Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Removal of uncounted championship points

I notice that an anonymous user, under the IP address of 87.198.178.118, has been removing the championship points that did not count towards the championship in the results tables. (See an example here) In my view, the articles have been like this for some time without any issue, and removing the bracketed points does make some of the points disappear without any explanation, so I don't think this is necessarily a good change. Any thoughts on this? QueenCake (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning (if it doesn't count, why mention it?), but IMO it's wrong, because of the cases where the winner was actually outscored. Also because it will (may... :/) make readers who don't know all points didn't always count look further, which is a worthwhile thing IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't see the reasoning. This is not a "post hoc application" of recent rules. The drivers concerned did score those points, even if they were later discounted for the Championship. In scoring those points they prevented their rivals from amassing them; it isn't as if, once they had decided which points were going to count and which were not, that the results of the races were altered, is it? They were clearly marked as what they were, put them back. Pyrope 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Another re-writing of history. Contemporary accounts give those results with both the full score and the discounted one. To be reverted. 4u1e (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Forget "recent rules". Rules in play at the time for many points meant they did not count. There's at least one case (names I don't recall... :( ) where the Championship winner was outscored by 2d place man, but won the title because the 2d place man's points didn't all count. So the question remains, should only the points that counted be included, or not? As noted, I think all should be. Which doesn't mean I don't see the point. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reasoning implies knowledge and understanding. The justifications offered in the edit summaries for these actions belies a lack of both. Pyrope 00:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Prost scored more points in 1988 than Senna, until the scores were discounted. And since we're in the game of reflecting secondary sources, not making our own rules, I can confirm that for example the 1989 Autocourse gives both total and discounted scores in the end of season table (see page 241). 4u1e (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Prost scored more points in 1988 than Senna" Actually, IIRC it was Graham Hill... Neither am I defending the deletion, just to be very clear about it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Prost did score more points in 1988 than Senna (before dropped scores). Doesn't seem to apply to either of Hill's championships. You may be thinking of 1963, when Hill finished second ahead of Richie Ginther only because Ginther had to drop scores. Anyway, the point we're both making is that the dropped scores are sometimes of interest. 4u1e (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Well, Prost did score more points in 1988 than Senna" I seem to recall that. ;p No, after a bit of looking, I find it was Surtees & Hill in '64. And, notice, I completely agree with you. I think removing the "non-counts" is a bad idea. I simply do understand the reasoning. I don't say, nor have AFAIK ever said, I agree with it. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Of interest in what respect? The championship table should reflect the championship standings as they were according to the rules at the time. If total points are to be included they should not be part of the championship standings.

In the respect that it provoked debate at the time. And eventually a change in the rules of course. And that's a bit of a straw man, since of course the tables do reflect the championship standings as they were at the time. No-one is pretending that Prost won the 1988 championship or that Ginther finished second in 1963. 4u1e (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also in that there may well be readers who don't know all points didn't always count, & that it was ever possible to take the title with fewer points or fewer wins. (Which I belive is correct; IIRC, if only best results counted, more 2d- or 3d-places might actually outscore a lower number of wins.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated on the F1 website "only the best x of y SCORES counted towards the championship". My reasoning is that as soon as a driver achieved a 5th haul of points it immediately made the "5th best score" irrelevant and those points were deleted determining championship position. Since the tables are "World Championship" tables it should not include scores which don't obey World Championship rules. Therefore, if driver A had won the first 4 races in the 1950 season setting fastest lap then no further points would be awarded in the remaining 3 races, so how could they be counted? In my edit I have placed a note below the tables specifying exactly how many scores counted towards the championship, which would inform an individual previously unaware of the rules. Including a "total points scored if all scores counted" score is extra analysis above and beyond the championship table and as such should not be included in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.178.118 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet those dropped points are almost always included in drivers career totals - indicating that the officials running Formula One do not share this belief. --Falcadore (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ, given that Luigi Fagioli's score for the 1950 championship is listed on the F1.com website as 24 (i.e. 4x6pts for second place and ignoring his 3rd place finish). There is a difference between points scored in any given race and points scored which count towards the championship. On the championship standings for each season on the F1 page there is no mention of "total points scored if all scores counted" only the total according to the best x of y rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.178.118 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But as indicated above at least some reliable contemporary secondary sources (Autocourse for one) do list both sets of scores, as we do here. What Formula1.com does is also of interest, but their tables are not particularly accurate and if we're talking about 'post hoc' application of rules I'd take a contemporary Autocourse over a 21st century website any day of the week. 4u1e (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your criteria for inaccuracy being that they do not include what you would like them to? Autocourse is a second hand source, it was not published by the governing body. However, the official Formula One website is. Furthermore, the Crash Media Group's "Autocourse Grand Prix Archive" displays the same points scores as the F1 website which, if what you say about the annuals are correct, directly contradicts their earlier published work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.30.210 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh? My criteria for accuracy are, for example, that regardless of what F1.com says, Johnny Herbert did not race a Lotus in the final three races of the 1994 season. And various other examples of a similar nature. Wikipedia (a tertiary source) has a preference for secondary sources over primary as it happens, although the F1.com website is no more a primary source than Autocourse is. Accuracy of the F1.com website is probably a side issue here, but as it happens although it's a great resource for new stuff it has its problems for older material and if we're talking about the 1950s, well before F1.com or FOM existed, I'm not sure I see where its over-riding authority comes from. 4u1e (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Formula1.com is not owned by the FIA, it is owned by Formula One Management (FOM), which is Bernie Ecclestone's company, which plays no part in the rule-making process. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But it is the sole company with explicit permission from the FIA to promote information regarding Formula One. Since the website is being used to correct race times and gaps to the leader in various races, it would appear that most of the content is viewed as trustworthy. And as I have said already, an Autocourse website gives the same final championship standings as the F1 website. 87.198.30.210 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What permission is this? You seem to be confusing the series promoter and owner and the series governing body, and what the relation between the two is. The FIA does not own Formula One, they would not be able to permit or revoke permission for data. Formula1.com having some correct data does not mean all of their data is correct, this has been discussed by this project before. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The FIA sold the commercial rights of Formula One to FOWC, thus the FOWC results are the official results, in the same manner that an FOWC video feed is the official one. This not a discussion on the ownership of Formula One, it is about the reason for including total points "scored". The additional points serve no purpose other than to show who would have won a championship if the rules were just a little bit different and these should not be included in a final championship table because it does not accurately reflect the regulations at the time. 87.198.30.210 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Um... no. Just wrong. Firstly, the commercial rights are only leased. Secondly, they are only commercial rights, they have nothing to do with rule making or regulation. FWOC (nee FOM) are just the series promoter, they don't write the rules, they don't administrate entries, they don't run the lap timing, they don't police the cars' legality, and there is much much more that that they don't do. This issue got confused during Max Mosely's time as he pretty much did Bernie Ecclestone's bidding, but Jean Todt is doing a good job of re-establishing the boundaries between the series promoter and the sanctioning body. As for the total points issue, all of the points were scored, its just that later some were not counted towards the Championship placings. Once a driver had enough point to win the Championship they didn't stop scoring points. Had they finished first they were awarded the points commensurate, they didn't go to the second placed driver. Contemporary secondary sources list the total points scored so we can too. Therefore we have the option, and in my opinion it is daft to remove perfectly valid information that was properly noted and identified for what it was and distinguished from the final scoring total. Pyrope 14:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's at least partly my fault, but we're getting off topic here. The sale of rights post-dates the change in the rules anyway, so the current ownership of the information is not that relevant. Anon, I understood your original position to be that we were inappropriately applying modern rules to the pre-1990 results. You now seem to be arguing the other way round - that we should take a single modern source as the only indicator of how results should be presented. Have I misunderstood? 4u1e (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My view is that it makes no sense to take away this information - the points were awarded and then later dropped, so the pages gave both stats, with emphasis on the championship deciding dropped score. Whilst we are sometimes guilty of going over the top on details, this is one case where the cost of having the information is so small (four characters), it makes no sense to delete it. Oh, and as for Formula1.com only listing Fagioli's 1950 score as 24 points and not 28 points 87.198.xxx.xxx, take a look at [1] (or look for yourself [2].) AlexJ (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I also believe the information should be retained. If the "total points" are not displayed, I suspect we will see increased instances of non-expert editors "correcting" a driver's points to equal [his points from the previous race] + [the number of points scored at this race] (notwithstanding the "only best N results count" footnote proposed by the IP editor). This has occurred in the past with the 2000 Austrian Grand Prix where a well-intentioned editor has updated McLaren's score to include the 10 points they were docked for the seal missing from Häkkinen's car.DH85868993 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion?: The Anon seems to have left the conversation and as I understand that everyone else believes the bracketed points should be restored, I'll revert his/her changes unless I hear otherwise within the next 24 hours. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Think I got them all. 4u1e (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep you got them all. I was going to do it myself, having started the discussion, but had an unscheduled leave away from here. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review request

Hi guys, I've put 1980 Spanish Grand Prix up for a Peer Review here. If you've got a few minutes, could you take a look through the article, and let me know your thoughts. It doesn't have to be a full in-depth review - if you took a quick look and suggested even just one improvement that would still be much appreciated. Gracias, AlexJ (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dashes

User:Kwamikagami has recently edited numerous F1 race report, season summary and "xxx Grand Prix" articles to replace the hyphens between constructor and engine name with en-dashes, like this. I have asked him not to make any further such edits until consensus for or against such changes is established here. DH85868993 (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm opposed to the change, mainly because I foresee it leading to an ongoing maintenance issue (i.e. even if we change all existing instances, I think editors will continue to use hyphens when contributing new text). Plus, if it's a sensible change for F1 constructors, then it would also be a sensible change for all other racing categories, which would mean many more articles which would need to be updated and maintained (and probably require consensus at all the other motor racing WikiProjects). I just don't think the perceived benefit is worth the effort. DH85868993 (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It may not be worth the effort. The reason for it, as laid out at WP:ENDASH, is the same as for objects or laws named after two people: the en dash distinguishes a joint name from a single person with a hyphenated name. For example, it is unclear what "Ligier-Mugen-Honda" would be, unless you happen to be familiar with Mugen-Honda. Some sources leave spaces between the partners, so that a hyphen is only used for hyphenated names. Thus, that example would be "Ligier Mugen-Honda" However, some names already have spaces in them, so "Toro Rosso Cosworth" is opaque if the reader is not familiar with Toro Rosso. And if you hyphenated it "Toro Rosso-Cosworth", it looks like Toro and Rosso-Cosworth joined by a space. "Ligier–Mugen-Honda" and "Toro Rosso–Cosworth", on the other hand, are unambiguous.

I could take care of the F1 articles, which would leave a minor amount of maintenance as new articles are written. At the very least, I think the articles should be formatted per the MOS if they are nominated for GA or FA. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I for one don't really think the majority of Wikipedia readers, let alone F1 article readers, would know the difference between two styles of dashes. This really would not help inform people any more than it would confuse people as to why the dashes "look funny". The³5₉ (Talk) 08:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the current system (i.e. using hyphens) is ambiguous as it is anyway, as the chassis and engine constructors are almost always linked, to different pages, and so appear thus: Ligier-Mugen-Honda, so there should be no confusion. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a trivial issue, but since we are discussing it here already, here's my take: We are talking grammar/style, not the content. It's true that en-dashes are preferred stylistically to hyphens in the case discussed. Refer to any number of manuals of style and to Wiki's already cited policies. I also feel that arguing against the use of en-dashes is a bit like arguing against proper placement of commas or periods, especially if it's done on the basis that it's hard to maintain going forward (i.e. there is always a chance that new edits will contain incorrectly placed punctuation) – yes, no Wiki article may ever be perfect, but that's not a good reason not to improve it. I would say we need to support the users who are willing to undertake an effort to improve articles in such stylistic ways – even more so since they are willing to maintain this going forward. So I strongly support the replacement of hyphens with dashes where appropriate. cherkash (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Cherkash in that technically, endashes should be used where grammatically appropriate. However, I'm not convinced that hyphens are grammatically incorrect in the way we're using them. According to Dash#Relationships and connections, there is some disagreement over whether to use a hyphen or an endash in these attributive compounds, and neither can be said to be right or wrong. There's also an argument that says (for example) a Minardi-Ford is not so much a pair of independent elements making up a whole, but in fact an intrinsically bound-together entity, which as such would be hyphenated as per the Wikipedia MOS. Certainly, Formula One cars are often referred to as such. I certainly think there's enough ambiguity to not bother trawling through thousands of articles changing them. Furthermore, endashes make sentences look untidy - just my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So we have:

• two editors in favour of the changes (including one who stated that it may not be worth the effort)
• three editors who think the changes aren't necessary and/or that there's sufficient ambiguity that it's not worth the effort, and
• one editor opposed to the changes

Does that indicate insufficient support for the changes to be made? Please note that I'n not trying to hurry the discussion to a premature conclusion, but I'm mindful that if there is a consensus for Kwamikagami's changes to be reverted, then the sooner it occurs, the easier it will be (i.e. before intervening edits prevent the changes being simply "undone"). DH85868993 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I will revert Kwamikagami's changes, to restore consistency across the Formula One articles. DH85868993 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Brabham TFA 2 May

To note that Brabham will be on the main page tomorrow (2 May). Probably a relatively quiet day, in the UK at least, due to the Bank Holiday, but I'd be grateful for anyone who can keep an eye on the more insidious kind of vandalism.

The article was promoted back in 2006 and had suffered a bit of degradation in the intervening period: Apterygial and Bjmullan have been kind enough to do some spring cleaning on it. When I look at it now, it's not really how I would approach the topic, but I don't think there's enough time to rewrite the whole thing from scratch - perhaps we'll get some useful contributions during the day! 4u1e (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, well done on this! I've added it to my watch list for the duration. Pyrope 00:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seemed a quiet day in the end; this was the sum of all changes to the article while it was on the main page. It's still worth watching, as it will be linked from the main page for the next three days. Apterygial ^talk 00:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing Osama helped the article by attracting all the vandals. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A front page appearance that almost resulted in more attempts at genuine improvements than vandalism. Well done to all involved! AlexJ (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those who kept an eye on the article. Seems we just don't do front page vandalism like we did in the good old days </irony>. 4u1e (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Season points graph is back...

There was just an attempt to add [3] to the 1997 Formula One season article. Another attempt to display season points tables with a colourful bar chart - can we please put an end to these? --Falcadore (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For the love of God, let's not have these. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Driver infobox updates

In case anyone is wondering what all the driver infobox updates are about - it's part of a scheme to standardise infobox parameter names, per this discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Season review tables

Hello all, just a quick note to highlight more "work" by User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 and his IP sockpuppets. He seems to have taken the unilateral decision (surprise, surprise) to change the 1975 Constructors' Championship summary table to a complete compilation of all results for the constructors for the year, here. As ever I have asked for a discussion, and as ever they have refused. I'm not going to say anything more on that, as anything I do have to say would likely get me banned. I'm just opening the floor here for a discussion. Pyrope 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just try to give as much "good" information in a season in the 1975 Constructors' Championship iv'e also done that. I don't see the point that we should give a summary if we can give the whole information. Kevin 18:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a summary, it's the championship table. The rules at the time only rewarded constructors championship points to the highest placed car in the race, hence the reason only one car is shown in the tables. QueenCake (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The table needs a note to explain the championship points method for that year, but I'd agree that adding in three times as much irrelevant data as there was relevant data before certainly makes the table less useful. We give a summary, because a DNQ by a privateer is irrelevant in the scope of the championship if a works driver for the constructor scored points. AlexJ (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, a note stating the points system should indeed be added, as well as stop anyone else changing anything inaccurately. QueenCake (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this makes the table overly complicated if only the highest finishing car gets points. It basically leaves it up to the reader to have to work through the table to finish out what is the actual car that scored points for the team.

Simply having available information, even if it is good, does not mean it must be in a Wikipedia article. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing that seems to have been overlooked by some here is that yet again, a particular editor has made an edit, been reverted, then logged out and reverted back to his preferred version. Why are we putting up with this rubbish? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not be quick to make the accusation of sockpuppetry. Hes not block evading and hes not particularly attempting to appear as another user, so simply because he is making his reversions while logged out is not necessarily something done intentionally. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd believe that if he hadn't been told about ten times, and he didn't keep using his IPs to revert back when someone changes his edits. SPI would eat this for breakfast, like they did the last time he did it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree, breaking out the constructor points by driver is a bad idea & unnecessary, but I do like the addition of the car numbers in the results (somewhere...). Attach them to the driver's standings? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, after this discussion in which nobody agreed with him, did Kevin just revert to his preferred version [4] with no edit summary? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I did have a lengthy answer for you typed out here, but I deleted it as my blood pressure led me to say things that aren't passable in polite company. His flood of crap is spreading out into WTCC, F2 and other formulae now, as I feel he reckons that his disruption will be less stringently policed in the lesser series articles. I am increasingly feeling that we are dealing with a very subtle and insidious troll, but a troll nonetheless. He's been given an awful lot of chances to improve and so far nothing. Either it's intentional or it's stupidity, and we aren't here to offer a free creche for the hard of thinking. Pyrope 01:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Fleetwood Mac? Nice choice of tunes... ;-) Pyrope 01:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have many obsessions ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, as much as you perhaps do not want to hear this, this expanded version of the 1975 constructors table is actually harmful, as it presents the results as though all drivers for the that constructor contribute for each race which is fundamentally incorrect. Only the best car for each constructor contributed, so only the best contribution from each constructor should be listed. If a reader wants a more comprehensive breakdown of results can either consult a) consult the drivers' championship table above on the same page, or b) visit the page of the Grand Prix. It is not Wikipedia's role to operate as a results database. The format and coding are inadequate to perform that role competantly, so it should not be attempted. There are many other websites already in existance who perform that role more than adequately, Wikipedia should not be used to duplicate that level of detail, but rather to reference these other websites and provide appropriate links in order than other may look it up external to Wikipedia.

Perhaps you need to re-read some of the documentation that defines what Wikipedia is for? --Falcadore (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely spot on. Detail is great, but if it's not managed detail, Wikipedia becomes very difficult to use and worse, thoroughly misleading. In this case, Kevin is taking the level of statistical detail beyond a level which makes sense. Pushing it aggressively with reverts and different IPs is plain not allowed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

... aaaaaand again [5] Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So how do we go about requesting some formal sanctions. This is now definitely disruptive editing, breaching 3 reverts and sockpuppets rules amongst others, and more to the point is downright rude. I'm fed up of seeing time being wasted dealing with this by everyone, when we could all be doing something more productive to improve the encyclopedia. We've tried to sort it as a Wikiproject, attempts have been made to contact the editor directly through his talkpage without success. Anyone know where to escalate this to? AlexJ (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have an SPI case ready, I'm just waiting for Pyrope's input before I go ahead with it. When it begins, the more people who want to have their say, the better. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings could be started. --Falcadore (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry requires no warnings as such, we've allowed it in his case because he has contributed well enough in the past, and we have tried to talk to him about it on a number of occasions. Now that we've reached a point where he can't or won't edit properly, there's no real reason to continue turning a blind eye to the sockpuppetry. There's clear sockpuppet edit warring at Andy Priaulx and Colin Turkington, apart from the F1 1975 season article. You reverted him, his IP reverted back, CS Wolves reverted, and Kevin's named account reverted again - all on the same day. It's totally against the rules - no excuses. We're probably breaking the rules by not reporting it sooner. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This also: [6], [7] Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the examples you've selected place him on the cusp of 3R. --Falcadore (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to warn him of that, go ahead, but I think the sockpuppeteering is more serious, and the edit-warring will be taken into account there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started an SPI case here, so if anyone would like to make any comments either supporting or criticising this user, that is the place to do it. I've taken it there because I think the sockpuppetry is the most serious of the problems, and the consequences are a bit more far-reaching than the 24-hour blocks doled out for vandalism. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Got to love the mods at Wikipedia. Edit warring, sockpuppetry, violation of 3rr, persistent disruptive editing, lack of edit summaries in 99% of edits, 100% of edits unsourced... yet all we get is 'I'm with him' as a reason for closing an SPI. Great. Feel the effort that went into that one. I just recently filled in a survey that was obviously aimed at getting to the bottom of why Wikipedia is haemorrhaging editors at the moment. Funnily enough "lazy admins who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag" wan't one of the options to choose. Pyrope 02:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG

I'd like to raise the issue of conformity to MOS:FLAG, the part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style that deals with the use of flags and other icons in articles. Specifically, I am referring to the criterion which requires editors to "Accompany flags with country names". As it stands, our articles use the {{flagicon}} template, which produces an image of the flag, a link to that country's article (by clicking on the image) and the name of the country in mouseover text. Which is great, but does not accompany the flag with a country name. I'm proposing a something like 1906 French Grand Prix, which uses the {{cc3}} template to place the three-letter country code next to the driver's name, in addition to the {{flagicon}} template. This fulfils MOS:FLAG. A similar model to this was implemented by Midgrid in the infobox of 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, before it was reverted by DH85868993, and by AlexJ (at my suggestion) in the infobox of 1980 Spanish Grand Prix, before it was also reverted by DH85868993. I've brought the matter here in the hope of achieving the consensus required to prevent future reversions. Here are my reasons for the change:

• The addition of the {{cc3}} template is a minor change, and would not result in wholesale overhauls of articles.
• I don't buy the argument that to use {{cc3}} on one article would necessitate its use in the ~3,500 other articles under WP:F1's purview. This project runs the risk of putting too much emphasis on consistency and not enough on quality; I'd rather 1% of articles did this well and be inconsistent than 100% of articles settle for inferiority.
• I'm aware several editors at the project are openly hostile to the MOS, as indicated during the previous discussion on this topic, back in 2009. MOS:FLAG, as with the rest of the MOS, does not exist simply to annoy people, nor to provide needless bureaucracy. In this case, the addition of names next to a flag is an accessibility point. Many flags look very similar (I can't tell the difference between the Australian and New Zealand flags at that resolution), and many people have vision impediments which prevent them from clearly viewing flags at that level. Finally, no-one can recognise every flag; the major ones we know but there are many we cannot correctly identify visually. While mouseover text is useful, it is even easier and quicker to be able to glance at an acronym or abbreviation to find out what the flag represents.

As I say, this is a minor point, so I hope we don't get too worked up about it. But I think if consensus can be reached to approve my suggestion, it would be a change for the better. Apterygial ^talk 04:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I really couldn't give a damn what's decided, but the CC3 solution seemed to work OK. I don't see consistency as a reason for anything: 95% of F1 race articles are one line stubs with a trivia section. Should we strive to make our featured articles consistent in this respect also, by stripping out all their content and adding in some banal bullet points? AlexJ (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone who can tell any flag at a glance, I may be somewhat biased, but I think the current system is good enough. The point you make about being able to glance and see not only the flag, but a 3 letter code as well is a good one, however as people are unlikely to know every single flag, they may also not know which country is referred to by which code. I'll give you two examples:

• a really obscure country, such as Vanuatu or Bhutan is not only going to be difficult to identify by its flag, but also by its code. There are many people who won't know countries beginning with Van and Bhu, and will more than likely mouse over the flag anyway to find out which country it is. Granted, more people will figure out the country from the code than from the flag, I can't deny that, but my argument is that the difference in ease of understanding between the two isn't that much.
• countries with similar names. As with any code of this kind, there will be times where it's impossible to give every country the first 3 letters of their name. As an example, there are 2 countries beginning with BEL, however Belgium is BEL but Belarus is BLR. This may lead to the erroneous assumption that BEL is referring to Belarus, which counters the aim for "clearer" information the proposed change has.

As it is, I'm not sure why we have country flags next to drivers in tables etc. anyway, it doesn't affect the result and it's easy to find out the nationality of a driver (or any person) by clicking on their page.

As a final point, for me consistency is one of the most important things in any encyclopaedia, and I disagree with your comment that having 1% correct is better than having 100% consistent, especially when "correct" is subjective in this case. Allypap81 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Allypap81's comments. Another reason I'm not in favour of the addition of the CC template is that I think it over-emphasises the driver's nationality. In Formula One, drivers race for their team not their country (as opposed to say, A1GP or the Olympics, where competitors compete for their country). If I had to choose, I would remove the existing flagicons next to driver names rather than adding the country name in text. DH85868993 (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I happen to think that the status quo is a pretty sound system. Use of the flagicons neither over emphasises the drivers' nationality (as slavishly adhering to MOS would end up with), nor does it ignore the drivers' nationality (which is an intrinsic part of the F1 package, for a number of historical reasons). I'm not hostile to the MOS, but I see it for what it is. It is still the case that these are a guide, not rules. They have ben written to be applicable to the broadest range of articles possible, which undermines their usefulness as specific cases need specific solutions. I understand your point about the accessibility, but no solution is perfect and Allypap81's point about abbreviations being no more accessible than flags is perfectly true. Mouseover gives the full country name, and clicking links straight to the country page. Flagicons work because they act as a quick visual index (many people already know the nationality of a driver they are looking for specifically, for example) and they help to break up a long text list. They are, in fact, icons. Most times, when we have these discussions, the decision is made to stick with what we have. There's a reason for that: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Pyrope 00:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DH85868993 that drivers drive for their team not their nation, but disagree that it makes this info irrelevant, after all I mainly support British drivers despite them not driving for GBR and, I think most F1 fans do the same for their nation if it has any drivers. I personally think we should have both the flag and the three letter code, or just the three letter code - I think just the flag is the worst option. Re: Allypap81's comment on the confusing nature of some code - true, some are confusing, however this is not a good reason not to use the system (some flags are equally, if not more, similar and obscure) ARDawson (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with those advocating keeping the status quo. (That's a mouthful!) The system we have works perfectly, the flagicons are there to indicate the nationality of the drivers, not the country they are driving for, hence why it will be inappropriate to use the CC templates or full county names. Keeping the flags is important as nationality still has a small part in the podium ceremonies. The flagicons do of course link to the country pages, so readers can easily discover the country if they can't tell from the flag. Adding the 3-letter codes would not help this, as this can be just as ambiguous as the flags, and could indeed be harder to tell. There is no need that I can see to follow MOS unnecessarily here, as Pyrope rightly said, if it ain't broke don't fix it. QueenCake (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that A1GP was any different to Formula One, drivers still raced for themselves and their team, it was just the team had a national identity. The drivers themselves wouldn't have raced A1GP any different from any other category, especially considering the place it held in the industry as basically a ladder category for young drivers trying to progress towards Formula One, which while it may not have been officially it was certainly how the bulk of the racing industry professionals treated it. It might have had lofty ambitions but the reality was different. Formula One however certainly treats national identity very highly, the drivers nationality is stiched into the overalls, stickered onto their cars beside the drivers name, splashed across helmets in various ways, and displayed on the podium by the FIA and race organisers in a far more prominent way then the recognise teams at such ceremonies. Do you ever see national flags stiched into football jerseys at club level, or cricket uniforms in leagues like IPL, or in any of the American major leagues? --Falcadore (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

2013 Formula One season

I think it's about time for the 2013 Formula One season page to be created. Even if it's just an outline - the season will see the biggest overhaul of the technical and sporting regulations in the sport's history (of which we know quite a few details), plus there's the addition of PURE to the grid as an engine supplier and we already know some of the driver moves. At the very least, there's enough information to justify a page modelled on the current content of the 2012 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Huge changes to the sport, many of which are already 90% decided/confirmed. 2013 will be a monumental and much remember season, I suspect. ARDawson (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Being pedantic, I don't know of any driver moves as such, but I think I know what you mean. How much of the regs have been confirmed yet, because we don't want a page full of speculation? The PURE stuff is all very presumtive as well, because what's to say anybody will want to run with them. - mspete93 15:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the engine and sporting regulations have been confirmed - but they are subject to change; FOTA has the power to make amendments. Whether or not they will is speculative, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

New engine rules confirmed - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91261 - so I'd say it's about time to start the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

But precious little else is. Apart from saying we have new engines, possible new aero depending on what's agreed, (the BBC are reporting they are still in discussions), and a driver or two that may have a contract, (this far out and anything can change, contracts seem to be only worth one season) the page will be nothing but speculation. Best to wait until the end of this year before starting it. QueenCake (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It'll be up before the end of the year. We traditionally have the current season page plus two future seasons simply because of the sheer weight of information that is available about the future seasons. Right now might not be the best time to do it, but I guarantee you we will know much more before season's end. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Sutil v. Eric Lux

At what point does the incident between these two become worthy of a mention at Adrian Sutil or elsewhere? It's important not to give undue weight to it if it turns out to be trivial, but on the other hand it looks like it might become a bigger thing [8]. Thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd wait until it becomes a bigger thing, especially if it has consequences. Right now, it's just an accusation. Nobody knows much beyond that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Frank Williams

It has been proposed that Frank Williams be changed to become a disambiguation page (or a redirect to a disambiguation page) and that the existing article (about the F1 team boss) be given a new name. Please express any opinions you may have on the matter at Talk:Frank Williams#Proposed move. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the use of flagicons in lists

This RFC may be of interest to our project. DH85868993 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Which Flag?

I'm new to Wikipedia but I've noteced something. In every year every European Grand Prix has the flag in wich country it is been hosted. But in the Swiss GP of 1982 , wich was held in france has the swiss flag and also the Luxembourg GP of 1997 and 1998 has the Luxembourg flag while it has been held in Germany. Why? Dasilva123 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Swiss race was held in France because motorsport is banned in Switzerland. Nevertheless, because it was the Swiss Grand Prix, it ran under a Swiss flag. In the case of the Luxembourg GP, there was demand for a second race in Germany to captalise on the success and popularity of Michael Schumacher. However, as the European Grand Prix was held at Jerez in 1997, they couldn't call it the European Grand Prix, and so they had to get a little creative. Since the Nurburgring is not far from the border between Germany and Luxembourg, Luxembourg was chosen as the host nation. Jerez lost the European Grand Prix after a violation of podium procedure in 1997, but they still retined the rights to the European Grand Prix name, and did not give it up in time for the Nurburgring to acquire it, so the race was run under the luxembourg name again before the circuit acqired the rights to the name for the 1999 season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure that quite addresses the inconsistency of the flags for events held in regions different from their title. One could equally question the San Marino flag on the San Marino Grand Prix.

The short answer is that there is no flag the represents Europe as a whole. The European Union flag was used before, but the European Union does not actually represent Europe, and the European Grand Prix is not related to the European Union. Therefore we needed some relevant flag for the European GPs, and the decision was that the flags should reflect the location of the circuit. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:ARAB#Template:2010.E2.80.932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests re the inclusion of the 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix on {{2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests}}. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Silverstone map

I've noticed that the map of Silverstone has a few things that need changing. I'd do it myself, but I'm hopeless with graphics programs and don't know how to upload my own images. This is what needs to be done:

1) The start line needs to be moved from its original location on the old main straight to its new position between Abbey and Club. 2a) The new corners are listed as "Arena"; this is actually the name of the configuration, not the corners. 2b) The new corners need to be renamed in order: Abbey (existing), Farm, Village, The Loop, Aintree and the Wellington Straight (though Hangar Straight is not listed either, so Wellington might not be needed).

That should bring the circuit diagram up to date. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Formula One companies

Category:Formula One companies has been nominated for deletion. Please add any views you may have to the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Season in Progress" footnotes

Noticing this footnote in the Formula One season article, I would question why we need it. People who do not know what season is current can see that the season is in progress by the blank races in the row. Surely? Britmax (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

When you say "in the Formula One season article", do you mean "in 2011 Formula One season"? Because I can't see a "season in progress" footnote in that article. If you mean "in the articles of all the drivers, teams and cars partipating in the current season", then the reason for the footnote is that blank races in the row could mean that the season is still in progress or that the season is finished but that particular driver/team/car stopped participating mid-way through the season. DH85868993 (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1995 Brazilian Grand Prix - GAN

Just to let everyone know that I've nominated 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix for Good Article status.--Midgrid(talk) 18:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Season articles

Today I have changed the 2009 Formula One season article to merge the various driver/team/calender sections all into the Background pre-season part of the article. I know that the rather poor and frankly ugly looking lists attached to most season articles have been a general annoyance to most of us here, so I took the trouble of trying to integrate them all into one coherent section - I've currently left the mid-season changes as these would be better placed within the season report. At the moment I've left the rule changes separate, as this is a quite large and fairly detailed section, and looked somewhat out of place. I'd welcome any opinions you have on the changes I have made, before applying the changes to other articles.

Also, I have noticed our race calender tables have two columns saying essentially the same thing; the "Official Race title" and "Grand Prix" columns. I would personally just delete the Grand Prix column to save the duplication.

Thanks for any comments. The season articles are probably the most important part of the project, after the core articles, and I am interested in getting them up to scratch. QueenCake (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Team Lotus can use some refs

Team Lotus is a top-importance article in the start class.

I believe with references, the article can go up to C-Class. The text is there, it just needs refs.

Opinions? Additions? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1995 Brazilian Grand Prix GAN

The 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix is being reviewed and has been placed on hold for an initial seven days to allow time for the lead to be developed and for more detail to be added regarding fuel checking - see: Talk:1995 Brazilian Grand Prix/GA1. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Ricciardo

Can someone please keep an eye on the Daniel Ricciardo page? Articles from Australia are claiming that he will race for Hispania at the 2011 British Grand Prix, but they contain no quotes from the relevant parties. An announcement is "expected soon", bu until then, we need to keep a lid on things. I'm going around trying to make sure pages aren't being updated incorrectly, but it's just gone midnight here and I can't be everywhere at once. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Autosport says "it is understood that a deal is close", so my bet is that it's only a matter of time, but you're right, we need to wait for a reliable source. Let's hope it's sooner rather than later. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's still nine days until the British Grand Prix. Most people will get the message early on, I think. It will largely just be a case of reverting edits until then. Although I have no idea what that guy meant when he said me invisible message was "blatant vandalism". Wanting something to be true doesn't actually make it true, even with a reference that basically says it "might" happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

Yeah, exactly. Isn't there a rule against accusing someone of vandalism when there patently isn't any vandalism? If not, then there should be. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed already [9]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gilby

I have proposed that Gilby be moved to Gilby Engineering, thereby enabling Gilby to become a disambiguation page. Please add any thoughts you may have on the matter at Talk:Gilby#Proposed move. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The page has been moved. Thanks to those who provided input. DH85868993 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Lotus Renault

There's a discussion at Talk:Lotus Renault about whether Lotus Renault should be a disambiguation page or a redirect to Renault F1. Please contribute any views you may have at Talk:Lotus Renault#Redirect or disambiguation page?. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

British GP practice

Someone has written a report on the first practice for this year's British GP and the spelling and prose have to be seen to be believed. I would clean this up myself but have to work in the morning. Any takers? Britmax (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a shocker. The grammar is poor but the spelling is dire. Personally, I'd just delete most of it - it's only practice, and we don't need two lengthy paragraphs about it. A couple of lines will do - who was fastest and who had big accidents. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I had a look, & realized, not having watched any of the coverage, I had no idea what was supposed to be happening, so "fixing" it was a bad idea... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sebastian Vettel's records

There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Sebastian Vettel on the subject of the records included in the article, and whether or not some of them should be removed. Input from additional editors is welcomed, as there is no clear consensus right now.--Midgrid(talk) 22:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate at least some input on whether "Most wins before the age of 24" is the kind of thing we should have as a "record" achieved in F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Londoño

(Thanks in part to F1 Rejects' article on this driver) Some information about this "Formula One driver" seems to be a bit odd, at least from WP:F1 standards. Londono was a Columbian who was signed for the Ensign team but never received his Superlicense. He was entered for the 1981 Brazilian Grand Prix and participated in an acclimatisation practive held two days before the race practice proper. From my understanding this was an unofficial test and therefore he did not need a Superlicense to participate, but after the test his application for receiving a Superlicense for the race proper was rejected. He therefore never participated in any official part of the race weekend, and never appeared in Formula One again.

Why, therefore, is he listed as having participated in the Brazilian GP (Round 2) in the Drivers and Teams chart of 1981 Formula One season, and having been Excluded from Brazil in the Drivers Standings chart? Further, he has a 1981 season summary chart on his own page which lists the Brazilian GP as Did Not Participate, and infobox has 1 Race with 0 starts!

Finally, it what is likely just a rehash of the F1 Rejects article, it states that Londono is the "first official Columbian Formula One driver", which seems quite fishy. Sure, he drove a Formula One car and even participated in the Aurora F1 series, but this seems a bit of a silly statement to make. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the "EX" in 1981 Formula One season to "DNP", for consistency with Ricardo Londoño and 1981 Brazilian Grand Prix. But apart from that it all seems correct to me: he was entered in a Formula One Grand Prix, so that qualifies him for inclusion in Category:Colombian Formula One drivers, noting that the description of the category is "This category includes all Colombian drivers who have participated in (or attempted to participate in) a Formula One race or a WDC race". The "Races" field in his infobox reflects the fact that was entered for 1 WDC race but did not start it. And the fact that he was chronologically the first Colombian to be entered in a F1 race makes him "the first Colombian Formula One driver" (although the word "official" is probably unnecessary). DH85868993 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

But if he was never eligible to be a Formula One driver, due to the lack of a superlicense, how can his entry be considered legitimate? Further, we vehemently did not include Riccardo on the 2011 drivers results table until he had participated with HRT, so why is a driver who was never even allowed into Formula One in the driver standings? Finally, the "Rounds" column in the driver and teams table, is it for entries or is it for actual participation? Because he never participated in Round 2. And really, if he never participated at all, why is he in the table to begin with? See Robert Kubica for a driver with a contract with a team who is not participating at all this season. He certainly was on entry lists prior to the start of the season. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

His entry was legitimate because it was made by an existing F1 team for an F1 race, regardless of whether or not he had the correct licence at the time the entry was made. In Italy in 1951, Ken Richardson was entered for the GP and got as far as having taken part in qualifying before he was chucked out for not having the right licence. His entry still stands in the record books, even though that entry was taken away from him. Prior to scrutineering, any driver entry is valid - if it then emerges that you or your car are not fit to take part, then you're excluded. Londono had an entry for the race just a few days before the race took place, and he was on the final entry list - not weeks/months before like Kubica. Ricciardo never had an entry for any race before he joined Hispania, so that's why he wasn't on the 2011 driver results table. It's a moot point, but Londono should have been given a superlicence - he was certainly fast enough in the FIA acclimatisation test - but he upset Rosberg somewhere, and the next time round Rosberg brake-tested him. Londono hit Rosberg's car and bang went his chances of a superlicence. But he had that entry, so we can't really pretend that he didn't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Londono was on the final entry list? His superlicense was denied a day before the GP weekend started. It seems a bit naff to me to consider simply being an entrant to be equivilant to being a driver. One would think that someone would actually have to drive to be considered a driver. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the test was on the Wednesday, so his licence would have been refused on the Thursday, the day before the first proper practice session. Final entry lists are drawn up a while before that so the programmes can be printed, plus it's in the F1 Rejects article. Surer would have been added at the last minute, either Thursday night or Friday morning. He still had the Colombian flag on the car. I think it's just semantics to be honest - he had an entry as a driver, so I don't see a problem with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hispania Racing

Hispania's new owners have apparently got big changes in store for the team. It seems they're ditching calling the team "Hispania Racing", instead going for the chassis name (HRT), and have sealed the deal with a big, disgusting new logo (should we change it now?). Something to keep an eye on. JonChapple^Talk 19:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes. JonChapple^Talk 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything official, it's certainly not featured on the HRT website, despite what your article claims. The entire article is in fact a retelling of a publication in a Spanish newspaper, and not something which seems to be confirmed.

Further, it does not make much sense to replace the current logo, you certainly could have uploaded the file to another name allowing us to use both logos. As the logo does not appear on the Hispania website, we don't know where that logo came from. I'm reverting your logo for now. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I don't really upload pictures very often. I've uploaded a new copy. The logo does appear on the Hispania website; that's where I got it from. Where are you looking? JonChapple^Talk 20:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, looking around the website, they do seem to have done away with any reference to Hispania. - mspete93 20:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking at Hispania's website a few days ago, and really I do not notice anything that has changed. HRT had seemed to be used just as much as Hispania. There do appear to be smaller versions of the HRT logo that Jonchapple uploaded elsewhere on the site, but those seem to have been there for a while. I however certainly don't see the actual logo that Jonchapple uploaded, so where exactly did you find it on their website? The³5₉ (Talk) 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Top left, you can't miss it. Are you looking at a different website? JonChapple^Talk 20:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I see it now after a hard refresh, I guess my viewing from a couple days ago was why I was still seeing the Hispania logo. The article itself likely warrents a move as well, although lets not get hasty with that. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that may be the case! :) I'd say the article definitely warrants a move if they stick with the HRT thing, but let's give it a little while. JonChapple^Talk 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor fields in F1 car infoboxes

Some of you may have noticed the recent addition of "Predecessor" and "Successor" fields to {{Infobox racing car}}. Before these fields are populated in too many articles, I thought we should try to achieve a consensus on the desired format, i.e. do we want the preceding/succeeding car name in full, or just the type designation, e.g. in the infobox for McLaren MP4-25, do we want to see: "Successor: McLaren MP4-26" or just "Successor: MP4-26"? My personal preference is for the name in full, primarily for enhanced symmetry (and clarity?) when the constructor names are different, e.g. in Mercedes MGP W01, I think:

Predecessor: Brawn BGP 001

Successor: Mercedes MGP W02

is clearer/looks better than:

Predecessor: Brawn BGP 001

Successor: MGP W02

But I'm not especially passionate either way. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How exactly are we determining successors and predecessors for cars which were used by multiple privateer teams, or cars which were used, frowned upon, and the team reverted back to the predecessor model? The³5₉ (Talk) 02:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a simple "numerical" progression would be easiest (best?), e.g. even though Team Lotus reverted to using the 72 after the failure of the 76, I would expect to see:

• Lotus 72 - Predecessor: Lotus 63; Successor: Lotus 76
• Lotus 76 - Predecessor: Lotus 72; Successor: Lotus 77
• Lotus 77 - Predecessor: Lotus 76; Successor: Lotus 78

DH85868993 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it that important to invent yet another method by which wikipedia edittors can be lazy and not write these details out in text thus allowing an easily flexible method of describing how apparently different methods of succession can take place? Perhaps we can extend the infoboxes sufficiently long enough that each individual race can be included? Tell me to shut up if you want, but how about increasing the emphasis on improving the text instead of turning sentences into statistics? --Falcadore (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I too am struggling to find reason to cram more (and sometimes not quite accurate) information into the racing car template simply for the sake of having that information. Don't the individual team templates at the bottom of the articles already list their cars in chronological order? The³5₉ (Talk) 05:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this could be a really useful tool if done properly. Clearly there should still be some mention in the text of the evolution from preprocessor, but having a link in the info box makes it much easier to navigate around - surely a good thing. I'm not sure we need a hard and fast rule, but perhaps a recommendation? Personally, I think it should use the full name, keeps it nice and clear ARDawson (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really needed or even applicable in every case. Readro (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, how is it not difficult to navigate around from the team infobox at the bottom of the page? The³5₉ (Talk) 10:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How would that work then to find that the predecessor of the Mercedes MGP W01 is the Brawn BGP 001? I think it's a nice simple way to step through the ancestor and descendent vehicles. -- de Facto (talk). 11:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that in the highlighted example, the Brawn BGP 001 is not the only predecessor. Mercedes-Benz W196 is also a predecessor. So we create yet another potentially ambiguous statistical field to make a mess with, when not doing it, and using a text descriptions can accurately portray the correct information without needing interpretation, or for example plunging into the chaotic mess of Ferrari's usage of vehicle naming and the occasional verting to previous models when new ones did not work. Similarly Lotus would often do this and Brabham too. --Falcadore (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it wouldn't worry me if the fields were deleted. I was just wanted to ensure that if we do have them, we use a consistent format. As noted above, for all the F1 cars, you can see the succession of types in the navbox at the bottom of the article anyway (except where the constructor name changes), plus the predecessor is often already mentioned in the text. DH85868993 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Race name links in season summary calendar/race schedule tables

We currently have some inconsistency in the race name links in the season summary "Calendar" (or "Race schedule") tables:

• for 1994, 1999, 2004-2006 and 2009-2011, the race names (e.g. "Australian GP") are linked to specific race reports (e.g. 1994 Australian Grand Prix)
• for pre-1994, 1995-1996, 2000-2003, 2007-2008 and 2012, the race names are linked to the article covering the history of the race (e.g. Australian Grand Prix)

What's our preference? I think they originally all used to link to the "history" articles. DH85868993 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I incline to linking the year's race, since that's the subject. It sometimes means redlinks... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would tend toward keeping individual season links out of the calendar tables. The calendar section is more of a pre-season buildup section, and the year's races are linked in the results and points tables anyway. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would actually question the need to even have a separate "Calendar"/"Race schedule" table - information such as the circuit and date of the races could easily be merged into the Grand Prix result table, which itself has links to the specific race reports AND the overall race articles (as well as race winner, pole position, etc.) This arrangement (as far as I know) is actually used on the season articles from 1950 to some time in the 1970s. This would both solve the above question and reduce the amount of needless tables. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Trekphiler. Don't believe it would cause any redlinks, all GPs have articles now. --Falcadore (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not every year does. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Which ones do not? --Falcadore (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Offhand, I couldn't tell you, but I've come across years that come up red. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is my belief you are mistaken with regards to WC Grands prix, although that is a side-issue. --Falcadore (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I prefer being taken to that years race. When you click on the link to the British gp in a table of 2001 races, I think its pretty obvious you want to know about the 2001 British GP! ARDawson (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There really, really need to be links to the individual race articles in the prose. I know the most recent seasons do but most of the old seasons do not. For instance, nowhere in the section 1991_Formula One season#Race Fifteen: Japan will I find a link to 1991 Japanese Grand Prix, I have to go to a little link in a table near the bottom of the page. Most people will never find this! In this case I would just argue for linking the section title, WP:MOS prefers the {{main}} template but I think it will get cumbersome if used 15+ times in a row. Either way, there definitely has to be a link in the prose, not just the tables. LRT24 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Drivers who start from the pitlane

In race report articles, there's often a lack of clarity with regard to drivers that fail to take up their grid slots and start from the pitlane. These occasions need to be clearly stated in the text and the race results table needs to indicate that the driver did not start the race from his grid slot. The "PL" indicator doesn't seem to be working for some editors, me included, but leaving the grid position alone in the table is not acceptable. For those readers casually looking at the race table, it appears that the driver started from his slot on the grid, so it's misleading and inaccurate. Some kind of system acceptable to everyone needs to be devised to clarify pitlane starters.

The 2011 Canadian Grand Prix article has it the wrong way round in my view. It mentions Alguersuari starting from the pitlane in the qualifying table when the race table is more appropriate. Pitlane starts have nothing to do with qualifying. At the 2010 Bahrain Grand Prix, both HRTs started from the pitlane - there's nothing indicating that at all in the article, which is again misleading and inaccurate, and we shouldn't be satisfied with it. There was a previous discussion about this here [10]. It would be nice to have a simple system that we can use for every occasion, and apply it to past races as well. Maybe a footnote system in the race table. Thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would have a note in the "Grid" column of the race table, along the lines of "Driver started from the pit lane", and perhaps "Driver started from the back of the the grid" if he stalled on the formation lap start or suchlike.--Midgrid(talk) 18:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem. The Quals table has the grid positions for everybody, so the PL marker being in it, along with the rest, is apt. Deleting the grid pos column from that table seems like a bad idea. As it now stands, the Race table has grid pos & finish pos cols, too, so if there's any question where somebody started... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

All I was hoping for is the PL should be explained, somewhere. PL without an explanation is meaningless. --Falcadore (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And I'm still not seeing the problem. The footnote says, "Started from pit lane".... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? This needs to be regularised on all relevant articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you mean me, I'm looking at Canada. I see Bahrain doesn't mention it, just says started 23 & 24. (In fact, the page appears not to mention pit lane starting at all... Or even the pit lane. :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada is at least pretty clear - the 'PL', with the footnote. Falcadore, is the situation at the Canada article OK with you? I made the point about the Bahrain article - it simply must mention the pitlane starters. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Franck Montagny Picture

I noticed that there is a request for a picture of Montagny on the to-do list. It's one that I took at the 2006 United States Grand Prix. What do you want me to do with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanofspeed (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mercedes engine links

There's currently a degree of inconsistency in regard to post-1993 Mercedes customer engine links; some link to Mercedes-Benz, some link to Mercedes-Benz in motorsport and some link to Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines. Does anyone have any objection to me changing them all to link to Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines? Specifically, I'm talking about the engines used by Sauber in 1994, McLaren 1995-2011, Brawn in 2009 and Force India 2009-2011. DH85868993 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd also love to see a more detailed article about said engines. ARDawson (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd point 'em all to HPE, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The race reports and season summary articles are done. I'll do the driver, team, car and "xxx Grand Prix" articles tomorrow. DH85868993 (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

All done now. DH85868993 (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Make the first one a fast one

After coming across this, I was wondering if anybody could translate it? The machine translation I tried was scant help... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to rain on your parade, but referencing an unreferenced Wikipedia article in another language isn't exactly useful. If you want to write about the Cooper 500 (of which the T12 was just one model) then there are plenty of good, English language materials out there (e.g. here). It will probably be faster in the long run too. I keep meaning to do it myself but my Wikipedia time these days seems to be extremely limited. Pyrope 12:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In the hope the 500race site is reliable, & using a single source will pass muster, how's this? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

F1 2011 - the game

Can we all please keep an eye on F1 2011 (video game)? Somebody - an unregistered user - keeps adding in extensive lists of "new features" to the page, and they're unsourced and little more than advertising. Most of them barely qualify as "features" to begin with; for example: "Physics: Some of the physics codes have been rewritten", "Replays: New replay camera's have been added. Some are similar to TV cameras." and my personal favourite "Kerbs: You can now ride kerbs". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking sponsors

I personally find linking the sponsors wierd as I think it is entirely reasonable that the term Vodafone McLaren Mercedes refers specifically to the Formula One racing team and I think it is more than a reasonable expectation of general readers (it must be remember are our prime audience) to be expected to link to the Formula One team McLaren. The title says Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, not Vodafone, McLaren, Mercedes. By way of an example, it would be like a term like Mr Bernard Ecclestone esquire and linking Mr and esquire to dictionary definitions of the terms, or the film Star Wars linking to a celestial body and the history of warfare. Vodafone McLaren Mercedes when used in that three word capitalised manner refers specifically to the Formula One team. It is a level of over-correctness I find annoying and gets in the way of good writing practice. It reached a peak a year or so ago in some Sports car racing articles where Silk Cut Jaguar linked to the cigarette company and to the British road car manufacturer and did not link at all to Tom Walkinshaw Racing, the racing team actually operating the race cars. It completely defeated the point of having the links in the first place as the hyperlinks would then link to subjects only tangentially related to the topic.

I'll additionally note, that the practice is mentioned in the Manual of style - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking).

When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link, as in Irish Chess Championship (Irish Chess Championship). Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a more specific single link (e.g. to Irish Chess Championship) instead.

--Falcadore (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether the sponsors are linked separately or not, but I have a question: Are you proposing to only change the "Teams and drivers" tables in the season summary articles, or are you proposing that similar changes should be made to all the F1 driver and car results tables? DH85868993 (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Falcadore. I think it's a complete mess and frustrating for the reader to pick the correct part to click for the team (assuming it is actually there at all). This apparent common practice should be dropped. I've already changed it in some places as I've gone along. -- de Facto (talk). 08:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, too. I can see the point of wanting to link out for maker & such, but that's usually possible elsewhere without confusing the issue. I'd say fix wherever encountered. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move of Hispania Racing

It has been proposed to move Hispania Racing to HRT F1 Team. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Hispania_Racing#Requested_move. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that, in line with other team articles, exclude the word 'Team' from the article name, even though the team refers to itself as HRT F1 Team. Other users' views on that matter would be appreciated in the discussion to clear that up. - mspete93 22:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Troy Ruttman error

There may be an error in the List of Formula One driver records. One of the "Youngest drivers to set the fastest time in an official Grand Prix session" is Troy Ruttman. If I understand the list correctly, he drove the fastest lap in the 1952 Indianapolis 500 race. But according to the F1 website, the fastest lap was set by Bill Vukovich. Which is true? If it was Troy Ruttman who set the fastest lap, he should also be included in List of Formula One driver records#Youngest drivers to set fastest lap. 83.80.170.157 (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an error to me. Vukovich set the fastest lap. Readro (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that Bruce McLaren is listed when the fastest lap was set by Maurice Trintignant in that race. However, McLaren and Ruttman won the races that they are listed for, so I wonder if there's been some confusion there. Readro (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears somebody got it wrong. Vuky didn't set the quickest lap in quals, Miller did in the Kurtis-Novi. (Notice Miller was #27 on the grid...) Agabashian, on pole, was actually slower than Vuky... Now, IDK if the record claim is for quals or for a race lap (tho I'd tend to say race lap), which does appear to go to Vuky (& not Agabashian, Miller, or Ruttman...). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we need that table at all? Seems a strange statistics to track. There are several youngest evers alreayd, no-one unusual, apart from Ruttman is present. If we are having these sort of errors showing up it is perhaps a difficult stat to track, and I can't recall the stat ever being used and it isn't referenced. --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This is another faux stat, more puffery than value. Anybody who thinks it's really useful can add to the driver's page (& defend it there). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a low-value stat. Get rid. I dislike the whole page, to be honest. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris Craft/1971 Canadian Grand Prix

We currently have some inconsistency regarding Chris Craft's result at the 1971 Canadian Grand Prix: Chris Craft (racing driver) and 1971 Formula One season list his result as "DNS"; 1971 Canadian Grand Prix and Brabham Grand Prix results say "DNQ". According to the narrative in Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Vol 2, Craft initially failed to qualify for the GP, but following crashes for Pescarolo and Ganley in the morning warmup, would have been allowed to start the race, but couldn't due to engine problems. So, do we consider that a "DNS" or a "DNQ"? FORIX, formula1.com, ChicaneF1.com and Lang give the result as "DNQ"; www.grandprix.com gives the result as "DNS". DH85868993 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it hangs on why he "would have been" allowed to start. If it was a legislated response, explicitly stated in the rules, that once Ganley and Pescarolo withdrew Craft was automatically promoted to a starting position then it was a DNS. However, if it was at the discretion of the stewards whether or not to expand the grid back up in numbers then I'm inclined to think that DNQ is a more appropriate view. In other words, was it an automatic place that he himself then had to withdraw from, or was it an offer of a discretionary place that he was unable to accept. Either way we'll need sources. Darren Galpin's usually reliable GEL Motorsport Archive also lists Craft as DNQ, for what it's worth. Pyrope 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The exact wording in Lang is: "Of the five drivers not guaranteed starting places on the grid, Marko and Eaton were quickest in their B.R.M.s leaving Barber, Craft and Lovely as the non-qualifiers." Then talking about the warmup session on raceday: "Pescarolo ... went through a fence and hurt his neck badly enough to put himself out of the race ... Ganley careered into the guardrail ... and damaged the B.R.M. beyond immediate repair so he too was out. ... Barber and Lovely coming in as replacements for Pescarolo and Ganley. Craft, in fact should have taken over Ganley's vacated place but his Brabham had developed engine trouble." So it doesn't really answer Pyrope's question. FWIW, I'm happy to go with "DNQ" based on the fact that FORIX, formula1.com, ChicaneF1, Lang and GEL Motorsport all have it. It just seems a little odd to see Craft listed as "DNQ" when Lovely, who qualified slower, started the race. DH85868993 (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

But then you could argue that Lovely didn't qualify for the race either - that implies he would have been entitled to start it based on his practice performances alone - but was actually granted an entry because others fell by the wayside. Looks odd, makes sense. Pyrope 16:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed DNS to DNQ in Chris Craft (racing driver) and 1971 Formula One season. DH85868993 (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Flags inconsistency

I've been slapped-down for adding flags to the constructor entries in the race results table in the 2011 Belgian Grand Prix article. Apparently I need to get permission here to change anything in that article. I added the flags because the constructors represent their countries, as the drivers do - and the drivers are flagged, and indeed the constructors are flagged in otheer tables in that article and in tables in other F1 articles. Why the inconsistency for that table ("because that's how it's always been and there are hundreds of similar articles" isn't good enough)? -- de Facto (talk). 23:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good enough if there's a consensus for it, which as far as I know, there is. We really don't need dozens more flags in race articles. If anything we need fewer - we're already stretching the MOS with repeated flags for drivers. There are two per driver already and three for the top 5 in the championship, once you take the WDC standings into account. We really don't want to turn the quali/results tables into a gaudy mess of bloody flags. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Consistency is what we need. We should remove them all or allow them all. The current situation where flags are placed for drivers who represent their country but not for constructors who represent a country, and in the very same table, is unacceptable in terms of balance and the NPOV policy. Talking of MOS, we should certainly remove them from all infoboxes - where they appear to be in direct conflict with the guidelines. I'd support removing them everywhere - or if they are to stay, placing them consistently. -- de Facto (talk). 06:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a clash. The case for drivers and teams is entirely separate.

Additionally constructors is problematic as some constructors the nationality is not necessarily clear. Particularly concerning the 50s & 60s era of customers cars where constructors combinations wer many and varied. Cooper-Maserati for example. British chassis, Italian engines, and four different teams of varying nationality, who has precedence? Bearing in mind we need a solution that can encompass 62 years of Formula One, not just 2011. --Falcadore (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How is is that any different for the tables where constructors are given flags? Nowadays the constructor has a country licence, so flagging is straightforward. If that was different in the past, then leave the flags out of those - or put two flags, or whatever -, but that shouldn't be allowed to compromise what we do for today's articles. -- de Facto (talk). 11:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Stay as far away from discussing flags here as you can. Get out while it's still safe. Apterygial (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

To use your terminology, you want one rule for 'nowadays' races and a different rule for 'the past'? Can you understand why that does not seem like an improvement? --Falcadore (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Constructors don't really represent a country though, it's purely a registration formality in whatever country the owners decide upon. Drivers race under their nationality (or one of them should they hold duel citizenship) but teams are multi-national businesses. Putting an Austrian flag next to Red Bull would indicate the team is representing Austria - sure they are licensed there, but it's based in Briton with engines from France, both companies comprising of employees from across the globe, under ownership of an Austrian-based company majority owned by a Thai. Is there really any point of adding a flag here, it can only serve to misinform. QueenCake (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As silly as it may be in the case of the likes of Red Bull and other teams based in one place but registered another, constructors do represent countries too. That's why we have two national anthems. JonChapple^Talk 13:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Or one rule that says that if the constructor competes under a national licence then the flag of that nation should be used. Or one that says flags should never be used against constructors. The current rule seems to be that in some tables in an article flags may be used for constructors (not sure how they are picked if it's as difficult as suggested) and in others in the same article they must not be. Crazy. -- de Facto (talk). 15:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any clear message here; what are we going with then - the current inconsistent mess, no flags for constructors or add flags to constructors? -- de Facto (talk). 16:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No flags for constructors. Constructors/makes don't represents their countries, entrants do, but entrants aren't listed on results, only in the season page. Entrants aren't synonymous with constructors, either. --Pc13 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, it raises another question: should the column headings be changed from 'Constructor' to 'Entrant' then in tables with flags against the constructors, or should the flags be removed? -- de Facto (talk). 16:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no question nor confusion. The entry season tables are for entrants, the results and classification tables are for constructors. --Pc13 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In the 2011 Belgian Grand Prix article mentioned at the start of this topic there is, near the bottom, a table called "Constructors' Championship standings", with a column entitled "Constructor". The "constructors" have flags. Are they constructors or entrants? If the former, then should the flags be removed? If the latter then should the table and the column be renamed? -- de Facto (talk). 17:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessarry to place a flag against constructor's nomenclature every time it appears in a table regardless of article content whether it's a list, season summary, race report or driver article. And if you did it would not always be accurate. Constructor's nomenclature was not recognised until 1958. It also was not applied at all to non-championship races as it refer specifically to the constructor's Championship. Placing a British flag against an Ecurie Bonnier entered Cooper at the Crystal Palace Trophy would actually be false information.

Also, retrospectively adding this information to over a thousand articles, including the non-championship races is a considerable amount of work, for little actual benefit. --Falcadore (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Which suggests your answer is to remove the flags which are there? I think that would be my vote too. --Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If we mean removing the flags in the Constructors' Championship standings box, I'm in agreement with that too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What about flags against circuit names, and even against grand prix names - why are they there, yet flags are not against team base locations? It's all currently an inconsistent mess. -- de Facto (talk). 10:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No you're right. In fact, everytime Bernie Ecclestone is mentioned he should get a British flag. Mid-sentence. All senior FISA/FIA/FOCA officials should get flags. Because it's important. And if we don't it's a mess. Any person mentioned in a race report whether its a mechanic, a journalist or a policeman working crowd control. And we need to start getting spectators involved. And wikipedia editors should be able to sign their contributions to articles and then they have to have flags. And Nico Rosberg needs two flags. When it's used mid sentence the Finnish flag should be used before his name and the German flag afterwards. And flags for each sponsor too. And flags of the sponsors should be placed on each race track corner in the circuit maps.

Because if we don't it's inconsistent. --Falcadore (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you support the current practice of putting flags against circuit names and grand prix names? -- de Facto (talk). 13:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Podiums

(transferred from Talk:Formula One):
What do you guys think about creating some type of Formula One Podiums article, similar to Grand Prix wins. The only problem might be that the information would be useless, however I think it could provide a lot of information, such as what drivers were consistent. Or it could be based on drivers who never won a race, but finished on the podium (such as Nick Heidfeld). Post what you think. Editadam 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think it's necessary. The top 10 drivers in terms of total podiums and percentage podiums (plus various other statistics) are already listed at List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Podium_finishes or you can see the entire list of podium finishers by sorting the "Podiums" column in List of Formula One drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, however, in my opinion, podiums are roughly equal to poles (as poles do not directly score you points), and there is a poles page. And you could add in more information such as most 2nd places (may be excess information, in some people's opinion) and First/Last Podium. And the nationality statistics (which are important, as the flags are raised over the podium). Another idea (may be crazy) you (not you specifically, but the Project) could combine the article to also show Fastest Laps (and a few stats with that), and name it something like Formula Podium Finishers and Fastest Lap Winners. Just an idea. Editadam 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk)

Regarding the equivalent importance with poles; personally, I'd be quite happy to see the poles (and fastest laps) pages deleted - similar to podiums, there are already quite a few statistics for poles and fastest laps at List of Formula One driver records and the full list is available at List of Formula One drivers. Admittedly List of Formula One drivers doesn't have the first/last information or "how many achieved by each country" but IMO that's not especially important information. DH85868993 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have poles, & fastest laps, then have podiums. IMO fastest laps article should be deleted, and replaced by podiums, because basically fastest laps are irrelevant. They don't score you any points and just isn't significant enough to have its own page. However, with podiums they actually do count towards the Championship. Editadam 00:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fastest laps used to score points, independent of a driver's result in the race, so they're not so irrelevant after all. Podiums themselves do not count towards the championship - just the points you get for finishing in the top three. Points are the only thing that matter really. I think we need to be careful of creating yet another page of stats. I agree with DHnumbers that we should be looking to reduce the amount of these pages, not increase it. The top tens on the records article would suffice for poles, fastest laps, podiums, the lot. Stuff like "number of podiums achieved by each country" is just pointless stat porn, IMO. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur. --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any value in a separate page. Mention in a driver's bio page, or a team page, yes. Otherwise, it's junk, color commentary filler. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Formula One people

This article ^^ needs some serious updating. It seems as if some of the information is from the end of 2009, and the beginning of 2010. It doesn't even mention Virgin, Team Lotus, or HRT. Editadam 18:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What the...? Why does such an article exist? What a useless and arbitrary list. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh. I was going to comment on the blatant omissions, but that is such a glaring example of recentism, I don't need to. :D Delete it (unless you want to preserve a sample of what not to do ;p ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has been AfDed. Please add your views to the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

JJ Lehto

This article has been moved away from JJ Lehto, which I feel is the common name, with very little discussion. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not keen on it myself - discussion going on at Talk:Jyrki Järvilehto#Article name change?. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back, since there was no consensus to move it in the first place. 05:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Navbox versus succession box

There's a discussion at Village Pump which project members may find of interest. DH85868993 (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Low quality excess detail problem?

Looking at the edits this chap is making I think we have another editor who thinks that every detail of the race needs to go into our reports. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted his addition of "putting him equal seventh with Mika Hakkinen for all time pole positions on 26." Watch for triviality? Britmax (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this guy. Once in a while he makes a passable edit, but very few of them actually add anything. CS-Wolves reverts a lot of unhelpful stuff that is added, and rightly so - a lot of it is very unencyclopedic. Certainly all of this guy's edits need checking. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Renault Sport F1

A gentleman by the name of Urbanoc has gone ahead and created this article. A good shout, I'd say, seeing as we never did get around to splitting the Renault F1 article ourselves. JonC^Talk 18:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because according to Autosport this matter is still being considered by an F1 commission. And I believe we didn't "get around" to doing it because we did not attain a consensus to do so. Britmax (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What is? That Renault have sold their F1 team and remain solely as an engine supplier? That's not in doubt. If you're referring to the chassis constructor still known as "Renault", I don't see how that whole mess is really of any relevance to the engine operation that this article covers. JonC^Talk 09:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Slightly confused by what people are trying to say here, but this article is surely just like Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines? It has nothing to do with the splitting of any constructor page. This article should be about engines alone. Renault F1 remains as it is until we get an outcome from the upcoming F1 Commission meeting about the Renault and Lotus names. Once that happens we will then discuss what happens to the respective articles. But Renault Sport F1 is not caught up in any of this anyway. - mspete93 11:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. When I said "splitting Renault F1", I meant moving the part about Renault's role as an engine supplier, so the article is solely about the constructor. JonC^Talk 11:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. Some users keep going on about splitting up Renault F1 for the different phases that the constructor has gone through, so I thought that's what you were talking about. :) - mspete93 12:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the list of changes this editor has made, but can anyone see what they are using as a source, as Autosport for instance still have the issue under discussion by "an F1 commission"? Britmax (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of the naming of Team Lotus and Lotus Renault GP has no bearing on this article. Renault (the car company and engine supplier) has no stake in either team. JonC^Talk 17:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:1976 Grand Prix

I stumbled across Category:1976 Grand Prix. It seems redundant to Category:1976 Formula One race reports, and looking at adjacent years, there doesn't seem to be similar categories. Should this be deleted? Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 05:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion. Note that it's not exactly identical to Category:1976 Formula One race reports, in that it also contains some non-F1 national Grands Prix (1976 Indonesian Grand Prix, 1976 Rhodesian Grand Prix), but I still think it's unnecessary. At the very least, it should be renamed to "1976 Grands Prix" (or "1976 national Grands Prix"). DH85868993 (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

F1 calendar tables

I'm hoping someone can resolve a dispute over at the 2011 Formula One season page. A user, DeFacto, has edited links to individual race reports (ie 2011 Australian Grand Prix) into the table showing the season calendar. He claims that these are necessary edits and that they "clearly" make the page better, even though links to those pages already appear in four separate loactions on the page (season report and the three tables under results and standings). He is also reverting any edits that remove these links from the calendar table, insisting that they are a necessary addition to the page, even though they've never been done before (and I do believe the issue has been discussed before). I m hoping a few more voices can join the debate on the Talk page and end the dispute. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Formula One World Champions

I noticed this article recently and thought it seemed fairly pointless. Seems to me like barely anyone seems to know about the article and is edited roughly once a year! The article claims it is a list, yet only provides links to 3 other lists - one of which I don't see as relevant. There is nothing on it you can't find elsewhere either; I have explained further on the article's talk page if anyone is interested. I recommend that the article is nominated for deletion sharply, however this is just my opinion. Bigdon128 (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be a disambiguation page for List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions and List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions. DH85868993 (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's doing that already, under another guise. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now created a disambiguation page entitled Formula One World Champions. Seems much more convenient and useful than the "List" page to me to have that. Appropriate because Formula One World Champions are not a separate entity to Drivers' and Constructors' Champs as the "List" page implies - but should be linked to both Drivers'/Constructors' pages to help those who were actually looking for either/both of them. This page definately seems irrelevant now surely... Bigdon128 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why create a new page and presumably delete the one you don't like when simply moving a re-writing the original objectioable article would be much more expedient? --Falcadore (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

2013 season !!

I think it's time to make the 2013 season's page! Just to compare: it's one and a half years before the 2013 season, and the 2012 page already existed like three years before the season. I've seen that the page was created multiple times but was always deleted, don't know why. Someone should create a page that won't be deleted. There are plenty of information already to start the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.74.53.220 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

With today's announcement of the Grand Prix of America in Weehawken Port Imperial, New Jersey, I too believe that a 2013 season page is relevant now. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I was just about to make it, but apparently the ability to create the page has been disabled. I'm all for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I got approval for the lock to be removed, and have created the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Radical thought about GP articles

As the title shows, this is a thought, not a proposal, at least so far. But I think having e.g. Phoenix and Indy's USGPs in the same article is somewhat silly. Besides name and country, what else do they have in common? IMO nothing. Also, I think that many people think '99 European GP's previous edition was '98 Nürburgring race, the Luxembourg GP, not '97 European GP, a Jerez race. We have two articles for the former and current Team Lotuses, as the only thing in common is the name. So, in that sense I think it might be better to have articles like United States Grand Prix (Phoenix) and United States Grand Prix (Indianapolis). --August90 (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Because almost every publication, website, commentator, any form of historical record disagrees with that concept. It is not Wikipedias role to create original research. It is perhaps Wikipedias role to educate those who do not connect the history of various venues of Grands Prix.

It would also set an incredibly bad precedent. Have a look at the history of the French Grand Prix and how it moved from circuit to circuit. And the Australian Grand Prix. --Falcadore (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. It's true that most statistics don't care about circuit changes, and I started this just to see other Wikipedians opinion, not necessarily to change the naming system, if most support the current system. I recently read why Detroit GP has an own article even though it's often called as USGP (East), and I think that's a good system. Because of that I thought why there's not an own article for every GP on different circuit. I wouldn't say it would be original research, if there were an "umbrella" article, like "Formula One races in the United States", telling more general things about US races, and then there would be articles like United States Grand Prix (Phoenix), United States Grand Prix (Indianapolis), and Detroit Grand Prix, about GPs at those circuits. --August90 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this one? --Falcadore (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit like that. I take German GP as an example, as it's maybe a better example. There would be an article called "Formula One races in Germany". There would be one section that would briefly (yeah, briefly) tell the history of races called the German Grand Prix. Another section would briefly tell the history of other German F1 races. Then there would be two articles, called "German Grand Prix (Hockenheim)" and "German Grand Prix (Nürburgring)" that would tell the history of Hockenheim and Nürburgring's GP races. That's because the only things in common between those races are country and name. Nürburgring's article could also contain the history of Luxembourg GP and Nürburgring's European GPs. Also, I think that European GP's article could be only about the honorific title and there could be separate articles for the modern European GPs on different circuits, like "European Grand Prix (Valencia)" and "European Grand Prix (Donington)". "European Grand Prix (Nürburgring)" could be a redirect to "German Grand Prix (Nürburgring)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by August90 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If an event changes venue, it doesn't become a different event. To suggest otherwise would be original research, which is not allowed. Readro (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

♠It has a certain merit. I'm seeing numerous potential headaches, however. If someone searches "U.S. Grand Prix" (or "French GP"), does it land at the "umbrella" page? Or the current event's page (which would be my guess)? In that case, it seems to me, we'd need to change it, since the "umbrella" page would, by default, become the "mother page" where the history would go, & from where the other variants would link out from. It seems we'd also need to change the existing "French GP" pagename.

♠Also, does this screw up the succession boxes on the race report pages? Or does it require a bunch of new ones? That is, if the relevant page isn't "French GP", but "Rouen GP", does the box still "know" it's dealing with the French GP under other names? Do we need a "Rouen GP" box? Because, if last year wasn't Rouen, or next year wasn't, & I don't already know that, how do I find it? (Or how does the succession box know what to display? Yes, I haven't a clue how that works.)

♠Finally, does this mean duplication of information in several articles? Given the number of venues hosting the U.S. GP, does it become necessary to link out to each one to read a capsule history of a given era, then back, to pick up the thread? Or is the history of each reproduced on every page? Neither option strikes me as ideal... Yes, probably the "mother" page would cover it all, & there'd be linkouts to each era from each subpage... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@Readro: I’m not sure whether you can say that e.g. Indianapolis and Austin USGPs are the same event. I assume nobody will say next year before USGP that Schumacher and Hamilton have won that race previously, as that’s happened at Indy, even though they are USGP winners. I think nowadays many people think about the circuit when they talk about a certain race, they don’t necessarily think about the title of the race. If I remember correctly, there were rumours some years ago that Spa would be going to be called Luxembourg GP for some commercial reasons. (maybe tobacco advertisement) In that case I think the race would’ve been the same event for most people despite different title.

Anyway, in the past, when two races in the same country was more special, it was more obvious that the event is the same even if the venue would change. But nowadays the importance of the title has decreased. E.g. Luxembourg GP became European GP, as Jerez didn’t anymore host a race with that name. And the purpose of the “umbrella “ article would be to retain the connection between races with similar title but different location. --August90 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a total non-starter. No other source does this, so we can't do it either. The US GP is the US GP, regardless of the track. The only time we disambiguated further with the US GP East etc was when there was more than one GP in the US in a season. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Circuit maps

Hey guys,

Looking through the pages, we still need a few circuit maps to be drawn up for articles. Port Imperial Street Circuit and Sochi Olympic Park Circuit in particular need them; the Port Imperial one is a bit crude (and, being a street circuit, it doesn't really show landforms the way other street circuit maps do), and Sochi doesn't have a map at all. And I believe the Silverstone map is still mislabelled.

I'd do it myself, but I'm hopeless with graphics programs. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

American Grand Prize

In the German Wikipedia, the history of American Grand Prize was included in the article of Grand Prix of America. What do you think, should we do the same here? My favourite system would be an own article for Amrican Grand Prize, for the reasons you can see from a previous discussion I started. But as that isn't apparently possible, I think American Grand Prize should stay in USGP article, it was more of a USGP's precessor then GP of America's. Also, adjective American may refer to something from the Americas, or to my understand also to something from USA, and in that case it refers to USA, in my opinion. But one thing to be noticed is that first US World Championship round, 1959 United States Grand Prix, was officially the 2nd USGP, counting had been started from first race called United States Grand Prix. --August90 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Category nominated for deletion

Category:Formula One drivers who entered a race but did not start has been nominated for deletion. Please add any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Template:Formula One circuits

There's a bit of an edit dispute going on over at Template:Formula One circuits regarding the names used in the actual template.

The dispute is centered on the Port Imperial Street Circuit. Officialy, the circuit has no name. When the Circuit of the Americas page was created, it was created under name "Austin Formula One circuit" until such time as the circuit was named, and it was promptly relocated. When the Port Imperial Street Circuit page was created, it was created under the same logic: it was named after the nearest geographic feature - the Port Imperial transit hub, which is adjacent to the start/finish line - until such time as the circuit was officially named (though a source that pre-dates the page referring to the circuit as "Port Imperial" has since been found).

The problem stems from the name that is used in the actual template box. Some people keep describing the circuit as "New Jersey", while others are calling it "Port Imperial". I believe that it should be the latter, because of the aforementioned source, and also because "New Jersey" can describe an entire state. Those who believe that it should be called "New Jersey" in the tempalte box do so because they "do not want people to get confused" and also because some pages are known by the name of the cities they are in.

This begs two questions:

1) How should the Port Imperial circuit appear in the template? Should it be New Jersey, or should it be Port Imperial?

2) How should the other circuits appear? For example, the Circuit Cilles Villeneuve is listed as Montreal, and the Circuit de Catalunya is given as Barcelona. But the Marina Bay circuit is named as Marina Bay, not Singapore.

This is something that I think needs to be addressed, and I'm hoping we can come to a consensus because there is no discussion on the template talk page, and a lot of the edits are coming from IPs. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Team names in F1 driver infoboxes

I notice that User:DeFacto has "corrected" the "Team" fields in some of the current F1 driver infoboxes from the constructor name (e.g. "Red Bull-Renault") to the team name (e.g. "Red Bull Racing"). Rather than just reverting the changes, I thought it was worth having the discussion (again) about what we actually want to see in that field (i.e. the team name or the constructor name) and if it's the constructor name, then whether we need to change the field text. Discuss. DH85868993 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm likely in the minority, but I've always seen the teams referred to my constructor, not entrant. It seems to me changing that here, when it appears not to be the common usage, is both confusing for general readers & unnecessary. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But some drivers ran for privateer teams that were not constructors. How is it less confusing to a casual reader to list some drivers as "Cooper-Something" when they never drove for the Cooper team, simply in a purchased Cooper car? The³5₉ (Talk) 03:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One point to clarify: The existing conventions are different for current and former drivers:

• For current drivers, the convention (prior to DeFacto's edits) was: "Team: make-engine", e.g. Jérôme d'Ambrosio's infobox says "Team: Virgin-Cosworth"
• Former drivers have a list of makes (without engines) but sometimes with an indication of non-works entries, e.g. Alain Prost's infobox says "Teams: McLaren, Renault, Ferrari, Williams" but Stirling Moss's says "Teams: Mercedes-Benz, Maserati, Vanwall, Rob Walker Cooper, Lotus & HWM".

For former drivers, I favour retaining the list of makes, but changing the field text from "Teams" to "Cars" (or maybe "Makes"). So Prost's infobox would say:

Cars: McLaren, Renault, Ferrari, Williams

I don't favour changing the text to "Constructors" due to the ambiguity over whether it means "chassis constructor" or "chassis+engine combination". For current drivers, I would not be averse to listing both the team and the car, e.g. d'Ambrosio's infobox could say:

Team: Marussia Virgin Racing

Car: Virgin-Cosworth

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with privateers being treated differently. I had the impression this was mainly a question of team drivers. (OTOH, in the '50s, teams appear to've been quite a bit bigger, or the "official" list of drivers a bit looser...) I'm not going to squawk if entrant is used, but I would say including constructor would be desirable. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited just the McLaren, Renault and Willams drivers' articles to be consistent with those of the Red Bull drivers. The table field is titled "Team", so that's what I was putting in there - the team name from the team page. Is the terminology ambiguous again? -- de Facto (talk). 08:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Red Bull drivers' infoboxes were the ones which were non-standard. Never mind. I guess it just goes to reinforce that the current convention is confusing. (And I have to confess that I'm the one who updated the infobox documentation with a non-standard example. Damn.) DH85868993 (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Defunct teams do not use constructors terminology - and for good reason. I personally see no reason why this should not be extended to current race teams. Explaining why the difference between the two cases is difficult to justify, but it should perhaps be noted that the field is called Short Name for a reason and fully sponsored titles should be left to one side. --Falcadore (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have stalled. So I have reverted DeFacto's changes and updated the Red Bull drivers' articles (and the template documentation) so now at least all the 2011 season driver articles are consistent. DH85868993 (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title of that box be "Constructor" then, rather than "Team" - if it isn't to be used for the team name? -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Input requested

I'd appreciate some other editors providing input to this discussion: Talk:List of Formula One driver records#"Highest percentage of races finished in the points" table which now also encompasses other "percentage" tables and how to count shared drives. At the moment there are just of two of us, so we're not making much progress. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are young driver tests notable?

I've noticed something odd on the F1 season pages of late: a team's test and reserve drivers are listed in the driver table, but their young drivers are not. I find this an oddity, because the young drivers actually do some testing while the designated test and reserve drivers do not. For example, Renault have Senna, Grosjean, Fauzy, Tung and Charouz listed as their current test and reservists, but at least three of them have not actually driven the car this year - not even in a straight line (the way Wickens and Quaife-Hobbs did for Virgin). So I propose that we either add young drivers to the driver table (possibly in an extra column), or we limit the definition of "test and reserve driver" to drivers who actually drive the car, or are designated as reserve drivers in the event of regular driver being unable to take part. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I say we limit the test and reserve drivers to those who actually test the car (especially since there will be more frequent tests in 2012), and those designated as the 3rd driver, who will take the place of a regular driver if they are unable to take part. Then add in another column in the table & include young drivers, or better yet, add another sub-section in the text below the table and state the young drivers for each team (briefly). Editadam 12:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Another alternative is to remove the test drivers entirely. They take no part in the races. While they may assist in the development of the cars away from the races so do the designers, the aerodynamicists, the mechanics, the drafters, the engineers and team management but we don't list them. Test drivers are part of the support teams, so perhaps the question should be, do we list all of the support and testing teams, or do we list none of them. --Falcadore (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. It is the DRIVERS table! Do aerodynamicists DRIVE the car? Do test drivers DRIVE, or have the potential to DRIVE in the case of a 3rd driver? The table is for teams and drivers. It doesn't matter about whether some people think they are irrelevant, they still DRIVE the car, as is the purpose of the table, to list the DRIVERS of the car! Editadam 04:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is, test drivers don't drive the cars in the races either. Test sesssions are not part of the the season. Does a list of world boxing champions include their sparring partners? --Falcadore (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the chart is to summarize the 2011 season. If they test drivers aren't playing a major role in the 2011 season, they're not really relevant to an already cluttered chart. I do however think the Friday drivers are worth inclusion as they are actually assisting the team during a GP weekend. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only "assisting the team", but also actually taking part in the weekend. - mspete93 10:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The others that have actually driven the car should also be included (with the exception of the Young Driver Test), because one could argue that they have contributed to the team's R&D. And as I said, the table is a list of the teams DRIVERS and the test DRIVERS that have actually contributed should be included.Editadam 12:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Test Drivers/ Third Drivers?

Noticed recently that on the career results of many teams and drivers, a box displaying 'TD' often appears. Does this mean Test Driver, or does it mean Third Driver? There doesn't seem to be anything in any of these articles to clarify this. Bigdon128 (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"TD" stands for "Friday Test Driver", as specified in the key which is usually linked above the table. DH85868993 (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed this now, thanks for your help. Bigdon128 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

2013 Formula One season

I notice this article has been started but not claimed by the project yet. No problem, but GP's for this year which as yet have no contract are listed. I do not think this is a good idea as it impacts on the point in the organisation of a GP at which the chances of it happening become high enough for it to be included in such an article. Comments? Britmax (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Going two years out & talking like any part of it is a sure thing? Who's writing this, Kreskin? Can you say crystal ball? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the article for WP:F1. DH85868993 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Trekphiler, the article was created because it was felt that we had enough information to justify creating it. While it is in the future, pains have been taken to ensure that the only information that has been included in it is information that has been confirmed. Yes, all of that information could change next week, or next month, or next year, but that is no reason not to create the article in the first place - it can be updated and new information becomes available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I drew this to the attention of the project not because I felt that the article was premature (it's actually more like a year and a bit away than two when you think about it). We have enough information for a start article on the 2013 season but I feel that some of the information is not yet strong enough to feature in the article, for example the GP's with no contract for 2013. Britmax (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

F1 driver infobox discussions

I've started a discussion about the possible addition of place of birth/death to the F1 driver infobox. Please contribute any thoughts you may have on the matter at Template talk:Infobox F1 driver#Place of birth/death. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've also started a discussion about whether or not the F1 driver infobox occupies too much screen space. Please contribute any thoughts you may have on the matter at Template talk:Infobox F1 driver#Too much screen space?. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Kubica crash.jpg

There is an ongoing Non-free content review about File:Kubica crash.jpg (used in the articles Robert Kubica, Canadian Grand Prix and 2007 Canadian Grand Prix) at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Kubica crash.jpg. Your comments there would be appreciated. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

First/last race

Bernie Ecclestone has a first/last race listed despite never qualifying. Damon Hill's infobox states that the British GP was his first but he was a driver earlier in the season, not qualifying for 1992 Spanish GP. Should a driver's first/last race be noted as the first event in which they were registered to drive or the first in which they competed in the race proper? violet/riga _^[talk] 18:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say first entry, not first start, but the most important thing is to have consistency across the whole project.--Midgrid(talk) 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should be stating the first and last entries in the infobox, not the first and last starts. I think the vast majority of the infoboxes are already set up this way. Any others should be changed for consistency. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's first/last entry, as it says in the template documentation. DH85868993 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Last season fields in infoboxes

When do we want to update the "Last season" fields in the team and driver infoboxes from 2010 to 2011? Now? January 1? After the first race of 2012? Or is that information even useful? I've always thought it would be more useful to have the current season points and championship position in the infobox rather than the values for the previous season. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just done them; if anyone wants to revert them, feel free to do so.--Kingjamie (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The logo of Matra - the only F1 champion without logo !!

Please could anybody help me with inserting the logo of Matra in the article about Matra ? It is amusing and very odd that every F1 constructors champion from Vanwall to Red Bull (and also almost every other F1 constructor) has in his article the logo, only Matra (champion from 1969 season) not. Did nobody notice this ?? The logo of Matra I found at website http://auta5p.eu/katalog/matra/matra.htm I am only a beginner here at wikipedia, I am inexperienced and moreover I am not native English speaker, I come from Slovakia, so I understand hard english legal picture issue and licence matters. What should I technically do, step by step, to insert this picture in the article about Matra? I am keen F1 fan. Could anybody experienced more than I am download this picture from http://auta5p.eu/katalog/matra/matra.htm and then upload and put the logo in the article about Matra, instead of me ?? Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucullus19 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, & hoping using the logo doesn't create copyright issues I'm unaware of. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Beware of renaming of team pages!

The name changes surrounding three of the F1 teams appears to have been approved, pending an official announcement [11]. For us, this means lots of attempts at renaming articles, or creating new ones. Presumably none of the names will change until the end of the season, meaning none of the articles should be renamed just yet. So I would suggest trying to get Renault F1, Team Lotus (current) and Virgin Racing locked until then. - mspete93 17:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Autosport article does specifically state that the FIA has not yet approved the team name changes, therefore nothing has officially happened. This therefore is fair warning for my reversion of the team titles in the 2012 Formula One season article. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just as importantly, should we create new articles if/when the name changes come into effect? I think Lotus/Caterham and Virgin/Marussia can safely be renamed, but what about Lotus Renault GP?--Midgrid(talk) 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you've opened a mess there Midgrid. I agree with renaming Lotus/Caterham and Virgin/Marussia - just a re-imaging, but Lotus Renault GP adds a problem. If we create a new article, should it start from 2010 with the new owners, 2011 with the Group Lotus partnership, or from 2012 with the new name? With it being renamed from Renault the team that forms next year shouldn't stay on the Renault F1 article - there is no longer any continuation with the Renault owned team. Incidentally, the current Renault F1 article is a confusing mess. QueenCake (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We should definitely move the Renault article now the name is going to change, but the question is at what point will the new article start? My bet would be a new article from next year, but other alternatives would also have merit, I suspect. Easy to just rename the other two articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't possibly continue with the same Renault F1 article. We'll need to wait for the team to tell us what it's actually going to call itself first though (Lotus GP? Team Lotus?). Results and stats wise, the new article should start from 2012, but a section will certainly be needed in the article text explaining the story up to now. - mspete93 21:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, just looking at Renault F1 - who on earth has done that to it? It really ought to be in chronological order when we 'leave it', so to speak. - mspete93 21:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are some of these changes necessary, though? Take the case of Virgin Racing - they're being changed to Marussia, but nothing else has changed. As near as I can tell, everyone is staying within the team; there might be a few minor staffing changes, but Manor Motorsport is still running the team. Likewise Team Lotus - they're just changing their name. Everything else remains the same, so I think we could just move the page. Renault is the only one that might cause trouble. For now, I've made a note on the 2012 season page that the name changes have been accepted pending a final approval from the WMSC. That should acknowledge the planned name changes, and the way that it is not yet official. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the founder of Wikiproject Formula One on Polish Wikipedia and I'm totally surprised. When Mercedes took control over Brawn, also "nothing else has changed". And why not to integrate Jordan, Midland, Spyker and Force India? Or Tyrrell, BAR, Honda, Brawn and Mercedes? Constructor's name is the most important, so when that's name changes, also new article should be created. BTW that's the reason why "old" Lotus and Fernandes' Lotus are integrated on Polish Wikipedia - they have nothing in common, but constructor's name is "Lotus", and statistics of Lotus Racing/Team Lotus (2011) are counted together with "old" Lotus - majority of Formula One portals including chicanef1 are also doing so. Greetings, Yurek88 (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you (and the others) going to do next year when the Renault team is renamed Lotus? Add their 2012 stats to the other Lotus stats? Merging Team Lotus and Fernandes' stats was always going to end in disaster. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no consistency in the approach to if/when new articles are created. My view is that the unit of stability, "an article", should be the team itself - not the "current team trading name" or "constructor name". That could equate to the registered company number, for the UK-based teams (8 of the 12) at least. That would mean changing the article title from time to time to time to match the company's registered name, but with no name changes for "trading name" changes or "constructor name" changes. The "current trading name" and "current constructor name" could be in the lead and in the infobox of the article. This would allow team development, performance and history to be documented consistently. If this resulted in an excessively large article, or complex overlaps of names and ownerships then an overwiew article linking to specific sub-articles could be used. This could also provide a solution for what to do about the current Renault F1 article: a "Renault in F1" overview article would have sections linking to a separate article about the original 1977 team, to another article about the Enstone team under Renault (also linked under an overview article about that team's evolution under its various guises from Toleman to Benetton to Renault to Lotus) and to the article Renault Sport F1, about the current Renault engine operation. The article on the team now called Red Bull Racing would document its progress as Stewart, Jaguar then Red Bull. The Lotus/Lotus-Renault/Team Lotus/Caterham situation could also be accommodated with this model. We need to do something to shake this through, and with the impending multiple name changes, now seems like a good time to re-group into something sustainable. Thoughts? -- de Facto (talk). 11:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That would suggest that the likes of Stewart and Red Bull, or Toleman and Group Lotus, have anything in common at all, which they don't. The connection between Toleman and 2012's Lotus team is totally lost on everyone but us F1 geeks, and even then it's incredibly tenuous, so why should they share an article? Red Bull and Toro Rosso have more in common with each other than Stewart and Red Bull. There isn't any consistency in how articles are moved / renamed or new ones created, because there's no consistency in how teams are renamed or started up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Bretonbanquet here, arguably there is no link whatsoever between teams over such a long period - particularly the Toleman to Renault, when the team isn't even in the same town anymore. And not to mention Toleman competed against the original Renault team, so we'll have an article about two teams competing against each other! We do just have to make each decision on a case-by-case basis. Mostly, like the recent Jordan to Force India transition, new owners come in and change the names so there is a nice clean cut. In this case, Lotus have made a complete hash of it. My idea is that we have an overlap between the Renault and soon-to-be New Lotus pages, covering the time they were badged Renault but owned by Genii (who apparently now own Lotus.). QueenCake (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The current Lotus-Renault GP team has a direct line of descent from the Toleman team. True, during the period that Benetton owned the team, they moved 10 miles from Witney to larger premises in Enstone, still in Oxfordshire, but I doubt that led to much of a personnel change. As you say, Toleman competed against Renault, but that Renault team has no relationship to the current one (soon to be Lotus) other than the name. Even the company registration number of Toleman has followed through - it is the same number now for Lotus-Renault GP as it was for Toleman then Benetton and then Renault - it is still fundamentally the same company and team - with just a different nameplate over the door. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the current team personnel have worked there since the Toleman days. -- de Facto (talk). 15:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Toleman competed against Renault, but that Renault team has no relationship to the current one (soon to be Lotus) other than the name." You can't really expect the casual reader to understand that concept. A line of descent yes, but I disagree that it's the same company - a company registration number doesn't count for a lot, in my opinion. These things are handed down through convenience, like personnel and premises, rather than a deliberate policy of maintaining the same company through various owners. They are to all intents and purposes, different teams. Certainly all other sources count them as different teams, and we can't just go our own way even if we wanted to. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But a team's most important (and valuable) asset is its personnel. The people are the main reason that teams are bought and evolved rather than being created from scratch. Benetton cars evolved from Toleman cars, Renault cars evolved from Benetton cars and Lotus cars will evolve from Renault cars. The main facilitators of these evolutions are the people (including drivers) who are crried over in the transitions. The team name may change and less frequently the so-called "constructor" name may also change - but people (the "team") carry on across name changes. That's not to say that we can only have one article per company registration number, but I think that an overview article at that level would help clarify some issues be a good idea. -- de Facto (talk). 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not true. A team's main asset and practically the only reason that teams are bought and sold, rather than started from scratch, is the whopping price payable for an entry into F1. Far cheaper to buy a team which has an existing entry than to start a new team and fork out the £50 million or whatever it is yourself. In a lot of cases, it's the entry that's bought, and the rest of it is basically incidental. A good example is the Minardi / Toro Rosso deal - the team only remained in Faenza because it was a condition of the purchase. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That would imply that anyone willing and able to pay the entry fee could have enjoyed the same immediate success that Renault did after they bought the Toleman/Benetton team, but without the benefit of the facilities, techology and particularly knowledge and experience of the carry-over personnel.

What I should have added above too is that I believe we need to avoid making the same mistake again as was made with the outgoing Renault team, that of incorporating it into a pre-existing article which happened to cover a previous, but unrelated, team of the same name from the past. The last thing we need is a huge and unwieldy Lotus article attempting to suggest that the Toleman/Benetton/Renault/Lotus team (or the Lotus Racing/Team Lotus team) are a continuum of the historic Team Lotus. -- de Facto (talk). 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your first point, it's got nothing to do with any success or lack thereof, and you risk getting way too deeply into what should be kept as simple as possible, so that readers who don't know that much about the sport can understand it fairly readily. To your second point, the 2011 Renault team was a very blurred continuation of the original team owned and run by Renault. We could never decide on where any cut-off point was, that's the whole problem. The constructor name remained the same throughout, so we (so far) treated it as a continuation of the same team. It is at least vaguely logical in that respect, and it is not "unrelated". On your last point, I agree, and that's why we were one of the wikis which kept Team Lotus and Fernandes' tail-end Charlies separate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just the 2011 Lotus-Renault team that I meant as unrelated to the earlier Renault team, it was the Toleman/Benetton/Renault team from 2002. They had no Renault DNA (as the new Lotus team has no Lotus DNA). Ownership means nothing - it's the team heritage and culture that prevails. That team should either be in a separate article, with an overview only and "see main article" in the Renault F1 article (and in an overview article of the Toleman/Benetton/Renault(/Lotus team story). -- de Facto (talk). 20:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ownership means nothing? The thing is, that's just your opinion. Every source under the sun merges the 1980s Renault stats with the 2002 Renault stats, up to and including the 2011 stats. I don't know what you mean by DNA - when a team is sold it becomes whatever the new owners want it to be - there's no line of succession in business like that. To all sources, the Toleman, Benetton and Renault teams are different teams, and lumping them into the same article, while separating other Renault incarnations into different articles is just not workable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about stats, I see no problem with grouping them by owner - if that's the "sport standard". By DNA I mean the team's heritage, identity and traditions. Different owners and different management do, of course, exert influence over a team's direction, like different owners, managers or coaches of a soccer team. Yes, I know soccer teams aren't renamed each time the ownership changes, but that is why I chose that example - the team remains the same team regardless. A much simpler article structure, and less complex and more easily maintainable articles, would result if we separated out each incarnation of a given team, and then had overviews and "see main article" links in the articles related to the different contexts of the "team". e.g. a "Renault 2002-2010 F1 team" article linked under a "Renault in F1" article (which would also link to "Renault 1977-1985 F1 team" and "Renault F1 engines" articles) and also linked in a "The Witney/Enstone F1 Team" article. The current nightmare of re-work and ambiguity each time teams rename would disappear. -- de Facto (talk). 10:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also my opinion would be to have separate article e.g. for the Renault teams and the Mercedes teams, as in both cases there have been two different teams representing the mother company's brand in F1. But, in that case there should be consistency with other articles. I previously proposed splitting GP articles into separate articles for GPs with same name but different venue, but there was much opposition for that proposal, arguing Wikipedia's role isn't create original research. I think this is a similar case. The only things in common between the two Renault teams were name and owner,as well as the only thing in common between Hockenheim and Nürburgring German GPs is the name. In both cases, I wouldn't call separate articles original research, especially as there would be an "umbrella" article about Renault in F1 or German GPs. But, Wikipedia's policy in GP articles seems to be that if races held in different venues by different organizations are considered to be the same race by statistics databases, Wikipedia also considers them to be the same race. So, in that sense a team should be considered to be the same if it's considered to be the same by statistics databases. --August90 (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for Protection on 2012 season page

There were half a dozen edits changing the team names overnight, which had to be referted. I've put in a request at WP:RFP to get temporary protection until the WMSC meeting in December. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protected 1 month, let me know if you want to go to full  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Name changes confirmed

The FIA have now confirmed the name changes [12], including the team names as well as the chassis names. Team Lotus becomes Caterham F1 Team, Virgin Racing becomes Marussia F1 Team while Lotus Renault GP remains Lotus Renault GP - which bloody complicates matters! Lotus Renault GP press release here: http://www.lotusrenaultgp.com/7648-LRGP-to-adopt-Lotus-chassis-name.html - mspete93 15:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I would remind everyone that until the World Motorsports Council ratifies this decision at a meeting on the 7th December these changes are not set in stone no matter how much of a formality this may seem to be. Britmax (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume for the moment that the changes absolutely will go through. We need to rename a few pages, and I think it's best to have a discussion on that now so that we have a plan in place for December. Virgin/Marussia is an easy enough one, but it's the Lotuses that cause trouble.

I suggest that we move the current Team Lotus page to something like "Team Lotus (2011)", and create a new page for Caterham. As for the Renault/Lotus swap, they are not becoming Team Lotus. Since the official name of the team will be "Lotus Renault GP", I suggest we create a new page called "Lotus GP" or "Lotus Grand Prix" for the team in order to differentiate it from Team Lotus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not use Lotus Renault GP, it already exists as a redirect, and it is the team's actual name? And for the other two use Caterham F1 Team and Marussia F1 Team - keep it simple. -- de Facto (talk). 23:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I would advise caution with the team names, as they could change before the 2012 entry list is announced. Lotus Renault GP, in particular, could well lose the 'Renault' bit. - mspete93 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

de Facto, the "Lotus Renault GP" name cannot be used because the constructor name will be "Lotus", not "Lotus Renault". It's the reason why the McLaren page is "McLaren", and not "McLaren Mercedes". We can, however, use the "GP" in "Lotus Renault GP", because we often use these neutral qualifiers for pages. For example, "Virgin" is the constructor name, but we title the page "Virgin Racing" to distinguish it from every other page connected to the Virgin group. In this case, "Renault" refers to something very specific: Renault, the car manufacturer - who no longer have an involvement in the ownership and running of the team (except to supply engines), so we cannot include them in the title of the page. "GP" and "Grand Prix", however, are neutral terms that are a part of the official team name, so we can use them for the page title.

mspete93, that's why I suggested we discuss it now instead of later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, 'Lotus' has aleady gone, so we need a compromise. The natural name for the team article is the name of the team: "Lotus Renault GP". Afer all, the article covers more than just the team in the context of its constructor name, which could also change. That, of course, won't stop wlinks for it in terms of its current constructor name being formed as Lotus, and even having "Lotus GP", or whatever, as redirects - if we think anyone else would think of that. -- de Facto (talk). 10:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But Renault has no involvement in the team anymore. They supply the engines, but the constructor name is being changed to "Lotus". We can't create a page that suggests they do. That's why I'm proposing we create a new page called "Lotus Grand Prix", which is a neutral name, and one that would be separate from Team Lotus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It is still the team's official name - use that until it changes or until some other name becomes "common use". It's not our job to dream-up names based on our opinions. We can describe what the team are currently using as their "constructor" name early in the article lead, with support and discussion later in the article. -- de Facto (talk). 11:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no rush to change the page. We have until December to do it. You say "it's not our job to dream up names based on our opinions" - but nor is it our job to give pages names that misrepresent a subject. Calling a page "Lotus Renault GP" implies that Renault are still involved with the team beyond being an engine manufacturer when they are not. McLaren's official team name is "McLaren Mercedes", but that's not what their page is called. So why should we do it to Lotus Renault? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

mspete, if the team is renamed we can move the article again. It seems natuaral to have the article named after the team, rather than have some "made up name", which isn't used anywhere else, and which needs redirects every time it is used. The constructor name currently in use by that team can, of course, (and indeed should be) be prominent in the lead of the article. -- de Facto (talk). 10:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that we shouldn't just make up any old name. If we are going to cut Renault from the name we must use "GP" and not "Grand Prix. However, my point was that in the current situation, the team would still have the same name in 2012 as it does in 2011, but that this could well change. That's why we need to be cautious. The question is where do we split the team's history? Between 2010 and 2011? Or between 2011 and 2012? I don't think we'll know for sure until we see what reliable sources (such as F1.com) do with stats etc. - mspete93 13:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One split we should make is between 2010 and 2011, when Renault dropped out and the team's name changed to Lotus Renault GP. And why not call that new article "Lotus Renault GP"? If the team name changes again then we can rename the new article again. -- de Facto (talk). 13:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the FIA have released an official statement announcing the changes of team names here. I would imagine this means team renaming issues do not need to go to the WMSC, and for now at least these are the team names. I suggest we can make the moves to Caterham and Marussia at least. QueenCake (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you "would imagine" is not a reliable source, it's a posh way of guessing. And why change two of them and not the other one? The WMSC meeting is still on the 7th of December. Britmax (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't need to imagine anything when we already have the most reliable source we use, the FIA, stating that the name changes have been been agreed for 2012. Saying "would imagine" was a mistake on my part, the issue has been decided without the WMSC. I said change two of them because there's no debate over Caterham and Marussia - unlike Lotus Renault whatever. QueenCake (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm with QueenCake here. If the governing body has confirmed it, surely that makes it official? However, the name changes are with regard to 2012, and the 2011 season has not yet finished. So we shouldn't go moving either of those just yet. - mspete93 17:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point there Mspete, since they're still the same for now I'll take back saying to move them. That is confirmation at least to have the changes on the 2012 page. QueenCake (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, we won't be moving anything at least until the season is over, and probably by then more obvious names will have become apparent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a good basic rule could be that when a team changes its name, the page will be moved if the team retains its identity and a new page will be created if the team doesn't retain its identity. My opinion would be that Lotus Renault GP article should start from '11, as the team changed its identity before this season. Caterham F1 Team doesn't need a new article in my opinion, it's mainly a name change, Caterham became part of their identity already this year. Marussia/Virgin is a more complicated case. The team's identity has changed significantly from '11, but that change has been gradual. Of course, one can argue that Lotus/Caterham's identity has changed as much, but Virgin/Marussia has also had an ownership change. I'd start a new article for Marussia F1 Team from 2012. --August90 (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say Marussia/Virgin is the simplest case really. Marussia were involved from the start of the project, it's only now they are swapping the chassis name from Virgin, the team is under the same ownership it has been since last year (at least). QueenCake (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Marussia weren't there at the start, they came in for 2011. If we want to have a precedent, we can think about MF1->Spyker MF1->Spyker. --August90 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Marussia sponsored the team in 2010; they just weren't a title sponsor. JonC^Talk 19:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"BBC Sport understands Renault's new name will be Lotus F1 Team" [13]. Nothing official of course, but suggests that there will be a change of name. - mspete93 17:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. How unoriginal. That will make six teams with "F1 Team" in their official title in 2012. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well.. they are F1 teams. As for Lotus, given that "Team Lotus" and "Lotus Racing" aren't really possible, they weren't left with a lot. "Lotus F.C." would have been a surprise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

True, but I was hoping for something imaginitive. Like maybe "Caterham Grand Prix Engineering" (USF1 was briefly known as USGPE for commercial reasons - Bernie) or "Marussia Factory Racing" (which works for Yamaha in MotoGP). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the name of article Team Lotus (current) should be renamed Team Lotus (2011). "Current" is not a very good specification, especially since it won't be current much longer now. A new article should be created for the Caterham team of next year. Formion (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If the team is currently named Team Lotus, then it is still current. What happens in the future has nothing to do with "current". The³5₉ (Talk) 20:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Entry list published

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2011/Pages/f1-entry-2012.aspx

Lotus Renault GP is Lotus F1 Team, Caterham isn't Caterham F1 Team but Team Caterham, and Virgin is still in Marussia team's name. At least Fernandes mentioned name Caterham F1 Team last weekend. --August90 (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And Caterham is changed back to Caterham F1 Team --August90 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There were talk about new articles/renaming old articles at Team Lotus's discussion page, but I think we can continue it here because we have that issue with two other teams, too. In my opinion Lotus -> Caterham can be done by renaming, it's still the same team owned by same people, their F1 cars just have a new name. Virgin -> Marussia is another case in my opinon. At the start of 2010 Marussia was only a sponsor, but now they are a shareholder. The only question is where to split the team's history, ownership structure changed before 2011 as well as team's nationality, whereas chassis name changed between 2011 and 2012. Midland -> Spyker could be a precedent, Spyker bought the team in '06 but the cars became Spykers not before '07, and that's why Spyker MF1's results are in MF1 article.

Most obvious situation is with Renault -> Lotus, Lotus F1 Team doesn't belong to Renault F1 article. So, new article for Lotus F1 Team, and besides I think Renault F1 could be renamed to Renault in Formula One, in style of BMW and Alfa Romeo. But season '11 is the problematic one. Had the team been called Lotus Renault GP next year, '11 could've been included in that LRGP article, as I think it doesn't belong to Renault article any more than BMW Sauber's '10 season would belong to BMW article. Also, I wouldn't say it would be wrong to include '11 season to Lotus F1 Team's article, their situation is much the same than Team Lotus/Caterham's.

Anyway, I think we'll end up using the same principles as most statistics pages, to avoid confusion. Some reliable statistics might even claim Lotus F1 Team's previous start was at Australia '94, and if most sources used that, then we'd obviously have to consider Lotus F1 Team as original Team Lotus's precessor. --August90 (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Driver Salaries Page

I tried to find out current F1 driver salaries on Wikipedia, and it turned out this didn't exist. Any thoughts on whether it should exist, and also on how we should link to it (presumably from drivers' pages - I tried to get to it through Raikkonen's page). EdwardRussell (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would we want a page listing F1 driver salaries? If anyone can find a reference to a particular driver's salary, then it belongs on that particular driver's article, not anywhere else. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Added to which, any salary details are likely purely speculation or off-the-record misinformation supplied by whomsoever is negotiating a contract that week. Pyrope 22:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass image deletion

Just a heads-up that several dozen F1 images, mostly from this season, have been deleted from the Commons as a result of this request.--Midgrid(talk) 17:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 Formula One Season signed drivers

Someone keeps adding Vitaly Petrov to the Lotus line-up for next year despite the fact that he is unconfirmed by Lotus and the FIA notice only mentioned Raikkonen. The reference used is the year-old contract announcement but recent reports have made it clear that there are strained negotiations going on between Petrov's manager and Lotus and it's likely that Petrov will be somewhere else next year. Someone still insists on incorrectly editing the page to have Petrov on Lotus's driver line-up. I was wondering what everyone else thinks about it and I'm a fairly inexperienced Wikipedia editor so I was wondering how I would go about rectifying the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAussieDigger (talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

First, you were asked to look at the discussion here, which has already been ongoing for a while. Second, the FIA entry list is proof of nothing, as can be seen by their lack of Pedro de la Rosa at HRT. Recent reports simply indicate that it is up to Petrov to determine if he wants to remain at Renault, however the "likelihood" is not something for us to determine. Third, no, it is not "someone" who insists on retaining Petrov in the signed drivers chart, it in fact so far has been about five people who have had to revert your edits and tell you to discuss things on the talk page. See the article history for all the explanations and warnings you've been given for your edits. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice source of free 1935 Spanish GP photos

I've found this website wich contains photos of the Spanish province of Gipuzkoa under the license CC BY-SA 3.0, and there's a collection of photos taken in the Circuito Lasarte. The photo's footnotes only say "Automobile Race in the Circuito Lasarte", but the 1935 ones are clearly taken during the 1935 Spanish GP (the numbers of the cars in the photos are the same than the ones in the race results). There are some 1935 photos of Mercedes-Benz, Auto Union and Ferrari cars and pilots that can be useful.--Darz Mol (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes in driver table

I have to bring this up over here, because we're just going around in circles over at 2012 Formula One season.

As has been noted, several users keep editing a footnote into the driver table claiming that Vitaly Petrov has an uncertain future for 2012. This, I feel, seriously undermines the entire point of the article because it effectively says "He is in the table, but this is why he should not be". The major problem with this is that they claim they are trying to establish a precedent for future articles - but their major argument all along has been "Petrov has a contract, but contracts are broken all the time". If this is true, then we need a footnote for each and every driver, because they could theoretically have their contract terminated at any time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

1994 Season

Just a heads up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.70.207 (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG superseded by Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One?

A discussion regarding this issue has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#WP:MOSFLAG_superseded_by_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One.3F. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea whether anyone else has an opinion on this, but I'm sick of people trying to over-interpret the MoS, pretend that it is a set of hard-and-fast rules that must always be applied, and then try and impose those views on all editors across every project. It's one of the nasty parts of Wikipedia that has gown up in the last 5 years and frankly makes my editing here much less frequent. Pyrope 15:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we are all working for Wikipedia, not for WikiProject Formula One. I'm not saying that MOS is a hard and fast rule, but at the same time I think there is good reasoning for following MOS most of the time. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Pyrope - the guideline has so many gaping holes in it, big enough to drive a bus through, yet we get people pretending that it's ironclad and non-negotiable, using arguments that wouldn't wash in a primary school. I don't even love the flags, but I detest this Wikibullying attitude of "I don't like this so I'm pushing to remove it even in places where I never go". If any of these people had 'ever edited an F1 article, I would mind less. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why someone hasn't just gone and inserted a note over at WP:MOSFLAG? Longwayround (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Championship leader in Championship tables

This was an idea a while ago by Pretty Green, but it never fully developed, and ended sort of open. I think it is a good idea and should be integrated into the Drivers' and Constructors' tables in the season pages. The idea was to have grey boxes around the championship leader after every round; which would give a reader more of a connection with the season as it progressed. It would help in telling the story of the season, by not really adding a lot to the table. It would put an emphasis on the competitiveness of a season (such as 2010) or the domination of a season (such as 2011).

Pos Driver BHR AUS MAL CHN ESP MON TUR CAN EUR GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN JPN KOR BRA ABU Points 1 Fernando Alonso 1 4 13† 4 2 6 8 3 8 14 1 2 Ret 1 1 3 1 231 2 Mark Webber 8 9 2 8 1 1 3 5 Ret 1 6 1 2 6 3 2 Ret 220 3 Lewis Hamilton 3 6 6 2 14† 5 1 1 2 2 4 Ret 1 Ret Ret 5 2 210 4 Sebastian Vettel 4 Ret 1 6 3 2 Ret 4 1 7 3 3 15 4 2 1 Ret 206 5 Jenson Button 7 1 8 1 5 Ret 2 2 3 4 5 8 Ret 2 4 4 12 189 6 Felipe Massa 2 3 7 9 6 4 7 15 11 15 2 4 4 3 8 Ret 3 143 7 Robert Kubica 11 2 4 5 8 3 6 7 5 Ret 7 Ret 3 8 7 Ret 5 124 8 Nico Rosberg 5 5 3 3 13 7 5 6 10 3 8 Ret 6 5 5 17† Ret 122 etc Pos Driver BHR AUS MAL CHN ESP MON TUR CAN EUR GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN JPN KOR BRA ABU Points

Key Colour Result Gold Winner Silver Second place Bronze Third place Green Other points position Blue Other classified position Not classified, finished (NC) Purple Not classified, retired (Ret) Red Did not qualify (DNQ) Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ) Black Disqualified (DSQ) White Did not start (DNS) Race cancelled (C) Light blue Practiced only (PO) Thursday/Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards) Blank Did not practice (DNP) Excluded (EX) Did not arrive (DNA) Withdrawn (WD) Text formatting Meaning Bold Pole position Italics Fastest lap Superscript Sprint race result Abbreviation Meaning WDC World Drivers' Championship position WCC World Constructors' Championship position NC Not classified Bold - Pole Italics - Fastest lap

Post what you think. Editadam 00:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any difference (IE7, XP, 1280x1024). DH85868993 (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? You can't? The proposed table clearly highlights the championship laever after each round without a box around the leader's result. However, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's really necessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, really. I know what it's supposed to look like; I'm just saying it doesn't show up for me on IE7/XP/1280x1024. DH85868993 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see it fine, and I kinda like it. Probably not essential, but as valid as some of the other stuff we put in. It saves having to add up the totals or checking the race articles to see who was leading at any given time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I like it, too, tho it does have an odd, counterintuitive feel in this case: championship winner isn't in front except in the first & last race? :/ TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That was just the oddities of the 2010 season, TREKphiler. Sebastian Vettel didn't actually lead the championship until he won the title. Perhaps a box around the leader's result is the wrong way to go about things. We mark the pole-sitter in bold, the driver who set the fastest lap in italics, and any drivers who retired but completed 90% of the winner's race distance (and thus were classified as finishers) with a †. If the box around the result is the wrong way to do things, then perhaps we could mark the championship leader with another symbol; perhaps a ¤, or put the result in these: ‹› . So it would look like this:

"That was just the oddities of the 2010 season" Oh, I know, it just struck me odd. :) Don't expect the usual suspects will come out like that. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pos Driver BHR AUS MAL CHN ESP MON TUR CAN EUR GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN JPN KOR BRA ABU Points 1 Fernando Alonso ‹1› ‹4› 13† 4 2 6 8 3 8 14 1 2 Ret 1 1 3 ‹1› 231 2 Mark Webber 8 9 2 8 1 ‹1› ‹3› 5 Ret 1 6 ‹1› 2 ‹6› ‹3› ‹2› Ret 220 3 Lewis Hamilton 3 6 6 2 14† 5 1 ‹1› ‹2› ‹2› ‹4› Ret ‹1› Ret Ret 5 2 210 4 Sebastian Vettel 4 Ret 1 6 3 2 Ret 4 1 7 3 3 15 4 2 1 Ret 206 5 Jenson Button 7 1 8 ‹1› ‹5› Ret 2 2 3 4 5 8 Ret 2 4 4 12 189 6 Felipe Massa 2 3 ‹7› 9 6 4 7 15 11 15 2 4 4 3 8 Ret 3 143 7 Robert Kubica 11 2 4 5 8 3 6 7 5 Ret 7 Ret 3 8 7 Ret 5 124 8 Nico Rosberg 5 5 3 3 13 7 5 6 10 3 8 Ret 6 5 5 17† Ret 122 etc Pos Driver BHR AUS MAL CHN ESP MON TUR CAN EUR GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN JPN KOR BRA ABU Points

Key Colour Result Gold Winner Silver Second place Bronze Third place Green Other points position Blue Other classified position Not classified, finished (NC) Purple Not classified, retired (Ret) Red Did not qualify (DNQ) Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ) Black Disqualified (DSQ) White Did not start (DNS) Race cancelled (C) Light blue Practiced only (PO) Thursday/Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards) Blank Did not practice (DNP) Excluded (EX) Did not arrive (DNA) Withdrawn (WD) Text formatting Meaning Bold Pole position Italics Fastest lap Superscript Sprint race result Abbreviation Meaning WDC World Drivers' Championship position WCC World Constructors' Championship position NC Not classified Bold - Pole Italics - Fastest lap

I like the box idea better, however the symbols are still alright (it makes you have to hunt a little bit more instead of just at a glance information). I think it should be added, just to show the trends and swings of a season. It shows readers just when drivers took over control in the championship, instead of having to go through pages of articles. After all, I think the point of the Championship, is to be leading the Championship.

We should also produce the boxes or symbols for the constructors' table as well, just making either a boxes around both drivers, or symbols beside both drivers' finishing results. Editadam 03:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought this idea was fairly soundly rejected. The matrix tables should not be used to carry so much information it becomes too hard to read. And really, this 2011 Formula One season articles are overiews of the season as a whole. Who is leading at various points of the championship - ie incomplete versions of the championship, are best handled in the contents of individual race articles.

As a side note, instead of trying to use tables to convey every grommit of information, why not try using sentences? --Falcadore (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We want to make a championship chart, where people have to try and decipher what the colors mean, then add funky symbols all over the place that they have to figure out as well? Just list the results and points total, we don't need to hold every reader by the hand and give them every factoid. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not keen on the symbols at all, they make life way too complicated. Either the boxes or nothing. I don't agree that this is trivial information that is outside the cope of this article. It is, after all, a story of the season. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, adding boxes to the table makes it incomprehensible now! Seriously, the readers are not dumb, most characteristics of the table (including this) can be easily figured out without looking at the key, in a matter of seconds. Do we have the fastest laps in the table? Which is more important, getting the fastest lap in a race; or leading the Championship.

And the tables can convey the information a lot easier and quicker. Which would someone prefer if he/she wanted to see who led the Championship at various parts of the season, reading about it (which still doesn't tell you who led at every round), which would take about 5 minutes; or would you want to just glance at a table and see in about 15-30 seconds? Editadam 13:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And the tables can convey the information a lot easier and quicker. Not if it has to be interpreted. Driver X led the championship. How is that harder or slower than looking at a table, then looking up the table to find out what it means. You find it easier because it is an idea you are championing and are familiar with it. Tables are supposed to assist the text, not replace it.

And leading the championship at any point is meaningless and insignificant if you subsequently lose the championship. While the stats lovers in us all loves the idea, stats lovers are not the target audience of this article. The style of how the article is written, including auxilliary supporting data, should be accessable to anyone. If you want to make a very statistics heavy article then a motorsport specific encyclopedia is the best place for that sort of effort.

If you want to indicate that Sebastien Vettel never led the championship until the final race of the year, just say it. In a sentence, up the top of the article. Don't try to use a series of 19 oddly placed grey squares hidden down the bottom of the article. --Falcadore (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And what are you doing? Campaigning. They are not hidden down the bottom of the article. Leading the championship is not meaningless, it means that a driver had the advantage during this part of the season. A lot of readers like simple, visual pictures, instead of text. I say have both, really. I just do not want to state the Sebastian Vettel never led until the final race, I want to show the fantastic battles for position in the championship that we see in seasons such as 2010; and instead of spreading it about throughout the article, just simply have it in one place. Editadam 14:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why not write about those battles in text rather than infer about it indirectly with grey squares, which by the way does nothing convey those battles. It only conveys who led the points. The races could have been battle-free parades just looking at the results matrix.

And when the only thing below the matrices is the references, it's completely accurate to call it the bottom of the article. I don't think it can be inferred any other way. --Falcadore (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

But you said hidden, and they are surely not hidden. And again then the battles are spread throughout the article, which is fine, but they should also be condensed one area, so a reader can view the whole season at once, instead of having to search throughout the article. Editadam 00:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely it is hidden. When someone opens the page in their browser, it opens at the top of the page, not the bottom. It is hidden from view until you scroll down. Not everyone is going to scroll down. A significant portion of readers will not scroll down. If it is important enough it should be written up the top.

Again, those squares only conveys who led the points, not the battles. The races could have been battle-free parades just looking at the results matrix. Text is just naturally a superior form of communication. If it wasn't, you'd be using symbols or bullet points to rebut my arguements. --Falcadore (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Add the boxes in the table, and the text. The boxes add significantly to the table, and the table should not replace text, so have both. How will it hurt the article if you add the boxes? 71.50.185.12 (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Over-complication, which makes it difficult to read. Said that many times, as have others. --Falcadore (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole discussion here, but if you guys want to show which driver led the championship after each round, why don't create another table like in football season articles (see 2010–11 La Liga#Positions by round). It's complete, includes all entries, and sortable. Highlights can be made to the top three driver. — MT (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I predict the addition of yet another table will not go down favourably. --Falcadore (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think we need to emphasize the championship leaders in a table, either in a separate table or in the result table. All we need is a good and detailed season summary that includes information when a driver took the championship lead. But if it must be presented in a table, I think having a separate table would be better, as it would not clutter the result table. Another option is to create a chart about the drivers rank progression (or points progression) similar to the chart at 2009 NBA Playoffs#Eastern Conference. I don't see a lot of this kind of chart in sports articles around wikipedia, but I think a chart could show championship progression more clearly than a "positions by round" table or a box/note in the results table. — MT (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not need yet another table. That would be like raping statistics. Editadam 13:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How in the world is it over-complication, if we are giving you the same information twice? That would actually decrease confusion! How are boxes in a table hard to read if you have a simple note beside the italics=fastest lap & bold=pole position notes? We have the fastest laps in the table, how are the championship leaders less important than the fastest lap winner? If you think the note would over-complicate it, then you are saying that the whole table is complicated! Editadam 13:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As there seems to be no consensus for indicating the championship leaders in the drivers'/constructors' results tables, I thought it might be preferable to put the information in the grand prix results table (inspired by pages such as this), thus:

Rd.	Grands Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	WDC leader	WCC leader	Report
1	Bahrain Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Fernando Alonso	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari	Report
2	Australian Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Mark Webber	Jenson Button	McLaren-Mercedes			Report
3	Malaysian Grand Prix	Mark Webber	Mark Webber	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Felipe Massa		Report
4	Chinese Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Lewis Hamilton	Jenson Button	McLaren-Mercedes	Jenson Button	McLaren-Mercedes	Report
5	Spanish Grand Prix	Mark Webber	Lewis Hamilton	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault			Report
6	Monaco Grand Prix	Mark Webber	Sebastian Vettel	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	Report
7	Turkish Grand Prix	Mark Webber	Vitaly Petrov	Lewis Hamilton	McLaren-Mercedes		McLaren-Mercedes	Report
8	Canadian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Robert Kubica	Lewis Hamilton	McLaren-Mercedes	Lewis Hamilton		Report
9	European Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Jenson Button	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault			Report
10	British Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Fernando Alonso	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault			Report
11	German Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari			Report
12	Hungarian Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	Report
13	Belgian Grand Prix	Mark Webber	Lewis Hamilton	Lewis Hamilton	McLaren-Mercedes	Lewis Hamilton		Report
14	Italian Grand Prix	Fernando Alonso	Fernando Alonso	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari	Mark Webber		Report
15	Singapore Grand Prix	Fernando Alonso	Fernando Alonso	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari			Report
16	Japanese Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Mark Webber	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault			Report
17	Korean Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Fernando Alonso	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari	Fernando Alonso		Report
18	Brazilian Grand Prix	Nico Hülkenberg	Lewis Hamilton	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault			Report
19	Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Lewis Hamilton	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Sebastian Vettel		Report

It's just a suggestion, and it avoids any problems of not being able to see the information, or having to create a new, separate table. Any thoughts? User:Deaþe gecweald«dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I almost like this solution better, I have seen it across Wikipedia, and it is a good way to summarize the information. Editadam 22:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I find the new one a bit harder to follow (less intuitive, to me), but I wouldn't beef if it became the standard. It appears to be a common style across WP, & captures the data. (For those who think that's not an issue, I would disagree slightly: I see no reason not to tabulate.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While a much better place (I particularly dislike this table as everything in it is duplicated elsewhere and serves no purpose other than decoration), the mid year championship leader is still not a significant enough to be captured and tabulated. The whole point of a season long championship pointscore is who is the champion at the end of the season. At least poles, fastest laps and wins are tracked and regularly used in all manner of coverage. Never once seen a list of drivers who have at some point led the championship. It is data that is not tracked or compiled season by season. Certainly in an article meant to cover the season as a whole partially complete data is best described in the partially complete portions - ie, the individual races reports. It's far more relevant mentioned there than here.

Why do we need more tabulated data? Is there somehow not quote enough? --Falcadore (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How is the mid year championship leader not significant? Obviously we have others here who think it is significant, and should be included. What is the goal of the races? To get to the top of the championship tables! By showing the leaders of the championships, the table is showing who has the advantage (for the most significant part of the season) at every stage of the season. Editadam 12:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - as a casual reader of Formula One articles and a casual follower of Formula One, who suggested this around a year ago, my initial suggestion was that it warranted inclusion because it is particularly significant on a table which attempts to summarise the season. It's not something that is always immediately apparent in the prose for each season. From the perspective of a casual fan, this stuff is way more interesting/important than fastest laps, though I understand that from an F1 perspective that's not the case. I like the third table best as it doesn't impact on the already busy championship table. Perhaps 'Leading Driver' and 'Leading Constructor' might be used to avoid the 'WDC' and 'WCC' accronyms? --Pretty Green (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The championship leader after a race only needs to be mentioned in that race's article. Otherwise it's just bloating the tables unnecessarily. This is a general purpose encyclopedia. We don't want people drowning in statistics. Readro (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Most readers, such as Pretty Green, are more interested in the leader of the championships, than things such as the fastest lap, such as Pretty Green has said. And 'Leading Driver' and 'Leading Constructor' should be used to instead of 'WDC' and 'WCC', because the casual reader may not know what the acronyms mean. Editadam 22:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Pretty Green, too. The typical reader is likely to want to see the standings leader, much as for MBL or NFL. I also agree with Editadam, something like "points leader" should be preferred. (Pet peeve: it's not an acronym. It's an abbreviation. NASA is an acronym. OK, end of rant. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with any attempt to remove Fastest Laps from the GP summary table as it has almost no bearing on the season or the race, and is at best a trivial factoid, at least since the Fastest Lap stopped being awarded a championship point. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that - by that token, we'd remove pole positions as well. You can take a thing too far, I think. We have a big flag overload with that table, by the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All of the current content in the table should be kept, and with the championship leader add-ons. I think we should go ahead and create the extra columns in all season articles, because obviously the majority of people prefer it. Editadam 01:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we work on dumping those flags? They are what makes the table a chore to read, in my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is a problem, it is consistent with all other tables, but I can see where you are coming from. It doesn't really matter to me, as long as the championship leaders are added. Editadam 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Pole position has a far greater affect on a race result than the fastest lap. A single fast lap can mean anything and will inherently be determined not simply by the fastest driver, but by a variety of circumstances and variables. Granted some of these exist in qualifying, but not to as much of an extent. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The fastest lap does usually show who had the most race pace in the race, not to mention we have a whole article on the topic, so it cannot be to irrelevant. Editadam 02:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the subject of THIS discussion, I think that there are clearly more of us in favour of the change to add the champion leader columns, therefore we need to put it into action. Editadam 02:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My objection is based about what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Tables are for the presentation of supplementary data, particularly data that is difficult or complex to portray in prose.

The results matrix is perfect at what it does it displays the very complex task of collating all of the seasons results that would be very long-winded to explain in prose. It is an already complex table, with a myriad of colours, requiring not one but and the moment two appendix tables (or keys if you prefer) to explain the main table. It is already borderline of a level of complexity.

Who leads the championship at various points in the season is a much simpler task to explain in prose. To tabulate the data is to assume there are readers who will not read the few simple sentences it would take to explain, and would only read it in a table.

Wikipedia's style is that to prefer text to table. If it is not diccult to present as text, it should not be tabulated.

Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics, that is written into the policy guidelines. It is not for us to cater for those who do no like text, nor should we be alterring the presentation of information to favour tables over prose.

I do feel disappointed that you've already added the concept to the 2010 season article. I hope it does not mean you do not necessarily care for the outcome of this discussion. Instead of assuming that everyone is on your side, ask if they are. --Falcadore (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2010 edit should be reverted until it is clear that consensus has been obtained. As for the championship leader over time, I feel that a better way of displaying the data would be in the form of a line graph showing championship points over time, perhaps normalised to Sebastian Vettel's score. Readro (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic with Falcadore's view, but there will be times someone just wants a particular fact (be it race winner, points leader, champion); I've often gone to the season pages for just those kinds of reasons. Shouldn't we facilitate that, also? Not omit more detail in text, by any means, but neither make it needlessly difficult. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No line graph. That is over-complication.

I really do not see how in the world adding two columns to a table, that includes useful information (which again most here say is true), will hurt the article. All it will do is assist the article in telling the story of the season. Again, in the text the information is spread about, but in the table you can see who led at every stage of the championship without scrolling down, just at a glance. Editadam 11:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If no one replies with an objection within the next 24 hours, I can only assume that this discussion is complete, and because the majority of people were in favour, I will begin adding the columns to all of the season articles. Editadam 12:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How many objections do you need?

Since you're into ultimatums at the moment, why do you object so strongly to writing instead of tabulating? --Falcadore (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:NOT#STATS and WP:TABLES. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Too much statistical data is against policy. This is a case of too much statistical data. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a collection of statistics. You can find the relevant information at the end of the race articles and that is the best place for it. There is no need for it to be on the main season article. Readro (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It funny though that it is common across Wikipedia to have these columns, so shouldn't the article representing the "pinnacle" of motorsport follow this? If you think it is too much data, then go on all other series' pages (such as here (still racing) and here) and argue your case. If it is commonly accepted around Wikipedia (as mentioned earlier this discussion), shouldn't it be accepted here to keep the articles consistent? Editadam 22:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Those examples are about the leader over the duration of a single race. We include that information in the race's article. Readro (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We include the lap leaders, not the championship leaders (at least not all on one page, so you would have to go through 19 articles to get simple information you could get in one table). Editadam 12:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If I wanted to know who set the fastest lap in second free practice at each race I would have to go through 19 articles. Why not put that in the table as well? It's stats overload, which is against policy. Readro (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Come on now, the fastest lap in second free practice is meaningless. The championship leader is clearly not meaningless. If you but something such as your exaggerated example, then of-course it would be against policy. However something as valid as the championship leader is not overload, and actually it is a sin that we do not have it in the article right now. Editadam 21:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You have no more points to argue (since no one has challenged in about 2 days), so it should be added. Editadam 02:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't remotely how Wikipedia works. Opposing points are not extinguished by your ability to continue posting hour after consecutive hour. --Falcadore (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd given up arguing. I've made my point. You can't see that it's trivia overload and it's clear that you're determined to add it regardless of what anyone else says. Go ahead. Add it and make the tables look as ugly as sin. On your head be it. Readro (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, what I am trying to say is that you have run out of valid points. Now you are just scraping for excuses to not add the table. You keep bringing back points that have already been overruled by other users. And no, it is not my ability to post hour after hour (as I waited 2 DAYS before I posted, plenty of time), but how easy it is to defend this table. Opposing points are extinguished if they no longer have an argument. Editadam 12:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because you try and counter an argument doesn't automatically negate the initial point. Points are never "overruled", that is not how debating works. A counter has to be stronger than the initial point in order to come out on top. In any case, it may be subjective aas to which is stronger. As I said before, you're so determined to go ahead with this that you can't see the opposing argument anyway so it feels like I'm wasting my time here. Regardless, you don't have consensus. Readro (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposing points are extinguished if they no longer have an argument. This is one of the more ridiculous misunderstandings of Wikipedia I've seen since tables are better than text. Two days? There isn't a time limit. A bad idea does not become a good idea if you leave it in the oven for two days. You might need to have a read of WP:CONSENSUS. You don't seem to grasp very well how Wikipedia works.

I also haven't seen much of any kind of effective rebuttal. Just 'you say potayto, I say potahto'. For instance, common place in other articles you say? You can just as easily make the case that it should be removed from those other quite few articles. Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the merits of this particular case are more important than comparitive instances in other wikipedia articles. --Falcadore (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, have it your way. I guess we will continue to argue on and on until eternity. We disagree whether to add the table or not, so what are we supposed to do? We are beginning to argue the same points over, and over and it is not getting us anywhere. We have to either have some poll thing, or have an administrator decide. Something. Otherwise we may be here forever. Editadam 21:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's just not do it. I was OK with the boxes in the results table but extra columns in the flag repository summary table just make the heart sink. It's already an awful, awful table. If we're going to do anything with this, at least make sure it doesn't take up any more room. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

While this is step forward from 'your point doesn't matter because I've posted since you two days ago' you are still missing the point of WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia is not some poll thing, or have an administrator decide. The fact that you don't know these things suggests even more strongly you need to have a read of the policy articles suggested to you rather than to invent procedures that don't exist. --Falcadore (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will argue on forever then.

Continue arguing on about why you think it would be useless information, even though it isn't, of course. If fastest laps are in the table, then the significant championship leader should be. Editadam 23:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's over. There's no consensus to add this, and plenty of opposition, which means it doesn't get added. We've had a discussion and it's pretty clear there's no agreement. We don't just keep arguing until we grow old and die, leaving the last survivor as the victor. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

2nd and third Fastest Lap

Complete Formula One World Championship results

(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Year	Entrant	Chassis	Engine	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	WDC	Points
1977	Team Surtees	Surtees TS19	Cosworth V8	ARG	BRA	RSA	USW	ESP	MON	BEL	SWE	FRA DNQ									18th	5
	Theodore Racing Hong Kong	Ensign N177											GBR Ret	GER 6	AUT Ret	NED 5	ITA Ret	USA DNQ	CAN 5	JPN Ret
1978	Marlboro Team McLaren	McLaren M26	Cosworth V8	ARG 6	BRA Ret	RSA Ret	USW 12	MON 7	BEL	ESP Ret	SWE 4	FRA 9	GBR 6	GER Ret	AUT Ret	NED 9	ITA 5	USA 6	CAN 8		14th	8
1979	Löwenbräu Team McLaren	McLaren M28	Cosworth V8				USW Ret														NC	0
	Marlboro Team McLaren			ARG Ret		RSA 10		ESP 13		MON DNQ	FRA 10	GBR 7
		McLaren M26			BRA Ret				BEL DNQ
		McLaren M29											GER Ret	AUT 10	NED Ret	ITA Ret	CAN Ret	USA Ret
1981	Theodore Racing Team	Theodore TY01	Cosworth V8	USW 6	BRA 10	ARG Ret	SMR 11	BEL DNQ	MON 7	ESP2 13											19th	1
	Equipe Talbot Gitanes	Ligier JS17	Matra V12								FRA Ret	GBR Ret	GER Ret	AUT Ret	NED Ret	ITA Ret	CAN Ret	CPL Ret
1982	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari 126C2	Ferrari V6 t/c	RSA	BRA	USW	SMR	BEL	MON	DET	CAN	NED 8	GBR 3	FRA 4	GER2 1	AUT 4	SUI DNS	ITA3 2	CPL DNS		7th	25
1983	Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari 126C2/B	Ferrari V6 t/c	BRA 5	USW Ret	FRA 4	SMR2 1	MON3 4	BEL 2	DET Ret	CAN1 3										4th	40
		Ferrari 126C3										GBR 3	GER2 Ret	AUT2 Ret	NED2 2	ITA 4	EUR Ret	RSA Ret
1984	Equipe Renault Elf	Renault RE50	Renault V6 t/c	BRA3 5	RSA1 Ret	BEL 7	SMR Ret	FRA3 2	MON Ret	CAN DNS	DET2 Ret	DAL Ret	GBR 8	GER 5	AUT2 Ret	NED 6	ITA3 Ret	EUR Ret	POR 7		11th	11
1985	Equipe Renault Elf	Renault RE60	Renault V6 t/c	BRA 5	POR 3	SMR 3	MON Ret	CAN 7	DET Ret												12th	11
		Renault RE60B								FRA 6	GBR Ret	GER Ret	AUT 10	NED Ret	ITA 7	BEL Ret	EUR 12	RSA	AUS Ret
1986	Team Haas (USA) Ltd.	Lola THL1	Hart Str-4 t/c	BRA Ret	ESP 8	SMR Ret															15th	2
		Lola THL2	Cosworth V6 t/c				MON Ret	BEL Ret	CAN DNS	DET	FRA Ret	GBR Ret	GER 8	HUN 7	AUT 5	ITA Ret	POR NC	MEX Ret	AUS NC

This indicates 2nd and 3rd fastet lap of Patrick Tambay. Some people probably think this will be to extensive , but it indicates some great results Example: The 2nd fastet lap of Tambay at the 1981 Spanish GP wich is a great result. And beside all of that Wiki is of increasing (in this case) results. So what do you guys think? Kirkahengaillaan (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This idea was discussed about 12 months ago and the consensus then was overwhelmingly against. My opinion hasn't changed.

DH85868993 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No. In what way is the second or third fastest lap at all notable? Readro (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey - you could put the grid position in front of the three letter acronym! Then you could have in brackets after ret a alphanumeric code for the mode of retirement and lap they stopped.

Year	1
1977	25AUT2 Ret5Acc

That doesn't affect readability at all does it?

Please no, no, no, no. Not a notable statistic under any circumstances. --Falcadore (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's interesting info, but way beyond the scope of these tables. Best suited to a dedicated Formula One website. Although, the sadist in me likes Falcadore's suggestion ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The 1st fastest lap is barely notable, and frankly the 2nd, 3rd, etc. are completely irrelevant. The grid position could be acceptable, though...Editadam 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fastest lap is plenty notable - it can be also added to a results table without creating any clutter. Not so for a grid position. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A grid position just to show qualifying results, showing gained or lost positions in the race. Really I think it would make the table harder to read, an issue we had on the first two drafts of the discussion above. Neither should be included, but if one were to be included, it should be gird position. Editadam 22:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It would make the table nigh on impossible to read, so yes, not to be included. I would strongly object to any attempt to remove fastest laps from these tables, if only because there is no good reason to do so. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The only one I could make a case for being included is qualifying postion, and this is what I would do - include the qualifying position in brackets before the finishing position:

Year	1
1977	AUT (25) Ret

But even then, it would still be pretty thin, considering that points are not given for anything other than race position. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes you read a proposal and assume that it must be the first of the fourth, but then you look at the calendar and see that, no, it's actually December! Race position, pole positions, and fastest laps are all that need or should be shown in a general interest encyclopedia. Race position is obvious, pole position because of its notability, and fastest laps ditto. Fast laps have the additional merit that in some seasons they did indeed garner an extra Championship point. The rest is cruft and clutter. Pyrope 14:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as a side note, the proposer of this idea is now blocked, because it was our old friend Kevin, in his latest disguise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Suddenly things start to make sense. Pyrope 14:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)