back yet again, having created two drafts for article: Draft:Lola T100 and Draft:Lola T102. Given the really limited appearances this cars actually made, as shown in those drafts, I really don't think they merit a dedicated article. Tvx1 19:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I just spotted these two myself a few minutes ago. Back? He's never been away... Up to over 70 different IPs now, Editing blitzes 2 or 3 times a week. Eagleash (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

They barely merit an article between them. If they materialise as full articles, then I say merge to Lola Cars. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Stupid question, but as these are Formula Two cars, did they participate in any Formula Two races? A brief Formula One history doesn't mean these were the only races these cars ran. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a stupid question, but I would wonder about the notability of a Formula Two car, even if it did take part in one or two F1 races. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Update; both drafts are currently declined. Eagleash (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

IP guy has now created a draft at Draft:March 87P. Clearly not notable and he originally created an article out of a re-direct (87B) which has been reverted twice. Eagleash (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So there are currently three four drafts (in addition to the above three, there is Draft:Wolf-Williams Racing) the IP want's to be created as articles. They deal with really unnotable cars and have little content, so are clearly not suitable articles for Wikipedia at all. Their submissions were unsurprisingly declined. The problem is, each time a submission is declined, the IP resubmits it immediately without making much changes to the drafts at all. They just don't take no for an answer. This is clearly disruptive behavior. Tvx1 23:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this has been noted in the six months we've been tidying up after him. He just somehow, keeps ahead of being blocked and being an IP with now more than 80 addresses lengthy blocks are problematical. Eagleash (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm well and truly tired of this guy. He's making historical F1 on Wikipedia a full-time job. However, I don't know if his behaviour is blockable, even though I agree it's disruptive. Maybe an admin could be consulted? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have. Tvx1 01:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP has now started on the Fittipaldis. Tvx1 10:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

His poor recreation of the Fittipaldi F8 was edited to remove his trademark grammar, tense, rogue caps & punc. and he undid the changes. I'm afraid I restored the re-direct. Though in the long run, the car could be notable enough. Eagleash (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've had enough of this guy now: He's restored the Fittipaldi F8 page which I have left so as not spark warring accusations and, ultimately, it could be useful. The 87P draft has been blanked and he's created the same page out of a redirect made 2 days ago by another editor entirely. I have reverted that one. Usual messing with things also today incl. removal of maintenance tags. Left 2 messages on his today's talk-page which he's blanked. Unfortunately the last approach to admin met with little response. Eagleash (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

His page for the March 761 has also now been restored to a re-direct. It probably passes notability, as a race-winning car, and used over several seasons by a number of teams (incl WGPE). It was however completely without references and thus not acceptable. Eagleash (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Another two drafts were created as well as a request for a redirect being made. All in all I think our trip to the administrator was unsuccessful because we didn't plead our case adequately enough. In short, we didn't provide enough evidence of disruptive editing. More evidence has popped up today, though. Tvx1 19:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes I'd forgotten about the F9. You're right that the approach to the admin didn't have enough evidence. I had started to compile a list of problems and talk-page messages etc. but the approach was made before it was ready. Eagleash (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

He's back: obviously had his tea and last batch of edits before his mummy tucks him in. Anybody want to revert the March 87P again? Eagleash (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Now it's clear edit warring. Someone completely uninvolved already stepped in to revert. I apologize for jumping the gun on contacting the admin. I think an extensive overview of the disruption at WP:ANI will be more efficient. Tvx1 21:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think today's batch of edits and subsequent nonsense is enough to take it to ANI, but I'm willing to hear what others think. In doing so I would refer back to previous problems also. Oh, where was the other editor involved?Eagleash (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple discussions on the IP archived in the archives of this talk page and the ANI archives should have a previous report on the IP as well. You'll find more information on which articles the IP edited in them. Tvx1 21:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And here is an useful diff of the IP bluntly removing another user's comment from my talk page. Tvx1 21:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep already got those in mind: and BB's t-page is almost entirely composed of chat about him. Eagleash (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Update. The F8 page has been protected due to the persistent disruption. I don't know how the editor that did so came to be involved but I have asked if they could consider protecting the 87P and 761 pages also. Eagleash (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Update the 87B is also protected following a request yesterday and now so is the 87P which is the one that has seen 'warring'. WP:RFPP is not ideal though due to the dozens (if not 100s) of pages that IP edits. Eagleash (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Update, Draft:Fittipaldi FD02, Draft:Fittipaldi FD03 and Draft:Fittipaldi FD04 were created. Tvx1 22:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Plus Draft:Fittipaldi FD01. Eagleash (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

& Draft:Fittipaldi F6. None of these drafts are of acceptable standard really. But...those (If any) that have refs. are likely to be accepted despite the usual poor wording, judging by the fact that F8 draft has twice passed review! Eagleash (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The FD03 has been accepted as have FD01, FD02 and FD04. Right who's going to be the first to re-direct them? Most are without notability. Poor prose too. Eagleash (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've redirected the FD01 (a one race car!). I don't really feel comfortable doing them all (some are borderline also). It could be construed as harassment or similar I reckon. Eagleash (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Tvx has done the 03. I have put notes on the talk pages (01 & 03) that the car has no notability and also left 'hidden' advice at the re-directs not to restore them. Eagleash (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have done the FD02 as well. Tvx1 19:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Good work! I've done t-page notes and hidden advice on that one too. That leaves the 04. That raced more often and Emmo scored several minor places with it. Notability not so much of an issue. Eagleash (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Heads-up. A re-direct has now been created for the Fittipaldi F8D, (to the F8 page) despite the fact that the F8 is itself a re-direct and also protected due to IP's disruption. If a page materialises (created out of the re-dir) for F8D, knock it straight back on sight. Eagleash (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

IP has now left notes on most if not all of the Fitti FD cars pages proposing a merger to "Fittipaldi FD" cars. As they are mainly re-directs could be problematical. Left message on today's talk-page directing him to WP:MERGE for instructions. Eagleash (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

He's made a complete pig's ear of proposing the mergers... of course; what was I thinking! I am not able to try to sort out the muddle today now, probably. Eagleash (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime Draft:Lola T100 and Draft:Lola T102 have both been declined thrice and have been resubmitted again straightaway without any attempt being made to adress the issues. I'm tempted to nominate these for deletion.Tvx1 22:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you would have to go MfD as they are drafts. The nomination of the Lola LC87 there didn't go smoothly with at least one editor from outside the project stirring up things...not least by pointedly nominating other similar articles. (Which were much better sourced and written). However, if you wish to proceed I, and almost certainly, Bretonbanquet will support you. Eagleash (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, if they are deleted. IP will almost certainly immediately re-create them. (As happened with the LC87). If they somehow get accepted then we can merge, re-direct or delete as appropriate. Eagleash (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I could ask to salt them in addition to being deleted. Tvx1 15:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's a definite possibility. Go for it if you wish! Eagleash (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Another draft Draft:Surtees TS16. Notability possibly not so much of an issue, but usual poor English. Eagleash (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Update. Someone kindly tagged the Wolf-Williams draft as a copyvio and it has gone. Using the same tool I checked the Fittipaldi F6 & F9 drafts and both came up as 0.0% unlikely copyvio. So they are now tagged as well. Eagleash (talk)

The 2 Lola drafts are also copy-vios as is the Fittipaldi FD04 page. The Lolas have been tagged accordingly but not as yet the 04 as it was considered it could be moved to Fittipaldi FD (like Williams FW) and the other FD cars (currently re-directs) added in. That's 6 recent pages, all copy-vios. Eagleash (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Further update: gone to ANI. Eagleash (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

comment One way around this issue is to WP:SALT the titles. If members of this WP consider that certain cars are not notable enough to have articles, then salting is an option. Fully protected redirects are another option. Mjroots (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been mooted before (I think) and could theoretically be possible. However, I'm not sure if it would be practical due to the number of obscure F1 cars which could have pages created. Although without spending a great deal of time searching the actual figure is unknown. The creation of low-quality drafts for non-notable cars (of which several recent ones have turned out to be copy-vios) is just one of the long-term problems the F1 proj. has had with this editor. Eagleash (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think fully protected redirects would be a useful tool against this guy, as it would cut off one of his methods of creating pointless articles. Anything that could confuse him we should throw at him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

He's off again Draft:De Tomaso F1. Eagleash (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe that one was accepted. Tvx1 08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't come as a surprise to me. Despite placing notes on the talk-page about notability and quality, it still gets accepted by a reviewer who has a history of accepting similar low-level drafts. They must have seen the note as they placed banners there. This does not help us keep IP at bay. Eagleash (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash — have you tried raising the issue with the reviewer, or maybe referring the issue to something like ANI? It's quite clear that the IP editor has no intention of stopping the practice of creating new articles, and from looking at the user page of the editor who accepts the pages, they just patrol the encyclopaedia, approving things left, right and centre and clearly aren't familiar with the content or the project guidelines. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes both been done. The last enquiry to the reviewer met with no reply whatsoever. Another enquiry, on a similar matter, to a different editor gained us the reference, in passing, that this particular reviewer was 'one for deletions'. There is an outstanding thread at ANI currently which has received little response. I agree that this reviewer seems lax on occasion. Yesterday I stumbled on 2 drafts on completely unrelated topics which weren't satisfactory. Just out of curiosity I watched them both and he accepted them both. Eagleash (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have turned the De Tomaso F1 page into a redirect to De Tomaso. Eagleash (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP has now created Draft:F1_Channel_4. Tvx1 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's him. He's got that from somewhere as time has shown he can't put 2 words together properly. Copy-vio tool doesn't help. He also did one for F1 BBC, which was pretty 'meh' but still got accepted. Oh wait I see you've re-directed that one just today. Eagleash (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Surtees TS9 now also. Eagleash (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to an unfortunate misunderstanding, a re-direct has now been created for 'Wolf-Williams Racing' and IP has edited multiple pages to reflect this. He has removed a lot of content from Frank Williams Racing Cars and is obviously going to try and re-create the Wolf-Williams page once more. The previous attempt was deleted as copy-vio (it was also not notable). His last 2 days contribs are here and here. More editors looking would be appreciated. Eagleash (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

They had a particularly disruptive editing spree today. Tvx1 18:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A reminder that there still is an active ANI thread on this case. Tvx1 01:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The ANI thread was archived a few days ago without any help being offered. It seems no-one is willing to look into this properly. We now have Draft:Merzario A1 and Draft:Bellasi F1. Eagleash (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The draft Bellasi F1 and Merzario A1 pages were both accepted (despite notes on the talk-pages) as were drafts for Vanwall VW 2 and Vanwall VW 55. I re-directed three and DH saw to the VW 55. However that re-direct was subsequently undone by an editor outside the project saying that as it was accepted it should go to AfD. Might have a tenuous point but I believe that there is enough of a consensus for all 4 to remain as re-dirs ...as have the previous pages IP has created. The re-dir has been restored for the VW 55. With no help from Admin or reviewers all we can do is keep knocking IP's nonsense back I suppose. Eagleash (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bahrain International Circuit

There seems to be a bit of confusion about who holds the lap record of the Bahrain International Circuit on the configuration that has been used for all every edition expect the 2010 one. Formula One.com can be found to state on multiple places that Pedro de la Rosa holds the record with a time of 1:31.447 [12][13][14], but is contradicting itself by also stating that Michael Schumacher achieved a fastest lap of 1:30.252 during the 2004 race (over a second quicker). Does anyone have any information as to which is correct? Is Michael's lap ineligible for some reason? Tvx1 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Lap records are recorded during the race. Looks like F1 site admins got FIA syndrome and don't really know what is what... – Sabbatino (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I know that. De la Rosa's time was set during the 2005 race and Schumacher's time was set during the 2004 race. That's not the problem here. Tvx1 20:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Very curious indeed. Was there maybe a slight layout change after 2004? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup! That is indeed the answer!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well that's new. Always thought that track record was set in 2004. Although, looking at onboard videos from 2004 and 2005, you can clearly see the difference at turn 4. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

While looking into the article, I noticed that the circuit map we are using in the article shows an incorrect circuit length. Tvx1 14:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering about that as well, especially since it shows a length that is neither here nor there... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This map has the right number, but is a lot uglier... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I made a request for a new one to be made. Sorry for the spamming. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

According to Bahrain International Circuit (which has a reliable source supporting it), "After the 2004 race and ahead of the 2005 race the track was realigned at turn four, decreasing the the circuit's overall length by 5 metres." Which means Schumacher's 2004 time is on a different (albeit longer) track layout, so De la Rosa holds the record on this configuration. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That sentence was added by me as a result of this discussion. Tvx1 20:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Eddie Jordan

Eddie Jordan was recently moved to Eddie Jordan (commentator). I've started a discussion regarding the most appropriate title for the article. Interested editors are welcome to contribute at Talk:Eddie Jordan (commentator)#Article title. DH85868993 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Flags representing constructors

I know that it has been long established that reports and statistics for drivers of X year should use the period correct national flag for X year. Specifically, the German Grand Prix lists Rudolf Caracciola under two different flags as Germany changed its flag over its career. However on the same article in the table for constructor statistics the flag of Auto Union and of Alfa Romeo are from a specific time period. Auto Union's victory in 1934 did not take place under the swastika flag of Germany, yet this is the flag used for Auto Union. Mercedes meanwhile is listed under the current German flag, despite victories in the race under three totally different flags. Alfa Romeo's two wins were under the flag which is used in the article, but certainly Alfa Romeo has participated many times in the German Grand Prix under the current Italian flag.

I think that constructors, when viewed over a large period of time, should be listed under the current national flag and not try to shoehorn past flags. This applies to other articles such as the Italian Grand Prix as well. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not merely the flags that were historically altered, but the countries the constructors streamed from changed in their entirety. Alfa Romeo didn't simply drive "under different colors". When they entered the German Grand Prix in the 80's they did so representing the Republic of Italy, while achieving their victories in the 30s for the Kingdom of Italy. Mercedes won their Grand Prix representing the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany and Germany. Auto Union won during the Nazi Germany period. The only accurate option we have is to use the flag templates of those historical states, which display the historical flag and provide a link to the correct historical article. It's basically similar to Benetton's appearance in the article. The constructors nationalities changed basically (except for Auto Union). You were quite correct in pointing out the inaccuracies in the German Grand Prix article and I correct them. Since the table in question is only concerned with wins, it's acceptable to only list the nationalities under which they achieved their wins.

AFD's

The following articles have been nominated for deletion:

1. Renault Energy F1 V6 Turbo  Deleted
2. List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna  Kept
3. Renault RE16 Turbo  Deleted
4. List of Formula One driver numbers  No consensus
5. Draft:Lola T100 & Draft:Lola T102  Deleted
6. Draft:Template:Iso-Marlboro in Formula One  Deleted
7. Draft:Template:Wolf-Williams Racing  Deleted
8. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mercedes_PU106-Type_Hybrid  Redirected
9. Draft:Ensign N175

You are free to weigh in your opinions in the discussions. You can reach them through clicking on the above links. Tvx1 23:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that the Driver numbers AFD's minimum run of seven days will expire later today. So if anyone still wants to weigh in their opinion here, there's not much time left to do so. Tvx1 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional template (Draft:Template:Iso-Marlboro in Formula One) of very little use, (the IP editor) nominated at MfD here. Eagleash (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Another; Draft:Template:Wolf-Williams Racing nominated at MfD here. Eagleash (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at Mercedes PU106-Type Hybrid and wondering if it should be deleted, but I have forgotten how to nominate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:AFD. Tvx1 23:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Nominated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI:

• F1 in Schools has been nominated for deletion (using the proposed deletion process)
• Mercedes PU106-Type Hybrid has been nominated for deletion (using the Articles for deletion process - the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes PU106-Type Hybrid)

DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC) {{od}

Another draft which has been WP:TE re-submitted and rejected several times, now at MfD here. Eagleash (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who may not be aware, Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Article alerts (updated daily by a bot) lists the current status of active AfDs, PRODs, MfDs, GANs, etc for all articles tagged with the project's banner. DH85868993 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

TR STR1 & RB1

An editor has suggested that Toro Rosso STR1 and Red Bull RB1 be merged. Interested editors are welcome to express their opinions at the merger discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the disruptive IP again. Tvx1 12:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's him. Eagleash (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I should have recognised that. Probably still worth having the discussion though. DH85868993 (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Closed as 'no consensus to merge'. Eagleash (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ferrari 246

An IP editor (the same one I think) has also proposed that Ferrari 246 F1-66 and Ferrari 246P should be merged with Ferrari 246 F1. The discussion is at Talk:Ferrari 246 F1-66 in case anyone cares to comment. DH85868993 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, same guy. Eagleash (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Closed as 'no consensus to merge'. Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hello everyone! Over the past months, during many of the GA reviews concerning the 2015 race reports, questions have arisen if this or that website is a reliable source. Specifically about F1Fanatic, which I find invaluable as a source since it covers many things that cannot be found in other sources. I was wondering if we could start a list of sources that are considered reliable by this Project? The Motorsport project has something of the sort, but very short and not really suited just for F1. What do you think? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been to F1 Fanatic in ages, but if I remember rightly, the main issues was that the site fell under SPS. However, shortly before I left, Collantine had expanded the staff to include a couple of extra wtiters; Will Woods was one of them. It's like James Allen — he's got a second writer in Alex Kalcinauskas. On that front, I'm happy.

My main issue with F1F is the comments section. I know that the article is the source and the comments are simply incidental, but their presence hasn't always sat well with me. They're often incredibly biased; heaven help you if you aren't a fan of Hamilton or Räikkönen. Of more concern is a small handful of regular contributors who come pretty damn close to committing libel when the subject is Bernie Ecclestone. Again, I know that there is a separation between the article and the comments, but I have to wonder how much one influences the other. I think it's an issue with any site with interactive elements, especially in niche publications like F1F. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with many of what you say, the fact remains that Collantine covers a lot of stuff that is invaluable to writing a good race report article. Just look at the most recent article: Q1 and Q2 are hardly covered in other sources and the statistics article of his that I used was also ideal for the purpose. It would be devastating to lose these sources. Maybe we can start here by collecting sources that we definitely consider reliable? I'll make a start with some suggestions (not all of which might make the cut):

• Autosport
• The Guardian
• BBC
• Motor Sport Magazine
• Grandprix.com is listed as RS in the Motorsport WikiProject, even though their race reports lack an author and date of when it was published, which I find highly debatable...
• ESPN Similar problem here. They have detailed race reports on all the races, but they give a publication date of the day of the race, which is false, since the reports where clearly written a lot later...
• Motorsport.com appears to be a RS with different authors and so forth, but the fact remains that they stole our texts without proper attribution, so I'll use them as little as possible as a protest.
• Motorsport Total A German site that I like a lot, because they feature information no other site gives, like detailed weather info for every race.
• The official site naturally, lot of technical info on the cars.
• SkySports Sometimes very tabloid in style and too focused on their personnel, but solid articles in my opinion.
• The (Daily) Telegraph I used this a couple of times especially for race live coverage in race reports. Maybe someone from the UK can comment on how this publication is rated there?

That's all for now from me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone have any replies? Can I go ahead and create such a page for the project? What other sources do you find reliable? Which of mine do you disagree with? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd definitely consider Autosport, Motor Sport Magazine and formula1.com as reliable sources. I consider the race report text at grandprix.com to be fairly reliable, but their results tables are sometimes questionable (e.g. they sometimes list every car which didn't finish the race as "retired" even if they actually were classified). I don't have sufficient familiarity with the other sources you've listed to comment. It's fine with me if you want to create a project page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you guys feel about FormulaSpy.com and Crash.net? I often see them floating around when I'm looking for sources. Zappa24Mati 00:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I see Crash a lot as well, but I am always a little put off by their very childish visuals. How do you guys regard the content? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

They are a proper, professional publishing outfit. For a large chunk of the 2000s they were the publisher for Autocourse annuals. Pyrope 15:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Why would you need to go into any detail concerning individual qualifying sessions Zwerg Nase? It's the Grand Prix itself that is important, you only really need to cover the starting grid positions.

Regarding that list, The Telegraph is a broadsheet, albeit one that has greatly fallen in quality in recent years, so is a reliable source. The problem we have with online-only specialist sources is that they can fall in and out of our reliable source guidelines depending upon ownership and editorial direction (if existent). So Motorsport.com was relaunched last year and now has recognisable writers and an editor who are producing their own content; however older content may have been syndicated (or just stolen) so this may not be reliable. GrandPrix.com on the other hand used to be reliable, and certainly was at the time the WP:MOTOR list was created, but now simply runs GMM pieces, which are instantly unreliable, so should no longer be trusted as a source.

If you do want to create a new list, I suggest simply updating the WP:MOTOR one, rather than creating an F1 specific list. Most sources cover more than Formula One, and keeping it in one place is easier for everyone. QueenCake (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What about gpupdate.net? Does it meet the reliable source guidelines? Z105space (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have had issues with it in the past because of the way they handle Dutch drivers. I have felt that they have run stories—particularly about Giedo van der Garde—that to me were not really representative of the facts. The community consensus was really to take it on a case-by-case basis. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the source is simply unreliable. I haven't been using them for a while know. Everything they publish is supported by other reliable sources. The way they handle Dutch drivers is very similar to how British sources (e.g. Sky Sports, BBC,...) handle British drivers, how French sources deal with French drivers or how German drivers deal with German drivers. It's easy for us to spot what is not usable. Tvx1 18:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Willy 2000 making random changes to articles

We have a user [15] making random changes to articles. I will revert some but the real world calls. Britmax (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Pit stops column

Just a quick heads-up: a user has started adding a "pit stops" column to race result tables. Weirdly, they're only adding it for the top three drivers. I gave been a regular since 2009, and to the best of my knowledge, we have never included this or anything like it before. I don't really see the need for it either, especially if it is only being limited to a small handful of drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. If people search for statistics that go that deep, Wikipedia is not the place. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Motorsport.com

Dear fellow editors, after writing an angry email to motorsport.com for their copyright violations, I have finally received some acknowledgment:

Hello Lukas,

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We understand that as an author you take pride in the content you create and we appreciate the fact that you shared your work on wikipedia, thus allowing us to use it on our site. We are being very proactive in remedying the instances of non-attribution you mentioned. Rest assured it will be taken care of.

Regards,

Katie Shenko, Esq.

Legal Counsel

I hope, something will change there soon now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello all. I have been checking their site after Zwerg Nase updated us with their reply, and Motorsport.com have indeed added attribution to Wikipedia at the bottom of the page on all their team profiles - check the bottom of the Ferrari page here. This should now bring this matter to a close. QueenCake (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

List of drivers eligible for a Super Licence

A determined IP editor has continually added a list of drivers who have received enough points to be eligible for a super licence to the FIA Super Licence. I have continuously reverted these edits, as this sort of list that requires constant maintenance is generally deleted based upon WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In addition, this is only a theoretical list of drivers who could have a super licence based on one criteria, not a list of drivers who have one, or will apply for one, or even are actually eligible, as there are additional requirements. However, as they have continually readded this list to the point where this may count as an edit war, I would prefer to gain the projects opinion.

Is this material wanted on that article, or shall it be removed again? QueenCake (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

To me, this sort of detail is not what Wikipedia is for. F1Fanatic publishes a list about this every half year or so. So everyone interested can find this information there. No need to put it into an encyclopedia. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this is beyond our scope. Many of those drivers will never get a superlicence, while on the other hand other drivers like Wherlein and Haryanto get super licenses without accumulating the required points. Tvx1 21:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove. If the editor has calculated the points himself then it's original research. --Falcadore (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I have requested semi protection for the page because the disruption persists and is done by a dynamic IP, making blocking impractical. Tvx1 14:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Season reports

See Talk:2016 Formula One season#Season report.

Come on guys, you made a big deal about its relevance and you can't be bothered expanding on it. Meanwhile, individual race articles get thorough recaps. And then when I hide it on the season article since no-one has touched it in months pending a proper update, I get told to make constructive edits instead.

Please make up your minds, because right now, it's not even a half-arsed effort—it's quarter-arsed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be a bit more respectful to your fellow contributors. We are all volunteers who spend their spare time to contribute to this. Remember that there is no deadline. The season is only five races far (of 21) at the moment so there's no need to have a fully completed report right now. A rush to have a report is what resulted in the current overly detailed pre-season report that's in the article. Lastly, you can always contribute yourself instead of bossing around the others. Tvx1 14:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Tables

The tables again... I have a question: I notice that in the qualifying table, the driver column is wider than the longest name. However, in the race table, it is only as wide as the longest name. I could not find the reason for this. See the latest race report for example. Can someone explain why that is? They really should be consistent... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ceterum censeo that we should switch back to the pre-2015 tables. I've said it before and I'll say it again... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears that it has already been fixed in the article you linked. In the tables where it hasn't, a style="padding-right:24px" is missing in the cell containing the longest name. This coding is needed to prevent the content of some columns from overlapping. Tvx1 15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Tyre allocations

Dear MetalDylan, I am sure it was a lot of work to include those tyre columns into the race reports. However, I have removed them. In my opinion, they are just too much for a race report on Wikipedia. If readers are so interested in these details, which not necessarily have an impact on the event, they can find them elsewhere on the internet. We are a general encyclopedia, not a Formula One database. I invite other editors to chip in their opinion on this. Regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

To explain what I am talking about. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion (granted that's my opinion) the tyre allocation is now a key factor in the background to a race weekend as the teams and indeed drivers can select differently and so can vastly impact the outcome of the qualifying and race. Maybe im more of a in-depth fan but to me this new introduction is interesting enough for inclusion. Like you said would be good to get a concensus... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalDylan (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added prose about different tyre choices of the front runners in most of the race reports so far. I believe that should be enough to cover the issue and prevents the article from blowing up with too much tables. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that these tables are inappropriate. The exact number of each compound each drivers selects is just too detailed information for wikipedia. The most inportant information regarding tyres is always provided in prose. Tvx1 15:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Why not something like this?

Tyre choices for Monaco weekend by team

Entrant	Constructor	No.	Race drivers	Tyre choices
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	5	Sebastian Vettel	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		7	Kimi Räikkönen.	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Sahara Force India Formula One Team	Force India-Mercedes	11	Sergio Pérez	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		27	Nico Hülkenberg	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	8	Romain Grosjean	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		21	Esteban Gutiérrez	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
McLaren Honda Formula 1 Team	McLaren-Honda
		14	Fernando Alonso	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		22	Jenson Button	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team	Mercedes	6	Nico Rosberg	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		44	Lewis Hamilton	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Manor Racing MRT	MRT-Mercedes	88	Rio Haryanto	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		94	Pascal Wehrlein	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Red Bull Racing	Red Bull-TAG Heuer	3	Daniel Ricciardo	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		33	Max Verstappen	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Renault Sport Formula One Team	Renault	20	Kevin Magnussen	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		30	Jolyon Palmer	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	9	Marcus Ericsson	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		12	Felipe Nasr	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	26	Daniil Kvyat	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		55	Carlos Sainz, Jr.	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Williams Martini Racing	Williams-Mercedes	19	Felipe Massa	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
		77	Valtteri Bottas	Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓢ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ Ⓤ
Source:

         

Tires
Ⓗ	Set of 4 hard compound tires
Ⓜ	Set of 4 medium compound tires
Ⓢ	Set of 4 soft compound tires
Ⓢ	Set of 4 super-soft compound tires
Ⓤ	Set of 4 ultra-soft compound tires
Ⓘ	Set of 4 intermediate compound tires
Ⓦ	Set of 4 wet compound tires

         

References

That is incredibly excessive simply to describe some tire usage. The³5₉ (Talk) 14:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It is too detailed for what is (overall) a general encyclopedia. Anyone who wanted that information would have a strong interest in the subject and would already know where to look for the information. I.e a specialist publication or website. Eagleash (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And it is utterly unreadable. Tvx1 14:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As others have said, it is too much detail for wikipedia. You could consider a more specialized wiki such as (http://f1.wikia.com/wiki/The_Formula_1_Wiki). I will also point out that the small colored text on a black background fails WP:COLOR as there is not enough contrast. JohnMcButts (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The colouring is completely unnecessary and appears to be little more than an attempt to recreate the graphics broadcast during the races. If it absolutely had to be done, there are significantly easier and simpler ways of doing it:

Constructor	Driver	US	SS	S	M	H	I	W
Ferrari	Sebastian Vettel	10	10	10	10	10	10	10

But it still doesn't overcome the biggest problem with the table—that it's an excessive level of detail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Race infobox next race date

What's the feeling towards adding a 'next race date' (wording definitely negotiable) to the race infobox? Could be useful to visitors. AtomCrusher (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? The next round of the season or the next Grand Prix with the same name? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not needed. We're an encyclopedia, not a viewing guide. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked editor

It appears that DeFacto has had his long-term block lifted. For those of you who don't remember him, he was an extremely disruptive editor who was active a few years ago. His return is subject to additional sanctions, some of which apply to Formula One pages, and some of which do not. I cannot imagine what on earth possessed an administrator to restore his editing privileges, given the chaos he caused previously. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

As you pointed out yourself, DeFacto has been unblocked to serious restrictions. There is no leeway for disruption, so this is an attempt to see wether they can actually contribute constructively and collaboratively. If the tiniest hint of disruption will undoubtedly lead to a indefinite ban being imposed, so I wouldn't worry too much. Tvx1 18:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Max Verstappen

Since managing his first win, there has been a high level of disruptive editing to Max's article, making it very unstable. It needs as many watching eyes as possible. Tvx1 02:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is on the Main Page, so it is highly visible. At the same time, this also means it should be visible to Admins and other users outside of WP:F1 to fight vandalism. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The two main perpetrators were 'socks' and both have been blocked. Another attacker (one instance) was an IP who appears just to have selected random edits to revert, for no apparent reason, and seems to have desisted. Eagleash (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Following more, clearly endless, disruption I have lodged a successful request to protect the page. Tvx1 15:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has now included a 'comparison with teammates' table. WP:NOTSTATS &/or too trivial? Has this been suggested or discussed before being added? Eagleash (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed WP:NOSTATS, too trivial and also WP:OR. I'm sure this has been discussed before for other drivers and opposed each time. I would be just about ok to have some prose about that subject, but given that Max has only had three teammates so far I think it's a bit undue. By the way, Max's article wasn't the only one this was added to. Tvx1 11:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And how about this? This table was added ages ago. I think I saw this in more F1 drivers' articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Blimey that eds been busy. I hadn't seen those. I have enough trouble keeping up with ex IP boy! I see you got ,most of them. The Prost one is a little different, multi-champ, lengthy career and comparisons with Senna are frequently made. Eagleash (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually just remember that I added the one in Nico Hülkenberg. Feel free to remove it if you feel it is unnecessary. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because Prost had a lengthy and memorable career, doesn't mean he should have any privileges by having a table that was removed from every other article. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Yes Prost's rivalry with Senna was notable but his performance in relation to other teammates wasn't so much. That only justifies having some prose on the Senna-Prost relationship (cfr tennis players' article), but not such a table. And you know what? We already have that prose. It really struck me that none of these sections on those drivers' articles contained even one source. Pure original research. Tvx1 23:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

1950 British GP; youngest podium finish and scoring points records

There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Giuseppe Farina regarding whether Farina (who finished first in the 1950 British Grand Prix, aged 43 years, 195 days) or Reg Parnell (who finished third, aged 38 years, 315 days) should be credited as the first "youngest driver to score a podium finish and points in Formula One". The question is essentially whether Farina held the records for the 52 seconds between when he crossed the finish line and when Parnell crossed it, or whether neither driver held the records until the results were declared (which would make Parnell the first record-holder). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the existing discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be from the final race classification which would be announced after all drivers had crossed the line, so IMO it should be the latter. MetalDylan (Talk) 12:24, 23 May 2016 (BST)

Comparison with team mates

Does anyone else feel that this encyclopedia is spiralling into becoming the stats site? Britmax (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel that a comparison with team mates section can have a legitimacy in an article, as long as it is underlined with some prose about how the driver fared in comparison to his respective team mates over the years, stating rises and falls of form and so forth. But I don't consider it necessary for every small driver article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It just looks an invitation for an exercise of original research and synthesis. Bad idea. Tvx1 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That's my concern here. Britmax (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Rossi

An editor has posted at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard pointing out that Rossi's page shows one place of birth in the infobox and a different one early in the text. Eagleash (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Rossi's website lists Auburn as birthplace. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked there but missed it somehow. Article corrected. Eagleash (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Mario Andretti's nationality

Shouldn't Mario Andretti's infobox list only American as his nationality? As far as I know, he never raced under Italian flag. Or does his article have some "special" case regarding this matter? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You ar correct. Only American should be there. Tvx1 20:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is also in pretty bad shape, especially considering its GA status. I have the plan to go over all the F1 Champion articles and bring them to GA, but I do not know when I'll get around to doing Andretti's. So any work here would be appreciated. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer" or "Red Bull-TAG Heuer"

Red Bull Racing driver results on Grand Prix articles have been changed from Red Bull-TAG Heuer to Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer without discussion of the important change, did we have a discussion or is "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer" how they are displayed on Wikipedia now? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 45#Red Bull (Racing) The³5₉ (Talk) 16:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

And Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_44#Red_Bull.2FRed_Bull_Racing, a discussion you took part in in fact. Please don't go round accusing people of making undiscussed changes. Tvx1 20:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Far more important question: It appears that so far, the power units are wikilinked to TAG Heuer, which in my opinion makes absolutely no sense. I would vote to link to Renault in Formula One. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

They are branded as TAG Heuer and that's were we keep the 2016 information. It makes more sense to link there, per WP:Astonish. Tvx1 14:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it also quite astonishing to link to a watch manufacturer?! Wouldn't it be better to have a section on this in the Renault article? One way or the other, readers will have to follow the wikilink to know what is going on... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I probably forgot that their was a discussion about the subject as I've been gone for awhile so apologies. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

We have precedents for linking badged engines to "non-manufacturers" - Prost's 2001 "Acer" (rebadged Ferrari) engines are linked to Acer (company), not Scuderia Ferrari and McLaren's "TAG" engines of the mid 1980s are linked to Techniques d'Avant Garde despite the fact that they were designed and built by Porsche. DH85868993 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

DH85868993 has changed the way the team name is written out in the infobox of the 2015 Singapore Grand Prix article. I would opt for shortening the name in the race infobox, because if we do not do that, the name goes over two lines of texts, which I feel does not look very good. Any thoughts? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: I put it back to how it was before Zwerg Nase changed it. DH85868993 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

One line on my screen. The³5₉ (Talk) 11:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Really? That is weird. For me it's two lines both on my 4:3 work monitor (1280x1024 resolution) and my 16:9 home station (1920x1080px)... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

One line on my tablet. Even if I hold it vertically. Tvx1 12:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Lotus, Lotus and Lotus

I noticed that in the driver infoboxes, we give the team names for all three seperate entities above all simply as Lotus. Wouldn't it be better to make clear which team is meant? Theoretically speaking, a driver such as Schumacher or Barrichello could have raced for all three of them (although that did not happen of course). Maybe we use Lotus just for the original Team Lotus and maybe for the 2010-11 incarnation that at least had the right to the name. But I would opt for Lotus F1 for those drivers who raced for the Enstone team between 2011/12 and 2015. What do you think? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that they need to be distinguishable and that the fuller team names could be used. With there being two Team Lotuses, perhaps the base location could be incorporated - Team Lotus (Hethel) and Team Lotus (Hingham). -- de Facto (talk). 20:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that for articles where only one of the Lotuses is relevant (e.g. Karun Chandhok), we should just write "Lotus" and let the link take the reader to the relevant article. I think the only places we need to modify the text is where there is some potential for confusion, or where more than one of the Lotuses are mentioned in the same article, e.g. List of Formula One Grand Prix winners (constructors). Consider that we don't write "ATS (Italy)" and "ATS (Germany)" (or "ATS (1960s)" and "ATS (1980s)") everywhere - we just write "ATS" and link it to the appropriate article. DH85868993 (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Formula One customer engines

While seeing the Renault in Formula One article, I saw one edit summary by DH85868993 stating that the Tag Heuer-branded engines used by Red Bull are not considered Renault per this project convention. Well, maybe that's true (as consensus can override facts in ambiguous situations like this one), but I think there's an inconsistency that should be addressed. How the Tag Heuer engines are different from the Petronas ones? My concern surges from the fact the Ferrari Grand Prix results article actually has the Petronas-badged engines results included, while in the case of Tag Heuer they are listed in an article about an upper-market watchmaker. So, I think we only have two options to keep consitency, either moving the Petronas results to the Petronas (or the more specific Sauber Petronas Engineering) article or the Tag Heuer results to the Renault Grand Prix results. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Petronas results should indeed be listed in Sauber Petronas Engineering. Those results were credited to them. Tvx1 15:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

We might think about that convention again though. From what you can read on Toro Rosso's Renault deal for next year, it will become costumary now for engine manufacturers to allow sponsorship deals for their constumer teams. That might lead to a lot more of these cases and make our result articles on certain manufacturers pretty obsolete... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not simply our convention. It's correctly representing the facts. As far as the FIA is concerned the make of the engine is whatever name it carries. So this year's Red Bull's power unit's make is not Renault, but TAG Heuer. And just that you now it, the actual constructor of the Renault power units is a company called Mecachrome. And I don't really see the sources stating that renaming power units will now become customary (costumary??). Tvx1 01:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1, I partly disagree, Mecachrome isn't the actual constructor of the Renault power units either, it's the "constructor" (I would better say "manufacturer" as it's simply an assembler of Renault designs) of the internal combustion engine used on the current power unit and (some) final assembly operations, and has traditionally managed logistics for Renault's client teams. The power unit itself is built by a lot of companies, including Renault... In fact, with the current rules, there's no Formula One power unit built or assembled on a single location. Having said that, I agree to use FIA as source to determine engine supplier stats if this project keeps consistency on that from now on. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, what meant to point out that is more than simply a Renault power unit. Tvx1 15:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I moved the results of engines not badged as Ferrari to the Sauber Petronas Engineering and Acer, Inc. articles. In the Acer case I followed the model of the Tag Heuer article, but for Sauber Petronas Engineering I didn't added links to Ferrari in the table as the article seems to imply Sauber Petronas made some kind of development and the engines weren't identical to those of Ferrari. Anyone knows if that was the case or has a source clarifying that? --Urbanoc (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You've assed that correctly. Sauber Petronas would acquire a number of Ferrari engines at the end of the year and develop them for the next season, naming them "Petronas". This similar to what Mecachrome did with Renault engines at the end of the 1997 season, which were then turned into Mecachromes, Playlifes and Supertecs. Tvx1 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to mention of course that the sources in support of my explanation can actually be found in the Sauber Petronas article. Tvx1 01:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Merzario car article

Rowde has proposed (here, here, here and here) that Merzario A1, Merzario A1B, Merzario A2 and Merzario A4 be merged to create Merzario A. Considering that Merzario A1, Merzario A1B, Merzario A2 and Merzario A4 are all redirects, I suspect what s/he is actually proposing is that a new article be created covering all 4 Merzario models. I suggest we conduct a single discussion here, rather than spread it out across 4 separate talk pages. DH85868993 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For those that aren't aware, Rowde is our former IP-hopping friend from the UK West Country. As rightly pointed out (& this has briefly been mentioned on BB's TP), none of the cars currently have articles and even if all four variants were added together, a page would probably struggle for 'notability'. Approx 30 races across all four with one 'not-classified' as the best finish. See Merzario#Racing record; would not suggest a page is desirable. Eagleash (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no and no. Any information about these awful cars should be at the team article. Any team that only built a handful of cars should have all information about those cars at the team article. This obsession with creating articles for any car that turned a wheel at a Formula One event needs to be controlled. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG. I sometimes get stick for bringing that up, mostly from people who are seeking special pleading for their own special interest, but it is still the gold standard for notability here. I can't find any GNG-compliant sources for any of the Merzario cars, just normal stats site and database entries that exist simply because the cars turned as wheel (i.e. they fail the 'significant' requirement). As Bretonbanquet says, this obsession needs to be controlled, and reference to GNG is the way to do it. Pyrope 05:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, after a particularly busy couple of days for the editor this week I said to Bretonbanquet that he (EX IP) was out of control. But there is it seems, no easy way of restricting him. We can't actually stop him from creating non-notable or badly written articles (an admin stated at the last ANI that it is not a blockable 'offence'). CSD does not have a valid criterion; A7 is not used for products and even it were it would not apply as even a car as lacking in notability as the March 87P (recently recreated after an earlier edit-war got it protected) still has 'significance' apparently per WP:CCS. Apart from the somewhat unwieldy process of AfD or PROD, all we can do is to re-direct as and when he creates things and use the 'hidden advice' on the page not to re-create without discussing here first. This does actually seem to deter him and he's even put that advice himself on re-directs he's created. I am also seeking advice as to whether creating re-directs for cars he hasn't got to yet and then placing the advice, as above, goes against any policies. In the meantime, I re-directed 2 more articles yesterday and there's Ensign N179 and Theodore TR1 still need doing, if anyone wants to help out. Eagleash (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: who is the "BB" whose talk page you mentioned? -- de Facto (talk). 07:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet. Eagleash (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Um, I think we need to learn to live and let live a bit here. These threads are sailing a little close to many of the no-nos in this I think. Sure we can comment on the created articles, even advise the editor of the various policies and show them if/where we think they might be contravening them, But I think we should stop short of mass attacks on their articles or the use of WP:Hidden text to deter their creation. -- de Facto (talk). 08:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, in your absence, this has been going on for over a year (or more, I recently found an edit of his from 2013) with a constant stream of pointless articles, templates and categories. The editor used over 120 IPs before recently creating an account and has absolutely no concept of any policies or guidelines. He does not seem to take any notice of advice and tends just to remove messages from his talk page. Articles he creates are barely literate. But I do agree as mentioned at BB's page that it seems a bit mean sometimes. Eagleash (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the count of IPs tells us anything. WP allows IP editing (for most users!), and most lay-users have no influence at all over the IP they are allotted by their ISP for a given session. In fact (as I understand it), especially for mobile users, you may be allocated several different IPs in a single day from the huge ranges most ISPs have at their disposal. -- de Facto (talk). 08:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really, but IP-hopping is not usually thought of in favourable terms. As you suggest, his IP sometimes changed more than once a day and this may be one reason why he took no notice of messages (as it changed before he saw them). However we do know he saw some at least because he blanked the pages. Messages included suggestions that he might like to create an account and join the F1 project and use his undoubted enthusiasm to good purpose in collaboration with other editors. However, he did not respond. Eagleash (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

De Facto, there's a big difference in not bullying someone and allowing him to create large numbers of very badly written, poorly sourced articles which fail notability guidleines, and in every single case, require other editors to come in and clean them up. Regarding IP hopping – it's fine right up until you become disruptive. Refusing to talk, never leaving edit summaries, ignoring guidelines, blanking advice – that's disruptive. He created articles about the two RAM F1 cars, which are simply not notable enough to have their own articles. They were turned into redirects, so what does this guy do? He logs out and restores them with no discussion and no edit summary. That crap is simply not allowed. This has been going on for months and months, and if we are not going to end up with historical F1 articles being a total basket case, this guy needs to be managed. That takes a number of us way too much time at the moment. You talk about commenting on articles and advising this editor – do you really think we haven't tried that? Utter, utter waste of time. A lot of time. Enough already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Life chassis name

I've started a discussion at Talk:Life Racing Engines regarding the correct nomenclature for the Life chassis used in 1990 (i.e. "F190" or "L190"). Interested editors are welcome to express their opinions at the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Luxembourg Grand Prix

Stumbling upon our Luxembourg Grand Prix, I noticed it's lead has an inaccurate, original research explanation on how the Luxembourg Grand Prix name was given to the Nürburgring race in 1997 (and 1998). There a two major issues with the lead. Firstly, the 4 Luxembourg Grands Prix at Findel are completely ignored. Secondly, the explanation on the 1997 resurrection is unsourced and inaccurate. The 1997 European Grand Prix wasn't added to the calendar until halfway through the season as a replacement for the 1997 Portuguese Grand Prix. This means that the Luxembourg Grand Prix name was applied way before a European Grand Prix was even considered for that season. Tvx1 23:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The rest of the article is also pretty poorly written... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Records in lead of race report

This is a slippery slope kind of thing: I do believe that significant records set at a Grand Prix should be included in the lead of that race's article. Quite clear is the case with things like Verstappen becoming the youngest ever race winner. More difficult is my current case: A new record speed was set during last weekend's qualifying in Baku at 378 kph. I think that that is notable enough to be included in the lead, but apparently Prisonermonkeys feels differently. What are your opinions? The last record top speed was included in the lead at 2005 Italian Grand Prix, though that is not really representative considering the state of that article... I do not want to set a precedent that we include every record in the lead, just very notable ones and I do believe a F1 car going the fastest any has ever been in an official session qualifies here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's a notable record, but I am concerned that it potentially opens the door to WP:TRIVIA. How do we decide which records are notable and which are not? I would rather have a clear consensus before proceeding any further (and I felt that the comment was just shoehorned into that particular lead).

Moreover, there is a bit of a discrepancy in the way records are kept; the fastest lap of the race is the lap record, not the fastest lap in qualifying. I don't doubt that we understand the way records are kept, but it has the potential to create an apparent contradiction in the articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In this particular case, I think the record should definitely included once the lead is expanded. The article is in quite good shape (though the quali section is completely bar of references for some reason...) and I believe it warrants quite a long lead, considering that it should also include a sentence on the controversy over the race etc.

On records in general: I actually believe that there is no "official" record keeping, which is a problem. The FIA is only concerned with very official results (pole position, wins, points, championships), apart from that, it's anyone's guesss, something highlighted by the fact that from time to time the official F1 website and the FIA do not necessarily post the same things. So, yes, I agree, the potential for contradiction is definitely there when it comes to records. However, in this particular case, the highest ever recorded speed in an official session is pretty straight forward, isn't it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It is—I am not and never was disagreeing with you—but I think a wider discussion about the inclusion of records bears merit rather than trying to address it on a case-by-case basis. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly worth mention in the article, but I don't feel it merits being mentioned in the lead. I don't think it is that important in the end. I don't see much mention of it in the sources. It's not quite headline news regarding the European Grand Prix. An no "the highest ever recorded speed in an official session" is not pretty straight forward. Only records that are set during the races are credited. That includes lap times, pit stop times and also top speed. Tvx1 16:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A highest ever top speed is pretty irrelevant to the topic. Doesn't significantly affect the results and for most of Formula One's history it's a record that has not been kept or even reliably measured. I feel it's not important for the lead but could be mentioned at the end of the article as results are discussed. --Falcadore (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical race results at formula1.com

FYI, it looks as though formula1.com have finally restored the historical race results to their website. For example, the results for the 1950 British Grand Prix may be found at: http://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/1950/races/94/great-britain/race-result.html DH85868993 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike Beuttler/1972 French Grand Prix

Sources differ regarding whether Mike Beuttler was classified as 19th or "Retired" at the 1972 French Grand Prix. Editors are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:1972 French Grand Prix#Beuttler. DH85868993 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Nico Rosberg

We have a couple of editors putting "Finnish" in the nationality area of the infobox, and removing the note directing people to the talk page discussions. Please keep an eye on this. Britmax (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have filed a SPI for this. Tvx1 16:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had to go back to the real world for a while and was playing with 3RR. Britmax (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

2015 Malaysian Grand Prix

2015 Malaysian Grand Prix has been nominated for community reassessment regarding its GA status. The reassessment page can be found here. Tvx1 18:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Which tense?

A recent edit of mine was reverted with the summary: Project standard makes this past tense - the car is no longer in competition; any concerns, bring it up at WT:F1.

As "is" seems to be more grammatically correct to me, I looked through the project docs for verification. I could not find any mention there of tense for this, so I looked at other article for precedents. I found that for the last five years worth of cars; all Ferrari car articles use "is", four Force Indias use "is", one McLaren uses "is", three Mercedes use "is", all Red Bulls use "is", three Saubers use "is", all Toro Rossos use "is" and two Williams use "is". That is, 28 out of 40 cars use "is". I guess the precedent is "is". Any views? -- de Facto (talk). 06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say that should be "is" because it still IS an F1 car, just because it is not currently competing does not mean it is no longer an F1 car. -- MetalDylan (talk). 08:10, 23 May 2016 (BST)

Sounds like a philosophical question to me. I would opt for "was". Two reasons: 1) No actual model of the car might still be around, then it definitely was. 2) Cars from past seasons are not technically still F1 cars, since the F1 regulations have changed since then. They would not be allowed to race anymore. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Some time ago now I brought up a similar question at the Teahouse in respect of (road) cars & motorcycles. The response was that 'is' would be correct as examples still exist (& it is unlikely to be demonstrated otherwise). I.e. "The 'Manufacturer' xxx 'is' a motorcycle 'produced by' from 19XX to 'XX." Eagleash (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, we had a similar discussion in 2007(!) although I'm not sure a solid consensus was reached. DH85868993 (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the overwhelming majority of car articles, they use past tense once the car stops competing. They are, in effect, treated the same way as a road-going model that has gone out of production. While the car continues to exist, the use of "is" further implies that the car continues to compete.

You will also pardon my cynicism, but this was a single edit made by an editor with a documented history of disruptive editing. It came at the same time as an edit to the Red Bull Racing article that misrepresented the content of the article. Why was the edit only made to the MP4-30 article? Why was there no attempt to apply these edits to other, similar articles? Why was there no attempt to start a discussion considering that the edit was such a fundamental change with widespread implications for the WikiProject? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's not make this grammar point personal, let's concentrate on the issue. The reasons I changed it are:

1. Because it is the only car (except for the Mercedes which uses a different construct) of its generation that uses the past tense. See the others: Ferrari SF15-T, Force India VJM08, Force India VJM08, Lotus E23 Hybrid, Marussia MR03, Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid, Red Bull RB11, Sauber C34, Toro Rosso STR10, Williams FW37.
2. Because, as a creator of, and a contributor to, many, many British production car articles, I've rarely come across the "was" case, and where I have, I have changed it to "is". Examples of cars long out of production: Mini, BMC ADO16, Austin Maxi, Austin Ambassador, Austin Montego, Austin Maestro, Morris Marina, Morris Oxford, Jaguar E-Type.

-- de Facto (talk). 06:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@DeFacto: To be fair, I believe the only reason why the McLaren article is the only one with "was" is because it is the only article being well kept, thanks to Prisonermonkeys. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Did we come to a consensus here? I feel that every so often we have these discussions here and in the end, some people say their opinion but we do not really come to any conclusion... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You could always post a request for closure.Tvx1 13:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have recently come across MOS:TENSE in the manual of style and it advises: "By default, write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued." One example it gives is: "The PDP-10 is a discontinued mainframe computer family." Perhaps we should follow the MOS guidelines here and write something like: "The McLaren MP4-30 is a 2015-season Formula One racing car...". With MOS supporting the "present tense" case, I believe we need to have a strong rationale if we are to ignore that guidance - and I don't think we have seen one yet. -- de Facto (talk). 06:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

2017 Formula One season

I seen mess after IP edits so Renault is missing now. Eurohunter (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Renault was never included in the first place. Consensus holds that we only add teams when we have details of their future plans—drivers, engine, chassis, etc. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Monaco Grand Prix

Monaco Grand Prix, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

2018 Formula One season

FYI, 2018 Formula One season has been recreated, and subsequently nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to comment at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Good Topic F1 2015

Hey everyone, just a quick reminder again: I nominated the 2015 season and race reports as a good topic. You can share your opinion here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

1981 Formula One U.S Broadcasts, 1988 Formula One U.S Broadcasts and 1985 Formula One U.S Broadcasts were recently created and have been nominated for deletion. You can contribute to the deletion discussion here. Tvx1 14:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Recently created article Belgian Grand Prix Runners-Up has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That user created the same article today after it was deleted not long ago. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion and redeleted. Tvx1 12:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Help needed - GA community reassessment

Hey everyone! We need an uninvolved editor to decide wether to close the community reassessment of 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix, which is a GA. The involved editors feel that it should now be kept as a GA. Maybe one of you guys can step in? You can do so here. BlueMoonset has offered to help with the procedure if need be. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

GPs naming conventions

I've noticed that some GPs use the demonym of that country (Italian, Belgian, Chinese, British, etc) and yet others like Singapore, United States or Monaco don't. Why the discrepancy?--DGT15 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That's how those races are officially called in F1 website, so I think that's why the names are different. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they're the official race names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

1994 Formula One season split proposal

An editor has suggested that sections of 1994 Formula One season be split out and merged as needed into the individual race articles. Interested editors are welcome to express their views at Talk:1994 Formula One season#Split proposal. DH85868993 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

1952 French Grand Prix - winner's race time

Sources disagree regarding the winner's time for the 1952 French Grand Prix. There is a discussion in progress at Talk:1952 French Grand Prix#Winner's time. DH85868993 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP now has an account?

Heads up; these edits are remarkably similar to our long-term IP friend's efforts. A number of them are to pages IP has edited (etc.) previously and the new pages started bear the trademark grammar/punc/caps/tense errors. Eagleash (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly the IP. The account has moved a Draft created by the IP into mainspace. It think it's time for a WP:SPI. I believe you still have a list of all the IP's used by our friend? Tvx1 20:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I do. Not sure whether SPI will achieve anything. The fact that he (somehow) used/uses a different IP every time he edits in itself is probably not a ground for complaint. Having said that, I do not know how he did/does that. There can't possibly be that many internet cafes or libraries etc. in the areas involved. He is up to more than 120 different IPs as of yesterday. Eagleash (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

They simply use two dynamic IP ranges. That's why it changes frequently. The IP has gamed the system through creating a draft while logged off and then logging in and moving the draft to mainspace. That's the exact definition of "abusing multiple accounts" and is sufficient for a WP:SPI Tvx1 09:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What he did was copy and paste the draft into mainspace, causing all sorts of history problems which have thankfully been sorted out and a message left on his TP appropriately. The draft existed before he created the account so it may be a stretch to suggest that he gamed by creating whilst logged off and then logged in deliberately to move it. I think he's savvy enough to realise it could be done that way (and to his advantage) but he has absolutely no concept of any guidelines whatsoever. However, if you wish to file SPI, I'm sure no-one here will object very much! Eagleash (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Former IP boy has been extremely busy in the last few days. A lot of the re-directs and categories he had declined as an IP, he's now creating himself. Multiple sub-standard articles on non-notable cars also. Eagleash (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And now apparently he's given up on Formula 1 and moved to the World Endurance Championship. Ford Chip Ganassi Racing is his latest creation from draftspace, along with Template:Ford Chip Ganassi Racing. Both of which apparently need to be completely separate from Chip Ganassi Racing and Template:Chip Ganassi Racing?

And, god no, Template:WikiProject WEC...? The³5₉ (Talk) 05:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Today he re-visited an old 'battleground' by removing vast chunks from Frank Williams Racing Cars and attempting to create Wolf-Williams Racing for the umpteenth time. No discussion no edit summaries... Eagleash (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as an update: if there's a Wiki Indycar Project, they are about to discover what some of us here have been complaining about over the past year. Eagleash (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth noting, his draft article on the Penske PC-27 is pure copyright violation, and much of his Rahal-Hogan RH-001 draft is copied and pasted from other Wikipedia articles. Might be worth checking to see if any of his Formula One work is also a copyright violation. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been often felt that his articles are copied from somewhere or other but it's not often been possible to be definite about it. His (blanked) TP contains several warnings about copy-vio and advice re WP:CWW. In fact he was extensively counselled by Diannaa after copy vios at Ensign N181 recently but he just blanked their advice and proceeded to create Draft:Tyrrell 007 most of which was deleted by Diannaa as copy-vio. About six months ago 5 out of 6 articles he created were deleted as copy vio. Eagleash (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing. Tvx1 22:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep thanks. I subsequently found that. Eagleash (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, several existing F1 car articles were gone through yesterday removing capital letters from nationalities.

@The359: In case you are not already aware of them there's also Draft:Penske PC-12 and Draft:Penske PC-15. Neither are likely to be 'all his own work'. Eagleash (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone here is also active at the open wheel project, it might be worth a 'heads-up' as the trademark sub-standard pages are multiplying. (See Draft:Coyne DC-1). Eagleash (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Now we have F1 Paddock Pass, F1 Extra, F1 Countdown and Formula One on NBC all of which have been deemed to be part of the F1 project, so I'm noting them here just for information. There's also Template:Motorsports on NBC which doesn't seem to have a parent article. As an IP, he also attempted, yesterday, to re-create the BBC Formula One TV coverage page, over which he's edit-warred in the past (and again now). Eagleash (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Funny how Rowde simply invents the names of TV programs. I say merge and (possibly) redirect all to NBC Sports. Just like we did with the BBC article. Tvx1 20:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think they exist. 359 has proposed mergers, though disc. still needs to be started (as of when last I looked). Eagleash (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

They have created Formula One on ABC as well. Tvx1 14:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep we've got it. Merger proposed although disc not started as yet. Eagleash (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Have given a long consideration to it, I've decided to nominate for deletion. Discussion is here. Tvx1 15:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

In the last few days Rowde, whilst both logged-in and otherwise, has gone through multiple F1 car articles and removed the flagicons from tables. Today's edits alone here. What do we feel about this currently? I seem to recall some brief discussion some time back about this but not what (if any) conclusion was reached. It's a mass change to multiple articles without discussing it beforehand. Eagleash (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The standard "car results" table format actually shows driver names without flags. However it also shows just surnames, centre-aligned and most "car results" tables don't conform to that standard. DH85868993 (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; on the (very few) tables I've done recently I've left out the flags and just used the surnames. I did notice in a couple of tables he's added or restored the full name as well as removing the flag. Eagleash (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no problems with leaving the flags out, but I'm less supportive of leaving the first names out. I could see an article on the Tyrell 007 with just "Scheckter" or the one on the Fittipaldi with just "Fittipaldi" in the tables creating confusion. Tvx1 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree really with the surnames, it's OK if, as you say, there's no chance of confusion. There was one article created a while ago where Werner Bickel was included and an editor changed the table to surnames only. Bickel doesn't have an article (on en.wiki) as he DNA'd his one event and without including the first name, readers wouldn't be able to tell who he was. Eagleash (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my personal preference would be full names, left-aligned. I'm not really fussed either way about the flags, although I would like all the articles to be consistent. From memory, the original rationale behind using surnames only was to reduce the width of the table. DH85868993 (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition to multiple TV guide and non-notable car drafts lurking in the background, there has been created Template:European Grand Prix. We don't seem to have one for other GPs? It's been added to multiple circuit and driver pages. Even given the use of a number of different tracks, is it necessary? Eagleash (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed the template from every article. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take it to TfD. Eagleash (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Done here. Eagleash (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Race report introductions

Please be aware that a user, Hansen Sebastian has been making some changes to the introductions of race reports that are making the articles inaccurate. This is an example of what he is doing, taken from the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix page:

"The race will mark the eighteenth running of the Mexican Grand Prix, and the sixteenth time that the race has been run as a World Championship event since the championship's inception in 1963."

Admittedly, the wording here is clunky, but it is quite clearly referring to the date of the inaugural World Championship and so should read 1950. Hansen Sebastian has changed the date to 1963, which was the date of the first Mexican Grand Prix, but he hasn't changed the wording to reflect it.

It is not only the Mexican Grand Prix article that he has changed, but all future race articles—Japan, Austin, the aforementioned Mexico, Brazil and Abu Dhabi have all been affected. I have attempted to discuss this with Hansen Sebastian, but he has given no response, and within hours of receiving that message, he went back and reverted my edits to restore the incorrect version. Please be on the lookout for these edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the wording of the lead of all affected articles; hopefully this will fix it (but I have my doubts). The section now reads:

"The race will mark the eighteenth running of the Mexican Grand Prix, and the sixteenth time that the race has been run as a World Championship event since the inaugural season in 1950."

Please be vigilant. I have left another message for Hansen Sebastian, warning him that if he continues to disregard messages advising him that his edits include incorrect information, then these edits may be considered disruptive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have also just reverted a number of changes Hansen Sebastian made to race article infoboxes. Very disruptive behavior. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hansen Sebastian has resumed his edits, insisting that the wording that he is putting forward is factually correct. It's quite clear that he is not reading the articles and so does not understand what the article is actually discussing or why his edits are wrong. The message he left on his talk page made it quite clear that he has no intention of listening to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Chronic IP vandal

Please be aware that in the past few days, an IP vandal—103.47.135.72—has popped up. They started hitting 2017 World Rally Championship, adding details of a made-up championship called "Cruis'n". I got the page semi-protected, but as soon as they were locked out, they spilled out and added similar content to a wide variety of motorsport articles. They've so far vandalised Circuit de Monaco, 2017 MotoGP season and Henning Solberg, and will likely hit more. I have already alerted the admins, but in the meantime, we need to be vigilant because they're targeting pages that have not been edited frequently, so their changes may go unnoticed. You can view their full list of "contributions" here Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes to reason for retirement

An editor has today, changed the reason for retirement on several articles (contributions here) from 'fatal accident' to some other cause. E.g. at 1994 San Marino Grand Prix [[Death of Ayrton Senna|Fatal accident]], which was linked, was changed to plain 'suspension'. He obviously hasn't discussed this at this point in time, but has there been some consensus in respect of use of the term 'fatal accident' in the past? Eagleash (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: I had a reverted a couple of those when I had the chance, and I think Breton has got the rest. 20:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The convention is to list the reason of a retirement and not the cause of that reason. That is because that way we list the actual correct reason a driver retired. So for instance when a driver suffers a tyre failure and subsequently crashed we list "accident" because and not "tyre" because a tyre failure doesn't always cause retirement in itself. Very often when a tyre fails the driver is able to return to the pits to get a new one. This isn't a question of consensus but of correctness. In many case this editor's edits were plainly wrong. For instance, Roland Ratzenberger's fatal accident had nothing to do with the car's suspension. He dislodged the front wing which later failed and got stuck underneath the car. This lifted the car up making it impossible for the Austrian to steer or slow down with the crash as a result. Tvx1 23:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes thanks, that's true; my query was really about this editor apparently not liking the use of the term 'fatal accident'...it looks as if he feels it to be inappropriate. I've no qualms about it myself though. Eagleash (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've got no problems with it either; it's a phrase often used by other sources, Small in particular. If this editor had replaced with something similar then I might be more sympathetic, but he replaced it with a load of rubbish, in some cases simply untrue, as Tvx points out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This editor has, on at least three occasions created, and had deleted, a page for a fake F1 driver and another for a fake GP. He has also changed the results at a number of actual GP articles, often involving Roger Williamson (his username) 'winning'. An admin is aware but just a 'heads-up'. Eagleash (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rename of 1976-1980 US GP articles

Rowde has (effectively) proposed that the 1976 to 1980 United States Grand Prix articles be renamed as "19YY United States Grand Prix East". I believe the articles should retain their current titles, on the basis that the official name of the events, as displayed on the programme covers ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), were "<sponsor> Grand Prix of the United States" (i.e. without the "East"). Other opinions? DH85868993 (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the articles were originally titled East years ago and a discussion here pointed out that no such title existed. The Long Beach grand prix was the only event to use the East/West quantifier.

So yes, I agree, the article titles are correct as is and East is not an official or common title. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. East was not used IIRC as part of the official name. It was USGP and USGP West; the 'West' being sufficient to distinguish the two events. He's done something similar at some MotoGP articles also, changing GER and DDR to WGE and EGE respectively. Eagleash (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. I think we've been through this before and the others have covered it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we discussed this a while back. The Long Beach events were known variously as the 'United States Grand Prix West' (e.g. 1976) or the 'Long Beach Grand Prix'/'Grand Prix of Long Beach' (e.g. 1977); other western events were the 'Caesars Palace Grand Prix' (e.g. 1982), the 'Dallas Grand Prix' (e.g. 1984), Riverside's 'Grand Prix of the U.S.', and Phoenix's 'USA Grand Prix' (e.g. 1991). Apart from the Glen, which was only ever the 'United States Grand Prix'/'Grand Prix of the United States', other eastern events were the 'Detroit Grand Prix' (e.g. 1983), and Sebring's 'Grand Prix of the United States' (1959). Nobody ever used 'United States Grand Prix East' and as its use is somewhat opaque I think we are better off avoiding it. Pyrope 22:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The relevant discussion can be found here. Tvx1 13:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

FA candidate

Hey everyone! I have nominated Jochen Rindt for Featured Article. Feel free to look into it and leave comments on the nomination page. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

More input needed

A tedious discussion regarding the wording of the content on 2017 Formula One season has evolved. Additional input would be greatly appreciated. You can find the discussion here. Thanks, Tvx1 10:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Which car?

I noticed some inconsistencies on the cars that are listed in result tables on wikipedia. On the Jackie Stewart page it is shown that he drove the BRM P115 only at the 1967 German and Canadian GP. While on the BRM P115 it is shown that he drove the P115 from the German GP through the rest of the season. So for the races at Italy, USA and Mexico it could be both cars. I have had a look around and here's what various sources say:

BRM P83	ChicaneF1, Silhouet
BRM P115	StatsF1, Oldracingcars, ESPN, F1-Geschiedenis.be

Personally I would say Stewart drove the P115 from the German GP onwards as I think the most reliable sources say so.

I also noticed an inconsistency with the cars Rolf Stommelen drove at the 1975 South African Grand Prix. On Stommelen's page it is shown he drove a Lola T371, but on the Hill GH1 page it is shown he drove the GH1. This is what various sources say:

Lola T371	StatsF1, GrandPrix, Silhouet
Hill GH1	ChicaneF1, Oldracingcars, Racingsportscars, ESPN

I would like any feedback. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Hill/Lola, they are one and the same car simply carrying the same name. See here. We should however correctly list when it was entered under which name. Regarding the BRM's, surely pictures exist from the races in question which can allow us to determine which car competed when. Tvx1

For the South African GP the car was listed as a Lola 371. As can be seen on this Entry List. Also, the AutoSprint magazine nr. 11 of 1975 also speaks of a Lola 371. As far as I know for the rest of the year the car was entered under the GH1 banner.Jahn1234567890 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that entry list has it as HU371/1. HU is typically used by Lola to designate chassis number, while chassis type (in this era) used the T designation. Therefore Hill GH1 likely always carried a chassis plate from Lola with the number HU371/1. Looking at the entry list, the organizers may have listed the chassis number instead of the chassis type, as seen with the March 751/1 and March 741/2. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Might I suggest looking up pictures of the cars regards the BRM issue? Stewart's BRM should not be difficult to find. --Falcadore (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I found these pictures of Stewart at the different races: Here is a nice list where you can see the differences between the P83 and the P115

Italian GP	P115, P83
USA GP	P115
Mexican GP	P115

Pictures of Stewart driving a P83 and P115 at Monza can both be found. All the pictures of Stewart at Watkins Glen are in a P115. The car Stewart drove at Mexico cleerly had a different front end but for the rest it still looks like the P115. So the team probably tested a new front end. Italy is the only race I'm not sure about. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In Italy, apparently BRM had brought a P115 (chassis 1151) for Stewart, with a P83 (8303) designated as a spare car. However, he seems to have at least set his practice times in the 83. See [21]. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I found this picture of the starting grid at Monza in 1967. Stewart started 7th and he is in the nr.34 car. It's kind of hard to see but I think it is a P115. Any thoughts? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Steve Small's Grand Prix Who's Who (ISBN 0-85112-623-5), Stewart raced the P115 in all races from Germany onwards. It only lists the P83 as a DNS for the German Grand Prix, which I understand as having driven it in practice. Considering the Motor Sport Magazine source, it appears weird that the same is not there for the Italian GP. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Strange they did not note that. In this video you can see Stewart's P115 in the beginning. Later on you can see Stewart running in the P83. Considering the research and sources should I correct the car stats in Stewart's result table? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that the strongest evidence of the sources points to P115 for the Italian GP race. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Btw, watching that footage, I realize once more what a great and beautiful car that Lotus 49 is. Our article on it should definitely be better than it is now. I'll set improving it as one of my goals once I'm done with my thesis, which keeps me from working on Wikipedia at the moment. Anyone interested in chipping in would be welcome! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Picture request

If any wikipedian is attending this weekend's Mexican Grand Prix it would be greatly appreciated if they'd make and upload some pictures. Especially from the cars driving through the former baseball stadium. Thanks, Tvx1 18:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Formula One engines

I recently looked at our article on the Formula One engines. I think the section on the current formula could do with a considerable re-write. There's no mention that the sport currently uses hybrid "power units" at the moment (in fact the term power unit doesn't appear at all in the article). This is problematic considering our season articles link the term power unit to that section. There's also no clear indication that these power units have six main components. Any thoughts on improving this section. Tvx1 19:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Questor Grand Prix

The sources that are used on the page of the 1971 Questor Grand Prix have different overall results. For example silhouet and formula2.net list Graham Hill as 26th, but blogsport and counter-x.net lists him as 29th. The top 16 is the same with all the sources. From then on it differs quite a lot. Any idea which one is right? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Flags in drivers' infoboxes

Some of you might be aware that since yesterday one user is running around and linking flags in drivers' infoboxes. I wouldn't care about such thing, but there's no consensus that would justify that user's actions. Please express your opinion here. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Championship standings after the race

Lately, a group of editors have decided that the "championship standings after the race" tables included in race reports should be their own first-level section of a page, as opposed to being included under the classification section. These have been included as part of the classification section for as long as I can remember—I started editing in 2009 and it was being done then—and I cannot find any recent discussions to change this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you check any previous materials before posting? From what I am seeing this has been a separate section for a very long time. Putting the post-race championship standings within the race classification section was NOT being done in 2009 (e.g. 2009 British Grand Prix), ditto every year until 2013. It is only since 2014 that the championship positions have been lumped into the classification (which they are not actually a part of), but you are right in saying there doesn't seem to have been any discussion of this. Pyrope 06:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't edited a 2009 article—at least not regularly—since about 2010. But I do remember doing it to 2009 Japanese Grand Prix; that whole article was memorable because of the confusion surrounding grid penalties after qualifying. Evidently, it has since been changed.

I appreciate that championship standings are separate from race results, but the updated version that gets posted in each article are based on the race results (obviously; that's how you score points), so I don't really see the need to separate them out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

One of the major advantages of Wikipedia is that we don't have to remember what any editor did, it's all there in the history. As far as I can see, the standings were originally added as a standalone section (here) and were never part of the classification section. The only change that has been made is to add "Championship" to the title. The most obvious reason to leave them out is that they don't relate to the result of the race, they are a consequence of the result not an inherent part of the events that are covered by the article; sort of equivalent to an "aftermath" issue. But in truth, that's splitting hairs and I don't really care either way. Pyrope 01:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Quickly checking a random sample of race report articles, it seems that championship standings are in a "first-level" section for race reports from 1950 to 2014, and only a subsection of the "Classification" section for 2015 and 2016. I don't see any reason for 2015-2016 race reports to be different to those for the other 65 seasons. DH85868993 (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I was the one doing most of the work on the 2015 articles, but I never actually added the tables, so the change must have been caused by somebody else? I don't mind reverting to the original format though. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Fastest lap at the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix

English Wikipedia currently credits fastest lap at the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix to Masahiro Hasemi. However both those articles have footnotes like this:

It was announced that the fastest lap was set by Masahiro Hasemi on lap 25, but this was a measurement mistake, and, several days later, the circuit issued a press release to correct the fastest lap holder of the race to Jacques Laffite with a time of 1:19.97 on lap 70. This release was promptly known in Japan, and the Japan Automobile Federation (JAF) and Japanese media correct the record. But, this correction was not known well outside Japan, thus, Hasemi has been treated as the fastest lap record holder of the race in many record books including the Formula One official website.

The last 4 cells of the third table in the second reference (which appear to be the official race results from the JAF, in Japanese) contain:

J.<something>

<something> JS5-<something>

1:19.97

196.2km/h

which I presume to be the fastest lap details (i.e. J.Laffite, Ligier JS5-Matra, 1:19.97, 196.2km/h), noting that the "J.<something>" matches the name of the 7th-placed finisher, which was Laffite. Subscription site FORIX credits Laffite with fastest lap. formula1.com used to credit Hasemi but now credits Laffite. Do we think there is sufficient evidence to change it to Laffite throughout? DH85868993 (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh my god, I was there, and all the world but Japan knew it was Laffite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.43.244 (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I think there's sufficient evidence to change it to Laffite, so if there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I will do so. DH85868993 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've updated 1976 Japanese Grand Prix, 1976 Formula One season, Masahiro Hasemi, Jacques Laffite, List of Formula One drivers, List of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap, Fastest lap, Kojima Engineering, Equipe Ligier and List of Formula One constructors. Feel free to update any affected articles I've missed. DH85868993 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ligier JS5 has now also been updated. DH85868993 (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with teammates

Remember this and this? There is one user who decided to add these tables to Fernando Alonso's and Lewis Hamilton's articles, and ignores what we decided in these discussions. There's also hostility from that user when someone removes them. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The same table was also added to Alain Prost's article. I'm already at 3RR in Hamilton's article. Help would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

MrkM00 (talk · contribs) Different user – same additions. Possible sockpuppet? – Sabbatino (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible. Both like to edit F1 and tennis articles. I suggest WP:SPI.Tvx1 21:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:F1 proposed for retargeting

FYI, it has been proposed that Wikipedia:F1 (aka WP:F1) which currently redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, has been proposed for retargeting to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F1. Redundant. Interested editors may express their views at the RfD discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the discussion was closed as "no consensus", i.e. Wikipedia:F1 (and WP:F1) will continue to redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. DH85868993 (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)