Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →

Contents

Criteria for inclusion in Category: <country> Formula One drivers

My understanding is that the "<country> Formula One drivers" categories also include drivers who only participated in non-championship F1 races, like Carlo Felice Trossi and Christian Kautz. Is that the consensus view? DH85868993 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, but it's my view! 4u1e (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, we include people like Bernie Ecclestone as GP drivers, no? And his grand prix driving record was...DNQ and DNQ. Narson (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My take on it is it's anyone who has attempted to qualify for a Formula One race, be it WC, non-championship or national championship (but not historic championships). AlexJ (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've updated all the "<country> Formula One drivers" cats to state the scope of the category. DH85868993 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This means that the List of Formula One drivers does not actually include all Formula One drivers that meet our criteria for being a Formula One driver. So a driver can be in the category of Italian Formula One drivers, without being on the main list. Does that matter? Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I can live with the anomaly. It's stated at the top of List of Formula One drivers that (despite the article's name), it's actually a list of drivers who have partipated in Championship races. If we increase the scope of the list to include drivers who only participated in non-Championship races, I think (a) it would be difficult to establish a complete list (which may or may not matter), and (b) it might prompt the question that if we're listing "non-championship" drivers in the table, when why don't we include non-Championship results in the tables as well, and I don't think we want to do that. Alternately, we could change the name of List of Formula One drivers to "List of FIA World Championship drivers" or "List of Formula One World Championship drivers", but I think there's a chance that people might misinterpret that as a "List of Formula One Champions". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DH85868993 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Another thought: would a "List of non-WDC F1 drivers" be helpful? As we gradually add race reports / results from non-championship events, red links creep into the articles for drivers who didn't start WDC races but raced regularly in other events. None of these drivers merit their own articles, but it might be nice to wikilink their names to an article that lists them, maybe with some very basic details for each. Thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea. John Anderson 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Menditeguy

What's our preferred spelling: "Menditeguy" (i.e. no accent on the 'e') or "Menditéguy" (i.e. with an accent)? Back in September, the article was moved from Carlos Menditéguy to Carlos Menditeguy, but internally, all the instances of his name still have the accent. I'm not especially passionate about which spelling we use, but I would like to make the article internally consistent. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I am Argentine as Menditeguy was, and I am pretty sure that there is no accent on that surname, I mean, it is 'Carlos Menditeguy' and not 'Carlos Menditéguy'. Please feel free to correct redirects and that kind of stuff by using the non-accented article name. I will help. Mxcatania (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A quick Google search seems to be rather mixed in terms of F1 information sites using the accent or not. I can't find anything conclusive. The359 (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


List of professional sports team owners

I recently discovered this article: List of professional sports team owners. I thought someone may care to populate the Formula One section. (I'm not sufficiently enthused to do it myself) DH85868993 (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI.... D.M.N. (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The article was kept. I have added information about all the F1 teams now, taken from their articles here on Wikipedia. John Anderson 14:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Team" column in Classification table in F1 race report articles

As recently noted by User:GTHO, the fourth column in the "Classification" table in the F1 race report articles is labelled "Team", but it actually lists the constructor. How do we wish to approach this issue? DH85868993 (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For completeness we need both - people are generally more interested in the teams, but it's the constructors who are relevant in terms of championships. If we have to pick only one it should be the constructor, titled as such. Well, that's my take anyway. Everyone else? 4u1e (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Again we come up against the arriviste lack of distinction between "entrant" and "constructor". I usually try to distinguish the two (see 1978 BRDC International Trophy for example) but I agree that in these older articles what is actually meant is "constructor". Pyrope 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The column title was probably also "inherited" from www.formula1.com, which is where (I believe) the results tables originally came from. It would take a while to update them all manually (even using AWB); I might see if I can get a bot to make the changes. DH85868993 (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I ended up making the changes myself, using AWB. It only(?) took a couple of hours. DH85868993 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I.D. check

Who is this?
Who is this?

The photo on the right was recently uploaded to the Commons, labelled as Pedro de la Rosa. However, the helmet of the driver looks nothing like the other photos of him. I believe that it is Heikki Kovalainen, due to the dark red/purple sides of the helmet. Do you agree with this, or am I missing something?--Diniz (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm right, De La Rosa's helmet is sort of Orange/Dark Red, I think. Therefore, I believe the photo of the MP4-23 is indeed Kovalainen. It couldn't be Gary Paffett by any chance - has he tested the MP4-23 yet? D.M.N. (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's Kovalainen. Readro (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It probaly is Kovalainen. It's car 23 which is Heikki's car. I'm sure that isn't Gary Paffett - LinczoneTalk/Watch 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It is definetely Heikki Kovalainen due to the design and colour of the helmet and maybe the number on the car.Chubbennaitor (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Formula One people

Obviously, people whose only involvement in Formula One is as a non-driver (e.g. Ross Brawn, John Barnard, etc) should be included in Cat:Formula One people. Equally obviously, people whose only involvement is Formula One is as a driver (e.g. Alex Yoong, Derek Warwick) should not be included in Cat:Formula One people; they should only be included in the relevant subcategory/ies of Cat:Formula One drivers. But what about drivers who also have significant notability as non-drivers (typically team owners) - should they be listed in Cat:Formula One people in addition to the relevant subcats of Cat:Formula One people? Note that I'm not talking about people whose notability as a non-driver far outweighs their notability as a driver, e.g. Bernie Ecclestone, Max Mosley, Colin Chapman, etc - obviously they belong in Cat:Formula One people; I'm talking about people with significant notability both as a driver and a non-driver, e.g. Alain Prost, Jackie Stewart, John Surtees, Bruce McLaren, Jack Brabham, etc. My concern is that if we add Prost, Stewart, Brabham and Hill into Cat:Formula One people, then people might say "Well, if Prost, Stewart and Brabham are included, why aren't Schumacher, Senna and Fangio?" Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But I don't really think Damon Hill can be considered for F1 people as he, being the president of the BDRC, owns the Silverstone race circuit and say, heaven forbit, Bernie gets his way and Silverstone is axed from the calender then Damon is no longer party of the category - However, if this is Graham Hill we're talking about then yes, obviously he belongs there as he's owned an F1 team.
Yes, I meant Graham (I never thought about Damon!) DH85868993 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think that if said person was an F1 driver, then to be including in the people category they must've owned or have been part of the heirachy (sp?) of an F1 team which would indeed include Prost, Stewart and Brabham and doesn't include Senna and Schumacher. To be honest, I don't even know what Schumacher's johb is at Ferrari, at alone how high up the Scuderia ladder it is!--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 10:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Toyota RVX-08

I see that someone has created an article for the Toyota RVX-08 engine. Shall I AfD it, as we have done with similar engine articles in the past? DH85868993 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally say yes, per past consensus. But Porsche 3512 has an article, which was suggested for merge, but the merge was never completed. D.M.N. (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw it as well, agree with AfD. The359 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say merge it, but a read shows there's nothing worth merging! So AFD as above (unless it's eligible to be PRODed?). AlexJ (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I meant "prod". Don't know why I wrote AfD.... DH85868993 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't engine development banned? So it will just be a minor variant of the RVX-07 or somesuch? Narson (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to get rid of the article itself, I'd merge it. And I'd also consult the article creator as well and see what he thinks. He might be able to develop what is currently a rather unimpressive stub. Lradrama 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have left a message on the creator's talk page pointing them towards this discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There isn't anything to merge though, it just states the name of the engine, year and the name of the chassis it's in - all of which are already mentioned in the chassis article. I don't believe you could ever write so much about a modern day F1 engine that it would justify an article of it's own. Far better to have it as a section of a comprehensive article on the car as a whole. AlexJ (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely no engine deserves its own article, with the one exception of the Cosworth DFV. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I could understand the creation of a few other engines, especially outside of F1. Porsche Type-935 for instance. Did Ferrari ever use any of their engines for a long period of time? The359 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded it. DH85868993 (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, i'm the creator of the page in question. I cannot see any reason to delete it, I'm sure I can find some more information to expand the page if needed. Cdhaptomos talk
It's gone. DH85868993 (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Team Logos in Car Articles

It seems like the Team Logo has been removed from a load of car articles as of late. You may wish to see this users contributions circa. 20th January 2008. D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This kind of thing is a pain. There may not actually be a problem with the images other than the fact that the small print of the fair-use rationale isn't exactly appropriate. It means trawling through all the templates trying to find the right one, and naturally those editors fixated with deleting images are never interested in adding the correct FU template. Funny that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Fair Use really covers an article about a specific car. It may be a product of the company, but it's not really being used to illustrate the subject in question. The359 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I also see the logo has been removed from our FA car article (Brabham BT19) D.M.N. (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Much as I liked having the logos in the car articles, I think The359 is right; they don't illustrate the subject of the article and hence don't pass FU criteria. DH85868993 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Better use car photos on that box maybe --— Typ932T | C  21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:LOGO It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. and People tend to recognize logos quickly, so a placement at the start helps the logo to do its job and confirm that people have arrived at the right article. I believe the logo usage on the car article does indeed do this as permitted by Fair Use rather than being purely decorative. The logos were mostly removed because of a lack of FU rationale, but where these are provided the logos have been reinstated without re-removal (e.g. Mercedes-Benz W125). The editor involved openly admits that he is "an editor who is deeply concerned about the issue of fair use images on this site." but has been open to discussion here. I think we've got a valid case to use the images. AlexJ (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Except the logo is merely quickly identifying the company. If there were a logo for the car itself (more likely on a production car), I could see the arguement. But do we really need a quick identification for the parent company? The359 (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a quick identification for both the parent company and often the era of the car. It is far more useful for identification IMO than even a good photo of the car (and we don't have many professional quality photos on here). AlexJ (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm failing to see how a logo is better than a picture for identifying a specific car, honestly. What does the logo of Zakspeed really tell anyone on the article on the Zakspeed 841, besides that it is a Zakspeed, which should be easy enough to figure out from the title? The359 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
By that logic, the logo isn't necessary on the Zakspeed article either. You can see the article is about Zakspeed from the title. Regarding the pictures, it isn't all that easy to identify a racing car from a picture sometimes. Zakspeeds, for instance, won't be all that familiar to people who weren't watching F1 in the 80s. I think a logo is a good additional extra if we can satisfy FU. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Except the logo is describing the team. A logo doesn't describe the car built by that team. And really, the pictures of the car are not for "identifying" the cars as much as they are simply showing what the cars look like, ie a description. The359 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
For someone cruising around and looking at a number of car articles in one session the logos are a useful and effective means of providing some sense of "place" and visual homogeneity between the products of a single company. The conformity of formatting that the logo use imparted also gave the car articles a similarity that helped to identify the type of article that you were reading. These fall under the "confirm that people have arrived at the right article" rationale that AlexJ identified above. The same cannot be said for photos of a car because, and this may be the cynic in me, most F1 cars from a given era look similar to the uninitiated. (Remember, we are a general interest encyclopedia.) Most of their defining character comes from the particular colour scheme used, and this had the unfortunate character that it sometimes changed between seasons (think Lotus 49 for example...). For example, to someone only passingly familiar with the sport, how would you describe the differences in appearance between mid-60s Lotus, Cooper, BRM and Brabham cars? I know, from taking newbies to many historic race meetings, that until they get their eye in the all do look like green tubes with wheels on. If a picture is not suitable for identification purposes then there is little to recommend its use in an infobox. Illustration of the car's appearance is far better achieved by use of a range of photos within the text, in positions adjacent to the description of a particular feature. Pyrope 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  : I've fixed BT19 and will have to fix a whole bunch of others (see the BT19 article for the "acceptable" fair use rationale template that will be necessary to not get dinged like this again) -- McLaren, Minardi, Williams, Lotus, and others got hit. Toyota did too, but I don't like that team so I'm not going to write Fair Use Rationales for those pages. Guroadrunner (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Harsh! ;-) For what it's worth, in the case of early Brabham logos, there is actually a wider point to be illustrated by the logo: it says 'Repco Brabham', not just 'Brabham', and dates from before the use of the Repco engine. It therefore illustrates the closeness of the relationship between the two companies, and also possibly the marketing nous of JB himself. I've added words to that effect to the FU rationale for the 1960s Brabham logo. Similar cases might be made for some other logos, although I can't think of any off the top of my head. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"New articles" section

What do people think of the idea of adding a "new articles" section to the Project page, similar to the one WikiProject World Rally has? Note that currently, I add any new articles I stumble across to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Related Pages - like this DH85868993 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Poles and FLs in Drivers tables in season summary articles

User:Gokul009 has recently added bolding and italics to indicate the pole positions and fastest laps in the "Drivers" tables in the 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004 season summary articles. Do people like this idea? The implication being that if we think it's a good idea, then it should probably be done for all season summary articles. DH85868993 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do, I'll help with this if needed. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony Rolt died

He's listed as the last living driver from the 1950 British GP, but Peter Walker qualified and entered the car.

I've added the unsourced statement "During the race [Rolt] hopped in to the entry qualified by Peter Walker."

Anybody know the true story? Guroadrunner (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Force India VJM01 - New article?

Force India has announced their initial 2008 car will be known as the VJM01. Now, it is known that this car is basically the Spyker F8-VII. So far, VJM01 has merely been redirected to F8-VII. But are the cars really different enough, and would it be less confusing, to have a seperate VJM01 article? The359 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a different article for the VJM01 would make sense. It is a different team competing it after all - LinczoneTalk/Watch 19:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Trouble is, as it's essentially the same car, the little that is known about it will be a repeat of the Spyker article (Do we even need an article on it ... just a thought). I agree the links are confusing at present, though. 4u1e (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think one article will suffice, especially if they're only planning to use the car for a few races. I've updated the Spyker F8-VII article to include the VJM01 in a couple more places, to make it clearer for people who get there via the redirect. DH85868993 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it the same car in the sense that the 2006 Aguri was the same car as the 2002 Arrows? Same chassis, a few aero parts altered? If there is no development etc and it is just a re-branding with minor modernisation, I think the same article will suffice. Narson (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that's the case: autosport.com says "The car, the same one used at the end of last year but with a white and gold livery..." DH85868993 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It'll be much closer than the Arrows/Super Aguri were - SA had to do quite a lot of work just to make the old Arrows legal in 2006. 4u1e (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Team flags

Someone has gone through and added a slew of flags to team articles infront of the short name in the infobox...however, I'm not /hugely/ against this to be honest, infact I quite like it, as it does make it clear which flag they race under. My only concern is that while the teams race under a flag, they don't race for it, if you catch my drift. Whats the consensus? Narson (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think our infoboxes already have too many flags which are just decorative - see Wikipedia:Mosflag#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason and this earlier discussion. Although on the other hand, we do count constructor wins by country so perhaps it's valid to use the flag to identify the "nationality" of the team itself in a team article. DH85868993 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my other reason for unease. And the person just signed on from annother IP and did it again....any one of you with the fancy tools want to do a mass revert? Narson (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I acctually find it better to have flags like that, than all the other flags in the info boxes. After all, it is a box about that particular team. John Anderson 14:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Free images

Here are several free use images, many are F1 drivers: [1]. Thanks to User:Diniz for finding the group. Royalbroil 22:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we've already got all of the F1 photos in that set. There are some good US racing photos still to be uploaded, though!-- Diniz (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates of birth / death in infoboxes?

Is there any interest in adding dates of birth and death to the Former and Current F1 Driver infobox template? We could use the {{Birth date and age|1947|11|1|df=y}} set-up to show a driver's age (or age at death) in the infobox - example would show as "1 November 1947 (1947-11-01) (age 60)". I think it would be a useful addition. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but how would we implement it across the project? Guroadrunner (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Waste of time.Chubbennaitor (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
In your humble opinion :-) If we did do it, we would need to consider whether we would therefore remove dates of birth and death from the lead sentence, in which case we may want to move place of birth and death into the infobox as well. In terms of how to implement it across the project, I think it would just be a case of manually editing each article; I can't think of anyway to automate it. DH85868993 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding my first point: I've had a look at a couple of "people" infoboxes which include date of birth and death: {{Infobox Artist}} and {{Infobox journalist}} - the articles which transclude these templates seem to retain date of birth and death in the lead sentence. DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

It would be great to have comments on the current state of Max Mosley. (The article, not the man, or we'll be here all year!). It's currently on peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Max Mosley. Ta very much. 4u1e (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lancia D50

I started Lancia D50 article, Im wondering should that page also cover the Ferrari D50 or Ferrari D50 F1 as Scuderia Ferrari page seems to red link like that --— Typ932T | C  20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I know User:Pyrope has been doing some work on the D50 in his Sandbox, so you might want to get in contact with him regarding expanding the article. The359 (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. Me being slow... again. Go ahead and fillet out what you need from my sandbox, I've no real proprietorial concerns. Just a quick note of caution though. Two of the three sources you have used are just undifferentiated data splurges, and are notoriously unreliable. D. David's site is usually excellent, so keep using that, but the F1db site is particularly awful. Just a cursory glance at their stats for the D50 lets you know that they are rubbish. 11 starts from 11 entries? Hmm... Well Lancia entered the car in 4 races, while Ferrari entered various versions for 10 races. Total number of starts should be into the 40s, as for many of those races up to 4 drivers were D50-mounted. I'll tot them up at some time. The article should most certainly cover the Ferrari iterations, as these were numerous and much more long-lasting than Lancia's own brief use. Also, please can we not get sucked in to Ferrari's revisionism with the whole "F1" suffix? The cars are not commonly known as Ferrari XXX F1 and were not known as such in period. This seems a recent thing. If another car with the same numeral exists we really ought to be formatting them as Ferrari XXX (F1) or, preferrably, Ferrari XXX (Formula One). *2c clatters into the can* Pyrope 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Just merged the two. Still an awful lot that can be said about the car though, so go crazy people... ;-) Pyrope 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Spyker F8-VII/Force India VJM-01

user:Chubbennaitor has just moved the Spyker F8-VII article to a new page with the name Spyker F8-VII/ Force India VJM-01. I think this is a mistake, because while some people will search for 'Spyker F8-VII' and some will search for 'Force India VJM01', no-one will search for 'Spyker F8-VII/Force India VJM01'. Redirects have been fixed, but the result is that people will only ever go to the article through them.

I suggest it should be moved back to 'Spyker F8-VII', with a redirect from 'Force India VMJ01'. What do others think? 4u1e (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi I didn't know where the discuss page was and what i hoped would happen, happened. i think that it should either be renamed Force India VJM-01 or a new page should be made for it due to it now being called that after it's new launch and it being taken over by Force India.Chubbennaitor (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But that would ignore the history of the thing. I agree that it should be re-named to a single variety, but I would suggest the Spyker name has priority. The car is really a Spyker anyway, and that name was in use first. (As a side thought, how does this apply to the Lancia/Ferrari D50 mentioned above?). Let's see what others think. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think it should be moved back to "Spyker F8-VII", with a redirect from "Force India VMJ01". Even if we do decide to keep the "combined" name, there should be a space either both sides of the slash, or neither, not a space on one side but not the other. Regarding Lancia/Ferrari D50, I think the article should be called "Lancia D50" (i.e. the original name) with redirects from "Ferrari D50" and Ferrari D50A" (and possibly also "Lancia-Ferrari D50" and "Lancia-Ferrari D50A"). DH85868993 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Force India will only use the car for part of the season, Spyker will have used it longer. I say stick with Spyker F8-VII. The359 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, by moving the page twice, you've now created a crapload of double redirects... The359 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
At least for now lets keep it the Spyker F8-VII. The VMJ01 isn't quite notable enough yet - LinczoneTalk/Watch 10:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tried turning it back if that is okay, but there is an error so it is stuck like it is until someone else has a go.Chubbennaitor (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be OK now. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've put in a request to get the talk page moved too. DH85868993 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's been done. DH85868993 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)



1989 and 1990 F1 season summaries

Does anyone else think the "Season summary" sections of 1989 Formula One season and 1990 Formula One season are too detailed? My understanding was that the "Season summary" sections should be an overview of the season as a whole, not a series of summaries of each individual race. But I'm open to other views. DH85868993 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is but it looks like it needs to be after me scim reading it it seems to be a turning point of Formula One but I can see where you are coming from.Chubbennaitor (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely shorten it, and source it. D.M.N. (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, season reviews should cover the main outcomes of the race, any major events occurring in it (e.g. title deciding events, serious crashes etc.) but a full description of the race belongs in the individual race article. AlexJ (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

F1 Rejects prodded

F1 Rejects has been prodded as being "not notable". Does anyone know of any suitable external references, to support the article's notability? (I did a quick Google, but most occurrences of "F1 Rejects" were either the site itself, or Wikipedia mirrors). DH85868993 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why an article about a website would pass as notable - unless we're talking about the likes of Google. If the website is worthwhile I'd have thought it should be linked as an external reference or "see also"? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I know this might seem strange but have you ever thought that the person might have read it from books or has inside information. If that isn't aloud I think that we try and get it deleted.Chubbennaitor (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
see WP:OR -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That article is definatly deletion fodder. 2 sources both from the site itself. Narson (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Good website, but I agree that it lacks notability. The359 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
When I came across that site, my question was are they really that ntoable enough to have a page here. It is a good site and they do a good podcast though, but I still question its notability. Willirennen (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete it. Chubbennaitor (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(South) Korean Grand Prix

I notice that Korean Grand Prix has recently been moved to South Korean Grand Prix. I've asked the editor who made the change whether they have a reference supporting the name change. DH85868993 (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not the North Korean grand Prix and there are 2 countries not one. Chubbennaitor (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
And the Luxembourg Grand Prix was held in Germany, the San Marino in Italy. There was no German GP in '07 but there was a GP in Germany. It ain't where it's at, it's what the organisers choose to call it. AlexJ (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AlexJ. If the name is Korean GP, the article should be called Korean GP. The official name of the country is not South Korea either, the "South" part is just an easy way of distinguish the Republic of Korea from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which is normally called North Korea. As long as there is only one GP in Korea and this is officially called the Korean Grand Prix, that is the name we should use. The German Grand Prix was just called German GP even when it was held in West Germany and we have had US Grand Prix East and US Grand Prix West without the USA being split up in two different countries along those lines. But South Korean Grand Prix should of course be redirected to Korean Grand Prix. John Anderson 11:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved the page to Korean Grand Prix now. John Anderson 11:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Good job John. Let's put it this way: bouncedebounce seems to be having some issues with edits related to WP:F1 articles. See the talk page for warnings he/she has received. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Does anyone think that there should be a page on all the external links being used / been used in all F1 articles I can't find one and many people use these Wikipedia to find a webpage. if thaere is one- sorry. What does everyone think? Chubbennaitor (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What purpose would it serve? If you want information on a car you to the car's page and follow links from there. If you want information on a team you go to the team's page and follow links from there. A splurge of web addresses is, apart from not being encyclopedic, not much use. Pyrope 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
When a page is deleted or not made then any of the links that might be needed are not shown. People might want a page that has all the External links for Formula One so they can also see where we get our references from and to get their own knowledge from. Chubbennaitor (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There is some links on project page, maybe it could be used for that purpose, put there all the best sources etc., but not all used in f1 articles... --— Typ932T | C  19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a link farm. We're not here to feature large lists of links to other websites. The359 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:NOT - "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines." If a topic is not notable enough for a page to be created/not deleted then the associated links aren't of much good to the project. References are noted in-line on individual articles where relevant - having 100's of them on one page serves little use. Except for some gems with historical information, which are noted here, most sources for F1 are pretty obvious, either the usual news & F1 websites or F1 books. Basically either looking at a developed article (preferably a Good/Featured one on a similar topic if available) or Google stands you in good stead. AlexJ (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter?

I have never seen a discussion here about a possible newsletter, so why has this user decided to just send out a WP:F1 newsletter without any discussion? D.M.N. (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the user in question is being bold and sending it out as a trial to see if it will work. They say to reply if you want to keep receiving it, so if you don't want it, do nothing! AlexJ (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


West Germany

A thought popped in my head while I was editing some sports car articles, and I checked the Formula One articles to see what had been done there. The Grand Prix templates for the 1988 to 1990 events list them as happening in Hockenheim, Germany. However, should these not say West Germany, as that is the actual country they were in prior to the reunification of Germany in October 1990? The359 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Falcadore (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Guess so - I think they were still called the German Grand Prix though (thinking of the discussion about S. Korea above) so the article title wouldn't change. 4u1e (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, no arguement there. The359 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter request

Hi. User:Chubbennaitor left a {{helpme}} message on his talk page wondering about receiving the F1 newsletter. I've replied that he should get one soon, as his name is on the requests list, so can someone involved in the newsletters let him know what's happening with it? Thanks! PeterSymonds | talk 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Spare Car

Is there a section specifically covering this? I've seen instances of it in 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, Ferrari F2002, and the 2004 United States Grand Prix. I figured that such a section would it go in Formula One regulations. GoldDragon (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a section should really go in on the Spare Car/T-Car in the regs. article so it can be linked, where appropriate, from other article. The rule at present is that each driver may have no more than 2 cars available to him, so each team either has 2 race cars and a shared T-Car set up for the No.1 driver, or 2 race cars and 2 spare cars, one set up for each driver. If they use the spare car, they must take with them gearbox and engine or incur the penalty for changing. If they switch to the spare car after qualifying but before the race commences (red lights go out) they have to start from the pit lane. Reference: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/6841/ AlexJ (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Spare cars are banned in 08 QQQQQ5 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture nomination

Featured picture?
Featured picture?

FYI, Image:Heidfeld and Rosberg - 2008 Melb GP.jpg has been nominated as a featured picture by its author. Please comment here.-- Diniz (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

McLaren's points total

Something I think we should sort out before the season starts: What do we consider McLaren's points total to be? List of Formula One records says 3462.5; FORIX says 3477.5 (I presume the difference is the 15 points from the 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix). I couldn't find a number at www.formula1.com or www.mclaren.com. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we keep those 15 points off, IMO. McLaren didn't appeal that and it was a race diaqualification for the team, really. If we have sources go with both, err on the side of caution. Narson (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, "McLaren's points" refers to the constructors championship points the team recieved, and they didn't receive those points at Hungary. AlexJ (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. McLaren never got points at hungary. We can't count how many points they would have gained - LinczoneTalk/Watch 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That's my feeling as well. But I thought we should discuss it and agree a common viewpoint so we have something to reference if we need to revert good faith "corrections" during the coming year. DH85868993 (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not getting this right, but shouldn't the points for the WHOLE of 2007 season not be added to the total? or is it not included already? - oahiyeel talk 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The 3462.5 value includes 203 points from 2007. As I understand it, McLaren's disqualification from the 2007 WCC was similar to Schumacher's disqualification from the 1997 WDC, i.e. they lost their Championship position, but got to keep their points. DH85868993 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New Cars

Do you think that there should be articles on the cars that have been launched (in 2008) because there are some cars that don't have an article and were launched in mid-January!Chubbennaitor (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No rush. Not much to write about yet. The359 (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm right in saying that there are a lot of editors who will expect to see them eventually. I'm of the possibly heretical view that we don't need actually need articles on all the F1 cars ever (because there is little or nothing to say about many of them). I'm not dogmatic about it, though. 4u1e (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If they want to see the pages, they can create them. It's not harder than that. We don't have to create new pages just to have them, before there is any useful information to write there. John Anderson 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I recon that all the cars should have a article on it as someone may just be intrested in who drove the cars that year and what points they gained. I woula also like to see most cars standardised to have a launch, major technial developments and season story (Testing/Early season/mid season/end season) and on ocasion some diffrent points such as Livery and sponsor data if a major sponsor has been changed from the previous season or even mid season.
I have created the Toyota TF108, BMW Sauber F1.08, Red Bull RB4, Honda RA108 & Renault R28 for the 2008 season. I would like to see the VJM-01 updated even more for the 2008 season. The McLaren MP4-23 and Ferrari F2008 could contain more of a story as i suggested above as well.
Also could i just do a simple Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V for the Super Aguri SA08 and the Honda RA107 as that is esencially the same car. ESPImperium (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Except the season hasn't started, so there's no points yet. Once the season starts someone would create the articles, but then again, if someone wants to see points, that's much easier to find in the season article, not the car article.
And no, why would Super Aguri and Honda be the same? The359 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
They may be later on in the season, although I'll be dratted if I can get my head round where the FIA are going with the whole customer car thing. 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Formula One drivers who entered a race but did not start

Bretonbanquet has recently been doing some great work adding non-championship results to several of the F1 driver articles. But it's raised an interesting issue. Consider Günther Seiffert, who now has a results table showing that he started 10 non-championship F1 races, but is a member of Category:Formula One drivers who entered a race but did not start. Of course what the category actually means is "Formula One drivers who entered a World Championship race but did not start". But that's not what it says. I can think of several ways to handle this:

  • Leave things as they are (i.e. potentially confusing)
  • Remove drivers from the category as non-championship results are added indicating that actually did start an F1 race,
  • Change the category name to "Formula One drivers who entered a World Championship race but did not start" or "Drivers who entered a Formula One World Championship race but did not start", or
  • (my favourite) just delete the category altogether. Noting that it's probably not complete anyway - there were probably at least a dozen drivers who unsuccessfully tried to qualify for the Indianapolis 500 between 1950 and 1960, when it was a WDC round, who aren't listed in the category.

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd option it saves deleting a category which some people find helpful in many ways. Chubbennaitor (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"Formula One drivers who entered a World Championship race but did not start" would be the best solution, IMHO. John Anderson 11:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that I am hoping to expand the non-Championship area of Formula One, with probably some kind of list of drivers who entered non-Championship races but were never involved in WDC races. This would necessitate a change in the title of the category mentioned here, or the creation of a new category of some kind. Most of these drivers will however not merit their own articles, so perhaps a list article will be the best plan. There are a lot of these drivers, and they currently show up in race reports as red links, so their names can be linked to the list article, maybe something like "Formula One drivers who did not enter Championship races".

Similarly the List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race needs to be expanded to include all those that entered but did not practice. Someone has added Gary Hocking, who is a good example. If no-one objects, I will expand this list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename McLaren Grand Prix results ? - project done

These go back to only 1988 (now covers all years back to 1966). Should it be renamed to "Recent McLaren Grand Prix results", or is there a plan there to expand it? Guroadrunner (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the plan is/was that the article should contain McLaren's complete F1 results. But it would appear that currently nobody is sufficiently enthused to complete the task. DH85868993 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

can anyone find sufficient references to fill them in or maybe use results from all the seasons but that would take ages. Chubbennaitor (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no shortage of sources available for the data (Formula1.com is mostly accurate, but there is the odd error), however it's a hell of a job transferring the data into the wikitable. I'm sure it will gradually be done in time. AlexJ (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it over the weekend. Probably won't complete it in that time though. Readro (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I will probably do that, but in a little while. I just completed the Ferrari results article, and I'll be sick of F1 results table for a while.Asendoh (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Good job - the results are now as far back as 1978 -- ten years added. I would guess that the goal is 1966, the debut of the team per Wikipedia. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Finished! Readro (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
With my help. I left you to it in the end. You were on a roll. Another question to add to this. Doing this showed me that the many of the seasons don't have which driver drove for who so it makes t very hard to understand (In ways). Chubbennaitor (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Chubbennaitor, just to clarify: when you say "many of the seasons don't have which driver drove for who", are you referring to the season summary articles? If so, then you're right - but I expect that in the fullness of time, we will add "Drivers and constructors" tables (like the one in 1993 Formula One season to them all, which should address the issue. DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like this is complete! Guroadrunner (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

References

I noticed earlier today that Max Mosley was a GA, despite the fact that virtually all of the references were improperly formatted, see this prior version. I have since cleaned up the references, by implementing the cite news template on the web sources, but have a major problem with the book sources. Most are written like "Name (Year) Page", for instance "Lovell (2004) p.119". This seems way to general. What is Lovell? The title? The author? It seems far to general, and needs to include every possible detail to do with the book, by implementing the cite book template. This seems to be a problem on many F1 articles where the templates are hardly ever used. I added a book ref to the Bernie Ecclestone article earlier today using the cite book template, see here. In the Notes section, the 1st ref (the book one I inserted) is far more detailed that the book sources in Mosley's article. Can someone edit Mosley's article so that the book sources contain far more information, like with the Ecclestone example? Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that below the inline refs list is a list of books. From that list "Lovell, Terry (2004). Bernie's Game. Metro Books. ISBN 1843580861.". Having the full details for each book only once and then using just the author surname in line looks far tidier IMO than doing it in full each time. It also appears to be an acceptable way of doing things. Brabham, Brabham BT19 and Tom Pryce all achieved FA status using the same style of referencing. AlexJ (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an add-on to the conversation: http://www.ottobib.com has an instant Wikipedia citation creator utilizing ISBNs. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've tried it out the other way in my sandbox, looking at the citations, I personally like it like that as in my view it looks far more professional than the current way. D.M.N. (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
While personally I think it looks cluttered and harder to read, while conveying no extra information. Comes down to personal opinion I guess, as there's no correct way of doing things. Suggest that it's left to the primary contributor(s) of an article to decide on which style they prefer to use, and is then kept consistent within the article. AlexJ (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

D.M.N - thank you for adding the cite web templates on all the refs in the article. I have a bad habit of not tidying up refs until I finish up with an article, probably believing unconsciously that it's not worth doing it until I've finished tweaking the text. :)
I'm afraid I agree with Alex about book references. The thing I don't like about the citation templates is that the article source becomes almost unreadable, and it is pointless to repeat the book's details over and over again in the citations. The style I normally use fakes (more or less) the Harvard referencing style (see WP:HARVARD) - for which Wikipedia also has a template which does a couple of extra whizzy things that are not terribly useful (imvho!).
In the end it's up to each of us to reference in the way we thinks makes most sense for the article we're working on. My preferred style doesn't work very well when extensive web references are used, for example. Please note though that there is no requirement at Wikipedia to use citation templates, of either of the main styles. All that can be required at GA or FA review is that a consistent style is used. The references in Max Mosley were not actually improperly formatted, although I agree they are neater now. I suggest we leave the book references as they are, since the approach has passed without comment at both GA and FA for Brabham and Brabham BT19. Similar approaches are used in other featured material like Joseph Priestley and Josquin des Prez.
Guroadrunner - the auto citation generator looks interesting, thanks. 4u1e (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix - Two Questions

I'm currently working on the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article in an attempt to get it to GA-Status in the near future. However, there are two things that I am unsure on whether to include.

  • In the Background section, should I include driver deals for the 1996 season that were done a week or so before the race. Should I also include driver rumours that were developing heading into the race.
  • In the Post-Race section, should I include a little bit on the final race of season, possibly including who won and the important events (e.g. Hakkinen's crash).

I think the rest is generally OK, but I want clarification on the above two points.

Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the post-race section, in general only stuff that is related to the race should be included (e.g. penalties awarded, appeals to stewards decisions etc.). Results & events specific only to the next race shouldn't be included IMO. Background section is a little less easy. I'd say that they could possibly be mentioned, if it could be worked in nicely. AlexJ (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. :) D.M.N. (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Season summaries importance

(Adding a new subsection for ease of edting). None of the season summaires (e.g. 2005 Formula One season) have an importance rating, so I'm wondering: what makes a season more/less important? I'm inclined to say that they should all be mid-importance by default. 1950, the current season and the previous season should be top-importance, and other historically important seasons should be high-importance... but what seasons would meet this last requirement? Also, do peopel have any thoughts/objections/comments/suggestions on this? Tompw (talk) (review) 15:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One

The selected article and image have remained constant for the last few months (I believe that they were originally meant to be updated on a monthly basis!), and the management page appears to be inactive. Does anyone have any thoughts on potential replacements?-- Diniz (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how it works, but the WP:MOTOR portal automatically rotates the selected articles. How about copying that approach, if none of us are up to changing them regularly? 4u1e (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(P.S. I think Phill knows how it works, you could try asking him. 4u1e (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
That's a good idea - I fiddled around with that portal briefly last year, so I'll experiment later when I have some more time.-- Diniz (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added support for rotating the Selected Article by month, and doing various other updates automatically. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 Singapore Grand Prix

Someone has shifted 2008 Singapore Grand Prix to 2008 Singapore Night Grand Prix. Is that the official title? If it isn't, the article should be moved back to 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. - oahiyeel talk 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The official title is The 2008 SingTel Singapore Grand Prix. The Article should be called the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix anyway. It doen't require a diffrent name simply because it will be held in the dark - LinczoneTalk/Watch 18:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it's either the "Grand Prix of Singapore" or "Singapore Grand Prix" according to the FIA - we use the latter style for all other GP's on WP. There is no night in the title. AlexJ (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, so how do we do it? Undo the move, or just move the article back? Not too sure about the procedure here. - oahiyeel talk 19:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Before we move the page back, I've asked the editor who moved the page to join in the discussion. We don't want a "move war", do we? :) - oahiyeel talk 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and moved it back. Readro (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is definitely leaning towards sans-night at the moment, so it should be at 2008 Singapore Grand Prix until a compelling case is proved otherwise. Assuming a good faith, this should not result in a move-war. AlexJ (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright. As per Help:Moving_a_page#Undoing_a_move, I've placed a speedy delete on the "night" page :) - oahiyeel talk 21:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand Prix winners lists

I think that List of Grand Prix winners and List of Grand Prix winners (constructors) should be renamed. Grand Prix racing existed before Formula One so these articles should be renamed with "Formula One" in place of "Grand Prix". Readro (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think F1 should be added in addition to GP - List of Formula One winners could be taken to mean, for example, championship winners. AlexJ (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If there are no objections then I'll move them. Readro (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review notification

I have decided to put 1995 Japanese Grand Prix up for Peer Review so I can get opinions on how the article could be improved. Comment on the article and how it could be improved here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Qualifying proceedures

While expanding the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article, I've had problems trying to explain the qualifying proceedure. I believe no articles on Wikipedia that outline the proceedures over the years. Therefore, I think we should create a new article, possibly under the heading of Formula One qualifying systems that sufficently explains the qualifying proceedure. D.M.N. (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This provides a brief overview, but perhaps a full article on the various procedures used over the years would be a good idea. AlexJ (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be worried that a full article, if split, might get regarded by some editor as "fancruft". Can we concisely flesh out the qualifying sessions section to explain what we want to explain? Guroadrunner (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna

I have just noticed that Ayrton Senna has recently been moved to Ayrton Senna da Silva. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Common use is the deciding factor, isn't it? And in the English-speaking world 'Ayrton Senna' is more common than the original 'Ayrton Senna da Silva'. And the change was down to Senna himself, if I'm remembering correctly - he started using the shortened version when he came to the UK. Move it back. I says. 4u1e (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. And I see it's already been moved back. DH85868993 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it's a common cultural habit. Nelson Piquet is actually Nelson Piquet Souto Maior...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed Formula One articles humming along beautifully

Update: Assessing the items in the category Category:Unassessed Formula One articles has been going along swimmingly thanks to work from you all and from fulfilled bot requests completed by Monobi (using Monobot) and Dycedarg (using AWB). We are down to ~225 left from over 1,000 in January. I'll keep working on it and potentially this can be completed before Melbourne! Next part of the project would be importance assessment, I guess? Cheers! Guroadrunner (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Having just re-run the bot, I can say there are now exactly 200 unassessed articles, of which 169 laos have no importance rating. Unforunately, there are still ~1000 articles to add importance ratings to. Still, excellent progress over the past few months :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 20:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley

Hi all, I'm new around here (long time reader of this project, first time contributor!), just thought that you might be intrested to know that I have nominated Max Mosley for FA status, Thoughts and feedback welcome. Issues could be, problems with neutral point of view and the fact that there isn’t an image of the man himself. Tommy turrell (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A1 Grand Prix and British racing green

On Talk:A1 Team Great Britain there is a discussion going on as to wether there should be stated that it is not known why the car is not painted in British racing green. This is not about formula one, of course, but maybe some of you might have something to say about it. Write your thoughts on that talkpage, please. I have my opinion clear, but state your own. John Anderson 13:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nelson Piquet

I see that Nelson Piquet has undergone a couple of, in my view, pointless and misleading name changes.. it seems now to link to Nelson Piquet Sr or some other title that was never used on any occasion ever. Was there any discussion about this? Do we change it back? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I say change it back, for several reasons:
  • In the vast majority of cases, the name "Nelson Piquet" is used to refer to the father, not the son or one of the circuits.
  • For consistency with the analogous Al Unser article.
  • The new name for the article, Nelson Piquet Sr. (racing driver) is malformed - there's no need for the "racing driver" bit unless there is another famous Nelson Piquet Sr.
Incidentally, it's poor form to change an article into (a redirect to) a dabpage without updating all the links. (Although, ironically, in this case, I'm glad that wasn't done, because then we'd just have to change them all back). I recommend we retain the dabpage, and link to it via a hatnote from the main article. DH85868993 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with changing it back as well. A baffling change that has no merit. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I see there's even a disambiguation page.. it's pretty ridiculous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The moves should be undone to restore the article back to Nelson Piquet. Subsequently, a link should be placed at the top of the article to the disamb page at Nelson Piquet (disambiguation). - oahiyeel talk 04:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
A point to note: The original page has been edited to redirect the original page to the disamb page. We would need an administrator intervention to undo the moves now. - oahiyeel talk 04:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have requested that the page be reverted to Nelson Piquet. DH85868993 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My idea went totally wrong when I discovered that I didn't need to do that. revert it. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that you are all not happy with diam page. there are many places under the name of nelson Piquet. I know i got confused. i was looking for Nelson Angelo Piquet and ended up with his dad and I did put N'P'(disambiguation) as the title for the page name on the disimb page. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 19:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I also never remember adding Sr. to the title aswell. just (racing driver) ever would I ut Sr. next to his name; jr. to Nelson Angelo Piquet but never to the champion, and thank you Bretonbanquet for your opinion on the disamb page!!!! Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Overzealous with the disambig old bean, that's the problem. Why does he need "racing driver" then? To distinguish him from Nelson Piquet (cheese impersonator), or Nelson Piquet (inventor of the frog)? ;-) As the two (not "many") places also included on the disambig are in fact named after him I'm sort of leaning toward our Kernow friend's assessment of the page. Pyrope 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha :) I meant no offence with my forthright opinions - (on edit) I think we'll be doing just fine with a Nelson Piquet page for the champion father, and the Nelson Angelo Piquet page for his back-of-the-grid dwelling son ;) plus hatnotes on each linking with the other articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I also see that the disambiguation page isn't actually linked to anything :p Surely Nelson Piquet would ideally link to it, if it were needed at all?Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Bit cruel to call him a back-of-the-grid dweller so soon...the renault doesn't look /that/ bad. I think with 6 cars finishing a race, there is probably some chance of him even getting a podium ;) Narson (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, lets put the father back to Nelson Piquet. Readro (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It was LB22 who added the Sr. to the name. Is it going to be changed back to the original? Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 19:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the Nelson Piquet redirect has been edited, it needs administrator assistance to move the article back to its original name. I added it to the list of Requested Moves 3 days ago, but there seems to be a bit of a backlog there at the moment. I've asked User:Royalbroil if he might have a chance to do it for us. DH85868993 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. I consider this an uncontroversial move - he's extremely famous. He should be the common name with a hatnote to the disambiguation page IMO. Happy to help! Royalbroil 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Force India

I kind of let this one drop a while ago, and forget to look out for it in the coverage over the weekend; are Force India officially competing under an Indian racing license this season? 4u1e (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think Vijay Mallya would have done one by now if he wanted to. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 19:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm certain they wouldn't have kept the dutch license. I can't say with confidence they have an Indian one though - LinczoneTalk/Watch 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Not a Dutch one and most likely not an Indian one. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 19:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say most likely not an Indian one. An Indian license is probably the most likely, however it's difficult to say. Certainly an interesting question though. I noticed you [4u1e] brought this up on the 2008 article a while ago. It'll probably require some research - LinczoneTalk/Watch 19:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember that India's in a slightly odd position regarding their sporting authority as there are two organisations contending for that honour. That's one reasons Force India might not be racing under their national license. 4u1e (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

2009 German Grand Prix

I just came across the article 2009 German Grand Prix. There are a few problems with the article. First of all, the schedule for 2009 hasn't been released yet, so it's not certain there will be a German Grand Prix in 2009. Secondly, the race in Germany alternates between Hockenheim and the Nürburgring. The race will be held in Hockenheim this year, so it will be held at the Nürburgring next year. The organisers there don't have the rights to use the name "German Grand Prix", so as it stands, the race at Nürburgring will have to carry some other name. Why I'm raising it here, is to see what should happen with the article? AFD? Prod? Cleanup? AecisBrievenbus 13:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The same happened with 2009 Australian Grand Prix. I prodded it yesterday. D.M.N. (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I would prod it. Far too early to start the 2009 race reports. The calendar hasn't even been released yet - LinczoneTalk/Watch 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Way too much jumping the gun going on lately, it seems. The359 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Prodded as a result of this discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
2009 Australian GP should not be deleted. It is contracted.[1] But 2009 German GP is not confirmed, so would be likely deleted. Raymond Giggs 09:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it's contracted, what purpose would an article serve at this stage? "The 2009 Australian Grand Prix will be a Grand Prix held in Melbourne in 2009." - that's pretty much all that can be said. AlexJ (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Unless there is actually something to say about the 2009 Australian Grand Prix, there is no need for the article. The359 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, is that actually your mind when you build up the articles about the grands prix of 2008? Raymond Giggs 05:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't have them yet, but that's me. I know others will simply create them anyway (as we had with the 2008 cars already), so whatever. At least it's the current season and a confirmed event. 2009 has nothing confirmed. The359 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing confirmed? Really nothing confirmed? So Abu Dhabi GP is ALSO not confirmed in 2009? What are you talking about? Raymond Giggs 05:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The 2008 races have a confirmed date. The '09 calendar hasn't been released yet, and I think this is what The359 was trying to say. AlexJ (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as the prod for 2009 Australian Grand Prix was removed, I've nominated it for deletion. D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Grid and Qualifying Position

Some drivers would be punished by dropping his grid. So should we use two tables for the qualifying result and grid position?

The grid position is included in the Race classification table. It would look cluttered to have three tables on each race report, especially if there's going to be only one or two differences between two of them. AlexJ (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Michele Alboreto

I am aware it's been a long time since I've come here (mainly because I've found a new interest in trains - hey, I hail from Crewe, what were you expecting? ;-) Also, the long journey home from Manchester takes a lot of time as well so I haven't had much of an opportunity to come online at all) but with three weeks off and hope to try and get some Wiki-work done. Anyway, if anyone has been watching my edits recently Mr. Alboreto has been edited a lot by me over the last few days and after some extensive work on his article I think it's on it's way to GA status.

However, it's been a long time since I've actually done a decent bio and I was wondering if you guys would check it over for me - I do realize I could send it over to Peer Review but I know you guys better ;-). I am aware this is no Tom Pryce of an article (I really do consider that this communities best work alongside the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix) but still, apart from references (which I am in the process of gathering) is there anything I've missed out on or any contradictions within the article; or perhaps (looking at you "Stiggy") English errors. Cheers guys! --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! When did I become Stiggy?! :) Despite that, I'll have a look. Good to see you back. 4u1e (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, why do I call Pyrope "Keke"? Oh Yeah, I remember I call you "Stiggy" because you revert anything to do with The Stig on F1 articles, leaving me to believe that you are the stig and that you don't like it when people compare you to drivers that aren't you, I certainly wouldn't like it :P...I don't know, I just like giving nicknames to people. If you don't like it, just say ;).--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it's a fair cop then. I've never understood the need to link every living English F1 driver with the Stig, particularly with the lack of any particular evidence. Grrr. :) 4u1e (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
And I really am Rosberg Sr. Sorry for not having been online much recently, but my mustache takes ages to comb every evening. ;-) Nice to see you back again Phill. Pyrope 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done some work on his post-F1 career, the IRL/Sportscar stuff mostly. I'm curious if maybe the Le Mans template should be kept at the top, immediately beneath the F1 template, or if it should be moved down to the bottom where it actually discusses his Le Mans career? The359 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank You, 359. Sorry, my bad - I've updated the infobox on his Le Mans career (further appearances in the early 1980s for Martini Racing have now been included), but considering his only win at Le Mans was after his F1 career I think we could move it and make it a "hideable" infobox in that section but I think it's best until the others get a chance to have their say - Good idea though! --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I had forgotten about Alboreto driving for Lancia in the early 80s, and added some more to the template beyond your edits. However, Alboreto was a Lancia factory driver on and off from 1980 to 1983, and scored a couple of World Championship wins in the Lancia LC1 in 1982 beyond his win at Watkins Glen in the Beta Monte Carlo in 1981. I think his sports car career needs a lot more text. The359 (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, right. I'll have a look see if I can find any material - any references from your end would be really helpful! --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Good start to the article but I really do dislike the yearly titles (1984; 1985; 1986 etc.) as in my view it really distorts and breaks up the article. D.M.N. (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1988 - 1994, 1997 season articles

Surely the "Season Summary" sections in these articles are wayyy too large and should be shortened or further separated into subsections and try to follow WP:style, WP:Layout and WP:Encyclopedic style? I've not seen all the season articles but surely such long wordy sections would not make good reading for the article. - oahiyeel talk 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They should have seperate articles and only a brief or what it says with the Main Page:_____ on the section for all. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that they are too long, disagree about seperate articles. It (as Oahiyeel said) needs to be shortened down, and referenced properly. D.M.N. (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, shorter, and summarise the overall story of the season, whatever that happens to be, rather than giving a race by race, blow by blow account. 4u1e (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Formula One constructors

I have been doing occasional edits to this, adding full stats for one constructor at a time. I'd like to request some help with this one, as it's slow work. This is one of the Wikiproject's more improtant articles, and if everyone who read this added deatils for just one constructor, thinsg would progress more rapidly than I could manage by myself. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but one question before I start: Do the First/Last Grand Prix columns mean the first/last GP entered or the first/last GP started? Because it makes quite a difference for some constructors. I'd recommend making it first/last race entered, for consistency with (a) the "Races entered" column, and (b) the infoboxes in the constructor articles. DH85868993 (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'vealways gone with entered, myself. Tompw (talk) (review) 10:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Standings After Each GP - revisited

IIRC, sections like this in the Australia 2002 are disliked and should be removed. Am I right? (Also is this image which is used in the Australia 2002 article inproperly licensed, and is infact copyrighted?) D.M.N. (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture is copyrighted. U can tell by the name and the pic name. I don't think anyone would name the pic like that. Only websites with pictures use numbers like that. I don't know about the Standings area but I think it would be needed for the last few races. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This IP seems to be the one doing it. I've reverted all their edits. D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Guys... I need some help, otherwise I could be on the verge of violating WP:3RR. D.M.N. (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to help, but is there a consensus on this? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Here, Here and Here (December 2007). Unfortunately, IP's seem to ignore the consensus. D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still happy to see them deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Let's see how long it lasts! Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It lasted nearly 11 hours [2] DH85868993 (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverted all of the IP edits, as they basically reverted mine. D.M.N. (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 Australian Grand Prix

An IP user keeps changing Webber and Button's laps to 1 instead of 0. The official FIA results say 0 laps, I've had to change this twice today already. Mjroots (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It might help if the column head read "Laps" rather than just "Lap" These cars were eliminated on lap 1, but had completed 0 laps. One little letter changes the meaning somewhat, so I personally don't blame the IP editor on this occasion. Pyrope 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It depends of a track whether finish line is before or after the pit lane. In Melbourne it's after, so drivers get lap only after leaving the pits. In this year's calendar Monaco and Montreal are similar tracks, at least 13 tracks have finish line before the pit lane. I don't know yet about Valencia and Singapore. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WDC order after Australia 2008

I can't help thinking the WDC order after the one race as shown on www.formula1.com is horribly wrong... since when do drivers with equal stats (in this case one start, one retirement) get listed in order of how they dropped out of the previous race? I know it hardly matters, since it'll all be different on Sunday evening, but if they really can't stand to have those guys as 9th=, then the only way to separate them is by car number, i.e. Massa 9th, Kubica 10th then Piquet / Coulthard / Webber / Trulli / Glock / Vettel / Sato / Davidson / Button down to Sutil 20th and Fisichella 21st, with Barrichello 22nd. Or am I going nuts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when have the Bernie & Co. been a reliable source of results?!? ;-) The official FIA website had (I haven't checked in the last two days) Kimi on 1 point after the last race, but Ferrari on 0. Go figure. Anyway, what's the current situation on needing to have actually completed a race before you get classified? Pyrope 02:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, exactly hahaha... and yes, that says it all. I don't know who they get to update the tables, but he's not very good at it. Your other point is quite true also... Markus Winkelhock wasn't classified last year, was he? One start, one retirement... Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought it worth mentioning that the WDC table at www.formula1.com is really horribly inaccurate, so we shouldn't use it as a source right now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template question

Should former F1 (race) drivers who are official test drivers for 2008 (e.g. Alexander Wurz, Vitantonio Liuzzi, Pedro de la Rosa) have {{F1 driver}} or {{Former F1 driver}}? I can't remember what we did last year. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We used the F1 driver template. Last year, Christian Klien was Honda test-driver. This year, he is not involved in F1. You changed the template from F1 driver to Former F1 driver in December, as he was no longer Honda's test driver. This is what we used on Klien's article last season when he was test driver: [3].

D.M.N. (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that Klien is BMW's test driver this year.-- Diniz (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Race sponsors

Do we really need sections like this in an article? A list of the naming sponsors adds nothing useful to the article and reads like trivia. I'd like to suggest they are removed as they have been added to several Grands Prix articles. Readro (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree entirely. As you rightly mention, it is not at all significant to the articles. D.M.N. (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The title sponsor already appears as part of the full official name (XVI Sponsor Grand Prix of Country). Other sponsors inclusion especially as part of a trivia/notes section is discouraged by the guidelines. EDIT: Sorry, thought you meant in race reports. Same argument applies, lists of trivia don't really belong on Wikipedia articles. Long running sponsors could probably be worked into prose in a history section. AlexJ (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

De Klerk: Constructor?

Yay or nay? Both Chicane and AllF1 list them as a true constructor, but they are missing here. Anyone got any more info? Peter De Klerk and associates constructed their own F1 car around a 1.5L Alfa engine, and named it the Alfa Romeo Special. However, Alfa had nothing to do with the chassis so I'm not sure that they ought to be listed as its constructor. Comments? Pyrope 14:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be worth having an article devoted to specials, and linking de Klerk's car to that, rather than Alfa Romeo. There were various Cooper specials in a similar vein. I can't help thinking that if he had been a bona fide constructor, or had seen himself as such, de Klerk and co would have given their car a more definitive name, like so many of their peers were doing at that time - the Heron / LDS / Quodra / Jennings / Scorpion / Assegai etc etc. I'll try and find out more though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Arrows - 1997

I was watching an old ITV F1 video broadcast of the 1997 Australian Grand Prix yesterday, when I couldn't help but notice Murray Walker mention that Arrows was "an entirely new team". Is this true, that it came back, slate clean with new backers and everything. I'm asking, as there doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the Arrows article. D.M.N. (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

At the beginning of 1996, Tom Walkinshaw bought Arrows but the foundations for the year were already in place so there was really not much he could do but run the team as it was intended to have been. During the 96-97 off season Walkinshaw moved the team to TWR's Leafield technical base. He'd also had a year to bring in new sponsors and new staff so really what Murray means is that 1997 was the first "proper" year of the Walkinshaw regime. Readro (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while, and some articles wait up to 50 days for a review. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Formula One is to try to find time to review Glebe Dirty Reds and Andy Reid (footballer). If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix has been partially reviewed by someone, but has requested a second opinion. Can one of you guys go over and comment on his point? passed and is now a Good Article. D.M.N. (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought those involved in motorsport articles weren't supposed to be reviewing motorsport GA nominees? The359 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
For that matter, where is the actual review? The359 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's also not on the list of GA's. Readro (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think our new WP:F1 member User:PYLrulz has made a bit of an error, and simply approved the article as GA on the talk page without a review, and failed to add it to the article to the list. Since this was done a bit improperly, I've reverted the article back to a GA nominee, and I'll inform PYLrulz of the error. Once he reviews it again it can be added to the list. The359 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good notice there. I never noticed at first that it was reviewed by someone who was involved in motosports articles. I've inserted in back onto the WP:GAN page. Thanks for noticing, and hopefully it'll get a proper, thorough review from somebody else. D.M.N. (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the help. Both of the articles I mentioned here have been reviewed. I was asked to list more for project members to look over (again, only if you want to and have time), so I suppose it would be great if anyone could look over Barry Bonds, 2007 Kansas City Chiefs season or New Year's Revolution (2007). Thanks again for your help. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Season in progress" footnotes

Do we want "Season in progress" footnotes for the 2008 points totals and championship positions in the F1 driver "Career summary" tables and/or the driver/team/car "Formula One results" tables, as we had last year? Or is it intuitive/obvious that the 2008 season is still in progress? Currently none of the "Formula One results" tables have such notes and only a couple of the "Career summary" tables have them. Note that the column in the "Career summary" tables is labelled "Final placing" - perhaps an alternative approach would be to change the column title to just "Placing"? Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari car split proposal

I haven't looked at this in much detail, but just came across it. On the Ferrari 312T and Ferrari 412T pages, an editor has suggested that they should be both split into different articles, e.g. Ferrari 312T2 right up to T5. The same goes for 412T, with an editor suggesting it should be split into 412T1, and 412T2. What do others think about possibly doing this? D.M.N. (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no. There's more than enough room to describe each car on a single page, and there is not that much difference between the various versions. We don't include separate entries for B-Spec cars either. The359 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with 359. Write the material first, and if/when the pages get too long then split them out. My suspicion is that it'll be a long time before we need to do that. 4u1e (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I knew that would be the answer, but I just wanted a bit of clarification. Should I remove the split templates at the top of the two pages? D.M.N. (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No. I've invited User:Amedeofelix to participate in this discussion, so we can understand his reasoning behind the suggestion. The359 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Look the reason is simple. Currently there are articles which cover a multitude of different cars simply because Ferrari chose to name them in an almost identical fashion. Here's an example of why I think it silly to be lumping cars from different years together: The 1995 412T2 and 1996 F310 have as much in common design wise as the 1994 predecessor does with it's 1995 follow-up. Then again why separate out the F300 which again evolves straight from the 310B? You can go on and on like this. Every year's car is more oft than not a development on from the previous year. So logic would say either lump them all into one vast article or split them into individual chassis numbers (i.e. look at the Ferrari chassis number for ID and not their public names only).--Amedeo Felix (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But the 312T1 is quite different from the 312B, while the 312T5 is, honestly, not that different from the 312T5. The 126C as well is quite different from the 312T5, especially since they have different engines.
At the same time, the 412T1 is almost identical to the 412T2, while the 310 is quite different visually (raised nose) and again, has a different engine. I do not see how "T1" to "T5" is anything more than what "B" spec is today.
I agree that some other Ferraris are similar enough that they could be combined, but they use wildly different names. The359 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree (again) with 359. The 412T2 had a very similar design to the T1, but a very different layout to the 310. To be fair, that's a less clear cut case than the various 312Ts, which are pretty much a series of updates of the same car. 4u1e (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Flagged F1 Races

User:WilliamF1 has created a new article called Red Flagged F1 Races and added "Red Flagged F1 Race" succession boxes to 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix and 2007 European Grand Prix. I'm ambivalent about whether or not we retain the article (although, if we do, I would recommend changing the name to List of red-flagged Formula One races or List of Formula One races which were red-flagged), but I think the succession boxes are probably unnecessary. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I think it's a bit of a useless list, as are the succession boxes. If examples of red flag races want to be discussed, bring it up in an article on F1 rules. The359 (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Readro (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I thought this would be a useful reference because I wanted to find this information out and could not find it anywhere on Wikipedia. Indeed, on many race articles there was no mention of the red flag. Will (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That's because not many race reports have a "proper" report with references. D.M.N. (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually support this being formatted as a proper WikiList (i.e. List of red-flagged Formula One races as DH suggests) and used as a {{see}} or {{main}} link from a section in the main F1 article, or the rules article. I think your mistake was the succession box, as these tend to get people's back up as too many minor boxes tend to obscure actually important information. Pyrope 15:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you Pyrope. I think I should note that the current article does miss off a lot of races that have been red-flagged e.g. 1998 Canadian Grand Prix, 1998 French Grand Prix, 1999 British Grand Prix etc. D.M.N. (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say delete the succession boxes as utterly irrelevant. That a race was red-flagged is not especially notable. I'm ambivalent on the list itself. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards keep with the list. As I see it, it's factual with no 'grey areas' or 'propitiatory criteria'. It doesn't hurt to have such a list (WP is not paper etc.) and it can be easily maintained and referenced. Maybe it's because I lean towards inclusion, but I say we keep it. AlexJ (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see the article kept as well. It is useful as a reference, and as WilliamF1 says, he created it because he couldn't find the information on Wikipedia.-- Diniz (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep the list, but delete the succession boxes. - oahiyeel talk 17:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)