Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

2012 Formula One season

I've just noticed the recent (re?)creation of 2012 Formula One season. I'm personally not fussed whether it stays or goes, but if it stays it probably needs some work. DH85868993 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly prodded it. Not enough concrete info to suffice an article. Once we get a bit of technical detail and or driver contracts (apart from Alonso/Ferrari) then I'd be happy for it to be (re)created. D.M.N. (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal selected picture

Entries are now open for our portal selected picture section. If you have a good picture which is free use, related to F1, is well shot or just an interesting and informative picture, add it to our log at Portal:Formula One/Selected picture. Don't forget to add a short caption explaining why the subject is interesting. In particular, we are looking for images from the early decades of Formula One, which tell a different story from the flood of recent pictures we see. Apterygial 07:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice job there! D.M.N. (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal DYKs

I'm currently overhauling the portal, and I'm currently looking for interesting facts from our articles, which are reliably referenced in those articles. In particular, I'm looking for facts that have appeared on the main page. I know some of you are quite prolific contributors to the main page section, and I would love it if you dumped all of those facts on me. Leave them in a big list at Portal talk:Formula One/Did you know, and I'll see if I can sort them out. Apterygial 23:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Going back one and a half years...

...I nominated Porsche 3512 to be merged with Footwork FA12. I left my reasons on the talkpage (with the Davnel03 username) back then, and consensus was two support, one oppose. Several new users have since joined WP:F1 since then, and I wondered if they had an opinion on the above so a merge could possibly take place. Please see the merger proposal here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Chubbennaitor 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The idea was to show your opinion over there, not here. D.M.N. (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Add me if you're desperate. Chubbennaitor 16:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Against my better judgement I have posted a little note on the page - please both of ou do nto kill the newbie lol--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles under GA review

Hello there, the articles Michael Schumacher, Mario Andretti, Gilles Villeneuve, Lewis Hamilton and Mark Webber which fall under the auspices of this Wikiproject, have come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk pages. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the articles will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain their status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, I've merged this and the above topic as they cover the same thing mainly. Secondly, if I'm to be honest, I can't see how it can be possible to improve five articles (some of which no offense look in a bit of state) back to GA status in 7 days, I don't see that possible. I think some are unlikely to survive seven days, I've surprised some of them weren't just straight off demoted. We could just ask for them to be demoted now to B-class, so we can work on them slowly, or we try and work on the 5 within 7 days (which for a project of this size, and articles of those lengths, is impossible). D.M.N. (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to prioritize. There is no way we can do five articles in seven days. I suggest we all concentrate on one or two, possibly the ones requiring the least work, and save the major jobs for later. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I got Mario. It's been my baby all along (along with 4u1e). Note that he's more prominent in American for his IndyCar history, so it's important to let the people in WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing know. I found it on my watchlist and I've begun repairs. I agree it's dirty to bombard a WikiProject with 5 GAR simultaneously. I'm not part of WP:F1. Royalbroil 05:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're sharing out the work, I'll do Villeneuve. Unless someone's already done so, should we ask Jacky for his/her view on an extension in view of the workload? 4u1e (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sent a message to the user, asking if they could comment here regarding possible extension. D.M.N. (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course extensions are possible. I very glad to see that there are people willing to take these on, so many articles under GAR just get ignored. I reviewed them all at once for my convenience but it was always my intention let you take your time with them (guess I didn't make that clear enough! Sorry). Drop a note on my talk page when you feel each one is ready or if you need more guidance. If I am concerned that interest in making these improvements is dropping off then I will leave notes here warning of it long before I start delisting articles. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll volunteer for reworking Schumi for now, starting with Honours and moving on, will post on chat pages as I go along. --Chaosdruid (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for that... Schumi's article has been reassessed after ref improvements and I've happy to say that its been passed! I've struck it as a result from Jackyd101's post above so we can track what needs to be improved. D.M.N. (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Already had started it, sry - headline "retirement" still needs looking at though--Chaosdruid (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone covering Andretti ? - I don't mind having a go at that one, I will attempt that first in my sandbox-- Chaosdruid (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RoyalBroil is working on it, but I'm sure he is happy to see your contributions as well. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done some ref work on Webber, but none in the section addressing 07 and 08 seasons in the article, so that's next. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Workbook - Check out the fixes needed for these GAR at the links below:
  

** Mark Webber: primarily add refs Jacky passed today ! although some work still to do on refs

• • Gilles Villeneuve: Multiple issues: Fix refs, build refs, clean up prose, add broader scope (biographical)

** Lewis Hamilton: Primarily prose issues, not meeting MOS, needs more refs and NPOV checking Jacky passed it - Woohoo - 2 to go ! Chaosdruid (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
** Mario Andretti: Prose, some sections of text need work, ref formatting (easy fix) - Jacky passed today --Chaosdruid (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
** Michael Schumacher: Fill in refs to battle tags. (only reason it failed) -- Guroadrunner (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've struck Schumacher - as I stated above, that has been re-passed after I found some refs. D.M.N. (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just by way of an update, I've started on Villeneuve, but it'll probably take me the rest of the week to finish. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Schumi seems finished now - as per D.M.N.'s post (above), although I did rearrange some sections today, moving helmet above retirement and such - would someone mind checking all is acceptable ? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Andretti I checked with Jacky and was told links should be ok. Jacky has posted as "I think this now passes"Chaosdruid (talk) 20:10, 02 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your help on Mario's article. I was expecting to do it alone! Royalbroil 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton reworked pers. section & 2008 season - all rest apart from "records" and fol.- chkd ref 1-44 (4 fixed inc 1 dead revived) Jacky passed it today - Chaosdruid (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Webber - need help guys ! there are some refs that are incorrectly formatted also have to add last two races for 2008 which hadn't been done and do lots rewriting I need someone to check my work so far as well as trying to help find refs for 2007/2008 - cheers (Done 2008 race reports, done 200 --Chaosdruid (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

CURRENT STATUS

♦ Schumi finished - Jacky passed Chaosdruid/D.M.N.

♦ Andretti finished - Jacky posted as passed !Talk:Mario_Andretti - Chaosdruid/RoyalBroil

♦ Hamilton - finished - Jacky passed it today Chaosdruid

♦ Villeneuve - Started by 4u1e - see ↑

♦ Webber - Jacky it today (some refs to reformat and thats it !)User:Chaosdruid/Guroadrunner

UPDATED --Chaosdruid (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Annoying browser problem

Hi all

If anyone is using Firefox 3.0.5 has had a problem with it keep adding blank lines into pages, can they please tell me if they managed to fix it or not ?
It seems every time I edit a section and then save, it adds one blank line above the section header, and it's getting annoying now lol. I have looked at the add-ons I am using<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>, as it did not happen with netscape, but I don't know if it's the browser or the add-ons and any help would be more than appreciated --Chaosdruid (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 3.0.5 and I've never been aware of the problem, I don't think it has ever happened to me. It might be worth raising the problem at the help desk if no one can help here. Regards, Schumi555 (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I will try them - I have disabled most of the add-ons now, so lets see if it adds a line right now - lol !Chaosdruid (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Damn ! it did - and now it will prob add another

Not aware of the problem, and I'm using some version of Firefox that begins with 3. Not sure which one, but I got no probs. DeMoN2009 11:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It happens on my Safari. Currently the posts above have lines between each other. Chubbennaitor 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed ! After an hour and 20 mins online chat with Firefox developers I managed to get nowhere apart from letting them know there was a problem. I managed to eliminate it myself, after disabling and re-enabling add-ons, it turned out to be the Babelfish add-on which was causing the problem.--Chaosdruid (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Medals system

Just wondering, does anyone think Bernie's "crazy" idea deserves an article of it's own. IMO, it could easily make a B or C-Class article, I'm sure several people in the F1 world (past and present) have an opinion on it for us to reference to. D.M.N. (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's deserving of a page. At most it merits a paragraph on the points sytems page. Readro (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. For one I don't believe (or rather, I hope), this idea will get any traction, leaving us with a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL article. Two, it would set a precedent that every one of Bernie's crazy ideas merits an article. We should at the very least wait until such proposals become official policy in F1. Apterygial 11:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be against its inclusion as a part of points system. Like Apterygial said, Ecclestone throws out some ideas every once in a while. He sounds like the change he is proposing is dire and necessary to improve/fix the sport. But only some of these ideas actually see the light of the day. If anything, mention in his article how some of his ideas are actually panned by former drivers, team personnel etc. ^LeaveSleaves 11:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if you cover the other side of the argument as well. First and foremost, it needs to be NPOV. Readro (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Have any of you read this and this? I just came across them today and was wondering what is everyone's take on them? Does this mean the change is considered seriously? ^LeaveSleaves 12:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)#

It changes nothing. It's barely an analysis. I'd expect something more formal if they are serious. Readro (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the kind of poke around through the history books I'd do when I should be studying for uni. Still wait for something solid. Thought of something: if the system is introduced List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems would have to be renamed to List of Formula One World Championship scoring systems. Apterygial 12:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The FIA's "analysis" is superficial in the extreme. It ignores the rather obvious fact that drivers drive to the rules in force at the time. To take only the most recent example, Hamilton would not have been driving for fourth place in Brazil or for third place in Singapore last year if he needed wins to clinch the championship ... rant over :) 4u1e (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

USF1

How much crystalballery is involved in creation of USF1 (Formula One)? The team has only been announced at the moment. There is no significant information available on its structure or plans. The only plans known are full of speculation that expects the team of act on no earlier than 9-10 months. Majority of the talk is through grapevine. ^LeaveSleaves 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Call me inclusionist, but support keeping article, 100%. Much of the talk appears to be solidifying, the fact that Autosport are covering it as they are is good enough for me, for now. Apterygial 12:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Autosport is a news source and of course it'll cover any sort of news regarding F1. But that does not make the team notable. The point here is its significance as a sports team. There is no significant notability on this part of the team and we just don't create articles hoping the subject would become notable someday. ^LeaveSleaves 12:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not notable enough. At the moment it is pure speculation. There is no car, no factory, no base, nothing. Just rumours. Recommend prodding it. Readro (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, you know the policies much better than I do, but my feeling is that this will only create more news, more notability, and that an AFD now would be premature. I'll defer to my WP:F1 colleagues to voice their views. Apterygial 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's not yet at the stage where it could be compared to Prodrive F1 or Phoenix Finance, which are the two proposed but failed to materialise teams I can think of that have articles here. Everything so far in the news is "it is believed that" or "which suggests that", there no concrete facts. In comparison, our article at present states "The vehicle will be designed and built in the States". One thing I did note was that GrandPrix.com report "a launch to be planned for next month." I suggest either to take the article out of the mainspace and move it to projectspace or just delete it. AlexJ (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of userfying it. I left a message at the creator of the article. Let's see what s/he thinks. ^LeaveSleaves 13:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. There will be more news soon, and it would just be a waste of time deleting it and creating it again. There are solid facts availible, like there will be a launch next month, and they will be based in North Carolina. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 13:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying "this will happen" actually makes it a speculation and not a fact. It also makes it a very blatant speculation when these statements are not first-hand but just grapevine through sports writers. And recreation isn't exactly as difficult as you think. As suggested above, we can ask the creator to move the article to his userspace and remove it from mainspace. That makes it quite easier to resurrect it if it does gain some notability in the future. ^LeaveSleaves 13:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to my point of that anything in the future is speculation. Chubbennaitor 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely starting it after the launch, when we know more than rumours, would be the best idea? DeMoN2009 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the page as it stands. The vast majority is statements of fact ("is an American group looking to enter Formula", "Max Mosley confirmed ... that he had been approached by the group", "USF1's mission is") and all reasonably referenced. The one statement I would argue with is the one regarding where the car "is to be built", which seems a bit rich as they don't have a car yet. I reckon we let it stand for now and reassess the situation if and when a formal press conference is called. Pyrope 17:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think userfying is the best option - if announced "it failed" or "it is going ahead" it would be easy to then put it back and look like we're on the ball - if userfied can the orig page be left as link to userpage with warning banner saying "at moment this is speculative/ongoing process" ? --Chaosdruid (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove it. What's the notability exactly? Someone that might enter F1 if their plans come to fruition? We've had enough Team Dubai and Direxiv nonsense to know that the odds aren't good that this will succeed, so I don't think we should crystal ball it simply because it's F1-related. The359 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (To Pyrope) The problem isn't that the article is false or that anyone is denying the existence of such team/company. The problem is whether the team/company is notable. Now, there isn't a existing criteria defined to judge a Formula One team's notability. But I believe for a team to be notable, it needs to have some sort of valid involvement in the sport and not merely an intention to do so. Even if such involvement resulted in failure (e.g. Prodrive F1). ^LeaveSleaves 18:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there some limit to the number of pages Wikipedia can have? By any reasonable interpretation the facts stated on the page pass WP:V, so why get rid of it? I don't understand the exclusionist, restrictive mentality that seems to have some areas grabbed Wikipedia in the last 18 months. Some projects are happy for every tiny factoid to have a page (subspecies in many botanical and zoological projects, tiny mountain villages of 200 people in some geographical projects, etc.) so why exclude this? It has attracted media interest and people might be expected to turn to the World's most comprehensive encyclopedia for more information and some appropriate links. Pyrope 19:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For an article to be included, it has to pass WP:N and not WP:V. And many things captivate people's or media's interest throughout the world. That doesn't all of them be included here. As you said, this is an encyclopedia. And I would add, not a news/fan site. Your argument about villages or subspecies is irrelevant here. ^LeaveSleaves 19:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, at the moment, an encylopedia - a list of notable things that exist or have existed - as you say "a factoid" - and as such if something does not exist yet it wouldn't normally be included - if it isn't a factoid and is speculatoid it doesn't get passed--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But the group do exist. This isn't speculation, and has been covered in many reliable, reputable media outlets, and not just those solely concerned with Formula One. The news is over a week old now and has even attracted comment from the president of the FIA, who regards them as "serious". I just fail to see what harm this article is doing to you or this project. Quite to opposite, in fact. It has been well put together so far and shows definite potential to expand and become a useful repository of information on the USF1 project. Whether that then becomes "USF1 was a failed attempt..." or not. Pyrope 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The group exist; they are trying to enter F1 and they haven't got a car or any official signings into the 2010 season. They aren't on the 2010 F1 season page. They exist so they deserve a page. Chubbennaitor 20:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but that's not how the inclusion criteria works. You don't just create an article a company because it exists. And about the media coverage, majority of it is speculative and through grapevine and minimal amount of it is substantiated as factual information. Some are saying that it might announce a driver this month, but what the hell the driver useful for if it's not a recognized team. Even 2010 plans are only aims and desires. Please note that Mosley calling them "serious" does not count as official nod for the team. In fact his actual statement also included caution for the team. ^LeaveSleaves 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they deserve a page, once they announce they are a team, but maybe not in the mainspace yet as they are not yet an F1 team, merely a group expressing an interest in joining F1 - If we remove the speculative paragraphs all we are left with is their name, their location, a wind tunnel, their motto and Max's comments. We don't have anything from any team member except the unnamed "high level" source in the ITVF1 article. If we had more from the team I would say yes to leaving in mainspace, but as their own website, after 4 years, is just a logo and e-mail it is a little sparse on fact--Chaosdruid (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Autosport, Crash Media (publishers of Autocourse), Sky Sports and Sporting Life are happily directly quoting one of the directors of the project from an interview with a newspaper, and seem to consider the project noteworthy enough to give it credence. My point about Mosely wasn't that it was an official endorsement, rather that the USF1 project was significant enough for someone in his position to actually pass comment. Pyrope 23:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Side-issue Whether we're keeping or deleting, can I ask editors to be more careful about copyright violations? I've just re-written the last para of this article which had been copied (or 'stolen' as some would have it) from the Autoblog article it was sourced from. That's an absolute no-no on Wikipedia.4u1e (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Kubica Canada 2007.jpg

I've recently been uploading pictures from the 2007 season and thi picture crossed my line. It's fairly good and I just want to alert people that it exists and what it could do in the future. 350px|thumb|center —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbennaitor (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC).

I guess you could propose it at Portal talk:Formula One or for next newsletter. ^LeaveSleaves 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a coordinator? Really? Pyrope 15:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to have been sent to a lot of WikiProjects. I for one wouldn't want this project to have a coordinator seeing as we are all "equal"... no one has more rights than someone else and so one and so forth... D.M.N. (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. At the moment DH does an awful lot of this sort of work, and I am hugely grateful that they do, but I wouldn't want it enshrined in a formal title. Pyrope 15:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember "co-ordinators". We just nominate a few people who would be good at this discussion. Chubbennaitor 16:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. We're not going to start nominating people to be co-ordinators.... it'll feel that they must always be the leader, which isn't the case.... I don't want to see this project taken over by co-ordinators. D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the title was "representative" or "spokesperson" then it might be different. The project should never have a coordinator. There is no need. Readro (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a team principal? ;) Apterygial 22:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Afraid it's got to be Grand Poobah or nowt. Readro (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to insist upon the Pompatus Of Love --Narson ~ Talk • 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in control just act like a lawyer. They don't say everthng is wrong. I meant just get who we think would put our views forward They aren't like that here. They stay equal here. Chubbennaitor 09:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what we are saying Chubb is that we don't see the need for that. The second you single one member out you create inequality. It does work for some projects (MilHist for example), it just isn't for us. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

MilHist are huge. When you have about 15 active members of the project like here the idea of having a coordinator (team principal, Grand Poobah, Pompatus Of Love, lawyer) seems a little pointless. Apterygial 10:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also trying to say that if we want to speak in one of these things then we need to have a representative who only speaks. He doesn't do anything else. Chubbennaitor 13:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(De-indent) Personally, I don't see a need to get involved in this at all. It's aim is to help projects "more easily develop consensus and collaborate" - we don't have much of a problem doing either here. I dislike the idea of any 'representatives' deciding consensus - if there's a need to get involved in discussions, then it should be as individuals. That's how Wikipedia works. AlexJ (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Grand Prix games GP2, GP3 & GP4

Hi all

Now most of the GAR for Schumi Webber etc. is taken care of I am going to start on the pages for the Geoff Crammond series as they are in a pretty bad way.

Anyone interested in helping ? --Chaosdruid (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I might, but I rarely have time to. Just got into GP2 again recently. The articles in question are Grand Prix II, Grand Prix III and Grand Prix 4 as well as World Circuit. Have you tried WP:CVG? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THanks for that - I'll have a look. I had the series since GP1 but only had that for a few months before GP2 came out. The pages are in need of some TLC and I'll try and collect some refs before I start on them.

cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging McGuire

I've proposed merging McGuire (Formula One) into Brian McGuire. I've opened discussion in Talk:Brian McGuire. --Pc13 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton - add Davidson ?

Hi all

It's just been suggested, on the Hamilton talk page, that Hamilton's full name should be "Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton" as it states this in his autobiography "My story".

Has anyone got a copy of the book so they can check for us please ?

Thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It used to be in the article - I don't know why it was ever removed. Readro (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

'Twas me who changed it in the first place. I shall add a reference when I get home later today, so I can get the page info etc. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 10:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 09:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

*Shocked*

I received a book for Christmas about Formula One. Well, I received many, but this one stands out because it is shaped like a tyre. Yes, it it this one.

What I was shocked to see inside was screenshots of results tables and records tables, clearly taken from our articles! And most of all, they didn't even credit us for the information! I know Wikipedia is free and everything, but are they allowed to do that without even crediting? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So long as the license is maintained. This does create a problem when the information is part of something which is then sold on with the aim of making a profit. But to answer your question directly, no I don't think they have to credit us. Apterygial 23:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

From the licensing page: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." So it's not necessary to credit Wikipedia (although it would be courteous to do so in an acknowledgements section). However, the book is breaking the terms of the license if it is all published under a different license.--Diniz(talk) 23:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It says in the front few pages that all the information in the book is copyright Peter Murray and Murray Books. So, yes, he is breaking the license terms. Is it worth contacting them? They do have a contact form on their website. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 00:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's just results tables, then I'd think they're OK. Purely factual information is not copyrightable, if it was we wouldn't be able to reproduce it here. If it contains prose from here, then it's a different matter. AlexJ (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that they're well within the rights. the people who re-read this book before it goes on sale would have checked it. Chubbennaitor 09:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The proof-readers are there to correct errors. It's very possible that no one involved has seen an F1 page on Wikipedia. It is a clear breach of the license and should be reported as such. Alex - there have been test cases on such things. The information in the table is not copyrightable but the way it is presented is copyrightable. If they've directly lifted the tables then it is a breach of copyright. Readro (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cdhaptomos, could you scan the page in the book where the table is clearly shown (or take a picture) and upload it to Imageshack, so we can see what it looks like? Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try and embed it here... That didn't work, here it is. The total list of tables used is: Results (Senna, Prost, Piquet, Jackie Stewart, Lauda, Gilles Villeneuve, Mansell, Berger, Andretti, Patrese, Ronnie Peterson, Keke Rosberg, Reutemann and Schumacher (pictured)); List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions; 18 records tables. All of those tables are simply screenshots of our tables, from our articles. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 08:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Caught bang to rights. That is undisputably Wikipedia's content. We need to take this to the next level. Readro (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started a new section at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Huge copyright violation to see if anyone can help us with this. I didn't know where else to put a complaint as such like that, so I've gone there. D.M.N. (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do either as I can't remember seeing any past examples. I'll try and help out if I can but it'd be good if we could get someone with more experience in here. Readro (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just explain how, when we add information from other sites that we aren't in breach but they are by using a similar grid to us. I agree that it is a direct copy off WP. Chubbennaitor 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The actual results can't be copyrighted. There's not much from the format that could be either, but the book does seem to be identical down to the colour coding, which might well be enough to put them in breach of the GFDL that Wikipedia is published under. If we copied www.formula1.com's results tables to that degree we'd probably be in trouble... 4u1e (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They are either direct printscreens from the website, or they have been printed off and re-scanned in (would explain the colour distortion). Either way, it is directly copying from Wikipedia. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process for what to do about this. The original contributors to the article must be the ones to respond. Dcoetzee 22:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, everyone. Basically, we have been left with two options:

1. Look through the history pages of all the articles of which tables are in the book, and follow the letter template as posted above. OR
2. We do nothing.

I know that the final option is looking rather attractive at the moment, but it is up to you guys. I haven't contributed substantially enough to any of the tables (apart from, possibly, one or two edits in the records tables) to worthy myself of claiming rights over them, so it is up to you. I will support looking through histories if it is needed, but there is nothing more I can do. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For the Michael Schumacher article, Manipe holds the copyright on the table. diff Readro (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The chart in the book completes the 2006 season though, shouldn't it be the last person to have saved the chart as it is in the book? The359 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the tables, the Most Wins in First Championship Season one from the Drivers' records list, is shown saying that Lewis Hamilton with 2 wins. This shows that the tables were taken sometime between the 17th June and 5th August of 2007. BTW, if you need me to scan in more tables, I'm willing. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but I think we should carry this discussion on on a seperate page. This is getting a bit long, and there will be much more to come... Might I suggest a sub-page of this one? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to start a new page, keep going here, as I don't think size is really an issue. Apterygial 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should do nothing.... the information is widely available and the authors are not going to gain anything by producing it in that format... the results are available on tons of websites. If they copy-vio'd for instance one of our Featured Articles, then yes I'd suggest pressing on with it, but its only a few result tables which have been copy-vio'd here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else slightly amused they left the "[Key]" wikilink in there? It doesn't work on paper! Anyway I'd say fire an email to let them know they've done wrong. Quote the bits of WP Guidelines to let them know what needs to be included to make it legal, and hopefully future editions/reprints can be updated with this info. I think there's a website which will give the 5 major authors of any given WP page required for GFDL compliance. AlexJ (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the few main authors for Schumi's article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(Good luck getting Ernham involved....:) 4u1e (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Not that I'm a cynic or anything (yeah right), but I'd suggest checking the prose in the book, just in case. Readro (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that it follows the same structure as the article, but no, there are no copied sentences.

Re. DMN: The trouble is, I doubt it is available for all those drivers, and all the records, on the internet, without having to compile them yourself. And this isn't a case of just copying the table details in a different format; this is actual printscreening of Wikipedia pages. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you check the wording against the current version of our Schumacher article, or the one current at the time we think the tables were copied? That article gets edited a lot, so the wording will have changed considerably over the period in question. 4u1e (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What's all this: copyright infringement of the reverse kind? Interesting. :-D Indeed, good luck getting a permanently banned member (Ernham) involved in this and good luck getting me to work with said person. 4u1e, god knows how you found the patience to deal with him... ;-) Anyway, straying worrying off topic, I agree with Alex's suggestion of e-mailing them that they've done the blatant obvious and copied straight off us and haven't admitted it then they should be aware of the license it's under. Btw, Alex when you say "[key]" wikilink, where are you looking? :-\ --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 18:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just under the heading "Complete F1 results" but before the table itself, it says "(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position)". On Wikipedia, key is a wikilink, to a page listing the colours. It doesn't really make any sense on the paper version as there is no key. AlexJ (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this conversation is dead, but while on holiday I saw a copy of this book in a shop in Sydney. After a quick glance at the Brabham article, I'd say they'd used the wikipedia article as the starting point for it, although it's quite heavily edited for its new format. I won't have much computer access for a while, so I'll not be able to follow up on this. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing results tables

I remember this problem arising at the 2008 Japanese Grand Prix Peer Review, and we haven't rectified it. Presumably, the qualifying and race results tables need to be referenced from somewhere (I have been citing Autocourse). The trouble is, how do we put the references in the articles? The way I proposed it (see the 2006 Japanese Grand Prix article) was not accepted in the '08 article's PR, and this was proposed and used in haste to get the article promoted. I do not know which we shall use, if any of them, but we need to decide in what way to reference them. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, when D.M.N. put those refs in there like that on the 2008 article, I thought it was perfect, and I still do. Apterygial 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but... well, I just don't think it looks right. I may just be being picky, but is really doesn't look right, and I don't know why. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I've changed it in the 1995 articles I've been working on (see here and here). I think it looks perfectly fine as basically that is where the table is sourced to as such. IMO, I feel it looks better like that than how it looks in the Japan 06 article. D.M.N. (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't really think of another solution, so I suppose we'll have to go with this. Are we agreed? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 10:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are explicitly referring to a source in prose then you ought to name the source (Harvard style usually works well), then give the footnote <ref> tag (i.e., Source: Henry (1997)). Pyrope 13:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

One annoying ref

Hi all

Webber article finished, I just cannot find one ref that I think we needed to put in - although I will delete it the citation needed tag if no-one can find it.

"many have commended Webber's qualifying efforts and his ability in maintaining places during the race as faster teams swamp the slower Red Bull"

I can't find anything that's close, I have spent 8.5 hours on this doing the last edits so need some time off now lol
if anyone can get it in there before Jacky takes a look for final assessment I for one would be very grateful

Also please, if someone has time, it could do with a grammar/typo/etc read

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That sentence sounds a little POV to me. You'd need a few references at least for that to justify it being in the article. Given that just one can't be found, I think it ought to be removed from the article. Readro (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool - I concur - it drove me mad trying to decide inclusion/exclusion/proof/headache lol --Chaosdruid (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't find anything to support that, and if you do, don't put it in. Clear POV. DeMoN2009 11:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That really shouldn't be included. I'll proofread it for you now, if you like. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 11:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Would appreciate you casting your eyes over it - thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, apart from one sentence that I have commented on on the talk page. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 13:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to check the refs for incorrect formatting - agreed with Jacky that preferred method for web cite is the <ref name="refname"> {{cite web | url=http://xxx.xxx.com | title= words go here | date=yyyy-mm-dd | publisher=[http://xxx.xxx.com]}} </ref>

Template:F1GP

Many of you will remember this discussion about this template. While the discussion ended up going no-where, DH's point about the arbitrary nature of starting at 1990 was a good one, as is the point that this template will only continue to expand as the years fly by. I'm proposing that we limit the template to (say) 15 years at a time. So, under the proposal, the template would start at 1995, and go to 2009. When we add 2010, we'd slice off 1995.
I guess with that we could create similar templates for other 15 year blocks (i.e., 1950 - 1964, 1964 - 1979, 1980 - 1994) that could go at the bottom of all the other race reports. Thoughts? Ideas? Complaints? Apterygial 11:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why this template is necessary. Readro (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it helps me when I need to navigate around race reports from the same season, or jump to other seasons. I find it useful, and I'm sure others do too. Apterygial 12:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I also find it useful, as a quick way to jump from one race to the next. I think 15 year sections is about right, as the current one from 1990 is now getting rather big. The only question I have is when 2010 is added, where will 1995 go? 1950 - 1964, 1964 - 1979 and 1980 - 1994 will be full of 15 seasons each, if you get what I mean. Wouldn't it be an idea to start another new template 2010 - 2025? Regards, Schumi555 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not add the decades to shrink inside. Chubbennaitor 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Schumi555's on to something there. That would seem like a good idea, but it probably wouldn't be something we'd have to decide until the end of the year. Apterygial 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Decades seem a bit more arbitrary if you ask me - 1950 to 1959; 1960 to 1960 etc... D.M.N. (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean a bit less arbitrary? Apterygial 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Think so... D.M.N. (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go for it being every decade, i.e. 1950-1959, etc. I think that the template seems to be a little large if it includes more years than this. Also I think it would be good to have a link to the decade before and after on every template, so for example on the 1960-1969 one there would be a link somewhere to 1950-1959 and 1970-1979. Ste900R (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with decades is f.ex. 2000 is more 'relevant' to the 1999 season than 1991, but it would be the latter that was included in the template. What about a rolling say 9 year period (current year +/- 4years)? Should be possible to do this using the one template and a single parameter (e.g. {{F1GP|1995}}. AlexJ (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, couldn't that just be resolved by having a link between the templates? So the 1990-1999 template could link to both the 1989 season and 2000 season, or maybe even to the 1980-1989 and 2000-2009 templates themselves? Ste900R (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with the decades. It's just logical. Chubbennaitor 20:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How would you go about setting up a rolling template, AlexJ? I like that idea, it seems to make the most sense in this discussion. Apterygial 22:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You set the template up to get the date from the server and take the year, adding " Formula One season" onto the end. Take (year-1), (year-2), …, (year-9) to get your decade's worth. So, for example, if I enter [[{{CURRENTYEAR}} Formula One season]], I get 2024 Formula One season. If I enter [[{{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-1}} Formula One season]], I get 2023 Formula One season. Keep decreasing by one until you get your decade's worth and then you'll never have to edit the template again because the template will always display the years relative to the server's date. Readro (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And all the links to the race reports from those years? This is about all the early decades, not just the recent one. Apterygial 23:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah my mistake, I was thinking of the other template. In that case, you'd have to manually update it every year. Readro (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Each row/year of the template would be covered by an #ifexpr check, so for the 1988 season row, you'd check "1984 <= ({{{1}}}) and ({{{1}}}) <= 1992". {{{1}}}} represents the template parameters, so if for example you put {{F1GP|1962}} in an article then {{{1}}} would be 1962. If the condition is true the row will be displayed, if not it won't. As far as updating each year, the new season would be added as currently, just need to remember to advance the years by one. All 59 seasons would be in the one template, and it would just show the 9 relevant ones. AlexJ (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't understand much of that, but I think I've got it. So, the next questions are, is that what we want to do, who has the time and the expertise to make the changes to the template, and who would implement it across hundreds of pages? I'm happy to do the adding to pages, AWB should be able to pull that off. I would fully support AlexJ's proposal, incidentally. Apterygial 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to give it a shot. Once I've got one year working it should just be a case of using Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V and the numpad to get the rest. Incidentally, there's probably a way of having it read the article title to get the year (all race reports are in the format YYYY Country Grand Prix, so if there's a way of reading the first four characters of the article title, it could be called using {{F1GP}}, the same as it is now, and work just as well. AlexJ (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few technical limitations which I think mean giving up on the rolling years idea. Two examples: the navbox template only allows for 20 fields (years) to be included, well short of the 60-odd we'd require. The string manipulation (to strip the year out of the article title) is not enabled on Wikimedia. The only way I can see it working would be far too much hassle and require either editing 5 different parts of the template each season or one bit of code with lots of formatting information mixed in. Far too much hassle IMO, so suggest we stick with the decades idea. AlexJ (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I quite liked that idea. Apterygial 23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a "vote" for this to see where consensus lies. D.M.N. (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Format	Support
Decades [1950 to 1959]	D.M.N., Ste900R, Chubbennaitor, Apterygial
15 Years [1950 to 1964]
Keep current format

Ferrari 412 and 256

Should Ferrari 412 F1 and Ferrari 256 F1 be at the Template:Scuderia Ferrari? 256 was used only at 1960 and 1961 New Zealand GP by Pat Hoare[1], couldn't find anything for 412 (not 412T). --Sporti (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Some sources, such as ChicaneF1 and this book seem to designate the 1958 F1 Ferraris as the "246" and the 1959-1960 cars as the "256". My guess is they're making a distinction between the 2417cc engine used in 1958 (i.e. 2417cc --> "2.4 litre" --> "246") and the 2474 cc engine used in 1959-60 (i.e. 2474cc --> "2.5 litre" --> "256"). I see the book also identifies the "412 MI" in 1958 (although I can't tell from the Table of Contents which races it thinks it was used in). DH85868993 (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe the info about 256 should be added to the 246 article and just redirected there. Was 412 MI used at a F1 WC race? Looks like it was a sports car used at 1958 500 miles of Monza race.[2][3] There's also Ferrari 212 missing from the template which was used at a few F1 WC races in 51 and 52. Ferrari 212 redirecs to Ferrari 212 Inter, so it probably should be placed at Ferrari 212 F1. --Sporti (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sporti's comments about the 256 and 212. It seems there were two different Ferraris called the "412 MI" - this sports car and this openwheeler which was used at the 1958 Race of Two Worlds. With a 4.0 litre engine, the openwheeler wasn't a legal F1 car, so it should probably be removed from the template.

Removed 256 and 412 from the template, added 212 and also Ferrari 166 F2, which was used at 1950, 1952 and 1953 F1 WC. --Sporti (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference Search

this was posted at the village pump. I suggest we compile a few websites that we want included in it? I have already requested that formula1.com, autosport.com and itv-f1.com are added to the list. If we build a list here, I will then feed back to him/her. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Grandprix.com and the bbc sports news site. Presumably the online UK broadsheets (Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph etc) are already covered? 4u1e (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

www.fia.com as well, of course! 4u1e (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, 4u1e, the broadsheets are already up there, as is the BBC. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

dead links at formula1.com

It appears that formula1.com changed their linking scheme around 2007, so all F1 articles before that date are full of dead links, see example. You should ask someone with a bot to replace the dead links with links to archive.org.

list of all links to formula1.com (not all are broken)

Other dead link examples: official race results at 2006 Australian Grand Prix (in external links section), on Michael Schumacher, search for "Post-qualifying press conference - Monaco"

--Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• As an example http://www.formula1.com/news/4381.html is now located as http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2006/5/4381.html. Not much a bot can do, I'm afraid. Side Comment: This is one reason that I absolutely hate using Formula1.com as a reference. D.M.N. (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Should I make a bot request to look for all of the formula1.com links and crosscheck with 404/dead links (if the bot can 'see' that) -- did we ever get to fix all of these? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

At present there are 67 links that use the incorrect format as pointed out by D.M.N. Out of these 10 are not in mainspace and not really a priority. Guroadrunner, unfortunately these are not 404 links but redirect to formula1.com's homepage. A possible solution is someone ready to the gnome work and replace them manually. Or somehow use AWB to use search and replace text (I think it does that). ^LeaveSleaves 08:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone working on the big list (2000 ? ten mins work lol) - any way we can split them up into batches of twenty pages or so - that way we don't end up double working them ?

--Chaosdruid (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think AWB would do it - I think you have to find the new htmls for those articles, which would be a lot easier to do manually. Big list? Apterygial 10:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as we are on about external links, I've set up this using a Checklinks tool. It should at 5AM UTC tomorrow check all the pages bulletpointed here (I know there's a lot!) and mark out for the external links. The results should come out here and should look something like this. This will be extremely helpful to track featured articles and to see whether links are dead or not. D.M.N. (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Driver box

This is a long shot but in the main drivers information template should a second image of them driving be included where possible? The same in the teams information template. Chubbennaitor 19:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. One image for the infobox is enough... we don't need two. D.M.N. (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think it's really big enough is it? And there are so many drivers for whom we don't even have one pic. 4u1e (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to jump on you with a third "no", but recommend putting the driving images in the area relating to who and when they drove -- i.e. would you encapsulate Fittipaldi with a Fittipaldi car or his McLaren (or even his Penske or Pat Patrick Indy 500 winners?)? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a long shot. No snappiness. What about the race boxes - using the same image as from the portal? Chubbennaitor 08:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. D.M.N. (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Different idea completely. Can we have a gallery for each article that has images. Put in a gallery and fill t with all the images o that subject we have? Chubbennaitor 09:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No. From the image use policy, "In general, galleries are discouraged in main article namespace; historically, such galleries are more often deleted than kept." Readro (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An article should use only a handful of the best available images to illustrate it. Having a gallery of every blurry cell phone camera snap of a driver would IMO greatly reduce the article's quality. Commons is the place for such an idea, and indeed it's already implemented over there for most drivers (for example Hamilton's page. AlexJ (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Flickr images

[4] Here is one pcture that we are able to use on the 2009 cars. I'm wondering if we should use this? I've also found a Renault model with a white background aswell. Chubbennaitor 16:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A model Renault with a white background doesn't consist of any artistic interpretation and so the photographer doesn't actually hold the copyright. You'd have to use a non-free license on it. Readro (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the other link. I've also looked at this image that looks genuine [5]. If you look at the rest of the pictures, none are similar to the ones taken elsewhere. Plus many of the staff were at the welcome celebration with cameras. Chubbennaitor 09:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hamilton image is licensed for non-derivative use, which is disallowed by Wikipedia, so that's a no-go. Don't see anything wrong with the BMW image. Readro (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is a shame, because there's a beautiful picture of an F1 GTR in that set... The359 (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn I missed the license. I'll load the BMW then. Chubbennaitor 10:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are uploading photos like File:Raikkonen test Ferrari F60.jpg, you should remove the border from around it. D.M.N. (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm guessing that was meant to be a nice comment. Chubbennaitor 17:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment wasn't meant to be "nice" or "not-nice" but more of information. It needs to be removed [the border that is]. D.M.N. (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It maybe worth contacting the publisher of the images and requesting non-watermarked images sent via e-mail or something to try and get that lost resolution back - assuming the creator watermarked over the image. (Shameless plug) I, however, won't be watermarking any of my images, people. ;-) I should be going back to Oulton Park soon for the F3 meeting so if people have any requests, I'd be more than happy to fulfil them. :-D --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 18:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for myself (one shameless plug deserves another!). Snetterton is my track (as is Brands to a degree, I live about halfway between them). Readro (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I smell a request page coming on... :-P --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can do the border removal myself if it hasn't already been done. Chubbennaitor 20:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Has it been done? Chubbennaitor 09:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If it had been done, the border wouldn't be there. D.M.N. (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

←It's the white border around the edge, and the credit. Don't mean to cross conversations, but could I have a little more feedback at my proposal for the F1GP template, above. It's something I'd like to happen, but I'm not going to do hundreds of edits to pages without consensus, and without knowing what I'm doing. Apterygial 11:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you'd gotten consensus? Has the removal of the border happened? Chubbennaitor 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself. "Has the removal happened" --> File:Raikkonen test Ferrari F60.jpg - if you look you'd notice it hasn't. I don't want that to come across mean, but you've asked three times "has it been done". D.M.N. (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done it. Obviously I'm in a generous mood. Readro (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I did look but my computer just wouldn't load up wikimedia. I asked so I could attempt it. Chubbennaitor 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Formula One (video game series)

Formula One (video game series) is up for renaming at WP:RM. See Talk:Formula One (video game series) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

F1-Corner.com

An IP has been adding this to articles like Felipe Massa. Is the site rated by our members or considered a bit of spam? --Narson ~ Talk • 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me. It certainly isn't worthy of a link as it adds nothing that the other sites don't already have. Readro (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I've removed the additions. Is 4mula1.ro really a reliable site too? That seems to be on a few pages. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd remove 4mula1.ro as well. I think that really, external links on drivers should be limited to their official site and one reliable site of statistics like F1.com or F1DB.com. The359 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unregistered User:85.52.226.110 is adding list of links to http://www.f1-corner.com withou contributing in any other way. Is this something we should be condoning? --Falcadore (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See the talk section above. Schumi555 (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well he/she is at it again. --Falcadore (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listings updated

The cleanup listing for our project was updated 2 days ago for the first time since October, meaning it is now mostly up to date. I'll probably work my way through some of it... anyone willing to give a hand with some of it (there's a lot on there!). D.M.N. (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, once you've finished performing the maintenance tasks to an article, its worth removing it from the above page. D.M.N. (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Formula One/archive1

I've put our portal up for a portal peer review. I'd love any suggestions any of you guys have about it. Apterygial 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)