Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

References to individual races when populating templates

The sample populated templates indicate that references to individual races (e.g. "Debut" in template:F1 team) should take the form of:

[[1991 Belgian Grand Prix|1991]] [[Belgian Grand Prix]]

What's the rationale behind using this format rather than just:

[[1991 Belgian Grand Prix]]

DH85868993 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

1950 Grand Prix reports

I've recently done some work on the 1950 Grand Prix report articles. I'd like some feedback on some of the (arbitrary?) decisions I've made, so that if changes need to be made, I can make them sooner (in a small number of articles) rather than later (in a larger number):

• I've labelled the entry list as "Entries". An alternative would be "Entry List".
• In the Notes section, some articles said "Shared drives" and others said "Shared drivers". I changed them all to "Shared drives".
• I've labelled notes about car numbers with "Numbers:". Alternatives would include "Race numbers:" or "Car numbers:"
• Some articles said "Alfa Romeo SA"; others said "SA Alfa Romeo"; I changed them all to "SA Alfa Romeo" (which is consistent with Sheldon & Rabagliati's "Black Book")
• Where a grid position was left vacant in the middle of the grid (e.g. grid position 10 in the 1950 French Grand Prix), I included the details of the driver who should have been there, in parentheses
• I removed the labels for unused grid positions on the last row of the grid (e.g. grid position 20 in the 1950 French Grand Prix)
• The article structure varies markedly from race to race - contrast 1950 British Grand Prix#TOC with 1950 French Grand Prix#TOC. Should I make them all consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Example_race_report, i.e. with "Qualifying" as a subsection of "Classification"? And should "Starting Grid Positions" be a subsection of "Qualifying"?

Thanks - DH85868993 09:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, comments then:

1) I like the entries tables, accurate and informative. Entrant wins my vote every time as you know.

2) Not sure we need both the qualification table and the grid positions chart. There is a lot of repetition between the two, and missing information can easily be insterted into the geometrical chart. For clarity I would tend to stick with the table, annotated along the lines of "starting grid was offset 3x3, with pole position to the left" or somesuch, but I'd like to hear others' opinions on that as I'm really not bothered which is used. But I do think it is an either/or choice.

3) I personally prefer the British GP layout, mostly because it brings all of the tabulated information under one banner. However, I would prefer a much shorter intro, with a longer "Report" section before the "Classification" section.

Just my opinions, but good work on ploughing through the tedious stuff! Pyrope 13:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:F1 car

Hi all. New template knocked together for car articles. Very much along the lines of the pre-existing cut-and-paste jobs that have been used for some articles, but tidied a touch. Pro-forma on the project page and the template talk page. Please keep an eye out for unboxed articles and articles not using the correct format (e.g. most Lotus cars seem to have gained the "Team" template). Comments would be great... Pyrope 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's good. I've got a few that I need to change. Adrian M. H. 19:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We've also got template:Racing car though. Maybe I should be better at publicising these?! :D On this occasion I would argue for using the racing car version, because it should also be relevant to sports cars etc. The info should really be the same for any racing chassis. 4u1e 08:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, didn't see the previous template and it never appeared in searches. I'll combine elements of the two under the template:Racing car (with some comments from the talk page) and then adjust the project page. Hold off using either for now... Pyrope 09:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the red link above, Template:F1 car is now dead. Long live Template:Racing car... Pyrope 11:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question time. When populating template:Racing car, if two examples of a particular car are entered in each race of a 16-race season, do we set Races=16 or Races = 32? DH85868993 13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a dumb question, just hard to answer. I've been using the number of races in which a car of that type was entered (your former example), not the total number of chassis which entered races (your second example). Either is quite logical, anyone got a view on what's 'normal' in high quality sources? 4u1e 14:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Grand Prix Racing - the whole story" (www.gpracing.net192.com) lists both - see sample for McLaren. If we're only going to have one number though, I think number of distinct races (i.e. Races=16) would be better (a) for consistency with Driver and Constructor/Team infoboxes and (b) intuitively. Consider the McLaren MP4/4: "Races=16, Wins=15, Poles=15" gives a more accurate impression of what happened in 1988 than "Races=32, Wins=15, Poles=15". DH85868993 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would only use the double figure when it is distinctly advantageous and clear to understand. Such as when referring to starts, as opposed to races, in the context of analysing results. ie: "from 34 starts, it had 4 engine failures, 3 suspension failures and 2 collisions." The single figure makes more sense in infoboxes and avoids confusion when dealing with single car entries in the days before two-car teams were made mandatory. - Adrian M. H. 17:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lotus links

Throughout the F1-related articles, there are hundreds of instances where "Lotus" is linked to Lotus Cars and also hundreds of instances where "Lotus" is linked to Team Lotus, without any pattern that I could discern. Should all instances link to one or the other? Or should works entries link to Team Lotus and private entries link to Lotus Cars? I guess it depends on the exact nature of the relationship between Lotus Cars and Team Lotus, of which, I must confess, I am ignorant. (Did Lotus Cars build all Lotus cars, including the F1 racing cars, and Team Lotus just raced them?) DH85868993 10:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge of the history of the team, Chapman was prone to moving money/work around between his various companies as he saw fit to keep everything running smoothly, but that's by the by. My initial reaction was 'of course it's Team Lotus', but your comment about who built the customer cars gave me pause. After a little (30secs!) more thought, I vote we apply the same logic as for Brabham, where although the team that raced the cars and the company that built the cars were at one time two separate entities, the 'principle of least astonishment' suggested that we just call the article Brabham. In other words, link all to Team Lotus, which is what most readers will expect. I suspect that the links to Lotus Cars date from before the Team Lotus article was split from its parent. I defer to anyone who has a more detailed knowledge of Lotus' history! 4u1e 14:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... now that is a question. Hmmm. I have instances in literature where Lotus cars are credited to Team Lotus, Lotus Cars, Lotus Engineering and Lotus Racing. Some may not be too reputable, but as you say, Big Colin had a rather free-form attitude to his assets so I would back the Team Lotus default. Especially as Lotus Cars was actually the daughter of the racing outfit, and not the other way round. Pyrope 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz motorsport

I've just made this article, Mercedes-Benz motorsport about all of M-B's motorsport activities. It's not all about F1, should it be added to the project? Feel free to help out expanding it. Spute 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

At first glance it looks good. Though regarding "Mercedes also supplies the cars to the FIA for use as safety cars and other race offical roles, such as the medical car, at Formula One races." I think the correct situation is DaimlerChrysler pays for the privilege. Can anybody confirm? Mark83 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about littering the article with requests for references, but they are desperately needed as without them lots of the article seems POV or OR. There seem to be a lot of weasel words as well. A nice start for the article though, and it shows potential. Readro 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I know there's a lot to do, and citations etc need adding. I'll get on to it in due course, thanks for pointing these things out.Spute 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The F3 section needs a lot of expansion, although I'm sure you're aware of that. If you'd like some assistance with that section, let me know. Adrian M. H. 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, and I forgot to add: I think that Mark is correct about DaimlerChrysler. Adrian M. H. 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we should change all the F1-related links to Mercedes-Benz to point to Mercedes-Benz motorsport instead? (There I go, creating more work again...) In fact, I think we should probably have a dedicated "motorsport" article for most of the road car manufacturers who have been involved with F1 (i.e. similar to the Renault F1, Honda Racing F1, Scuderia Ferrari and Jaguar Racing articles), that the F1-related references could link to, instead of linking to the main article about the manufacturer. I think Alfa Romeo is an obvious candidate - the "Racing History" section of the Alfa Romeo article is quite long and (IMHO) well-deserving of its own article. (Apologies for semi-hijacking the discussion). DH85868993 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes i agree about Alfa. The main Alfa Romeo article needs three or four paragraphs maximum about sport, it's pretty much ready to be cut and paste into a new article, and then expanded appropriatley. Hmm, so much to do.. Best get on with it.Spute 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And then what do we call that one. I tend to think of Alfa Corse when I think of Alfa in racing, but is that not just the recent factory touring car stuff? Their current WTCC programme is run by a private team isn't it? 4u1e 23:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the gist of its WTCC involvement. Until 2006, N-Technology (which builds and runs the 156s) worked as a factory-employed team, under the banner of Alfa Squadra Corse in 2004 and Alfa Romeo Racing Team in 2005. When the factory took a year out in 2006, the team continued under its own name. Alfa is coming back in a factory blessed program this season with the 147, but the banner under which it will enter is currently unconfirmed. Adrian M. H. 13:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "Alfa Corse" would be appropriate. grandprix.com indicates the name was used as far back as the 1920s. DH85868993 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The late 1970s/early 1980s F1 effort was run by Autodelta, an Alfa 'satellite company'. It was later handed over to Euroracing (see EuroBrun) who ran the team, while Autodelta continued to design and build the cars/engines. I guess we could call the article Alfa Corse, but would need to be quite clear about the fact that many of the racing efforts were not run by that specific entity. Not dissimilar to Scuderia Ferrari in a way - their 1990s 333SPs were designed by Dallara, I think. 4u1e 13:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've created a new article called Alfa Corse and relocated the information from the "Racing History" of the main Alfa Romeo article there. DH85868993 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what that means about links, don't you! :D 4u1e 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of co(u)rse I do :-) DH85868993 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote:"I'm wondering whether we should change all the F1-related links..." Oh no, not again! :p  Unfortunately, I would have to say yes; I think that's a very good idea for companies with a lot of motorsport history and/or current involvement. Jaguar, Aston Martin, Mercedes, BMW, and dozens of others..... Well, you did ask! Adrian M. H. 12:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The F1 articles are complicated by the fact that we could be referring to

1. Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines which should link to Mercedes-Ilmor.
2. Mercedes as partner in McLaren in general which should link to? Mercedes-Benz motorsport?
3. Mercedes in F1 in the past which should link to Mercedes-Benz motorsport? Mark83 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i'd agree, it's not as clear cut as saying that F1 articles should always link to the new page, depends on context.Spute 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Standard table formats

I've created a new page specifying the standard table formats for use throughout the Formula One articles. Further discussion about standard table formats should take place on the new page's discussion page. DH85868993 13:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to make tables a little narrower? Adrian M. H. 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go with the Sauber results table Adrian...But the thing is that I'm using one of my colleges' PCs at the moment, with NO FireFox OR address bar :-(, and the resolution is bigger then my PC at home. So can you check if my attempts on the Sauber article are okay. Thanks.--Skully Collins ^Edits 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Sauber, may I direct your attention to the logo in the infobox? Because that logo is for their Petronas. Although Petronas are the majority (in terms of years in Formula One) engine supplier for Sauber. I think it should be removed, or at least moved to the Petronas section and replace with just the Sauber logo. I think I may have found the logo, but I'm not sure. [1]--Skully Collins ^Edits 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Skully. I have just viewed the table on my backup 1024x768 screen (essential kit for any web designer!) and it cuts off the WCC column and half of the points column. Fine on 1280, of course. That logo is, as far as I know, the correct one. Whenever I have seen a Sauber, I'm sure that it has that logo on the nosecone, but I'll go fishing for some pictures to prove or disprove that theory. I took the main Suaber page as my lead when I made a couple of Sauber chassis articles. The black version that you found elsewhere seems only to differ in colour. Adrian M. H. 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just found some pics on Forix that show the Petronas logo instead, so it's unclear at the moment. I have now found the unofficial fan site http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s200.htm, which uses the chrome logo, and I recall seeing it used in earlier Autosport season reviews as well. Adrian M. H. 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Noting Pete Fenelon's recent edit to Fry (racing team) and knowing DH's enthusiasm for accuracy (!) - what were the regulations under which F2 cars were allowed to enter some World Championship Grands Prix, esp. in Germany? I've always assumed that in those simpler times it was just a case of the engine being under the Formula One maximum size constraint and that the cars therefore met the F1 regs (similar to 1958 Coopers with undersize engines, or the 2 litre Lotuses etc competing in 1966). Like Fry, some of our other material is probably based on the assumption that if a car is in a world championship race, it's an F1 car. It's just occured to me that it's more likely that those races were explicitly open to cars meeting either F1 or F2 regs. Can anyone confirm? Cheers 4u1e 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, you are correct, i.e. it was just a case of the engine being under the Formula One maximum size constraint and that the cars therefore met the F1 regs (although I have some recollection of Beltoise's Matra F2 car which competed in the 1968 South African Grand Prix having to be "ballasted up to the minimum Formula One weight limit"). As to whether constructors such as Fry (racing team) should be included in Category:Formula One constructors and List of Formula One constructors, I'm happy for them to be included, on the basis that (a) that category and list actually include all constructors who have participated in World Championship events, rather than Formula One races per se, and (b) if we take them out, someone will eventually just add them back in... On the proviso that the article itself states the correct facts, as Fry (racing team) now does. Also note that there were several races (the 1957, 1958, 1966, 1967 and 1969 German Grands Prix and the 1958 Moroccan Grand Prix) where a F2 race was held concurrently with the F1 race; it's always a bit "grey" as to whether participations in the F2 class of these races should be counted in a driver or constructor's World Championship statistics. DH85868993 09:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I don't have a problem with the former being listed as F1 constructors, if the car was scrutineered as an F1, then it met the criteria, even if that's not what it was built as. The second 'grey' area was the ones I was really thinking of though - I guess a constructor who competed only in a specific F2 class shouldn't really be counted in the F1 categories, or at least the wording of their articles should be caveated. Cheers. 4u1e 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The only constructor who competed in a F2 race held concurrently with a F1 WDC race but never competed in a F1 WDC race was Protos, who are correctly identified in their Wikipedia article as a Formula Two constructor, and aren't included in Category:Formula One constructors (although they are listed in the List of Formula One constructors). Having said that, within Wikipedia, we do seem to be handling the above-mentioned races in a very inconsistent fashion. Most of the time, participations in the F2 classes of these races aren't counted in driver and constructor statistics, except for the 1958 Moroccan Grand Prix, which is counted most of the time. See the full gory detail here. DH85868993 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Technological history - a new article?

I was thinking, how about an article about the history of F1 cars?

I know this would involve some overlap with and transfer of information from History of Formula One and Formula One car, but i can see it being a useful way to go, before either of those get too big.

My reasoning is that:

• History of Formula One could be about the racing stories, drivers, rules, business side of things and of course touching on the broad technological trends, but without getting too into it.
• Formula One cars should be mainly about current cars - an overview of their specification and the very recent developments (move to high noses... single keel... twin keel/zero keel; cooling chimneys; undercut sidepods; pylon mounted rear wings).
• History of Formula One cars could be about the development of cars through the decades (mid-engines, turbos), including the interesting stories about ideas that went nowhere (e.g. Lotus gas turbine, Brabham fan car).

There'd have to be some overlap and linking between the articles, of course, but i think this could work well. Technical phrases like "desmodromic valves" and "variable flexibility torsion bar suspension" could be moved into the proposed new article, which i think would make the main History page more readable if you don't want to overwhelmed by that side of things.

The reason i had this idea is i wanted to know something about ground effect, which i found, but i had to read about Niki Lauda's conflict with Enzo Ferrari to get there, which seems a little perverse.

I'd be prepared to put some work in on this. I don't want to either:

• add too much to Formula One car or History of Formula One so they become unnecessarily massive

or:

• start an article that goes nowhere.

What do people think? Please discuss, even if it's to tell me it's a bad idea. Spute 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is one motorsport fan who finds the technological deveopments (and the history thereof) arguably the most fascinating aspect of F1. So my answer would be yes. (By the way, I haven't forgotten about the Mercedes article - it's on my to-do list!) Adrian M. H. 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No i've not forgoteen the Mercedes article either - it's still on my list too!Spute 12:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I think your reasoning is sound, and it follows precedent set down in other areas of Wikipedia. I do think some planning might be in order before we get started though. The principal issue I can see is whether to structure the article according to thematic or chronological contraints. Any thoughts? Pyrope 08:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would need some planning and forethought. I was thinking it'd be best to split it into sections like: aerodynamics, engine, chassis, gearbox/transmission, suspension, electronic driver aids, tyres, etc. and then have a chronological history of developments within each section. That's my initial instinct, but it'd need thinking about - it'd be a pain to try to convert it if it's started the wrong way round. Are there any major developments that wouldn't fit nicely into one of those sections? Traction control would overlap driver aids and transmission. Spute 12:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

and what section would we put the 6-wheelers in? Spute 12:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds weird, but it would be aerodynamics - the Tyrrell P34, March 2-4-0 and Williams FW08B were designed that way to improve their aerodynamic performance. 4u1e 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You could also argue that active suspension would come under aero as well - its primary purpose ended up being to control the aerodynamics of the car - keeping the car a constant optimum distance from the track, and in some cases raising it on the straights to reduce drag. Hydropneumatic suspension (see Brabham BT49) is also arguably aerodynamic in nature, designed to allow continued effective use of ground effect after the FIA mandated a 6cm ground clearance. Out on the track it hardly functioned as suspension at all, it's often referred to as 'rock solid', although I don't think it can have been. However, for the sake of clarity for new readers, I guess I'd lump them in under 'Suspension' and note somewhere the important linkages between the two fields. 4u1e 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Should it be just about the cars, or about F1 technology in general? i.e. computer aided design, computational fluid dynamics, windtunnels, seven-post test rigs, car simulators..? I suppose there could be a section on "design and test methodologies" or something.. it'd affect the article title though.Spute 12:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I like your approach to the article's structure; that sounds spot on.
• We should absolutely include related technology in the context of F1 design and development. It is very relevant.

Adrian M. H. 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent plan. To save you (some) work - there are already articles on ground effect and downforce. The former also covers the effect for planes, which isn't really the same thing. I agree with Adrian about included related technology, but again there must be existing material we can link out to, so we can limit our work to describing how it works in F1. Examples would be Wind tunnel, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Carbon fiber reinforced plastic, Suspension (vehicle), Brakes. I'm sure there are loads of others. 4u1e 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started to think about how to contruct this article, please see User:Spute/sandbox if you're interested. I want to get it to a fairly decent state before 'publishing' it. I'd welcome any assistance. At the moment it's just bullet points on what needs to be written about, feel free to add more if you want.Spute 11:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Private entries

How should we record private entrants in Grand Prix entry lists and driver career summary tables? It seems sensible to me to use a consistent format in both places. This discussion suggests using the word "Private". But I notice that most of the driver career summary tables, e.g. Jack Brabham and Bernard de Dryver currently use the driver's name. If we decide to use the driver's name, we then have the choice of whether to use full name, or "initial + surname", and whether or not to wikilink. So, in an entry list we have the following options:

Option	Driver	Entrant	Description
1	Peter Walker	Private	"Private"
2	Peter Walker	Peter Walker	full name, not wikilinked
3	Peter Walker	Peter Walker	full name, wikilinked
4	Peter Walker	P.Walker	initial + surname, not wikilinked
5	Peter Walker	P.Walker	initial + surname, wikilinked

I recommend not wikilinking (a) because it seems a bit odd having two wikilinks to the driver side by side (see options 3 and 5 above) and (b) if we're going to make entry lists and driver career summary tables consistent, then it seems even odder to be wikilinking to a driver's page from that same page! I don't really have a strong feeling either way about whether to use the full name or "initial + surname" - I guess "initial + surname" is a bit narrower, and width has been a bit of a problem in some of the driver career summary tables. Thoughts? DH85868993 10:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd stick with a simple "private" for driver-entered cars. Clear and simple, and as you say having the driver's name appear twice looks a little odd. Pyrope 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would opt for private, as well. I encountered this in another subject recently and used "N/A" (with a note) in the absence of a better idea at the time, but "private" is fine. Adrian M. H. 15:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so entry lists will look like this:

No	Driver	Entrant	Constructor	...
9	Peter Walker	Private	ERA	...

and driver career summary tables will look like this:

Year	Entrant	Chassis	Engine	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	WDC	Points
1950	Private	ERA E	ERA	GBR Ret*	MON	INDY	SWI	BEL	FRA	ITA		-	0
1951	BRM	BRM P15	BRM	SWI	INDY	BEL	FRA	GBR 7	GER	ITA	ESP	-	0

DH85868993 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The conventional way to list driver-entered cars in race programmes was usually:

No	Driver	Entrant	Constructor	...
9	Peter Walker	driver	ERA	...

No problem with wikilinking private teams etc but why don't we stick closely to the conventions used at the time? Pete Fenelon 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I like "driver". DH85868993 12:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Race/season reviews - lots of duplication - a request to keep it in the right places

Can i ask that we try and keep reviews of seasons in the season pages (e.g. 2006 Formula One season) and races in the race pages (e.g. 2006 European Grand Prix)? There seems to be far too much of people putting up multiple verisons of season reviews in places where they don't really belong.

For example, Ferrari 248 F1 was effectively a slightly biased summary of everything that happened in the 2006 races, it barely mentioned anything about the car (i've started to rewrite that one). Scuderia Ferrari is another example - This is a team that's competed in F1 since the start, are we going to expand every season review to the same length as Scuderia_Ferrari#2006_Season? And then rewrite it all for every team, driver, car designer....

I know it's fresh in our minds and easy to write about, but we don't really need to include a different summary of the season in every F1 article! Could we not limit this sensibly, please? e.g. team articles should include a few (say, 3 or 4) sentences about each season, drawing attention to any particularly notable events for that team. Spute 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now re-written Ferrari 248 F1 - to see my point look at how it was on say 28th December 2006.Spute 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Although you'll probably find that most people who read this page know what you mean anyway. In my view, the car articles should focus on the design of the car, with only a brief summary of its race history, as this will be covered in multiple other places. 4u1e 11:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a pity.... The 248 article was on my To-do list! (Never mind; it's a long list!) Anyway, I agree entirely with your comments. Car articles should deal with their features, concept, development and other notable factors (debut car, or most successful, etc.) with just a little summary of its results, which helps to indicate its achievements/reliability or otherwise. Adrian M. H. 18:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation of infobox templates

I was in the process of adding the various general purpose motor racing infoboxes to Category:Motor racing infoboxes, when I noticed that there isn't a specific category for Formula One templates. They are in Category:Formula One instead, which is obviously more about articles. Should we create a Category:Formula One infoboxes, as a sub-category of Motor racing infoboxes? Adrian M. H. 23:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. One question though, do we consider templates such as template:McLaren F1 and template:Lotus to be "infobox" templates? If not, then consider whether we want to include these templates in the new category, which then might affect its name (i.e. we might need to call it "Formula One templates" rather than "Formula One infoboxes"). DH85868993 06:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Are they not infoboxes, then? I assumed that any templated box that gives information, whether filled in by an editor or just dropped into place, is an infobox. I would include them anyway, along with things like Template:F1 cars 2001 as well. Adrian M. H. 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. I just wasn't sure of the exact definition of "infobox". It seems sensible to keep all the F1 templates together in the one place anyway. DH85868993 01:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've categorised those that I can find, though I'm sure there are others that I've missed. Adrian M. H. 15:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the existing hierarchy under Category:Sports templates and did some rearranging as a result. There is now Category:Formula One templates with subcategories Category:Formula One infoboxes and Category:Formula One navigational boxes. I'm fairly confident that all the F1 templates are appropriately categorised now. DH85868993 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What's the deal with template:F1 driver results legend and template:F1 driver results legend 2. Should all articles use the same template, or should they both be used, under different circumstances? DH85868993 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I may have read something about the reason for those two templates in an archived discussion. Not sure where or when, so you might have to search through. I think they had a valid reason for keeping both. Adrian M. H. 16:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete Formula One results

Most of the (non-Indy-only) driver articles contain a table listing the driver's complete results in World Championship races. In most cases, the table is entitled "Complete Formula One results". For those drivers where that title is inaccurate (i.e. they competed in non-championship F1 races and/or non-F1 championship races), I'm relabelling the table as "Complete World Championship results". I'm wondering:

• are people happy with that title, or would some other title be preferable, e.g. "Complete FIA World Championship results" or "Complete World Drivers' Championship results". Note that I'm reluctant to use the term "Complete Formula One World Championship results" because from 1950-1960 the championship included some non-F1 events.
• would it be simpler/more consistent to change the title of the table for all drivers, i.e. including those for whom "complete F1 results" and "complete WC results" are identical?

DH85868993 14:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some drivers have boxes for non-Champ race wins in those sections (International Trophy and Race of Champions in the main) as well as lower formulae titles, so these might have to either be relocated, or the section name adjusted. Possibly there could be some milage in having a general title for the section with subsection titles for WC or other results? Pyrope 15:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ralf Schumacher

Hey,

I wrote the section about Ralf Schumacher's private life. I admit I was perhaps a bit over-the-top in my first edit, but I think (as a long-time F1 fan) the subject is relevant to Ralf's image in the sport. I have provided a reference from British media by way of substantiation, the originals being in German and also subject to legal censure.

I didn't post the section to defame Ralf or cause controversy, hence my re-edit.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forzaminardi (talk • contribs)

Generally, I was a bit skeptical about the veracity of this rumour, and although there is now a source, I'm not so sure that it is relevant, given that only the notorious News of the World appears to have carried this. If a mainstream F1 media outlet didn't talk about this, then I am inclined to say that it is not relevant and appears to be a fringe issue, unlike, eg, the Raikkonen frolics, which were reported on itv-f1, F1 magazine etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

From User_talk:Blnguyen Comments? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't recall it being reported in detail in any specialist press, and as I don't read tabloids, I still don't know what it was all about. (Nor do I care). So I would question its encyclopædic value. Keep it out. Adrian M. H. 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, it wasn't covered in detail by the specialist press because Ralf (unlike, for instance Raikkonen) was challenging the stories in court. Just because someone can't remember something happening is no reason for it not being included when it provably DID happen. I do recall (although I can't substantiate with a reference) the specialist press speculating later in the season whether the off-track distractions accounted for Ralf's indifferent form, and indeed James Allen on commentary for a GP commenting to the same effect. I don't really see why a statement to the effect that Ralf has been subject to unfounded press speculation regarding his sexuality and marriage which has affected his popular image and which may have affected his driving is either controvertial or contrary to wider Wikipedia policy. He was provably subject to press intrution of a specific nature, and it is relevant to readers of the article as they are presumably interested in Ralf's life and career. The fact is, a good proportion of Wikipedia's F1 coverage is speculative and subject to the writer's own interpretation of the personalities involved. If I were reading a biography of Ralf, I would be surprised if this episode were not mentioned, unless of course it was a sycophantic biography aimed at presenting Ralf in a particular light. While Wikipedia has an obligation to make sure its coverage does not unjustly defame personalities or spread untruths about them, it does also have an obligation for providing a balanced view for better or worse. Applying this argument to for instance, Michael Jackson, would suggest that Wiki shouldn't mention his notable court appearances.

Apologies for not signing my entries before, I didn't see how to 'til now! Forzaminardi 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You just weakened your argument somewhat when you tried to compare a rumour with a criminal charge and world-famous court case. But, if you really want to include it, then do so. I'm sure that you will structure your phrasing very carefully, source it thoroughly and keep it balanced. In case you were wondering, I will point out that I am not a fan of the younger Schumacher, so his image is of little importance in comparison to the need for good content. If you genuinely feel that it has relevance, and would be better in than not in, as it were, then include it. Adrian M. H. 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I weakened my argument, firstly because the events to which I pertain were not "a rumour" (hence my reference), and secondly because the only difference in principle between these events and the Jackson example is that Jackson was prosecuted by a criminal court as a result of his alleged activities being illegal. The fact is that Ralf is not a global celebrity to the same extent as Jackson, and hence his alleged or actual doings are less likely to become "world famous" - which is not a criteria for Wikipedia inclusion anyway! Not to be Bolshy about it, but the fact that you (Adrian) self-admittedly know little about the events to which I refered kind of undermines your argument in my view. On the issue of posting it, what's the point if it's immediately removed anyway? If you look at my edit of 25th Jan, you'll see that my comments were sourced to an authored reference with a specfic date published in a fairly well-regarded source of sports reportage - which is more than most subjective points in Wikipedia's F1 coverage! I can provide other sources of further press comment on Ralf's private life if it's desired, but I don't see its relevance to my original point, which was that Ralf and his wife have been subject to unwanted press speculation regarding their private lives. Forzaminardi 18:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't waste your effort typing out all that, simply to try to convince me. I have already stated that it is up to you to include it if you wish to, provided it can be done in the appropriate manner. I'm not going to lose sleep over its inclusion.

More to the point: If you have any issue with whoever reverted your edit (I am not sure who, as I have not checked the diffs) I would urge you to take it up with them. Adrian M. H. 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the case I have to admit, but the fact that RS is challenging the allegations in court means that they should not be included here. Repeating a defamatory remark taken from another source is still actionable in most countries, and the use of the term "allegation" has no legal standing, despite popular belief. This is the reason that most reputable press sources have not repeated them. Adrian makes a valid point that the only UK source is the "Screws", who probably reckon on the cost of fighting a court case being less than the increased circulation profits. When everything is done and dusted then by all means include a summary of the incident, until then it is moot. Pyrope 12:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything Is done and dusted - the case has been settled and the allegations retracted in full. I wasn't repeating the alegations, I was reporting that the allegations were made and had an effect on ralf's popular image and performance at the time. Forzaminardi 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:F1 (x2)

Something weird's happened to this template. See Renault F1 for example. Any idea what's wrong? Spute 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha...I caused an edit conflict asking the same question. Adrian M. H. edited the template today, so I'll revert the change to see if it makes any difference...--Diniz 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to have worked. This was the edit - it looks harmless enough.--Diniz 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So what did I do wrong in my attempt to categorise it? (See subject about infobox categories) Whatever it was, I can assure you all that it was unintentional. My apologies. Adrian M. H. 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're not allowed to have multiple <noinclude> clauses in the same article/template? Perhaps try including the category inside the existing <noinclude> clause? DH85868993 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's okay, because I have used multiple noinclude tags before with no ill effects. Not to worry. Adrian M. H. 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions, Questions, Questions!

Sorry for all the questions people, just I have so many that I couldn't be arsed putting them in their own respective sections.

Anyway, first question:

1. F1 Racing Magazine have released a list titled the "50 Greatest F1 Drivers in History", you can see the list in full in my sandbox. Should their be a list on Wikipedia itself? Nice to see Pryce beat Damon Hill ;-).
2. When I put in the word "Rainmaster" into the search box, it re-directs to Michael Schumacher. Now, Schumacher is indeed known as the Rainmaster, but surely there should be a list called "Formula One drivers considered 'Rainmasters'", because there are other drivers who are considered good in the rain as well? Ayrton Senna, Gilles Villeneuve, Jacky Ickx & Tom Pryce (The best comes last ;-)) as notable examples.
3. On the Portal, I thought we could have an "On this day..." box, which would list anything notable and driver births...and deaths. See my sandbox for the result so far. Would this be a good idea? See if any driver (up to "D") shares your birthday ;-).
4. On the Wikiproject Template, should we have a box (like the article rating thing) for the *type* of article it is? (eg. Bio, Race Report, Team Profile, Chassic Profile, etc)
5. Speaking of the Template, should we have a priority as well?

Anyway, thanks for reading and (hopefully) answering my questions. :-).--Skully Collins ^Edits 09:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here goes:

1. No, because it is far too subjective. We would miss the 2007 season while we debated a "top 50", and still wouldn't have a definitive list because other Wiki users would disagree.
2. Maybe... possibly. Not sure.
3. Yes, now that's a good idea. Count me in.
4. Article type. Er... maybe, but I'm not sure that it's necessary. It would be just one more thing to implement.
5. Probably, yes. I'm changing that to a "no" - see Pyrope's very good point below. Adrian M. H. 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my attempt.

1. Wasn't that article supposed to be the 50 fastest drivers as opposed to the 50 best? Anyway, it's far too subjective.
2. Schumacher was indeed was referred to as the Rainmaster, but so have many other drivers, including Christian Fittipaldi. It definitely shouldn't redirect to Schumacher.
3. How could we manage an "on this day" section? As there is no scripting we'd have to manually change everything every day. Sounds like far too much work.
4. Article type - not necessary I think. It's fairly obvious from the article itself.
5. Priority could be useful, but it's not something we have to have if we don't want it. Readro 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts

1. Sounds a bit subjective to be its own article unless it were called "List of F1 Racing Magazine's 50 Greatest F1 Drivers in History (up to 2006)".
2. Make Rainmaster a disambig page.
3. On this day could also include "Driver X won the Y Grand Prix".
4. Only if it makes things more efficient.
5. Useful for strategising the editing campaign.

--Journeyman 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And

1. It would be easier to compile a list of 50 lists.
2. Possibly - there certainly shouldn't be a redirect to MS. A single redirect would better point to Rudi Caracciola.

Ian Dalziel 06:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My 2p-worth:

1. No. Entirely subjective and hardly "encyclopedic".
2. Again liable to run into subjectivity problems. Needs careful citation of stats to back up any claims made for ANY driver.
3. Nice idea. Adds topical interest.
4. No, hardly likely to be confused.
5. Who determines priority? Most major articles are extant already, those for individual drivers/cars/races/etc etc are open to personal interest issues. We seem to be doing fine without it.

Pyrope 12:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started a stub article at Rainmaster. Feel free to add more to it. Readro 16:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

F1 engine manufacturers

Which of the following should be included in Category:Formula One engine manufacturers?:

• Osella - the article says "In 1988, the last turbo season, Alfa was fed up with the negative publicity generated by Enzo Osella's cars, so the Milan-based manufacturer prohibited the further use of its name in connection with the engine. The 1988 engines were simply dubbed "Osella V8". "
• Playlife - rebadged Renault engines used by Benetton from 1998 to 2000
• Mecachrome - supplied (former Renault) engines to Williams in 1998
• Supertec - rebadged Renault/Mecachrome engines as supplied to Williams in 1999, BAR in 1999 and Arrows in 2000
• Petronas - rebadged Ferrari engines as used by Sauber from 1997 to 2005
• Asiatech - former Peugeot engines used by Arrows in 2001 and Minardi in 2002
• Acer - rebadged Ferrari engines as used by Prost Grand Prix in 2001
• Megatron - rebadged BMW turbo engines as used by Arrows in 1987 and 1988 and Ligier in 1987
• Arrows - in 1998 and 1999 the team's (Brian Hart-designed?) engines were badged as "Arrows"
• European - 2001 Formula One season indicates Minardi's engines for that season were called "European"s

I'd probably vote for Osella, Mechachrome, Supertec, Asiatech and Arrows. Thoughts? (Feel free to discuss any other "questionable" F1 "engine suppliers/manufacturers" as well) DH85868993 02:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Phew, you throw out some tricky questions!

• Osella, I know little about (must admit that I thought it was just a chassis constructor/team!).
• Playlife was just a sponsor branding thing, like Petronas, so neither of those should really be included, I think. That said, we do list Sauber's Ferrari motors as Petronas complete with their own designations. So, maybe let that in?
• Asiatech may have - and Mecachrome definitely - built/tuned their motors based on other designs. Asiatech certainly built them (that was Scalabroni's operation), but who designed them, I don't know. Mecachrome may have just tuned them if they were still coming out of Viry.
• Leave Acer out, for the same reason as Playlife.
• Arrows was more than just badging, so I would say include it, because Hart was employed by Arrows at the time.
• Leave out European, as per Playlife and Acer. Adrian M. H. 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote no to Supertec as they only ever rebadged engines, and never made them. Similarly Acer, European, Petronas and Playlife. Arrows engines were built (or rebuilt) and maintained by TWR-Arrows, despite being a Hart-designed Yamaha engine originally, so they should be included. Pyrope 11:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote to keep Petronas and Mecachrome in, as they did some degree of tuning to the Ferrari and Renault engines (Mecachrome was manufacturing them after Renault quit, anyway). Mecachrome also has business outside F1. Supertec is not an engine manufacturer, but it was in charge of selling the Mecachrome. Maybe we should have it as a category for "Formula One supplier"?. The Osella engine was an Alfa Romeo without modifications, IIRC they got to keep the Alfas as long as no brand was mentioned. Was Motori Moderni involved with this in any way? Arrows engines were made when Hart was an employee there, so keep it. Acer, Playlife, Fondmetal and European shouldn't count as engine manufacturers. --Pc13 15:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mecachrome should definitely be in. In actual fact they build all Renault's F1 engines, whether they are used as "Renault" or otherwise. I would disagree about Petronas though. So far as I am aware (and I'd love to see a source that stated otherwise) the Malaysians just stumped up the cash to buy engines from Ferrari, they have no engineering staff of their own. Pyrope 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Petronas didn't build or tune anything; otherwise, how could Ferrari control the specification/performance of its c.$15-17m customer engines? It provided the cash and the fuel. Adrian M. H. 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, they had Osamu Goto working for them. And he did muck about with the engine some. That's what he was there for, to get more performance out of the year-old Ferrari design. --Pc13 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A fair point, but it still doesn't make them an engine constructor. Almost every racer tunes their engine. Pyrope 09:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chassis links and redirects

Here's a copy of a conversation Spute and I have been having on our talk pages, which we decided to share with a wider audience. DH85868993 12:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

<start of copied conversation>

Hi Spute. I notice that you recently created articles for Arrows A3, Renault RE20B, Tyrrell 010 and Fittipaldi F8C which are just redirects to the respective constructor pages. I'm wondering whether it might be a better idea to not create "pre-emptive" redirects like these, but instead to create any necessary redirects after the base article has been written. Otherwise, seeing blue links might discourage people from writing the articles because they think they've already been written. What do you think? DH85868993 07:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of pre-emptive links and redirects, because then once someone creates an article for say the Tyrrell 010, all the links to it are automatically in place - we don't have to sift through every single Tyrrell Racing link (several hundred of them, it's even worse for Ferraris!) to see which of them should be changes. I see your point about a blue link discouraging people from writing an article, but i think if people are interested, they'll follow the link, see that there's nothing about the car in question and write it - either as the new page or on the Tyrrell page (in which case we can later de-merge it). We could point this out on the talk pages for any articles which are so redirected and also on the F1 project page? Spute 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. Another question: Yesterday I updated a driver career summary table for a driver (Reine Wisell) who drove a Lotus 72D. I wikilinked "72D" directly to Lotus 72. Do you think it would be better to have created a "Lotus 72D" article (which redirects to Lotus 72) and wikilinked to that instead? One advantage of doing that would be that if anyone ever types [[Lotus 72D]] in the future, they'll get a blue link straight away. But I'm worried that we'd end up with a clutter of little redirect pages for every /B, /C, /D, etc chassis variation. And a slight variation on that theme: Wisell also drove a BRM P160B and a BRM P160C. Noting that there currently isn't a BRM P160 article, do you think I should have:

(1) linked "P160B" and "P160C" to BRM P160, resulting in red links (this is what I actually did)

(2) linked "P160B" to BRM P160B and linked "P160C" to BRM P160C, resulting in red links

(3) linked "P160B" to BRM P160B and linked "P160C" to BRM P160C, created BRM P160B and BRM P160C both as redirects to BRM, resulting in blue links

(4) linked "P160B" to BRM P160B and linked "P160C" to BRM P160C, created BRM P160B and BRM P160C both as redirects to BRM P160 and created BRM P160 as a redirect to BRM, resulting in blue links, or

(5) something else?

DH85868993 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi DH85868993. Yeah in the Lotus 72 case i'd agree with you, it'll be easy enough to sort it out, as the Lotus 72 will never have too many links. As for the other case, personally, I'd go for:

• linked "P160B" and "P160C" to BRM P160, and created BRM P160 as a redirect to BRM, resulting in blue links

for the following reasons:

If someone does ever make "P160B" and "P160C", it'll be quite easy to spot the incorrect links, as there'll never be too many of them.

I think blue links are much more helpful to the general reader/F1 fan. I know it's slightly less easy for people, like you and I, who want to spot articles in need of attention, but we can always mention these on the project pages. What i do think is important is that someone who knows very litte about F1 history, can click on a link and instantly get some relevant info, even if it's not yet a full article solely about that car. That's why i did it for Fittipaldi F8C. I thought someone might be looking at, say the page for the MP4/1 or another 1981 car, and want to know about its competitors. At least with the link to the redirect they find out a bit about Fittipaldi Automotive/Copersucar - a fair bit of intersting F1 history they may never have known, whereas a red link would give them nothing, unless they do a google search for the car or something. That might seem trivial, but i'm keen to make things as easy as possible particularly as someone who has had computer-related repetitive strain injury problems. Having said that, i'm not too bothered if there's abit of inconsistency in this respect, there's plenty of other stuff to do on wikipedia.Spute 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just realised that option (4) isn't a viable option anyway, since BRM P160B and BRM P160C would be double-redirects (which don't work). So I agree that your suggestion is probably best. BTW, are you happy for me to copy this discussion to the WP:F1 discussion page, so we can share the idea with others? DH85868993 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

<end of copied coversation>

In summary then, the proposal is that when wikilinking a chassis variant, if there's no dedicated article for that particular variant, then link to the "base type"; if there's no article for the "base type", then create one, as a redirect to the constructor. For example:

• there is a dedicated article for the "A" variant of the McLaren M7, so "McLaren M7A" should be linked to McLaren M7A

Just pointing out that there's no such thing as a McLaren M7. The first F1 McLarens were all "A"s, except for the M2B (which was based on an F2 model, the M2A). The following cars were the M5A, M7A and M14A. The M7C, M7D and M14D were variants of the M7A and M14A. See here. --Pc13 15:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Trust me to pick a bad example! Thanks for clarifying that. DH85868993 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• there's no specific article for the Brabham BT44B, so "Brabham BT44B" should be linked to Brabham BT44 instead. If we ever decide to write a dedicated article for the BT44B, then we can just examine the links to Brabham BT44 and update them as necessary.
• there's no specific article for the BRM P160C, so "BRM P160C" should be linked to BRM P160. There's currently no BRM P160 article, so one should be created, as a redirect to BRM. If we eventually get around to writing an article for the BRM P160, the links are already in place. And in the meantime, a reader who clicks on "BRM P160C" gets something relevant to look at.

Thoughts? DH85868993 12:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I've had my daily dose of caffeine... You've obviously thought carefully about this, and the result seems very sensible. It creates flexibility. So you have my vote. Adrian M. H. 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not so sure. I'd prefer to leave red links in. By all means make the links as you write the articles, but linking to a base page is both misleading and, as you pointed out right at the start, likely to put people off writing articles. As for variants, just link them to the base page whether it exists or not. They are, after all, just variants. Pyrope 12:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd still disagree. I don't see that redirecting Fittipaldi F8 to Fittipaldi Automotive is "misleading" - it's taking the reader to a page full of information about the compnay that made that car, with a bit about the car itself. A red link is actually more misleading in my opinion - as that says "wikipedia doesn't have anything on the Fittipaldi F8, you'll have to go elsewhere". To someone who knows a fair bit about F1 history, you could say that's fair enough, just look up Fittipaldi Automotive and you'll find something. However, if you don't know that Wilson and Emerson Fittipaldi formed a team in the mid 1970s, then you have to do quite a bit of searching. Ultimately it pretty much comes down to a question of whether wikipedia is for the writers or the readers. I'd say it should be for readers, but I don't necessarily think this is worth getting into edit warring about. I think we should maybe just agree to disagree - people should deal with links as they come across them in whatever way they see fit. I'm certainly not going to go and set up redirects for every car ever made, there's more important things to do.Spute 13:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gosh. More questions. It's probably more 'Wiki' to leave the red links, for precisely the reason identified above - it encourages others to create the articles. I also have some sympathy (probably because of the example used!) for Spute's point that at least you get some useful information if you pipeline the link to the parent constructor page. I guess it comes down to whether the aim of the exercise is to 'build the Wiki', in which case red links are better, or to inform readers, in which case blue links rule. Which leads me to another question. Is it an aim of this project to create an article on every F1 car ever built? I would personally suggest no, because I don't think there's much to say about some cars (even some Brabhams, and probably all Fittipaldis, except perhaps FD1.....), but I think Adrian at least holds the opposite view.4u1e 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't: as far as car articles go, you are right. As for red versus blue... Actually, I'm increasingly not sure either way. I can appreciate both sides of the argument, and some of the points are quite significant. Adrian M. H. 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(Oops - my apologies for misrepresenting you, then.4u1e 12:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Exactly, red links serve a purpose. By all means link the manufacturer name to the manufacturer page, but link the model designation to the proper page. If this means it comes up red, then so be it. I still maintain that it is misleading to link to pages that don't really concern the subject of the linked word/s. I speak (type?) as someone who gets very fraustrated when I am reading articles and follow a blue link, only to find that it takes me to a page that says nothing or very little about the subject of the link. I then waste time trying to find information that isn't there. The worst are the drongos who make wikilinks back to the same page that you are already reading. I think we should follow the practice that we agreed on above (and discussion is what this page is for after all), and link manufacturer names to manufacturer pages and car designations to the car page, e.g. Lotus 100T. As for having a page on every car, I reckon that's a matter for editors willing to put the time in. Providing, of course, that they can fulfill the wiki prime directive of being "notable". So the McLaren M7B-D variants should really all link to the main M7A page for example. Pyrope 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Pyrope has this one right. 4u1e 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i think in most cases that does sound best. What's the decision on car articles that will never be written though - surely they should link to constructor? Also, shouldn't McLaren M7B-D all link to McLaren M7, not M7A, if that article is to cover all M7 models? Spute 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

External links on Formula One

There is currently a bit of edit warring going on over external links in Formula One. It has also been an issue in the past. Can I suggest we come up with an agreed list here and once that is complete we can add those and a comment warning against adding more without discussing it?

I added such a comment a couple of days ago. It's been studiously ignored. Maybe I didn't make it obvious enough. DH85868993 08:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! I just checked and I had put the comment above the "External Links" section header - no wonder people didn't see it! I've now relocated it into the External Links section (at the end of each subgrouping) - lets see if that has any effect. DH85868993 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. Mark83 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Updating Many Pages

I heavily requested this just over a month ago, but i thought I'd bring it up again.

It's mainly concerning many race report articles from the 1990s. These articles severly lack data and need to be brought up to standard. I've already done all of the 1994 season as an example, and I would be greatful if people could start putting detail in for other races in the other seasons. It would be much appreciated. Websites to look on would be www.statsf1.com and www.grandprix.com.

For the 1994 articles, a infobox needs to be put on for all of them (excluding San Marino and Australia) as this is currently missing and I don't know how to put this on.

Also, several driver profiles are lacking much data, a few examples include Jean Deletraz, Taki Inoue and Bertrand Gachot, which I've tried to bring up to standard. Try to get info off the websites above. The same goes with the teams (Simtek, Forti, Pacific, Mastercard Lola).

Also, somebody needs to create all of this years race results page as no one has yet done this. Again I would be very greatful if somebody could do this, as they'll just be created anyway.

Please comment underneath, especially if you have updated any race articles. Just an idea, you can put in race reports, look at 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix to see how to do it.

Many thanks Davnel03 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, information first. The infobox template that you are after is Template:F1 race report infobox. That is fairly self explanatory, and just needs you to cut and paste the pro forma from its talk page, and replace the field entries with the correct information.

As for "heavily requesting" this action, please bear in mind that (judging by the numbers voting in the country codes debate above) there are fewer than 20 of us who are seriously active in F1 editing. With the huge numbers of articles that are possible it is simply a case of "if you want it done, do it yourself". In Wikipedia, if you ever type the word somebody, that somebody usually ends up being you. Jean-Denis Deletraz, Taki Inoue and Bertrand Gachot all look like pretty good start, or moderate B-grade articles to me, and will probably satisfy all but the ardent F1 Rejects reader.

It is great that you have a special interest in the 1990s seasons, and good editing usually involves some degree of obsession, but please appreciate that not everyone shares your priorities. Personally, I don't really give a monkey's for much after the banning of turbos, but there are a few '90s devotees out there who will probably pitch in with little edits here and there. Well done on attempting such a large editing task, and good work on those articles that you have already whipped into shape! Pyrope 09:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the template works, so could somebody else put this into the 1994 race articles. I've attempted to, but failed. Go onto www.statsf1.com to get the info you need. Anyway, I'm also concerned about the early 2000's that have things missing, some articles need to be brought up to standard. Davnel03 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep and other race from 50's,60's,70's and 80's also needs to be done, as well as every driver, team, event, team principle, season etc. The 90's race reports are fairly low priority as a whole, with a few exceptions (93 Euro GP, 94 San Marino and Aus, 96 Monaco, 97 Euro, 98 Brit and Spa to name most of them). I've worked on two of those, and work has started on the others but the other 90's GP's come much further down the list than some other F1 articles for many editors. Alexj2002 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Circuit updates

I've noticed that some circuits had a layout change: in the Catalunya circuit a chicane has been added between the Europcar and the New Holland turns; in Spa the bus stop chicane has been moved a little towards the Blanchimont corner, and La Source has been moved about 100m further to allow the building of the new pit complex. Can someone find the updated data for these circuits (such as track length and the number of laps), since I can't find them and the official F1 site still has the old values? And can someone paint new maps? I can't do that either. Just another thing: in the Fuji Speedway article says the best lap is still Jody Scheckter's. Isn't more appropriate to say there's still no best time, since the circuit layout has been changed heavily? Same applies to Catalunya and Spa. Asendoh 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is customary to note the outright lap record regardless of circuit layout. Hence Monza's previous record remained unchanged for many years after the chicanes were installed. Adrian M. H. 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Driver names in constructor career summary tables

There's currently some inconsistency in the format of driver names in constructor career summary tables. Most of the tables (e.g. Toyota F1, British American Racing, Red Bull Racing, Jordan Grand Prix, Minardi, Midland F1 Racing, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Super Aguri F1) have the driver's full name. But a couple of the recently created/updated ones (notably Williams F1 and Sauber) have the driver's surname and flag icon. Noting concerns about table width, what's our preference? Or would just surname be better? DH85868993 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of the F1 car articles include a similar table - most (all?) of them seem to use driver name in full. DH85868993 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to Ford-Cosworth DFV (and other Ford engines)

How do we want to display and link references to the Ford-Cosworth DFV (and other Ford engines) in:

• race result tables (and other places where we are just displaying the engine manufacturer's name, e.g. "Ford")
• driver, constructor and chassis career summaries (where we usually display the engine manufacturer + configuration, e.g. "Ford V8")

I think for most references to the DFV, the manufacturer name is displayed as "Ford" (although I know there are some places where it's displayed as "Cosworth") but what it links to varies widely: some instances link to Ford, some to Ford Motor Company, some to Cosworth and some to Cosworth DFV. I don't have strong feelings about what is "the correct answer" but I think it would be good to try to have a consistent approach. DH85868993 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a couple future races - the San Marino question

I added pages for the 2007 Bahrain Grand Prix and 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

Question 1: Is this the right way to do these, but what do you think?

Question 2: Also, do we have a good source for all of the sponsors for all of the 2007 Grand Prix?

Question 3: Also, because I haven't been paying attention lately, will the San Marino Grand Prix happen this year?

Thanks, Guroadrunner 10:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Could do; but you should add the future sport template and the f1 stub template as well.

2) I don't, know, maybe others know

3) No San Marino GP this year... the pit buildings and the final part of the track are being rebuilt. There is space in the calendar for a GP between Bahrain and Spain, but no races will be held. Asendoh 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Williams career summary tables

The recent addition of career summary tables to WilliamsF1 and Frank Williams Racing Cars has got me to thinking: What do we want to see in the career summary tables for constructors like Williams who both raced their own cars and supplied cars to others? Note that FWRC is a particularly complicated example, because they:

• raced cars they constructed under their own name (i.e. "Williams")
• raced cars they constructed under sponsors' names (i.e. "Politoys", "Iso Marlboro")
• raced cars constructed by others (March, Brabham, De Tomaso)
• sold cars they constructed to others

So, what do we want to see in the career summary table for FWRC?:

• works "Williams" entries? Of course.
• works "Politoys" and "Iso Marlboro" entries? I think so.
• non-works "Williams" entries? I think so.
• non-Williams cars entered by FWRC? I think so.

The next question is how to present the information. We could have two tables; one for FWRC as an entrant and one for FWRC as a constructor. Features of this approach are that there would be some degree of duplication between the two tables and the constructor's points might appear to "not add up" if the privateers contribute to the constructor's points total (I don't think this is an issue for FWRC, but it certainly will be for Brabham, Lotus and Cooper). Or we could just have one big table including both works and non-works entries. If we did this, would we want to somehow distinguish works entries from non-works? Even thought FWRC is a particularly severe case, we're going to have similar issues with Lotus, Brabham, Cooper, Maserati and Ferrari. Thoughts? DH85868993 14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

template:Former F1 driver

For those drivers who competed in non-championship F1 races (of which there are plenty), what are we putting in the "Former F1 driver" infobox?:

• their Formula One stats, or
• their World Championship stats?

Noting that for drivers such as Fangio, Moss and Ascari, the two sets of numbers are quite different. If it's the latter (which I think it is), I suggest that we change the heading within template:Former F1 driver from "Formula One career" to "World Championship career". Thoughts? DH85868993 14:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been following the WC convention to date. For non-Champ races there are simply too many of them, and they are too poorly recorded on the whole, to make inclusion in the box worthwhile. The wording change would make this point plain, so I'm for it. Pyrope 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. DH85868993 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Flag template

Hi,

I'm currently putting on the main templates for all Formula One races in the 1994 Formula One season. I've got to the 1994 Pacific Grand Prix, and I can't find anywhere the Pacifc template for the flag? Can anyone help me, or even insert a template into the required slot. I found an image, but i don't know whether you can convert it into a template. Davnel03 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Adrian M. H. 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Template F1 1994 cars

Hi, just letting you know I have created this template on the 1994 Formula One cars. I'm going to start creating these articles, so I just thought I'd let you know. If you want to put any additional info on these articles, you can.

Many thanks Davnel03 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But the FW16 and FW16B are both under the same article, see FW14]. So in the template, shouldn't we have "Williams FW16(B)"?--Skully Collins ^Edits 15:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Williams FW16B I have now removed. Thanks for informing. Also, while I'm on, something very strange has come in the F1 2007 car templates. Here are three that have seen, that are no-where near the same. Is there any specific one I should use, and why?? I'm a bit stuck!!

I suggest using Template:Racing car. Usage and help can be found on it's discussion page ;-).--Skully Collins ^Edits 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

McLaren MP4-22

Category	Formula One
Constructor	McLaren
Team	Team McLaren Mercedes
Designer	Pat Fry (Chief Engineer)
Drivers	1. Fernando Alonso 2. Lewis Hamilton
Chassis	Moulded carbon fibre/aluminium honeycomb composite incorporating front and side impact structures
Suspension (front)	Adjustable double wish-bone arrangement
Suspension (rear)	Adjustable double wish-bone arrangement
Engine	Mercedes-Benz FO 108T, Mid-mounted 2.4 litre V8
Rev limit	19,000rpm
Gearbox	McLaren, 7 forward + 1 reverse
Fuel	Mobil 1
Tyres	Bridgestone Potenza
Debut	2007 Australian Grand Prix
Races competed	0
Constructors' Championships	0
Drivers' Championships	0
Race victories	0
Pole positions	0
Fastest laps	0

Williams FW29

Category	Formula One
Constructor	Williams
Designer(s)	Loïc Bigois Patrick Head Sam Michael
Technical specifications
Chassis	Monocoque
Engine	Toyota V8 Naturally-aspirated Mid-mounted
Transmission	7-speed Semi-automatic
Fuel	Petrobras
Tyres	Bridgestone
Competition history
Notable entrants	Williams
Notable drivers	Nico Rosberg Alexander Wurz Narain Karthikeyan Kazuki Nakajima
Debut	n/a
Last season	2005
Races Wins Poles F/Laps 0 0 0 0
Constructors' Championships	0
Drivers' Championships	0

Red Bull RB3

Category	Formula One
Constructor	Red Bull Racing
Designer(s)	Adrian Newey
Technical specifications
Chassis	carbon-fibre and honeycomb composite monocoque
Suspension (rear)	Double wishbone suspension Independent suspension,springs
Engine	Renault RS27 2400cc V8, naturally aspirated, mid-engine, longitudinally mounted
Fuel	Elf
Tyres	Bridgestone
Competition history
Notable entrants	Red Bull Racing
Notable drivers	14. David Coulthard 15. Mark Webber
Debut	2007 Australian Grand Prix
Races Wins Poles F/Laps 0 0 0 0
Constructors' Championships	0
Drivers' Championships	0

Can anyone suggest which one I should use??Davnel03 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Simtek + Pacific

From the item above, I'm just letting you know I have fully created Simtek S941 and Pacific PR01. If there is anyhthing major I've missed off, can you change it. I'm in the middle of Sauber C13. I would be very greatful if somebody could start helping me on the other 1994 car articles. A website which I get the vast majority of information off is:

• [[2]]

The website is in French, so if you cannot understand it, convert it to English, using [[3]]

Many thanks, and I hope to see these pages being updated more often! Davnel03 14:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good that you're contributing, and adding new articles, it really is, but please don't go on about how other people need to do more. That's not really how wikipedia works, sorry. As was said previously, there's not many of us who are really actively editing F1 articles, and we all have our own little obsessions. If yours is the 1990s, then great, go for it, and others will add what they want, when they want. There's plenty to be done, and the Simtek and Pacific pages probably aren't top of everyone's list, don't be surprised by that. Sorry if this sounds rude, but if you see something to do, want it to be done and know how to go about it, then, why not just do it? If you need specific help with something, then don't hesitate to ask, but please don't expect others to jump on the same tasks as you.Spute 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Race Reports

Sorry about me asking so many things recently.

Anyway, I've just noticed this: Category:Formula One race reports. It has all the races from 1950-1989, then every race from the 1990's are missing as well as all the races from the 2000's (apart from US GP). Is there any reason why? Can someone put these all in one category?

Many thanks Davnel03 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Davnel03, this topic is already under discussion here DH85868993 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Monaco Grand Prix

It's currently a FAC. Please help improve it and/or show your support because nothing is happening at the moment. Buc 11:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures I Uploaded

Hi, a while back I uploaded these pictures onto Wikipedia:

File:Winfield livery Williams (1998).jpg

File:WilliamsF1 Any TAG.jpg

File:Vitantonio Liuzzi.jpg

File:Eddie Irvine - image of driver in a Ferrari.jpg

File:Compaq livery Williams.jpg

File:Carlos Reutemann (as a driver).jpg

File:Andrea de Cesaris.jpg

File:Alex Zanardi.jpg

Unfortunately, these I think might be copyright infrigment. I don't know whether to put these on articles or not, in case they do violate copyright. Could somebody delete or keep depending on whether they infrige copyright - I'd be very greatful. If they don't - they can be put in the appropriate articles. Most are quite good.

Davnel03 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason that they are quite good is that they are all professional photos, uploaded from a pro site. They are all copyvio and will all be deleted asap. There is no point in loading them into articles because as soon as a proper admin sees them they will go apesh*t. NEVER upload from a commercial site. NEVER attribute GNU licencing to photos you copy from a copyrighted site. Quite how you managed to miss (ignore?) all the warnings that pop up duing the upload process I'm not sure, but they are there. I suggest that you actually read some of the guidance pages. Pyrope 22:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Davnel's realised that now Pyrope. Image copyright is one of the hardest things to understand on Wikipedia, with most people coming from a web culture where everything is taken and used without permission. However Davnel, I did explain the situation with regard to image copyright back in December on your talkpage - the key rule is unless it states it's GFDL/Creative Commons then it isn't and can't be used. Alexj2002 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jésus Iglesias

Jésus Iglesias was recently moved to Jesús Iglesias. I've fixed the double-redirects, but before I update the spelling within the article (which the mover neglected to do), do we have any evidence as to which is the correct spelling? Thanks. DH85868993 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish name is Jesús, I'm from Spain and I've never heard of somebody called Jésus. AS the drvir is from Argentina, I assume now it's fixed.--Fryant 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've updated all instances within the article to "Jesús". DH85868993 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Drivers

I have same questions to the following drivers:

• Paul Stewart (driver) is redirected to Stewart Grand Prix - so it is impossible to start a page about the driver/person
• Romain Dumas is redirected to Porsche Junioren - also impossible to start a page

• Laurent Redon is redirected to Laurent Rédon, but I would say, that the diacritic is not wright.
• Héctor Rebaque is redirected to Hector Rebaque, but I would say, that the diacritic is wright.

• Gonzalo Rodriguez - the wright spelling is Gonzalo Rodríguez (with diacritic) but Gonzalo Rodríguez is redirected to Gonzalo Javier Rodríguez, an Argentine footballer. Maybe the page can be renamed to Gonzalo Rodríguez (driver)?
• Rui Aguas - the wright spelling is Rui Águas (with diacritic) but Rui Águas is the name of a Portuguese footballer. Maybe it can be renamed to Rui Águas (driver)?

Is there a possibility to give them their wright names? Doma-w 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

With the redirects, you'd just add &redirect=no to the end of the URL and edit the page. For the others, feel free to move the pages if you feel the spelling is not right. Alexj2002 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

...or eve faster, just click on the blue letters at the top left underneath the page title, where it says "redirected from...". That'll take you back to the redirect page which you can then edit as normal.

As for the rest, I am not a Spanish speaker, so I can't comment on the accenting, but it sounds to me as though we need a disambiguation page for the Gonzalo Rodriguez and Riu Aguas cases. See Pedro Rodriguez for example. It would be better not to get too picky about accenting as this is the English wikipedia, and I'm afraid that most users aren't too familiar with the finer points of accents. By all means have the pages with the correct punctuation, but you should be able to find them without it. Pyrope 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quick answers! I'll try out. Yes of course, it must be easy to find them without the accenting! But I think the name of a person is very important! I will be very carefull. Doma-w 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tense in F1 car articles

There is some inconsistency in the tense used in the F1 car articles: some (e.g. Lotus 18) say "The <type> is..." while (most?) others (e.g. Minardi M193) say "The <type> was...". What do we want to see?:

• "is" for current season cars and "was" for non-current-season cars,
• "is" for all cars (i.e. as if the encyclopedia is answering a question, e.g. Question: "What is a Lotus 18?" Answer: "A Lotus 18 is....."), or
• something else?

Note that it's not quite as straightforward as for articles about people, where you use "is" for people who are living and "was" for people who are no longer living. Consider that the Mercedes-Benz W196 is no longer racing, but there is/are still example(s) in existence. DH85868993 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I reckon that for vehicles in most cases the tense sould be present, as there are many examples of most F1 cars still around. I agree that they are not still running in front line competition, but with the increasing popularity of historic racing there are plenty of opportunities for obolete cars to be seen running as they were intended. The obvious exceptions, and there are others, are F1 Ferraris from pre-1970, when Enzo was inclined to scrap last year's model. Pyrope 08:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is is used for the present season e.g.:

The Scuderia Toro Rosso STR02 is a car competing in the 2006 Formula One season

Was is used for the past tense e.g. The Pacific PR02 was a car competing in the 1995 Formula One season.

Is is virtually Now and doesn't make sense. I'd go with this format. Everything 1950 - 2006 is was, 2007 would be is. Davnel03 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But as Pyrope says, many of these cars are still not only in existence, but actually racing. (See Thoroughbred Grand Prix for example, which has several Brabhams and Lotuses, even a solitary Fittipaldi racing on a regular basis.) Surely we can only say is for these cars? I suggest that if a car is known to be still in existence then it's is. If we know that it has been destroyed (Ferrari 156 Sharknose for example) then it's was. 4u1e 18:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly 4ule. I think the correct verbal construction for most cars would be something along the lines of "xx is a Formula One racing car ... that was used during the 19xx Formula One season". Davnel03 writes that the "Pacific PR02 was a car competing in the 1995 Formula One season", which begs the question: what is it doing now? As the object still exists, and uless is has become a greengrocer in the meantime, the correct tense for its existence is still in the present. Pyrope 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But the Pacific PR01 is no longer being used, for instance, the Ferrari 412T was a old Ferrari car - it's no longer in use in F1. The Ferrari F2007, is though. It doesn't matter if it's used in any other Formulas as it's a variation, not the exact type. Davnel03 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the Pacific is an old F1 car, present tense. It was used in F1 in the past, past tense. The car's continued existence means that present tense is used in describing what it is. What it was designed and used for may well be past tense. The only exceptions that I can think of in recent times may well be those Arrows chassis that Super Aguri converted into its first cars. Arguably, those vehicles no longer exist as Arrows cars, so their description would be in the past tense to reflect this. Pyrope 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that a car exists as the conceptual idea, so even if it was used in F1, it is a racing car. Readro 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Scuderia Toro Rosso STR(0)2

So, which is it? Currently we have both Scuderia Toro Rosso STR02 and Scuderia Toro Rosso STR2 (at a quick glance they seem identical) and the references in 2007 Formula One season, Scuderia Toro Rosso and template:STR have been changing backwards and forwards. DH85868993 12:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is STR2. Based on STR's website. Hence my changes. Suggest deleting the Scuderia Toro Rosso STR02 and using Scuderia Toro Rosso STR2 from now on. MonkeyMumford 13:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that Scuderia Toro Rosso STR02 has now been updated to be a redirect to Scuderia Toro Rosso STR2. DH85868993 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we rename Scuderia Toro Rosso STR01 to Scuderia Toro Rosso STR1 then? Davnel03 15:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It was the STR01 though wasn' it? For example: [4]. Alexj2002 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Toro Rosso's website lists it as STR1. The359 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody rename it and do a redirect as I don't know how to do it. Davnel03 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy as pie old boy. Just go to the page and hit the "move" tab at the top. Enter the new page name in the correct box and give a reason, and the Wiki elves will do all the hard work for you, even creating a redirect fromthe old page name. You just have to then go through and ix the double redirects. Pyrope 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, by the way Pyrope that was very offensive what you said. Davnel03 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. And if it came across as offensive then I'm sorry, it wasn't intended as such. Just out of curiosity, how? I was actually feeling quite cheerful when I typed it... Pyrope 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Selected article

The new selected article is supposed to be chosen today, but none of the candidates have had any votes other than their original nominations. What do we do? Pick the one that was nominated first? Readro 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

oops... really ought to pass through the portal more than once a month... Pyrope 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

STR, RBR, MF1

Currently there's some degree on inconsistency regarding the use of:

• Scuderia Toro Rosso/Toro Rosso/STR
• Red Bull/RBR
• Midland/MF1

as constructor names. Consider that we have an article called Scuderia Toro Rosso STR01, but in 2006 Australian Grand Prix we find references to a "STR-Cosworth" and a "Toro Rosso-Cosworth". Similarly, 2006 Australian Grand Prix also refers to both a "RBR-Ferrari" and a "Red Bull-Ferrari" and we have an article called Midland M16, yet 2006 Australian Grand Prix refers to a "MF1-Toyota". I think we need to decide on one variant for each and make all the references consistent. DH85868993 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Personall, so long as the first instance of the car indicates that both are applicable (e.g. Scuderia Toro Rosso-Cosworth, which would then indicate that STR- and Toro Rosso- are abbreviations), then I think a little variability within an article helps the readability. Too much uniformity becomes repetitious. Pyrope 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the abbreviations should be used. Midland is shorter than Williams and doesn't need abbreviating. Red Bull isn't exactly a long name either. Toro Rosso is an acceptable shortening of Scuderia Toro Rosso. Readro 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

F1 chassics

I've written a bit for the article on the Williams FW29, but I was wondering about the full name of the chassic, should it be:
- Williams-Toyota FW29, or
- Williams FW29

Personally, I'd go for the former because Williams will be known as "Williams Toyota" for 2007 so why not their chassic as well? Oh and speaking of Williams, I managed to get the results table "done", see my sandbox. I've put it in inverted commas because I'm not sure if:
- Should Frank Williams Racing Cars be there?
- The order of the races is correct
- The enbolded races for pole position
- If a driver has won the world title should an asterix go by their name?--Skully Collins ^Edits 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good questions. Easy one first: Regarding FWRC, I'd say no, it was a separate entity, their result should be on their own page, and they should be complete right back into the late '60s. WilliamsF1 only claim four decades of involvement, if they had included FWRC then the total is nearer the half century mark. As for the full name of the car, the website gives it as the Williams-Toyota FW29, so that should go in the infobox. However, as far as I am aware, and so far as the company website tells me, WilliamsF1 will remain WilliamsF1 and Toyota will supply them with engines, as per the usual relationships. The race team will be known as AT&T Williams. Where did you hear otherwise? I haven't managed to check all the results yet, but a brief skim of improtant dates seems to come up spot on, well done! Pyrope 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what we have here on Wikipedia, it seems to be the second example that sounds better. I can't see the point of going around changing all the article names. I think we should leave it the same. Anyway, you've done a good job, well done!! Davnel03 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Crikey - and they said it couldn't be done! Just as well you took up the baton, because the anon who started the job seems to have vanished. One small niggle (sorry). Agree with Pyrope that 74 and 75 should be removed (they're already in the FWRC article), but it should cover 1977 as well, when the new WGPE entered a March 761 chassis for Patrick Nève. I think that was the only car, so you should be able to copy the results from his table. 4u1e 19:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Skully. A couple of questions/comments:

• Do we want the driver flagicons? On my preferred screen resolution and browser window size, I get the flag on one line and driver's name on the next line, resulting in each row of the table being a little taller than it would be without the flagicon. (Note that I'm not passionate about whether we have the flags or not; I just want us to make a conscious decision so we can make all the tables consistent).
• I agree with Pyrope about including the 1977 March results in the table. But will that mean the number of races in the table doesn't match the number of races in the infobox (i.e. are the stats in the infobox for WilliamsF1 the team/entrant or Williams F1 the constructor?)

DH85868993 07:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2006-07 Testing Times

I was just looking on the Red Bull RB3 article, and noticed a list of testing times. Ive removed them as it's really not notable. Should I put it back on the page or not? Davnel03 18:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are dead right that they aren't notable. Just watch how they bear no relationship to this year's finishing positions... ;-) Pyrope 09:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

New Improvement Drive article

The article for the next improvement drive is Tyrrell Racing. Readro 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we have an archive??

This page is getting extremely long - isn't it about time it got archived? Davnel03 09:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've archived everything that (a) looked resolved and (b) hadn't been updated since January. DH85868993 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Footwork

I was looking at some of the teams that have been taking over, with Jordan Grand Prix changing to Midland F1 and finally Spyker F1, and I was thinking, shouldn't Footwork have their own page too? I mean, didn't someone take over Arrows and renamed them Footwork? It's like what happened with Midland. I think Footwork deserves it's own page. I don't think this is on one of the archives, I just thought I'd bring it up. Davnel03 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Something stopping you? -- Ian Dalziel 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what other people thought about Footwork having it's own page. I mean - is it a good idea - or what? Davnel03 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd be against it, mainly because Footwork was short-lived and became Arrows again afterwards. It fits in with the Arrows story and anyone reading that article would have to go to the Footwork article to check that bit, and then go back to Arrows. Spyker will never be Midland again, or Jordan. Bretonbanquet 00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Frank Williams Racing Cars and WilliamsF1 are in seperate articles. Also,Stewart Grand Prix, Jaguar F1 and Red Bull Racing have their own articles. I can't see any reason why Footwork doesn't get it's own article. It can still have it's own section inside Arrows, with a much bigger article on it's oewn. There's nothing wrong with that is there? Davnel03 17:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing wrong with it - that was just my opinion, that's all. If you want to do one, just go ahead :) Bretonbanquet 17:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Footwork should have its own article, but it should be distingiushed from the parent company, as, for example, Leyton House Racing is distinguished from Leyton House.--Diniz 17:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've created the article under the name Footwork Arrows. I've copied-pasted the detail out of the Arrows article into the Footwork Arrows article. If anyone can add detail, please do. I'll try and add bits as I go along. Davnel03 10:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. I've adjusted the text slightly as it was out of context, but I reckon it's fair that they get their own page. Pyrope 11:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions/decisions we need to make:

• Should we update all the relevant links to Arrows (e.g. 1991-95 race reports and season summaries) to Footwork Arrows instead? [I think we should]
• Are we planning to include a "Former F1 team" infobox in the Footwork Arrows article? If so, should we deduct the "Footwork" stats from the Arrows infobox? [Personally, I think the numbers in the Arrows infobox should include Footwork]

DH85868993 12:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on both of those points.--Diniz 12:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just put the box on the page; you might need to make a few edits. Davnel03 13:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)