Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks or consult the project page for further information.
WikiProject Formula One


Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4

Contents

[edit] Simple English

I started creating pages for Formula One after seeing that there wasn't even an Ayrton Senna entry on there! Some help sould be appreciated. I'm Frits on the Simple English wikipedia. 89.98.95.206 10:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mauricio Gugelmin

Hi guys,

I've been working for a while on Mauricio Gugelmin. I felt my WIP was ready to "go live", so it's now on the main page. If anyone has any comments, or could add the article then I would most appreciate it. Readro 22:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job, well done indeed! One tiny quibble: I would prefer to see Gugelmin's potrait photo at the top of the infobox. As we have one it seems silly that we can't see his face under his name. The shot of him in the car would be a good addition to the appropriate year section, or just as a random illustrative shot. Otherwise very good. Pyrope 14:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else? I put the article up for peer review but barely anyone bothered to reply. How close do you think the article is to GA status? Readro 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] What constitute a Flop in F1 racing

Can somebody tell me what really constitute a flop in F1 as I have added some of them as suggested by a friend and I had to delete some that were not expected as a flop, I added some including Jaguar Racing and three GPs so correct me if I'm wrong as I don't get any chance to follow F1 much these days. Also can anybody please add some if they know of any for the following page. That edit can be found here. Willirennen 15.14 26 November 2006 (utc)

A 'flop' can be several things, but mainly it's either something that's (a) a complete failure or (b) something that's expected to be a success but isn't.
Examples of (a) are Life (Racing Team), who had a seasonful of DNPQs in 1990 (even Andrea Moda qualified in one race; drivers such as Jean Denis-Deletraz, Alex Yoong and Zsolt Baumgartner; the Lotus 88; Nigel Mansell at McLaren in 1995.
Examples of (b) are Jan Magnussen; British American Racing during the Jacques Villeneuve years; the Lotus 76; Four Wheel Drive F1 cars.
Trouble is, without appropriate stats and references it rapidly strays into POV territory. Lec CRP1 08:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess F1 Rejects would be a good source for F1 Flops - Wouldn't it? --Skully Collins Edits 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be a good place to start, and it provided the only details about Tom Jones, possibly the least successful F1 driver ever with a perfect 0% qualification record. However, to illustrate my next point, I wouldn't count him as a flop. His car was old, privately entered and was running a 1.5L engine two years after F1 had reintroduced 3.0L cars (and in the DFV's first season). The fact that he even tried to qualify is impressive, and his failure to do so is hardly surprising. A flop has to contain some measure of expectation. Pyrope 09:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Still, we do need to draw the line somewhere on qualifying for this "award". I do agree with you on the Jones thing (As long as Michael Andretti can replace him), that is indeed unfair to call someone a "flop" when it clearly is not the drivers' fault. I guess we should try and contruct a criteria for flops, shouldn't we? --Skully Collins Edits 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, seem that this whole thing is a touch nebulous. It is shot through with POV issues. I like that the list has been cleaned up, but I think the only criteria we can apply is a requirement that whoever adds to the list does so with a fully explained justification (i.e. at least a couple of lines). Single names are to be avoided. Pyrope 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A flop will be impossible to define for Wikipedia, without simply having 'as defined on F1 rejects', which would be dubious from a copyright point of view. What you could do is have 'drivers who never qualified for an F1 race' - verifiable - or 'teams who never scored a point in Formula One' - again, verifiable. You could come up with other, similar, definitions. That's my view anyway. 4u1e 20:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Note - obviously that would be 'drivers who entered an F1 race but never qualified', otherwise I and most of the rest of us would have to be listed..... 4u1e 20:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I must just stick up for Zsolt Baumgartner. His career can't be construed as a flop since he scored a World Championship point. He wasn't Ayrton Senna by any means, but neither was he Jean-Denis Deletraz. Bretonbanquet 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. His team mate Gianmaria Bruni was highly rated, yet Baumgartner was arguably the more impressive of the two. Readro 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now added some from that above lists, with it being separated into sections, I have to admit, it isn't realy that easy to define Willirennen 13 December 2006

[edit] Brabham

Sorry - I've got a bit of a one-track mind at the moment.:D

The Brabham article currently lives at 'Brabham Racing Organisation'. Brabham has an interesting history in terms of its name. In short, the company that built the cars was actually called Motor Racing Developments (MRD). A separate company called the 'Brabham Racing Organisation' (BRO) was Jack Brabham's private team between 1963 and 1965 and the 'works' entrant in Formula One, but not other categories. BRO disappears from the record after 1968 and the F1 entrant after that was always MRD. On that basis, BRO is not really the right name for the article. MRD would be more logical, but rather unexpected - so I propose that the article should be re-named to simply 'Brabham', with redirects from both MRD and BRO to the page. This would fit with the Wikipedia policy of using the most commonly recognised name.

Before I embark on this, does anyone have any objections? And does anyone know how to use a bot to change the multitude of pages which currently link to 'Brabham Racing Organisation'? Cheers 4u1e 20:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would agree with "Brabham", given that is the name most recognisable. Wikipedia:Bot requests would be the place to request a bot - it shouldn't be too hard as I imagine this kind of thing is done quite regularly. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 20:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No objections at all. Seems to simplify the title issues. I would always prefer proper titles for articles where possible, but in confused cases like this Occam's Razor seems a good guide. But you don't need a bot. Most pages link to Brabham already, and they will direct straight to the new page. Then just set the old page to redirect the other way and Bob's your mother's redneck hick brother with the big dog and attitude problem. Pyrope 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you know Bob then? ;-) OK, I'll get on with it. The reason for wanting to change existing links, rather than relying on the redirect is a) to be tidy and b) to avoid future problems if we agreed to change the article title again. I'm not sure how well multiple stage re-directs work. Still time for others to comment btw, I probably won't get around to this before this evening at the earliest. Cheers 4u1e 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the input. Cheers. 4u1e 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK drivers and nationality

The story so far.....

It has been agreed for a long time that the nationality used for F1 drivers in Wikipedia articles should match the flag that they raced under. See previous discussion. In most categories that is the nationality of the driver's racing license. However, Article 112 of the FIA International Sporting Regulations states that the nationality of drivers in a world championship (so including F1) is the nationality of their passport.

This is not normally contentious, except in the case of the UK, where it's not uncommon for editors to amend UK/British to Welsh, English, Scottish or Irish. As you can only have a British passport, not a Welsh, Scottish etc one, this does not then match the official results. See previous discussion on this topic. Note, by the way, that where a driver lives is not relevant.

The various UK drivers articles have slightly different ways of approaching this at the moment, although in almost all cases the Union Flag is used in the info box. There are (fairly mild) edit 'conflicts' going on at Tom Pryce and Eddie Irvine at the moment over the use of the Union Flag. It would be useful to have a completely standard approach agreed.

Can I suggest that we standardise on the following approach for UK drivers, which is almost exactly what we already have.

  • Drivers identified by the FIA as British will have the Union Flag used in their infobox and in all race and championship results. This will include English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh drivers, but not drivers from the Republic of Ireland.
  • The opening line of the lead for all UK drivers should read: "X is a British (former) Formula One racing driver from (England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales)."

That seems to cover all bases fairly.

Please indicate your support or otherwise below. If we're happy I think I'll add this to the WP:F1 page under something like 'style guide'. Cheers. 4u1e 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. Bretonbanquet 22:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I second that. --Skully Collins Edits 09:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. Readro 10:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support--Diniz 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Supported, but with one condition: that we amend the opening line to "X is a British (former) racing driver from (England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales). He/she drove in Formula One from/during...". Not all that glisters is F1, and most drivers have a considerable career away from the top formula. Pyrope 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
OK - presumably with similar wording added to represent other notable series for someone like Juan Pablo Montoya, who has competed in several notable series? (I've just realised that I should have posted this at WikiProject British Motorsport as well!)
Done. 4u1e 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - Obviously discretion should be used whether to use Formula One in the opening sentence. It makes sense for some like Michael Schumacher, but less sense for someone like Allan McNish who's been far more successful at sportscar racing. Alexj2002 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't take part in any of the earlier discussion, but I don't see the problem here. A British driver is British. Whether he self-identifies as British, English, Cornish or Independent Truronian is irrelevant: Wikipedia records facts, not opinions, and whether a particular driver likes it or not his nationality is British. In any case, why not simply reword to something like this: "Joe Bloggs is a British former racing driver, born in Llandudno, north Wales"? That sticks to facts and avoids the necessity to "sub-divide" Britain. Loganberry (Talk) 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Good points, I'd go with that argument. However, there are always some nationalists who seem only too keen to add the cross or saltire of their choice to a driver, just take a look at the mess that the BTCC reports are in, a complete shambles. I would also say that EVERY driver should start simply with the occupation of racing driver, and then have this qualified in a second sentence. Ok, so Ayrton Senna was best known as an F1 driver, but he also broke records in pretty much every other class he contested. Too many of the driver bios are already hopelessly skewed towards F1 career information, even where their F1 expoits were far more limited than in other series. Pyrope 08:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Like Pyrope, I think the problem is that 'drive by' editors change the nationality to Welsh, Northern Irish etc with middling frequency. To be fair, most of these editors never return, and I've not yet encountered a truly stubborn individual. I'm trying to find a form of words that makes it clear that we're not calling drivers British because we don't know that they're Welsh (etc), and also trying to get a really solid concensus on wording, to reduce the 'drift' in the wording of these articles.
Re British - yes you are completely correct, that is why we have standardised on this. My only objection to your suggested wording (using birth place instead of nationality) would be that it clashes with the standard format for birth (and death) details given just after the name i.e Joe Bloggs (born 1 January 1066, Hastings. Died 31 December 1999, The Red Lion, Cambridge).
I think Pyrope has a good point regarding 'F1 driver'. I think we can use common sense to decide what goes first, so Ayrton Senna would be 'a Brazilian former racing driver. He drove in Formula One from 1985 to 1994, winning 41 races and three world championships. He also competed in karting and British Formula Three'. F1 goes at the front, because it's the best known. 4u1e 09:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair point about the format, but that's a fairly minor problem, I think. You could get around it by stretching a point slightly with the standardised format, though. For example: "Joe Bloggs (1 January 1066 - 31 December 1999) was a British racing driver. He was born in Llandudno, north Wales, and died in Wick, Scotland aged 933." Personally I think it's (marginally) preferable on grounds of easy reading to keep the dates and places separate anyway, so long as they're all easy to find, and that's what I do all the time with cricket biographies. Loganberry (Talk) 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with Loganberry's suggestion, and as no-one else raised an objection, we'll take this as the agreed position. I'll leave it until the 7 December (so the discussion will have been open a week) before adding the following words on the project page:

"Drivers from the United Kingdom are listed as British in all driver articles and race and championship results. This reflects the FIA's own rules, which state that competitors in world championships must compete under their passport nationality, while competitors in all other forms of international competition compete under the nationality of the country which issued their racing license. This keeps Wikipedia consistent with official results and avoids the project having to make possibly subjective decisions about whether a driver is English, Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh.
The lead for all British drivers should begin:
(Name) ((date of birth) - (date of death) was a British racing driver. He was born in (town, England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland) and died in (location). He competed in Formula One from (year) to (year) and (detail achievements).
Details of other racing series entered should also be included, and should be given precedence over achievements in Formula One if appropriate for a given driver."

Thanks to all for your views. 4u1e 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A result of this is that we still have categories for English/Scottish/Welsh Formula One Drivers etc, which is somewhat at odds with what we've decided here. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've got no personal objection in terms of the article (probably because I don't pay much attention to categories!). You've still got the problem of verifiability, although compared to some of the categories people come up with, they're fairly sensible. 4u1e 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. Can I just disagree with the practice of stating birth and death locations in the text, rather than in brackets next to dates. Dates and places are inextricably linked, and the format (b. 45 Junember 2009, Somewhere) is a far more elegant and succinct form than the rather clumsily discursive "...was born in Somwhere and died in Somewherelse, Somecountry." Personal preference I know, but my pov for what its worth. Pyrope 10:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a bust-up a while back with User:Attilios over this, when he started going through various random driver articles and creating separate paragraphs for places of birth, creating stylistic howlers and generally making a huge hash of many articles. No-one else seemed to care and I lost my temper with him  :o( He was adamant that his way was best and I had to take a month-long Wikibreak while I cooled off.
I wanted things as you just outlined, even though some of the longer places names can get a bit clumsy, and the simple dates, e.g. (May 2, 1917 - February 23, 1996) looks quite neat, with the places listed afterwards. Personally I don't mind, but as I am currently going through all the driver articles making sure infoboxes / flags / dates / places are more or less complete and standardised, it would be good if we could agree absolutely on how to do it :o) Bretonbanquet 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests "* Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article. For example, "(12 February 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England–19 April 1882 in Downe, Kent, England)" should be separated to "(12 February 1809–19 April 1882) … He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England … He died in Downe, Kent, England":

MOS Dates of birth and death Alexj2002 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the vast majority of the driver articles don't have biography sections. Attilios' answer was to shove birthplace details in the career section, which looked absolutely chronic. Are you saying that birth / death place details should be in the initial paragraph or in some other entirely disconnected section? Bretonbanquet 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Good comments all. I fully agree that (12 February 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England–19 April 1882 in Downe, Kent, England) is clumsy, and you lose the pertinent information amidst the repetitive stuff. I would prefer to see "(b. 12 February 1809, Shrewsbury — d. 19 April 1882, Downe) was ... from England." The indication that both Shrewsbury and Downe are in England is implicit in the text and does not need repeating twice in the brackets. So long as the wikilinks are pointing to the correct places then I don't think we need full (Date, Place, County, Country, Nation) format. The exception to this would be where the person concerned had died outside of the country of their birth, e.g. "Carel Godin de Beaufort (b. 10 April 1934, Maarsbergen – d. 2 August 1964, Cologne, Germany) was a motor racing driver from the Netherlands", which is quite common amongst F1 drivers, who had a tendancy to fall off the perch in dramatic fashion. In de Beaufort's case we similarly do not need the Lander and region details, we just need basic information, not an address to send condolence cards to. Just a couple of personal format preference explanations as well: 1) I like using the b. and d. as the black letters help to give structure against the blue wikilinks. 2) Similarly, day-month-year sequencing helps to separate the numeral portions. If you then want to expand on the details of birth and death locations in the text then great: for instance, how come de Beaufort died in Cologne? I also disagree with the manual of style here as well: surely dates and places of birth and death are reference information and should be easily accessible, not buried in the text? Pyrope 08:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grands Prix in Argentina

I know this sounds a bit picky, but shouldn't it be the Argentinian Grand Prix instead of the Argentine Grand Prix? That's what I believe is the correct word, and it's what the races were billed as by the FIA. Readro 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it Argentinian is "an inhabitant of Argentina" whilst Argentine is "of or relating to or characteristic of Argentina". Don't quote me on that. Atlas/Autosport use Argentine as do GrandPrix.com, I don't mind either way though. Alexj2002 09:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, the country's official name is the Argentine Republic, which supports Alexj2002's interpretation. It seems to be similar to the British/Briton distinction, with one meaning "of Britain", and the other an inhabitant of Britain. Pyrope 10:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Just had a quick trawl through the records and the race is almost always listed as the Grand Prix of Argentina or the Gran Premio de la Republica Argentina. Pyrope 11:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
All my books list it as the Argentinian Grand Prix. I remember it being called that on TV as well. Here's an interesting discussion - [1]. It seems that the name "Argentine Republic" has slipped out of usage, and that the word argentine is rarely used. Readro 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Autosport/Atlas uses Argentinian - [2], [3], [4] etc. etc. Readro 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems Autosport/Atlas are inconsistent - [5] Alexj2002 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lola

Just a word of notice, that the page Lola no longer goes to the racing constructor/team. Lola has instead been turned into a redirect to a disambiguation page. The constructor/team page is now located at Lola Racing Cars. This is going to require people to go through not only all season pages and individual race pages, but also through all the F1 teams that have used Lola chassis, and change the links to their appropriate location. Bit of a hassle, I know. The359 23:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And all the driver pages - bit of a pain in the ass. Bretonbanquet 17:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
...And the new page name is incorrect. The long-standing company name is Lola Cars, or a derivative thereof. Lola Cars Ltd. originally, more recently Lola Cars International Ltd. (commonly referred to simply as Lola Cars), a division of Lola Group. I can't find a listing anywhere for Lola Racing Cars. Pyrope 09:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Lola Cars International already redirects to Lola Racing Cars, so I guess a swap is in order. However, make sure Lola Racing Cars stays a redirect, because that's the link I've been using with all the Lola edits. The359 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

2005 United States Grand Prix achieved Featured Article status today, becoming the fifth Formula One related article to do so. Congratulations to everyone who's worked on the five. The even better news is the number of articles that are on their way to FA status, there are seven articles at Good Article status, just one final push away from becoming Featured. Hopefully we can get at least one more of these submitted as a FA candidate before the year is out. Alexj2002 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to second that. Congrats to everyone who worked on the FAs. Hopefully we can catch up with the WikiProject Football (soccer) in terms of FAs! Once again, congrats everyone! --Skully Collins Edits 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup - well done all. Noting Alex's comment, I've finally got round to putting Brabham up for FA. Please feel free to add your support, or rip the article to shreds, as you see fit. ;-) 4u1e 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
And again, well done all. And Brabham is really looking good now 4u1e, liking what you did with the summary table. Pyrope 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page archived

This talk page was getting long again so I've archived everything before Novemeber that appeared to be inactive. Alexj2002 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, except that you have archived quite a few active discussions, as well as the archive summary section! Doh... Pyrope 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew I wouldn't do it right! Anyway, the only active topics I've found that I've archived are the Infobox: points? discussion and a part of the Non-results: Injury/Illness, no-shows and bans discussion (strangely the active part is in the middle of that section. My apologies for that but I feel especially in the second case where it was lost inside a much bigger partially inactive conversation that perhaps someone should summarise what's been discussed so far to get more opinion. The archive summary section isn't a permamnent fixture, just like this one it's intended just to be a standard talk page message. Alexj2002 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. It doesn't matter what you archive really, so long as we know what is where. That was really my point about the summary. Yes, in reality it is just another message, but it is an imporant information piece that should reduce the number of times we have endlessly repeated discussions on the main page. Having it at the top helps. Pyrope 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a new face to Wikiproject: Formula One?

I was thinking that our current WP:F1 page looks a bit cluttered so I'm going to propose changing it. I've come up with a draft design which I think is an improvement - this can be viewed on my sandbox. Main changes are that the layout has been columnised for easier reading, contributors/participants list and featured content list have been moved to subpages (not yet created) and summaries with links to them take their place and more prominence is given to the Article Improvement Drive. I'd like to know what you guys think of it. Alexj2002 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Alex and great design! (ever considered it as a profession? :-P). If you want, I'll make a members list page with a proper table.--Skully Collins Edits 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the design has been pinched from the Rugby Union Wikiproject, so I can't take any credit for that. If the design gets approved then yeah, a members list page with table would be handy. I'd think the Featured content style used in WikiProject Football (WP:WPF) could used be used for the featured content subpage. The subpage could then be linked to from the Improvement drive page as well so it's all in one place (less chance of it getting out of date). Alexj2002 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we have a separate page for the style guide as well? (Sort of like this). We've more or less established a standard for how an F1 page should look through the Featured and Good articles, which are fairly consistent. We could also put the recently agreed words on UK stuff there as well. 4u1e 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it looks nice - great effort, even if it was "borrowed" :o) I'd also agree on the style guide page, it would be nice to be able to refer people to it when they get irate over their edits being reverted :oD Bretonbanquet 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with putting it on a subpage 4u1e, the less clutter on the main page and the easier it is to find stuff the better in my opinion. Perhaps we could standarise some subpages names for tidyness - e.g. at the moment we have Portal:Formula_One/Did_you_know_(management) & Portal talk:Formula One/Management of selected articles - should they both go to Portal:Formula One/page or Portal talk:Formula One/page? I prefer the former but it could be argued that the article improvement drive should come under WP:F1 and not the portal. Alexj2002 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Category Deletion

There's a chance that Category:Formula One drivers who entered but not started will be deleted as a result of someone merely trying to change the category name for stylistic purposes. I think it's a valid category and maybe some people from here would like to vote for a rename to outnumber the deletionists. Vote here. Thanks. Bretonbanquet 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to those who voted - it looks like the category will be kept :o) Bretonbanquet 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name that car

Ferrari F2001
Enlarge
Ferrari F2001
Lotus 49
Enlarge
Lotus 49

Transferring some photos from flickr to commons, found some that are unlabelled and would appreciate help in trying to create as complete a description as possible for them.

  • First up is a Ferrari. I'm going to place it somewhere around the 1999-2001 season. Any takers on which season (and car) it actually is?

More to come! Alexj2002 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Definately a Ferrari F2001. The wing is too high to be the F2000, and Tic Tac was no longer on the side-pod on the F2002-GA. The359 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Alexj2002 23:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC). Right next up is this Lotus. Alexj2002 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This indicates it's a Lotus 49 (Clark, #5, Ford engine); this looks like it is the same chassis that is in the pic. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's a 49. Click here for a similar pic. Adrian M. H. 15:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Commons has a nice couple of shots of this same car [6] [7] but whoever uploaded them misidentified it as a 33. Take a look at the DFV, these are nice shots! Pyrope 14:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Picture peer review

I have put this image up for peer review here. Please feel free to leave comments!--Diniz 14:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Carlo Mario Abate

The article on Carlo Mario Abate states that he failed to qualify for 2 or 3 Grands Prix in 1962-63, and as far as I can find out, he never even made it as far as the Qualifying sessions in any of them, withdrawing before the meeting started. He has a F1 infobox as well. Are we going to include drivers who entered World Championship races but didn't actually turn a wheel in any of them? There are quite a few, and I could easily add them to the various lists etc, but we might be struggling for notability in some cases.

Abate raced and finished well in a few F1 races, but none of them of World Championship status, so these details can go in the article, but does he merit an infobox and inclusion on the list of F1 drivers? Bretonbanquet 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. He doesn't really warrant that status. Adrian M. H. 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In the list of Formula One drivers I intentionally included anyone and everyone who put themselves on the entry list for a GP. This was just for completeness and simplicity since almost every website uses different criteria for identifying F1 drivers (started a race, qualified, attempted to qualify, pre-qualified, drove in Friday practice...). All the drivers who never started a race have a note [2] in the races column of their table, if you think they should be removed I'd prefer they weren't but if you do, please just use a specific criterion for it (as this is one of the requirements to keep it as a featured list). – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to have him on the list along with all the other guys who entered a World Championship GP but didn't turn up or actually get out on to the track, it's just that there are many others who did that and aren't listed, like Piero Monteverdi, Menato Boffa, Rob Slotemaker, Gary Hocking, Syd van der Vyver, Ernie de Vos, Giancarlo Gagliardi etc etc. Either we include them all, and there are around 30, I think - or leave them off the list. I'm happy to add them, but other people may not be. What do you think? Bretonbanquet 00:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circuit Maps

Before, most of the circuit maps were of the same style providing consistency (and a more professional look to Wikipedia IMO) amongst circuit articles. I notice some are being replaced now (e.g. Bahrain International Circuit) and wondered what others thought about this. Should we try and keep them all in the same style (and in vector .svg format for easy adjustments?) Alexj2002 20:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it until you mentioned it, but I actually prefer this new design. It's attractive and gives a good impression of the position of significant areas like the paddock and grandstands. If the artist responsible is willing and able to commit to creating equivalents for the other circuits, then it could be adopted. Would it just apply to current GP venues or former GP venues, or even all circuits? One would have to draw the line at current venues, I think; otherwise there would be far too much work involved for the artist. Adrian M. H. 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer the new design. However, I would like to see the turns (and straights) labelled and in .svg format if possible.--Diniz 21:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Numbered with a key, perhaps. Avoids squashed up text labels. Adrian M. H. 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
There might be a problem with getting the artist to do other tracks - the artist drew the image for Bahrain International Circuit. A look at the uploaders talk page and then a quick google search turned up with this http://www.bahraingp.com.bh/virtual-tracks.html therefore I'm removing the image and marking for deletion as a copyvio. Perhaps instead we could make suggestions for improvements that could be made to the 'blueprint' design. Alexj2002 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Formula_One_146f.html"