Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Formula One This non-article page is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Contents

[edit] Number of Grands Prix when populating templates

When populating templates, does number of Grands Prix mean number of races entered or just the number actually started? Once I know the answer, I'll include it on the discussion page for the relevant templates, for the benefit of future editors. Thanks. DH85868993 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, it should only mean starts, not just turning up and having a go at qualifying. That's the widely accepted statistical approach outside of Wikipedia. Adrian M. H. 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
What about drivers who qualify but don't start? Gilles Villeneuve's last race at Zolder is normally included in his stats for example, but he was killed in qualifying and didn't race. 4u1e 09:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In my experience it generally means 'number of GPs entered', and I don't accept that the other way is the usual way - most reputable sources specify both the number of entries and the number of starts. In some cases we would otherwise have "GPs = 0", which looks like a driver has never been involved in a grand prix, and might invite deletionists to start pruning articles. A grand prix is the whole weekend, not just the race on a Sunday. There's surely no obstacle to putting both stats for entries and starts in the infobox..? Bretonbanquet 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, "GP starts" are what are commonly specified in driver stats: In Autosport and many other specialist magazines, they list starts only (with limited space, they prefer to distinguish between the two figures). On Forix, where there is more room for figures, presences are listed, with starts highlighted: see Fernando Alonso, for example. Speedsport, for example, has followed the "starts approach" and opted to list only Julia Kuhn's two starts in the F3 Euroseries, even though she attempted to qualify for two races at another round. As we don't have any particular space limitations, I would concur with you 100% that both figures should be included, but as far as Wiki goes, there should always be that distinction between starts and appearances. Including in Villeneuve's stats a race that occured after his death is only misleading and inaccurate: that some other sources simply list all presences without any distinction does not necessarily make it good practice. Adrian M. H. 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Forix is what I was thinking of specifically. I suggest we make a move towards including both figures then, with a clear distinction between them. I don't much want to go down the road of what constitutes a 'start' though - in the case of restarted races it gets complicated and often illogical. Bretonbanquet 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't worry about re-starts: I have never heard of anyone counting them as separate starts,

as it is not a new race as such. Adrian M. H. 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem I find is when a race starts, and there's a huge pile-up and someone's car is destroyed - if there's no spare or he's injured, that driver doesn't make the re-start. So did he start or not? Often you see that counted as a 'DNS' - I recall Niki Lauda's reaction to the idea that he didn't start the 1976 German Grand Prix - he said, "So what happened to my ears?" Bretonbanquet 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
A driver is deemed to have started a Formula One Grand Prix once his car has crossed the start line under its own power. If it fails to make a re-start, it is still classified as a starter, and should be listed in the finishing classification as a DNF. If it breaks down on the formation lap, or fails to make the start itself for any other reason, then it has not started the race. Indy 2005 for example. Adrian M. H. 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
We agree then :o) That's the way I've always looked at it, but there are those who have other ideas - such as the concept that any red-flagged starts are totally null and void and only the final successful start counts, hence those who don't make the restart are classed as DNS. Ideally, no-one here will give us an argument and it'll all be simple. Bretonbanquet 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then. If we've agreed that we should present both numbers, then the items we need to update are:

The next thing to decide is terminology. For "number of races actually started" we can either use "Starts" or "Races started". But what about "the other number"? Candidate terms would include "Entries/Races entered", "(Race) Appearances" and "Race presences". But note that the terms aren't completely interchangeable; consider the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix: Williams entered the race, but didn't appear. DH85868993 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest having the heading as "Races (starts)" and then the stat showing 49 (40), for example, so it could just be shown on one line. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I like that idea. Since we're not adding an extra element to the templates, we won't immediately break all the transclusions. Good thinking, AlbinoMonkey! - DH85868993 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me - Races (starts) seems to be a very simple way of doing it, and it shouldn't take too long. Many will actually be the same figure, e.g. Races (starts) - 23 (23). The thing with entries gets complicated when you see that drivers were entered in races in advance, with the result that sometimes a driver that had been killed in the previous race is still officially entered for the next one, even though it'll never be included in his stats. I would say "Presences" is a better bet if we want to be more specific than simply "Races". Bretonbanquet 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Pretty close, but if you want to have just one line for the data, I would go for something along the lines of Races:(starts/entries) or Entries/starts: as I think either of those makes it clearer. Two seperate lines would, of course, be preferable in an ideal world! Adrian M. H. 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to revive this discussion. I've noticed a few instances lately (e.g. Alain Prost) where editors have "corrected" the number of Grands Prix in a driver's infobox to be the number of starts. It's really not clear to the casual reader/editor what the "Grands Prix" number means. Would people be happy if I start including number of starts in brackets after the number of GPs, e.g. Prost's infobox would read: Grands Prix: 202 (199 starts) ? DH85868993 05:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

seems like a fair way to deal with it. Grands Prix, as I see it, cover the whole weekend. You can enter a Grand Prix and not start the race, e.g. not qualify or have a mechanical failure. MonkeyMumford 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of supplementary questions:

  • Do we want to display the number of starts if it's the same as the number of Grands Prix? i.e. would we prefer to see "Grands Prix: 2 (2 starts)" or just "Grands Prix: 2" ? Note that one advantage of always specifying the number of starts is that we can tell whether a particular driver's infobox has been updated or not.
  • How do people feel about the idea of changing the text "Grands Prix" in template:F1 driver and template:Former F1 driver to "Races competed" (for consistency with template:F1 team and template:Former F1 team), or even just "Races" ? (To me, "Races competed" suggests that the driver actually took part in the race).

DH85868993 06:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A useful link to data for the 2007 F1 season

Autosport has updated its hub page for F1 season info, ready for 2007, complete with journal links, detailed circuit maps and other useful data. It's available at http://www.autosport.com/f1/2007.html I'm sure this will prove convenient for upcoming research. - Adrian M. H. 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

nice idea. However, we would have to rely on people who have a subscription. MonkeyMumford 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't forget WikiProject Motorsport

I thought it would be a good idea to post a reminder about our parent WP; WikiProject Motorsport. We currently have only two editors listed on the List of Members, but I'm sure that there are more of you out there! Those of you who haven't already contributed to it are more than welcome to do so, particularly if you have specialised knowledge of any racing discipline that doesn't have a dedicated WP. If enough editors get together and coordinate their efforts, we can make a big difference to the neglected areas of Wikpedia's motor racing content. Regards, Adrian M. H. 20:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Formula One race reports

There's currently some inconsistency in the use of Category:Formula One race reports. Prior to 1988, the individual race reports (e.g. 1987 Australian Grand Prix) are in Category:Formula One race reports. From 1988 onwards (with a few exceptions), the individual race reports are in Category:19xx in Formula One and Category:19xx in Formula One is in Category Formula One race reports. I'm not sure I agree with the post-1988 arrangement, because Category:19xx in Formula One can contain things other than race reports - for example Category:1994 in Formula One contains Death of Ayrton Senna. I'd rather see:

Thoughts? P.S. Apologies if this has been discussed before - I did look through the archives, but there is a lot of stuff in there! DH85868993 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You have raised a good point, of which I wasn't aware. The first system seems logical, but the second version may leave some articles mis-categorised. Adrian M. H. 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
In order to resolve this problem, I would propose the creation of the categories Category:19xx Formula One race reports into Category:Formula One race reports and Category:19xx in Formula One. In Category:2006 in Formula One and Category:2007 in Formula One they have been already created the categories for the cars participants at Formula One World Championship, respectively Category:2006 Formula One season cars and Category:2007 Formula One season cars. I think that in the same way can be subdivided therefore also the races disputed year by year. As an example, in the 1994 let the article Death of Ayrton Senna into Category:1994 in Formula One and all races into Category:1994 Formula One race reports. What do you think? Piniricc65 14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Good solution. Let's do it. DH85868993 02:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed renaming of Category:Williams people

FYI, it's been proposed to rename Category:Williams people to Category:Williams Formula Team. Those with an opinion on the subject may care to comment here - DH85868993 14:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Following discussion, the proposal is now to rename Category:Williams people to Category:Williams Formula One people. Furthermore, it has been proposed to rename Category:McLaren people to Category:McLaren Formula One people. See discussion here. Note that it has not been proposed to rename Category:Ferrari people, on the basis that the category is not limited to F1-related people. DH85868993 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If we do that, that means we'd have to do it for ever team renaming it, no offense, but in a way, it's a bit pointless, we should just keep it the same, it's doing no harm. There again, I admit Category:Williams Formula One does sound better. Somebody should put in a proposal for the rest too. Davnel03 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No offence taken, Davnel. Just to clarify, I'm not the one proposing the changes; I'm just reporting it here so that people who are interested can make their views known on the CfD page. Also, what do you mean by "the rest"? As far as I'm aware, there are only the three categories this applies to: Category:Williams people, Category:McLaren people and Category:Ferrari people. DH85868993 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Just one quick query. All three of the debated teams are or have been involved in ventures away from F1. Ferrari sports racing cars, the McLaren F1, Williams's involvement in touring cars etc etc. Would the new categories be specifically for their F1 personnel? If the answer is yes, thn I can only feel that we are being narrow minded. Pyrope 08:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, Category:McLaren people has been renamed as Category:McLaren Formula One people and the relevant articles have been updated. DH85868993 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, Category:Williams people has now been renamed as Category:Williams Formula One people and the affected articles have been updated. DH85868993 04:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks for minor teams?

Recently I've updated quite a few driver career summary tables. When filling in the "Entrant" columns, on numerous occasions I've had to decide whether to enter the name of a minor team as a red wikilink, or just plain text. To date, I've been making somewhat arbitrary decisions, primarily based on my best guess as to whether the team is ever likely to have its own article. Is that a sensible approach? Or should we specify all team names as wikilinks, on the off chance that someday an article might be created for them? The same question applies to the "Private Entrants" section of List of Formula One constructors - do we want to see a long list of red links thee? Or no red links at all? Or just red links for the teams which we think are likely to have their own article someday? DH85868993 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If the teams are notable enough to have articles created which will not be deleted, then I would say keep the red links, as this will encourage people to create them. If the team's aren't notable enough, then there's probably no point (I noticed yesterday that the minor team Olson was deleted for not being notable enough). However, this solution is subjective and arbitrary, so we might just have to rely on trial-and-error. ;-) --Diniz 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree - most of the teams that are notable enough to have their own articles already have them. If one turns up that hasn't got an article but could realistically have one, redlink it. If it seems unlikely, don't bother. Trial and error seems like the way forward. It's not like we can't link things afterwards if articles get created. Bretonbanquet 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't fear the red links. They serve a purpose when reading: in addition to the "please write me" message that they send, they also highlight to a casual reader that no further information exists on that topic and is therefore no point in spending time searching for it. Pyrope 18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Formula One season

I've just nominated this for feature article. To vote, it's at this link. Davnel03 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed to a peer review instead. Please comment!--Diniz 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2 different car templates - which one you should use...

v • d • e
Cars which competed in the 2006 Formula One season

Renault R26 • Ferrari 248 F1 • McLaren MP4-21 • Honda RA106 • BMW Sauber F1.06 • Toyota TF106 • TF106B • Red Bull RB2 • Williams FW28 • Scuderia Toro Rosso STR01 • Midland M16 • Super Aguri SA05 • SA06


Cars which competed in the 2006 Formula One season

Renault R26 | Ferrari 248 F1 | McLaren MP4-21 | Honda RA106 | BMW Sauber F1.06 | Toyota TF106 | Toyota TF106B | Red Bull RB2 | Williams FW28 | Scuderia Toro Rosso STR1 | Midland M16 | Super Aguri SA05 | Super Aguri SA06


Hi, I've noticed two different car templates floating around. What I've done, changed some of the templates to the second design. I think all the templates are now on the 2nd design. If you create one in the future, please try to use the second design to avoid a potential confusion. Many thanks Davnel03 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the first design the better one though? It seems a generic Navigation template, with far less Wiki markup. Alexj2002 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah - this is my fault, really. I created several of these templates before I knew about navigation templates (the first version). I should have corrected them sooner...--Diniz 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Another point - I think that it's unnecessary to duplicate a team name if they use more than one chassis during a season, so Super Aguri SA05 • SA06 is preferable to Super Aguri SA05 • Super Aguri SA06.--Diniz 22:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
So consensus reached then? The first one should be the design used and the second phased out. Alexj2002 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I still think the second one is better. Also, all it means is that somebody's going to have to go around and change all of the templates in a vote that included all of two people. We may as well leave it the same and leave all the fuss. Don't you think it looks fine? Davnel03 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well we're going to have to go one way or the other, and it won't be all because some would already be in the format. We didn't have a vote either, we try to obtain consensus. Anyway they don't look much different to each other, and I can't say I really favour one over the other on aesthetic grounds - it's the mess of code that goes with the second one. However you can add | color= #ccccff to the template code which would give.
v • d • e
Cars which competed in the 2006 Formula One season

Renault R26 • Ferrari 248 F1 • McLaren MP4-21 • Honda RA106 • BMW Sauber F1.06 • Toyota TF106 • TF106B • Red Bull RB2 • Williams FW28 • Scuderia Toro Rosso STR01 • Midland M16 • Super Aguri SA05 • SA06

This looks similar to the second one while having the code & v.d.e./hide features of the first. Downside: Some modification would have to be made to all the templates, be it a replacement or adding the colour line. Still, a compromise maybe? Alexj2002 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; I'll start changing the templates somebody can help me do it!! Davnel03 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 F1 Car Photos

Seems as the season has yet to start, we haven't got any freely licenced photos of the new cars. I've noticed that copyrighted photos have been put up on some articles. Nearly all have no fair use rationale. Just a reminder that we need the FU rationale, and also to only upload press promotional photographs released by the constructor and not commercial/news agency photos (such as the soon to be deleted Image:BMW F1.07.jpg). Alexj2002 22:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well article-wise I have some regret. However if the uploader can't be bothered to provide a fair use rationale I have no problem with the deletion whatsoever. Mark83 01:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
agreed. Fair Use Rationale should always be added and only promo photos from the constructor are allowed. Although how about promotional photos from sponsors? MonkeyMumford 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One games

Should Formula One games that have come out on PS2, PC and XBox be included in WikiProject Formula One? I don't think they are at the moment, and I think we should include them - they are part of F1. Davnel03 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not really our field of expertise though. Yeah we could include them as they're F1 related, but I doubt we'd do much work on them (there's hundreds of articles that would take precedent). WP:CVG cover them at the moment, I think it's best left to them. Alexj2002 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's Featured Article

Just noticed we've got nothing in the TFA queue at the moment. Can I suggest we put something in, seems as it'll probably take a few months to reach the front page. I suggest Brabham should go on there next. Alexj2002 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest 1994 San Marino Grand Prix to try and hit May 1 with it. I think they can go in at fairly short notice if there's a strong reason for a date, though, so perhaps Brabham first and then San Marino. (I've still got changes I want to make to Brabham by the way, but I think that might be a permanent situation, so perhaps we shouldn't wait!). 4u1e 22 February 2007 14:17
Alright then, we'll go with Imola 94. Which picture do you suggest is used? Alexj2002 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking the picture of Senna - he's the name most people will associate with the race. The image of the crash will be considered in poor taste by many (not including me - it's not a close up and illustrates a major event event of the weekend), and is a lower resolution image (I know why this is!). Other views? 4u1e 22:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't nominated for TFA before - could you have a look at User:Alexj2002/Sandbox3, and let me know if it looks OK/suggest any improvements. Alexj2002 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't either, but it looks fine to me! 4u1e 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jansen Van Vuuren

I've nominated him for deletion; the discussion is here. Davnel03 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We've actually discussed him before but I forgot to do anything about it. Readro 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody perform a merge to 1977 South African Grand Prix - I don't know how to. Davnel03 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfa Romeo (Formula One)

Some of you may have noticed that:

  • following discussions on its talk page, the former "Alfa Corse" article has been renamed as Alfa Romeo in motorsport. (Alfa Corse remains as a redirect). The rational was that the name "Alfa Corse" suggests works involvement, whereas the intent of the article is/was to cover all motorsport involvement, including both works and non-works.
  • F1-related references to "Alfa Romeo" are now being linked to Alfa Romeo (Formula One) (which is a redirect to Alfa Romeo in motorsport#Formula One) rather than Alfa Corse. My rationale, as explained on the talk page is that I suspect that as Alfa Romeo in motorsport develops, there will come a time when the F1 section will be split out as a separate article. So I thought it made sense to define a dedicated F1 article (redirect) from the start, so that all the links only need to be changed once.

A question:

  • Would people have been happy/preferred if I had named the article as "Alfa Romeo F1" rather than "Afa Romeo (Formula One)" ?

If there's overwhelming support for "Alfa Romeo F1", I might change it. DH85868993 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, the Alfa Romeo links are all done now (so I withdraw my offer to change the name :-). And Alfa Corse is no longer a redirect; it's now an article in its own right again. DH85868993 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Marshalling in Formula One?

Diniz suggested this article and I was pretty interested about it. But I only know the major milestones:

Indeed as you can see, I've forgotten a few things. Like:

  • When was the first race with marshals?
  • Since Williamson's accident, have marshalling preparation been improved?

Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts.--Skully Collins Edits 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe their's no reason why there's not an article - there really should be. Davnel03 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Number for GP's

I've just noticed something in the template races boxes on several race reports. For some, we list roman numerals and some we list the normal number e.g.

Roman Numerals: XXXVI Monaco Grand Prix
Normal: 36th Monaco Grand Prix

Which one should we use (I prefer the first one)? Davnel03 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


That depends on the race's official name. Most seem to be Roman from what I can see. Pyrope 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment Page on WPMotorsport

I've made some changes on the WikiProject Motorsport Assessment page. I've done this so it goes in line with other projects, see this assessment page for example. Please don't delete it though - it's taken a long time for me to do. Davnel03 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partial lists of World Drivers Champions

Do we really need (to use) the partial lists of World Drivers Champions (i.e. {{Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1950-1969}}, {{Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1970-1989}} and {{Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1990-2009}})? I contend that the full list, without the "navigation bit" down the bottom, isn't much different in size (height) to the partial lists. And if we only had/used the full list, then we don't need the "navigation bit". Also consider that Prost and Senna each have two partial lists in their articles, which together occupy way more space than a single complete list would. Thoughts? DH85868993 13:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the full list is a better option. The other one adds clutter to category listings and the years selected are halfway arbitrary. Guroadrunner 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had always thought that they were pointless. Not only the arbitrary nature as pointed out above, but their layout makes them hard to read. Pyrope 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've updated all the WDCs' articles to use the full list. I'll get around to deleting the partial templates soon. DH85868993 07:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The partial lists have been deleted. See Tfd discussion here. DH85868993 05:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A request for opinions

I know this WikiProject is strictly speaking about Formula One, but this has some relevance. I've been working on things to do with the pre-war European Championship as of late, and I was wondering what people thought of this - the 1935 season summary page. Do you like the layout? Is there anything that could be bettered? Anything else you can think of as well would be much appreciated. I value any input you might have. Thanks. Readro 01:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It could use some discursive preamble to highlight the major points and save readers from trawling through the stats, but otherwise great. Pyrope 16:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I agree with Pyrope about the preamble to give some context. You could also link to the article on the European Championship (auto racing). (Note by the way that that article gives Caracciola 12 points as oppposed to the 11 you have. I understand that interpreting pre-war results tables is an arcane and difficult process, however!). Finally, I'm always amazed by how many pre-war drivers and cars already have their own articles. Cheers 4u1e 2 March 2007, 17:04
A rework of European Championship (auto racing) is in progress because its facts are wrong in many many areas. The numbers are virtually all wrong, so it's best to ignore the current version for now. Readro 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Fair enough. Have you left a note over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport, by the way? 4u1e 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Records" section in F1 constructor/team articles

Scuderia Ferrari and McLaren each have sections entitled "Records", and Toyota F1 has a section entitled "F1 Statistics", all which have recently been the subject of a fair bit of activity (and some debate on the respective talk pages). Do we want to apply some common guidelines to these sections (and any similar, future ones), e.g.:

  • duplication of information already present in the infobox
  • which "records"/statistics are worthy of inclusion
  • clarification of whether a particular number is the current (or former) record across all teams/constructors, or whether it's just the "record" for this particular team/constructor

etc. Or are we happy for each article to develop independently, with discussions occurring on the respective talk pages? DH85868993 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's something we absolutely have to standardise - some teams don't hold any records, while others have lots. My only concern at Toyota F1 was the degree of duplication between the infobox and the 'statistics' section. I think it's easy to go over the top on statistics, and I do get a bit impatient with things like 'Only left handed driver to win three races in a row where the first race began with an 'F' and there was a 'J' in the month. In a green car.'. On the other hand, many people find statistics fascinating, so I've no objection to them, provided they're referenced (and true!). 4u1e 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monaco Grand Prix FAC

Monaco Grand Prix is still on FAC. At the moment, I don't think it will pass, partly because of objections that I have raised, although others have expressed similar views. I'm struggling on completing the referencing of the article - in particular on the organisation of the race. If anyone can contribute the missing refs that would be great.

I also have some suggestions on structure on the talk page - to do with the 'notable races' section. I'd be grateful for the views of other editors. Thanks. 4u1e 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent example

I just wanted to say that 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix is an excellent example of a report page. All report pages should look like this. --Thelb4 08:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting there. But for me, the position and size of the images used has really messed up the text formatting. The might be pretty, but they make it hard to read. Pyrope 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I'd say that 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, 1997 European Grand Prix and 2005 United States Grand Prix should be used as the benchmarks for F1 race reports (seems as they are all either FA's or GA's). There are way to many pictures on the Brazilian one, even having a picture before the lead! The majority of the 'one car only' pictures don't add to the article and should go IMO. The infobox map doesn't look professional. Some of the trivia in the notes section (esp. the Massa flag incident) should either go in the article or get deleted. (I'd say Massa flag should go into the article and the Raikkonnen incident seems pretty non-notable and should be removed). Oh and to cap it off, the article has just 4 references. I'd say it's probably a B-class article at the moment. Alexj2002 12:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There's not a huge difference in layout is there? Although Alex is right - better to take as your models those articles that have been assessed as meeting GA or FA. I agree that there are too many pictures - and I don't think pictures in the lead is normal practice (although one has been added to the 2005 US GP as well). Four references is of course not enough for GA standard - and one of those is a Youtube link, which needs to go as well because it's copyrighted material illegally reproduced on Youtube. 4u1e 16:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact it's already been taken down from Youtube, so I've removed the reference. 4u1e 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusions / Bans

Is there any interest in differentiating between exclusions and bans in driver results tables? I always understood an exclusion to be a disqualification during practice or qualifying, either for an on-track incident, a technical infringement, or for missing a weight check. This used to happen quite often during the 1980s and early 1990s, for example Stefano Modena at the 1988 Mexican Grand Prix and the 1988 Monaco Grand Prix. A ban, such as the one that BAR and their drivers received a couple of years ago for the fuel tank infringement is a different thing, resulting in that driver or team not being present at the event at all. I suggest adding a "Ban" code to the template to illustrate the difference. At the moment, "EX" is used to cover both eventualities. Bretonbanquet 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they both mean the same thing; I'd use exclusive it sounds more technical.Davnel03 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've always read it much the same as you Bretonbanquet, with exclusion meaning to get taken out of the event, and ban to mean not allowed to participate in the event in the first place. Alexj2002 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember that we discussed something along the lines of... if a competitor doesn't participate at all then we leave the box blank in the table. Precise reasons to be given in the article. I'm not fussed either way mind. Pyrope 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Exclusions and bans are definitely not the same thing. What Alexj2002 has said is exactly the way I look at it. The problem with leaving the boxes blank is that people come along and put "EX" in them... I think maybe if there was a "Ban" code in there, those people would leave it there. Bretonbanquet 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fastest laps in summary tables

What do people think of Diniz's idea of highlighting fastest laps in driver and constructor career summary tables in italics, similar to the way in which we highlight pole positions in bold. DH85868993 09:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we agreed this was a reasonable idea? Pyrope 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in Templates

Hi, I'm currently making some changes over on the WikiProject Motorsport Assessment Page. Look in the statistics section. Only 240 articles have the template WikiProject Motorsport on it. I'm thererfore going to propose something (I think this has been discussed a while back). Can every single Motorsport article have the template on it's talk page. My reasoning for this is that some drivers have only the Formula One template on the article. However, surely (by the way, this goes for virtually all articles), they haven't got to Formula One someway. They haven't just been thrown into F1, I don't think any drivers done that. They've gone through other forms of Motorsport. Therefore, surely the Wikipedia Motorsport template is needed for every single Motorsport article?. I'm going to do a vote on this (on this page, plus the Motorsport project and all the child projects) so we can get a decision on this. By the way, don't bother voting on different projects, as only one of your votes will count! Davnel03 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree


  • Disagree


  • Leave Comments Here
I'm sympathetic to some extent because I would like to have the stats too. My concern is that we're getting template overload on some pages (not all ours by the way, I was surprised to see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia maintain Brabham. Which is nice, cos it'll save me a lot of work!). Is there anyway of achieving the same effect without multiplying the templates? Can we merge templates or something? 4u1e 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, simply import the WP Motorsport protocols into the F1 template and have the assessment process refer to only the one system. As WPMS is a parent project you could argue that this is what we should be doing already. You would lose the F1-specific class/importance ratings, but as Davnel03 rightly states, for many F1 drivers their career in the top flight is but a small fragment of a much longer career. I would argue that we really only need one or other template. By putting the WPF1 tag on an article it is implicit that the subject is also covered by WPMS, just as long as we bin the separate WPF1 rating system, while still maintaining current lists. Pyrope 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. Davnel: We really ought to discuss things BEFORE voting.
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia bot which is used does not use the child projects, therefore it only counts the articles that have the Motorsport template, and nothing else, hence why I've had to start putting the Motorsport template onto some articles. Davnel03 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but under Pyrope's suggestion (import the motorsport protocols into the F1 template - so it looks like an F1 template but acts like a Motorsport one) would the bot see a difference? Doesn't it just look for the categories? Is this being discussed at WikiProject Motorsport as well, by the way? 4u1e 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Precisely, if the same protocols are used in F1, sportscar, MotoGP etc etc banners, they will all be listed in the same categories, allowing us to prioritise across the parent project rather than with the F1 blinkers on. Pyrope 11:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's being discussed at WP:MOTOR as well so we have a bit of a fragmented discussion going on. With regard to the voting, Wikipedia is not a democracy - It's "method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." This means when a 'vote' is used, one which isn't supported by a comment explaining the vote isn't as weighted as one that justifies it's position. Alexj2002 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I am doing this for a purpose, because at the moment, we have absolutely no idea of how many stub articles with have or anything - the only way we can do it at the moment is going through the categories and that's a pain. If we all had it on the WPMotorsport assessment page, you can just go to the page and see how many stub articles we have as well as the importance. It's a much easier way of doing things. You then can see what articles should really be improved, and which ones should just be left alone (if there at FA-status). Projects like Football have a few sub-projects yet they don't have a problem, they just use the main football template. What makes this project different? Davnel03 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
When I first thought we needed a WP:MOTOR, it was from seeing Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby. There, only the WP:Rugby Union and WP:Rugby League banners are used on the articles. It all comes down to the fact that whilst there are subprojects in WP:Football, the WikiProjects that appear in the motorsport WikiProject (e.g. WP:F1) are WikiProjects in their own right, and predate WP:MOTOR. I couldn't care really how many motorsport stubs in total we have because, for example, I don't really need to know the NASCAR figures as I'm not familiar with that series to work on the articles. Same goes for most people on that project that don't want to know F1 numbers. If we could get the number then fine, but I disagree with 'breaking' something else in order to achieve it. Alexj2002 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that most editors seem to be agreed that we don't want more templates, what do others feel about how we want the stats on article importance and quality compiled? Davnel's proposal is intended to allow us to get a consolidated set of results for all motorsport articles (Pyrope's suggestion above would I think allow us to do this while maintaining different templates for different child projects). Alternatively we could maintain the current situation where we have different stats for different projects - F1, NASCAR and MOTOR at present. As Alex suggests, would this not be more useful? There's not much overlap in most cases - there will always be exceptions like Mario Andretti and Juan Pablo Montoya, but I think we can live with that. 4u1e 7 March 2007, 09:41

Readro's come up with an interesting option at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Changes_in_Templates.4u1e 7 March 2007, 10:17
Now that version would save space. Pyrope 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalities for UK drivers

We've recently experienced another spate of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish drivers having their nationalities "corrected". As many people know, we have a consensus that they should be listed as "British", since that is the nationality recognised by the FIA. I wonder: would it be worth adding a comment into the wikitext near where the nationality is specified (in the lead paragraph and the infobox) for Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish (and English?) drivers saying "If you are considering changing this driver's nationality, please discuss it on the talk page first" or "This driver's nationality is specified as British because that's what the FIA recognises" or something like that, to try to avoid people making the changes in the first place? DH85868993 01:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We could try, but it probably isn't going to work. The kind of fly-by nationalist that alters these pages usually isn't interested in a nationality consensus, and they will probably just delete the notes as well, just look at some of Bretonb's archived "discussions" with some. Still, may be worth a try. Pyrope 08:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Has it worked for the F1 article's external links? 4u1e 7 March 2007, 09:43
I suspect it would stop a few editors who don't realise there's a guideline on it, and believe they're making WP more accurate. It wouldn't stop the 'fly-by nationalists' that Pyrope was describing though. Alexj2002 09:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prioritising F1 bios for WP BIO template and him

Right. One idea and One question for you clever lot this time ;-).

Idea

When setting the priority of the WP BIO template for F1 driver's articles, I usually do this:

  • Top - For those drivers who have won four or more titles, excluding Ayrton Senna
  • High- For those drivers who have a title to their name
  • Mid - For those drivers who have appeared on the podium
  • Low - For those drivers who haven't appeared on the podium

Comments?

Question

See WP BIO talk page.--Skully Collins Edits 10:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the WP Bio assessment page, I am seriously wondering whether any F1 driver deserves Top billing. They specifically limit the number of Top rated articles to 200 across the whole of Wikipedia. In addition, they must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, and frankly, no F1 driver has. Also, Top billing requires WP Bio project approval and agreement.
Of the rest, maybe Senna and Schumi might qualify for High ratings, purely because of their impact within F1, but I think that these are possibly the only two. The rest are either Mid or Low, with some non-notable F1 drivers (say, fewer than 30 appearances or so) not even qualifying for Low grade. Pyrope 13:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes but putting into a context of just sporting personalities, then Prost, Senna, Schumacher and Fangio should be "top" priority. See the category they fall under to see the other "top" priority sportsmen and women.--Skully Collins Edits 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Or no. There are thousands of well-known sporting personalities, and I am assuming that the notional 200 limit applies to this subdivision as well. To include all of the people you suggest would lock up 2% of the whole project total, just for F1, which is only a part of global motorsport, which is only a small part of televised sports, which is only a small part of the whole sporting canon. Maybe shift my above assessments up a notch, so Senna and Schumi could be Top, but no more than these two. I'm afraid, much as I hate to type it, Joe/Josephine Public isn't going to have a clue who Fangio was. Pyrope 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've demoted him down to "high"...I guess it's better then having him on "low", which he was on prior to my assessment :-P. So looking at it, I've promoted four Motorsport related bios to "top", those being: Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna and Valentino Rossi, are those okay? I have a slight feeling Prost is next on your "hit list" ;-). --Skully Collins Edits 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 ;-) I don't have a hit list, I just feel that we ought to restrain ourselves when rating the importance of articles. As motorsport fans we will naturally have our priorities angled toward practitioners of "our" sport. Personally, I would be quite annoyed if any one sport project nominated more than a couple of top articles. Pyrope 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand Pyrope and I agree with you completely on that. It's just that when I was making this "technique" above, I didn't take into account the rules you mentioned. --Skully Collins Edits 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This needs to be discussed over on the Motorsport talk page as major changes are going to be made to the templates, which might be affected by the argument. This should be discussed over there. Davnel03 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were discussing the BIO template, not the MS template in this topic? Pyrope 07:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
"Mid - For those drivers who have appeared on the podium" -- Tiago Montiero is of Mid importance in the grand scope of F1? I guess my point is that your system works in too much of a concrete manner. Stirling Moss and Gilles Villeneuve would be on the Mid range too, despite being important figures in Formula One. Guroadrunner 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyre icons when there is only one manufacturer

It's been suggested by Howard the Duck, Talk:2007_Formula_One_season#Tyres that when there is only 1 tyre manufacturer in a particular season, i.e Bridgestone for 2007, that the individual red B's, etc. are removed from each page as there is only the 1 manufacturer. I disagree with this as someone looking back over the history of F1 would be interested to see how the tyre wars, etc. have developed (not to mention masses of work changing each page, when there is nothing wrong with the current system). I've also posted here as this is something that doesn't just affect 2007, but the F1 project generally. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Davesmith33 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in leaving it. Yes it's redundant, but it takes virtually no space and maintains consistency. It has, by the wya, been known in the past for a tyre manufacturer to return part way through the season, although I admit there is virtually zero chance of it happening this year. I suppose next year is a slightly different matter, because then only one manufacturer will be permitted. 4u1e 22:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
And the single tire manufacturer rule can change back in just a few years, knowing the instability of F1 rules at the moment. The359 22:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Several Articles Not Needed

Hi, just browsing around Formula One articles, when I come across Category:Formula One. Several articles in this category struck out to me, especially:

Can some of these be considered deletion, I mean A Season With McLaren is a non-notable TV series, the Alonsomania term is a group of fans and the Williams results article is already listed in the WilliamsF1 article? I think these should be considered deletion. Davnel03 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A Season With McLaren was broadcast on a major broadcaster (BBC) so I'd class it as notable. Alonsomania - doesn't seem to meet any criteria so I'd say it can go. BusinessF1 Magazine - articles about it on GrandPrix.com so I'd say it can stay. Triple Crown of Motorsport. Bruce McLaren biopic - multiple secondary sources cited in the article. Finally, I believe the WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results were not in the main article for a reason, that is they make it overly long. Alexj2002 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Triple Crown of Motorsport certainly deserves to stay, it is well established that the Big 3 races are the Monaco GP, Indy 500, and Le Mans, or debatebly an F1 World Championship instead of just a Monaco GP win. The359 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Alonsomania should be deleted. I mean, if it stays, what's to stop other users making similar pages for Senna and Schumacher who are/were just as equally popular with Formula One fans? The Business magazine I think should stay as it is one of the major publications on the UK, I guess. Triple Crown of Motorsports is a very pretigious feat to achieve, I think only Graham Hill has achieved this, can anyone confirm it? When I first heard about, I was pretty interested in the movie and I wouldn't mind going to see it...when it comes out (possibly) next year! The Williams results table I think should have a seperate article, because the article's structure goes: Origins; History; Results; Activety outside F1, Now having an entire table of F1 results would mean a hell of a lot of scrolling down to do just to get to the activety outside F1 section, which I think is incovenient (sp?). Anyway, those are my opinions on the subject(s)...--Skully Collins Edits 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought, if Williams get their own results page, shouldn't teams like Ferrari and McLaren have their own results page?? Davnel03 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite probably, yes. The reason Williams has, is because it was being worked on for GA status at one point as an attempt at getting an model constructor article (although it failed). Ferrari and McLaren haven't yet had this treatment. Alexj2002 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the partial (2002-2007) results table from WilliamsF1 and replaced it with a link to the complete results in WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results. Ideally, of course, we would have the entire results table in WilliamsF1 and therefore not need WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results, but that would just make WilliamsF1 huger than it already is. -- DH85868993 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mugen-Honda

In most F1-related instances of "Mugen-Honda", "Mugen" is wikilinked to Mugen Motorsports and "Honda" is linked to Honda Racing F1. Upon reflection, I think that the whole term "Mugen-Honda" should be linked to Mugen Motorsports, since that is where these engines are discussed in detail (They are only briefly mentioned in Honda Racing F1). A further question is whether to link "Mugen-Honda" directly to Mugen Motorsports, or to link it to Mugen-Honda (which redirects to Mugen Motorsports). I probably prefer the latter. Thoughts? DH85868993 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Mugen Motorsports is the best article to link to, the Honda one is far inferior with regard to Mugen engines themselves. I guess the other point matters less so long as you end up at Mugen Motorsports anyway, so either method would be fine in my opinion. Bretonbanquet 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to specific races in infoboxes

(previously discussed here with no conclusion)

The sample populated infobox 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]]. I propose that they should just link to the specific race article, e.g. [[1991 Belgian Grand Prix]]. If we adopt this change, I don't think we would need to update all the existing infoboxes immediately; we could just update them the next time we edit the article for other reasons. Thoughts? DH85868993 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. In fact I had the same thought today. It would be nice to sort this out if people can state their opinions :) Bretonbanquet 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. The current system seems a bit superfluous.--Diniz 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, agreed it's annoying clicking on it and going to a general page on the event rather than the race report. Alexj2002 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless the year itself is of specific importance (say, birth year) there is absolutely no point in Wikilinking it. Pyrope 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lola T97/30

As you can see, this has been merged into MasterCard Lola. I would prefer for it to be kept as a separate article. Any thoughts?--Diniz 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're dead right, I'm going to split it back up now as it hasn't been discussed on this project. I think it doesn't matter if it was only in one race or one season, it should still have an article. Davnel03 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. By the way, the user in question, JackSparrow Ninja isn't even a member of this project. Davnel03 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That it hasn't been discussed on this project, or the user in question isn't a member is irrelevant really. This WP doesn't own any of the articles it supports. Alexj2002 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally agree that the articles should be separate, but Alex is right - none of the articles belong to anyone and the agreements we reach here are always open to question. Consensus is the important thing - so if JackSparrow (who does edit F1 articles fairly regularly, by the way) feels strongly about it you'll need to reach an agreement with him. Well, that's what I think, anyway! :D 4u1e 07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes let's not get too posessive! In any case, as it stands that article is seriously underwhelming. Most of the text refers to the team's performance and not the design of the car. Unless someone fancies doing some expansion work on it I really can't see how to justify its retention as a separate article. A paragraph in the main team article would be plenty. Pyrope 09:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Pryce FAC

Okay then, I've rather nervously put Tom Pryce up for FAC.

Please can you guys leave your comments (hopefully with the word "support" before the comment ;-)) here. Thanks.--Phill talk Edits 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Nerk is a Formula One driver

Many of the F1 driver articles start off with "Fred Nerk ... is a (former) Formula One driver." Isn't that a bit limiting, considering that (virtually) every F1 driver would also have also raced in other categories, and that, in many cases, a driver's F1 career is only a minor part of their overall career? (Recognising that for other drivers, their F1 career is a/the major part of their overall career). Might it better to write "Fred Nerk ... is a (former) racing driver. Nerk competed in Formula One from XXXX to YYYY, contesting N Grands Prix, scoring W wins and P poles, etc"? Note that for current drivers, there is a choice between "Fred Nerk is a Formula One driver" and "Fred Nerk is a racing driver. Nerk currently races in Formula One for the ZZZ team". Thoughts? DH85868993 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Curse you for a logical man! :D You're probably right, although many current F1 drivers have had fairly short careers outside F1, Kimi Raikkonen for example has raced far longer in F1 than he did in the feeder series, and really are notable only for their F1 careers. 4u1e 07:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hold on, didn't this come up three or four months ago? Under the guise of an argument about nationality attribution... I have been altering all the driver articles that I edit to the format that you propose. Even if they are pricipally known for driving in F1, their generic occupation is "racing driver". By the way, there has to be a song lyric with that title just waiting to be written. Pyrope 09:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Prix points in the 1930's

Hi all. Please note my question at Talk:European Championship (auto racing). GP racing of the 1930's is not formula one per se, but it's its historical predecessor, so I hope some of you could have some ability to dig up the right information on this. John Anderson 08:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an on-going project of mine to sort these pages out. A lot of the numbers on the pages are wrong. For instance, the table doesn't even mention Hermann Paul Müller in 1939 despite the fact that he actually scored fewer points than Hermann Lang. I'm drafting out a new European Championship page because I feel the first one is factually incorrect in several places, and the formatting is not that great. Readro 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good, it's nice to hear that. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. John Anderson 13:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My update has gone "live", so to speak. It's by no means as extensive as it could be, but I felt I had enough to get a representative page out. I'd welcome any additions you, or indeed anyone else, can think of. Readro 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race Reports

Is their any major way you should set out race reports? Some of the reports I've seen (from recent time) don't seem to have a proper format. I was recently working on 1994 and 1995 race reports and set it out in the same way each time. Here's how I did it:

  • Report
    • Pre-Race
    • Qualifying
    • Warm-Up (If anything major occurs)
    • Race
      • 1st-Start
      • 2nd-Start (If accidents happen etc...)
    • Post-Race
  • Classification
    • Qualifying
    • Race
  • Notes/References

Any opinions? Davnel03 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a standard format - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Example race report. Readro 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I must admit, that report looks very vague. Could we change it? Look at 1995 Pacific Grand Prix for an example of mine. Davnel03 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the example report as vague, just an adequate report of an uneventful race. It simply isn't needed that every single race has so many separate subheadings if, frankly, nothing of importance happens. I actually think that trying to dictate a universal structure might be harmful in trying to explain why a particular race is notable. One reservation that would have about using the example that Davnel03 proposes is that the article makes poor use of language. It is nowehere near the encyclopedic tone that Wikipedia encourages and is shot through with non-NPOV comments, hearsay and unattributed quotes. I would prefer that articles were written well, even if that means that they don't have so many nannying subheadings. Pyrope 10:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe some of the language is poor, maybe I was doing it in a rush as I'm trying to clean up all race reports to a proper, well-presented format (which most of them are not). Davnel03 12:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Working on the language and the proper way of referencing sources is one thing – we could all help out there and amend things, in stead of critizing others for lack of language skills. For the format OTOH, I think Davnel03's idea is not that bad, but I agree with Pyrope that we shouldn't dictate so much, as every race is not equally important or interesting. One thing I'd like in a race report, is a list of the overall standings in the World Championships and how it was changed with the outcome of the race. John Anderson 14:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
ChicaneF1 have something along those lines. What do you think of it? Pyrope 14:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It's OK, but I don't think it's necessary enough for race reports. Davnel03 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with you on that. Most season summary pages have a race-by-race points table, and we already have a proliferation of tables on race report pages. Pyrope 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not really what I had in mind, there's only arrows up and down there. I was thinking more of a table showing the full standings before as well as after the race. John Anderson 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, but your idea I believe will take up tonnes of room on each individual page - again I don't believe it's necessary. Only my opinion. Davnel03 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Davnel, did you write the following bit of that 1995 Pacific GP article: "After the race there was a kerfuffle as Schumacher complained to Hill off camera, and said "no problem" on screen. Damon pointed this out, exposing a side of Schumacher which many in F1 do not like - the public face does not correspond with his behaviour when the cameras are turned off. Michael was annoyed at having been caught out."? Alexj2002 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who wrote it, but it has to go because it's not NPOV. Readro 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it does matter who wrote it, when it is word for word the same as this: http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr579.html - I realise that you're trying to clean up race reports in a rush but copying almost verbatim from copyrighted websites just creates a lot more work. Could you go through Davnel and remove any copyrighted material you've added to race reports. Alexj2002 10:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, yeah, it does matter. I didn't realise it was a copyvio. Readro 10:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've checked out your suspicions, and you're right. Now we have a big problem because all of the 1994 and 1995 race reports are virtually word-for-word copies of the GrandPrix.com articles. Readro 16:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! See WP:COPYVIO, which says delete the content of the offending page. I guess we can keep the race results, which are not copied from there anyway. Re-writing the words from scratch is probably as quick as any other option anyway. Legal accusations of plagiarism are not an idle threat here, since we're in direct 'competition' with GrandPrix.com. 4u1e 20 March 2007, 16:37

I would have deleted the content but I didn't have time to check it and delete it. I was in between doing some CFD runs and had a few minutes. Readro 16:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The race results & some opening text would have been there before the copyvio content, so suggest can I suggest we just revert to an edit before the copyright violations came in. I'll start compiling a list of what appears to be taken from GrandPrix.com Alexj2002 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, it isn't quite that easy. Other stuff, such as the infobox might have been updated after the copyvio text has been inserted. At the moment, I'm simply removing the race report sections of the affected articles, and replacing it with the last clean version that's in the article history. I realise this might still lose some legitimate content, it's still available in the article history so can I kindly ask people who find their own text has been lost to restore it from the article history. Alexj2002 17:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did take most of the text from the website, but I've tried to edit it, and add further bits of information. I really don't think it should remove it. What use is it to someone just seeing a race page, with just results on it, without any background information? There isn't any use. Somebody wanting to know about a 1995 race, would find zero information, what does a set of results say? Doesn't give you the picture of the race, does it? People can add information, but no one felt like doing it, so I thought I'd do it. I'm sorry if it's come from another website, but I'm about 99.9% sure most of the text on WikiPedia is from other websites, but like mine edited into their own version. Rewrite the lot into your own words, but deleting it get's rid of a lot of information. Davnel03 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You haven't added anything! You've gone to one of our competitors and taken their writeup and added it to this site. Imagine if BBC News's website just copied ITV F1's reports. You can't take someone else's work and just change bits. It's a derivative work and as such copyright of the original author still applies. 99.9% of the text from other websites? I know for a fact that every word I've written (excepting quotes which are clearly acknowledged as such) is original and I'm sure the same can be said for many of the other regulars on WP:F1. It says at the bottom of the edit page "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted.". Someone has now got to spend time going through and get rid of this stuff instead of working on articles. If you aren't going to write original stuff, don't bother. Alexj2002 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hhhhmmmmmm.... That's what I was doing, by the way, if I wasn't going to add anything, who was?? Someone who watched F1 in the 1990's could of added a paragraph or two, but, oh no, they never. Articles have got to be useful, a set of results is useless, articles must go into detail. The reports, at the moment are useful, but if you take off the report, there useless, to me and everybody else. By the way, are you going to add your own little report. I didn't think so.... Davnel03 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It takes time to write an original article. The two race reports I've contributed heavily to (1994 San Marino Grand Prix and 1997 European Grand Prix) both took many hours of work from me personally as well as a lot of time from others. It took over a month of heavy activity to get them up to Featured Article and Good Article status respectively. The reports you've done might be useful but they're illegal! Alexj2002 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, not many people remember the smaller races, so that's why I couldn't find many sources on the internet. So what should I do? Could I keep the copy of the texts and heavy edit it and find lots more references off the internet? Would that be considered illegal. By the way, all you lot could try and find sources off the internet! Also, people still talk about those two races. I've never heard anyone speak about 1995 Pacific Grand Prix, have you?? Davnel03 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Heavy editing isn't good enough. A clean start needs to be made. You can find out facts from other websites provided you cite them, but you must write the article in your own words. Race reports on other websites are often NPOV. The race report on Wikipedia should provide a description of what happened during the race but no opinion. Find out what lap a particular crash or incident happened on a website then write a paragraph yourself saying what happened and who was involved and when it happened. Also, I didn't contribute to the two articles I mentioned totally from memory! I read through some reports to jog my memory of what happened first. Alexj2002 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Davnel, please understand that we all have our own interests and we contribute as and when we want to (and have the time to!). All of the regulars here make large numbers of edits pretty much every day, across the whole massive range of the F1 project, and probably in many other areas of Wikipedia too. 1990s race reports are important, but who says they're more important than 1970s race reports, or getting good articles on significant racing cars, or on each of the world champion drivers? Alex is certainly not the right person to accuse of not contributing to 1990s race reports. 4u1e 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Another one to add - 1995 Formula One season is also heavily plagiarised, but this one has been edited more so it's difficult to know what is plagiarised and what isn't. I think we might just have to revert it back to an earlier version. Readro 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I haven't copied and pasted that one, it's fully in my own words, along with a huge amount of references. Davnel03 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. From your article - "but DAMS bosses wanted to buy Larrousse and run the team themselves." Now, from GrandPrix.com - "and the DAMS bosses would prefer to buy Larrousse and run the team themselves." This is just one example. I'm afraid that putting a website down as a reference does not entitle you to copy their content. Readro 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, seems like you guys have gone and deleted my stuff, when I've just found a few more sources you can use, for example with 1994 Japanese Grand Prix, along with the text already there, you can get things from:

http://www.chicanef1.com/racetit.pl?year=1994&gp=Japanese%20GP + http://www.gpracing.net192.com/races/reports/563.cfm. I'm going to start editing some, now but please don't delete it. Davnel03 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad luck, you wasted your time. All you did was to faff at the edges of the copyvio material, most of it is still there. Simply altering the odd line, changing a few adjectives, and substituting proper names for nicknames doesn't make it "your stuff". I am also guessing that IP 86.20.53.195 is something to do with you too? If you want to make amends, can you just get over yourself, delete the copied material and START FRESH. One thing that nearly made me laugh is that if you crossref the copied material, the Wiki and source pages are so similar that Google can't generally tell the two apart! Only nearly mind. We simply don't have time to sift every article, check and remove all the copied material line by line. It will all get deleted. Pyrope 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether this will be reliable or not, but you can use The Formula One database for the qualifying results. Furthest I managed (or could be bothered :-P) was the 1973 Dutch Grand Prix - Coincidently the next article which will undergo some treatment because there is a massive array on Roger Williamson's accident in The Lost Generation. Oh and can I also ask which images maybe appropriate (ie, not too graphic) for the section concerning Williamson's accident, any suggestions? --Phill talk Edits 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at the race report from the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix last night, using GP.com and a couple of other sources as refs. I think what I produced is fine from a copyright point of view (the trouble with race reports is that there's only a limited number of ways to say most things - do point out if I've veered too close to the original anywhere). It took about an hour and a half to do - it's not great (too magazine-y in style), but it meets the bill, I believe. The point is of course, that I re-wrote from scratch, not by editing what was there already. This isn't really my cup of tea, but for those who are interested in this area, it can be done. 4u1e 21 March 2007, 13:14

[edit] Two Articles I've Nominated For Deletion

I've nominated Eau Rouge corner and Raidillon for deletion, their discussions are here and here. Davnel03 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Add Blanchimont and Tamburello to that list. Davnel03 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When to use F1-stub

Should all F1 driver stub articles contain {{F1-stub}}? Or only if they don't already contain another stub template? Consider Franco Comotti, which contains {{Italy-autoracing-bio-stub}} - should it contain {{F1-stub}} as well? -- DH85868993 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, yes it should as he was a Formula On driver as well. Davnel03 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If you for some reason only want one stubmessage, I think the F1-stub is better than the Italianautoracerstub, since it seems more important that he was a formula one driver than that he happened to be Italian. However, best is to use both. John Anderson 07:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also agree all F1 driver stub articles should contain {{F1-stub}} even if they already contain other stub templates. I just wanted to gather other people's opinions. -- DH85868993 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As stubbing an article also adds that article to the relevant stub category, each stub ought to carry a template for every relevant interest group. Pyrope 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One Supporters Association

So I found this: Formula One Supporters Association. Does anyone want to improve it, or make the call whether it is notable. (If it's not notable, it should go through an AFD). Guroadrunner 15:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable. Seems to be just another fan club. Readro 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible articles?

Before I go ahead and start these articles, I was wondering if these articles are really needed:

  • 1975 Arkley air crash - Air crash that took the lives of Graham Hill, Tony Brise and several other mechanics and personnel of the Embassy Hill team. TLG has an entire chapter on this topic, even a crash report.
  • Red car rule - Very sensitive subject, covers the idea that the FIA are Ferrari biast.
  • 2006 Formula One season controversies - Quite a few during the season (mass dampers, Schu's Monaco "parking" and Alonso "blocking" Massa). Anyway, if the 2006 World Cup gets an article, why can't we?

Anyway, I'll leave you to decide if we can make these articles first.--Phill talk Edits 10:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment - I'd be inclined to say that the content that would go into 2006 F1 season controversies page could be directly put into the 2006 Formula One season page. Not sure about the red car rule article, and I'm neutral about the 1975 air crash unless you can make it substantial. Guroadrunner 10:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Red car rule, wouldn't that be bunch of speculations and/or original research?
  • Comment - The Arkley air crash could have an article, if it can be made substantial enough, else let it be a section in the article about the Grand Prix closest to when it happened or in the article about the Embassy Hill team. The "red car rule" could be a trivia comment in the Ferrari article. The season controversies should have its place in the season article, unless the relevant information is so extensive that an article of its own could be needed for better clarity. All in all, I don't see the need for articles on these subjects, but information about them could very well be presented on Wikipedia anyway. John Anderson 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The "red car rule" theory is completely speculative and entirely unencyclopedic. Comments on 2006 should go in the 2006 season article. Arkley air crach might make an interesting article, provided that there is enough information to make a reasonable page. Perhaps take a look at the aviation wikiproject and see how they deal with air accident articles, I have a feeling they have some degree of standardisation already. Pyrope 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Spyker team template

The (old) Spyker team template has a medium orange header over an orange box.

Flag of Netherlands Spyker F1

Personnel: Flag of Netherlands Michiel Mol | Flag of Germany Colin Kolles | Flag of United Kingdom James Key | Flag of United Kingdom Mike Gascoyne

Current drivers: Flag of Netherlands Christijan Albers | Flag of Germany Adrian Sutil | Flag of Spain Adrián Vallés | Flag of Netherlands Giedo van der Garde | Flag of Malaysia Mohamed Fairuz Fauzy | Flag of Germany Markus Winkelhock

Formula One cars: F8-VII

All of the other teams for the 2007 season, except McLaren, use a colored header over a white box. For example:

Flag of France Renault F1

Personnel: Flag of Italy Flavio Briatore | Flag of United Kingdom Pat Symonds | Flag of France Alain Dassas | Flag of France Denis Chevrier | Flag of United Kingdom Bob Bell | Flag of United Kingdom Rob White

Current drivers: Flag of Italy Giancarlo Fisichella | Flag of Finland Heikki Kovalainen | Flag of Brazil Nelson Angelo Piquet | Flag of Brazil Ricardo Zonta

Cars: RS01 | RS10 | RE20 | RE20B | RE30 | RE30B | RE30C | RE40 | RE50 | RE60 | RE60B | R202 | R23 | R23B | R24 | R25 | R26 | R27


I am proposing the Spyker template is standardized to the other teams. What do you think?

The direct link to edit the template is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Spyker_F1&action=submit

Guroadrunner 10:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. The orange box is a bit hard on the eye! Pyrope 12:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it could keep the orange header but should have the box white like the others. John Anderson 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Guroadrunner 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous/next races in F1 race report navbox

At the bottom of each F1 race report, there is a navbox listing the previous/next WDC race and the previous/next running of that particular Grand Prix. Currently, there's some inconsistency in the population of the "previous/next running of that particular Grand Prix" fields, for the case where the previous/next race is a non-championship event. Consider that 1950 Monaco Grand Prix identifies the non-championship 1948 Monaco Grand Prix as the previous race, whereas 1963 Mexican Grand Prix specifies "-", even though there was a previous, non-championship event (in 1962). Similarly, 1950 Monaco Grand Prix lists the next race as 1955 Monaco Grand Prix, skipping the non-championship 1952 event. Do we want non-championship races listed in the previous/next race fields or not? Note the complication that many non-championship races don't currently have articles, so if we include them in the sequence, then it may not be possible to "step through" all instances of a particular Grand Prix using the navbox, whereas if we limit it to WDC events only (all of which have articles), then it will be. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since in the navbox we write the direct links to form the list, perhaps we could write "race (non-chsmpionship)" for those currently not included. It also would let us chronologically include the non-WDC forays at Brands Hatch if they are not included yet. Guroadrunner 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The 1948 Monaco Grand Prix should have a link there because it was the previous running of the Monaco Grand Prix. Putting a dash implies there were no previous Monaco Grands Prix, when that simply isn't true. Readro 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just because it wasn't a championship event doesn't mean that it wasn't there. And the Mexican example should have a link to 1962 as I put one there! Pyrope 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 United States Grand Prix TFA

I have suggested the article on 2005 United States Grand Prix for use on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here. Kingjamie 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porsche motorsport article

On the discussion page for the Porsche article, I have proposed that the (rather sizeable) "Auto racing" section be split out into a separate article. The idea has received some support, so now I'm trying to decide on the best name for the new article. If you have a view on this, please contribute on the Porsche discussion page. P.S. I realise this is somewhat outside the scope of WP:F1, but this discussion page is somewhat more active than WP:MOTOR's (where I have also posted the same information). Thanks. DH85868993 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business F1

I believe the article request for Business F1 is asking for BusinessF1 Magazine, so I set that page as a redirect. If I was incorrect, blank it out. Guroadrunner 11:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who made the submission, as a result, I have now taken it off the list. Willirennen 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

We had a discussion over the templates several weeks ago. Nothing (as of now) has been sorted out. If you like to show your opinion click here. Many thanks. Davnel03 16:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Related Pages

Hi, I've noticed this page several times. The page lists every single Formula One articles on Wikipedia. What strikes me most are the red (dead) links that we have. I also noticed only one user seems to be editing it. I think we should try and create the dead link articles. I've made a start on one or two - only to be struck with a speedy deletion tag! If you can look on the page and try and create one or two articles, that'll be great, so the dead links will go down! Davnel03 18:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You were "struck" with db tags because you didn't provide proper or adequate context or information on notability. Wikipedia is not capable of hosting pages on every single detailed minutiae of each and every topic covered. We in the F1 community already have many and excellent database and specialist interest sites on the web if the details are what yanks your chain. If you can provide interesting and informative articles, something that you would like spend time reading, on any of the suggested topics (that's all the "dead links" are!) on the related pages site then by all means write them, but we certainly don't "need" one-line inanities. Pyrope 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Formula_One_146f.html"