Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Friday drivers

I'd like to revive the discussion about the non/inclusion of "Friday drivers" in List of Formula One drivers and Category:Formula One drivers. Because I think things have changed slightly since it was last discussed. Personally, I'd like to see "Friday drivers" included in both the list and the category, and to have the races at which they drove on the Friday included in their "number of races". My main rationale is that I think leaving them out is potentially confusing for casual readers. Consider Nicolas Kiesa - his infobox says "5 races, last race: 2003 Japanese Grand Prix". But if you scroll down to his results table, there are 12 shaded squares, the latest of which is the 2005 Chinese Grand Prix. I'm sure this would appear to many as an internal inconsistency within the article. Or consider a hypothetical situation where a Friday driver has a spectacular (but non-injurious) accident, which makes all the news reports. Someone hears/reads the news, logs on to Wikipedia, finds their way to Category:Formula One drivers, only to find the driver isn't included: "Huh? Didn't he just have a big crash, in a Formula One car, at a Grand Prix (meeting)? How can he not be a Formula One driver?" See what I mean? When I said "things have changed slightly since it was last discussed" what I mean is that we have now embraced the concept of "number of starts", so I think we could include Friday appearances in a driver's "number of races", without exaggerating their actual participations. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Forix lists 12 race presences for Kiesa and 18 for Jani, so there is some external support for this position. DH85868993 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Friday drivers are formula one drivers, but they are not formula one race drivers, they are test drivers. There's a difference there. John Anderson 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. But I still think "official" test drivers should be in the list. Note also that I'm not suggesting that everyone who has ever driven a F1 car should be included - for example, I wouldn't support Valentino Rossi or Max Biaggi being included. A question: Do the teams nominate their Friday drivers in advance? Or could they (in theory) just turn up and plonk anyone (with a Superlicence?) in the car? -- DH85868993 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes and References

Does anyone know of an easy/elegant way to have a list of footnotes and a list of references in the same article? Consider the "Reference" section in the Stirling Moss article; when I added the first "reference" (the note about dropped points), I actually wanted to add it in a separate section called "Notes" (because I think it's a "note" rather than a "reference", which is what I consider the other entries in the "References" section to be), but I couldn't work out how to have two separate "linked" lists in the same article. Thanks. DH85868993 09:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think notes and references can be combined. Why not just change the heading from "References" to "Notes and references"? John Anderson 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Forti

Davnel nominated Forti as a good article almost a month ago. As I've contributed heavily to the article, and no-one has yet reviewed it through the GA candidates page, please can someone review it? Thanks.--Diniz 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good - a few points. The logo probably needs a better FU rationale and the source of the image (see Image:Brabham91.gif to give you a base). Also the tables show up a bit funny (not sure if it's just my browser - can someone else confirm?). Neither has a border on the left hand side, and the F3000 has a greyed out scrollbar (greyed out because there's no need to scroll but why's it there in the first place.) One final point, the Forti linkbox at the end was an eyesore! I hope you didn't mind me toning it down a bit. AlexJ 12:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done the review and unfortunately, it doesn't pass GA. The main problem is the prose. It reads like a story at the moment rather than an encyclopaedic article. The tone at times goes as far as hinting at POV. I've listed the main offending bits onto the talk page, although there's more. I think if you address the problems I've listed (and any other bits that don't sound like they belong in an encyclopaedia) and then get someone to give it a good copyedit, it'll pass GA and be well on it's way to FA status. AlexJ 13:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback!--Diniz 14:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Iglesias articles

There's a discussion at WP:MOTOR about the proposed merger of Jesus Ricardo Iglesias and Jesús Iglesias. Please leave any comments you may have there. Thanks. -- DH85868993 12:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Merged. -- DH85868993 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Englebert

Someone has renamed the "Englebert" article to Englebert tyre, and changed Englebert into a disambiguation page. (Which, due to the potential for confusion between "Englebert" and "Engelbert", seems sensible; I have previously considered doing the same thing myself). However, I'm not entirely thrilled with the new name for the article - I would probably prefer "Englebert (tyre manufacturer)" or "Englebert (tyres)" (I don't think "Englebert Tyres" would be appropriate, since I doubt that was the actual name of the (Belgian) company). Since most of the existing links to Englebert are F1-related, I think that gives us the right(?) to pick the new name for the article. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Following a lack of objections (interest?), I've moved Englebert tyre to Englebert (tyre manufacturer) and updated all the links accordingly. -- DH85868993 02:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

did try to check the status, but there doesn't seem to be any obvious alternative to that which you have chosen. During their F1 involvement they are always referred to simply as Englebert. There are some references to the parent rubber company being "Englebert and Company" during WWII. However, this is one purely anecdotal reference. After the company was bought in 1958 it traded as "Uniroyal Englebert SA", until it in turn was bought by Continental in the '80s. I think your course of action is reasonable, thanks for taking that on. Pyrope 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, DH. -- Guroadrunner 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Driver categories

There are numerous instances where a driver is included in [Category:<nationality> Formula One drivers] and [Category:<nationality> racecar drivers]. I'm in two minds on this one - part of me says "They're in the subcat (Formula One drivers) so the shouldn't be in the parent cat (racecar drivers)", but another part of me says "Yes, but they didn't exclusively drive F1, so they belong in the more general cat too". Thoughts? -- DH85868993 07:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Both seems more suitable, for exactly the reason you give. Pyrope 11:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they don't wholly overlap, so it needs to be both. 4u1e 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we need to discuss this at WP:MOTOR (i.e. to see whether the same principle should be applied to other sub-cats of [Category:<nationality> racecar drivers])? Or is it a no-brainer? DH85868993 08:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix - GA on hold

Just thought I'd pass through that somebody has not passed Malaysian GP article, and has left this on the talkpage:

I've put the GA review process on hold for the time being, due to some fixes being needed. Details are given below.

• Well written:
  • The intro needs to be expanded a bit. It should mention who was on pole, and perhaps a couple of sentences describing the race itself, which can be expanded on later in the article.
  • In the pre-race section, the phrase "the Customer Car row quickly flared up again" assumes prior knowledge. You need to either explain the situation more fully, or link to an article about it. Also, customer car should not be capitalised.
  • In the pre-race section, the phrase "with some people trying to claim that Ferrari's car was illegal in Melbourne" contains Weasel Words. Who was trying to claim that? It also needs to be referenced.
  • Pre-race - "with Barrichello calling it extremely frustrating". The reference given doesn't appear to make any mention of Barrichello saying that.
  • Qualifying 2 - the phrase with Pat Symonds later stating that they "didn't maximise our chances" sounds a bit odd, switching from the third person to the first person in the middle of it. Perhaps it would be better to change the quote to say "didn't maximise [their] chances".
  • Qualifying 2 - "However, it was revealed after qualifying that Coulthard had changes engines before qualifying". The word qualifying is used twice in quick succession. It would be better to say "...it was later revealed that Coulthard...". Also there is a typo - should be changed, not changes.
  • Race - The Sato-Liuzzi collision: with none of them laying the blame on themselves. Should say neither, rather than none.
  • Race - Albers gearbox-fire should not be hyphenated.
  • Race - Räikkönen says "...to challenge either of them (Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa)". Would be better to write it as "...to challenge either [Hamilton or Massa]".
  • References should come after punctuation, not before it.
• Factually accurate and verifiable:
  • As mentioned above, the Ferrari cheating claim needs to be referenced, and the reference to the Barrichello quote needs to be fixed.
• Broad in it's coverage:
• Neutral point of view:
• Stable:
• Appropriately licenced images:
• Overall:

I'll try and improve it, if anyone can help, that'll be great. Neldav 16:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article's been passed now, thanks to Alexj and Neldav making the necessary changes. 4u1e 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Format for shared drives

Which format do people prefer for presenting the results of shared drives?

1. The format used in 1955 Monaco Grand Prix:

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Laps	Time/Retired	Grid	Points
3	34	Jean Behra	Maserati	99	+1 lap	5	2
		Cesare Perdisa					2

2. The format used in 1955 Indianapolis 500:

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Laps	Time/Retired	Grid	Points
5	77	Walt Faulkner Bill Homeier	Kurtis Kraft-Offenhauser	200	+5'17.17	16	1 1

3. The format used in most other F1 race reports:

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Laps	Time/Retired	Grid	Points
5	24	Roberto Mieres	Maserati	35	+1 Lap	13	1
Shr	24	Jean Behra	Maserati				1

Personally, I prefer option 1. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 07:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I personally prefer option one as well. Option two can be a little messy in big tables and option three can be confusing. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 08:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd go with option 2. This is the format used for most sports car racing articles (including Le Mans races) and these tables get quite big without it looking messy. I think it helps to keep the individual car details as distinct as posible. It is also far more concise on the code page, and avoids all the messy, confusing and awkward to code "rowspan" commands. Pyrope 08:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the "rowspan" stuff. I'd be happy enough with option 2. -- DH85868993 09:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

2 looks fine. Is there a need in any cases to denote a 'primary' driver, or was the split of points always equal? If so, you could bracket the 'secondary' driver. 4u1e 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer option 1. Readro 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer option 2 since, as mentioned before, it's the same style used in sportscar racing which shares drivers. The359 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer option 2. I think it gives the clearest and most easy-to-read look. John Anderson 22:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, opinion seems divided. Shall we have a vote? Table pre-populated per the above comments. Note that I'm listed against both, since I'd be happy with either. DH85868993 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Option	Support
1	DH85868993, Phill, Readro
2	DH85868993, Pyrope, 4u1e, The359, John Anderson, AlexJ, GURoadrunner, Diniz, Bretonbanquet

Option 2 seems to be a fairly clear winner. I'll add updating the race report articles to my To Do list. DH85868993 02:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Motorsport Library

I've made a suggestion at WikiProject Motorsport for a list of hardcopy references and who holds them, to help with referencing articles. This was prompted by the realisation that I have access to quite a lot of material which I'm not currently using. Please comment here. Cheers. 4u1e 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

I've noticed a hugfe amount of vandalism on this page in the past few days. Phil requested it to be semi-protected, unfortunately, it has been declined, so the vandalism might continue. Neldav 16:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, doesn't really matter. Pages get vandalised everyday, I guess. Btw, for future reference, you spell my name with two "l"s. :P --Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the random stuff that happens to anything on the front page! 4u1e 09:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Drivers Championship final standings

Whilst adjusting driver results tables here and there, I've noticed that many drivers are given final championship positions in rather a random fashion. I see that Leslie Thorne has inexplicably been given 40th place in the 1954 Formula One season, for instance. Why? I can't see any great reasoning behind the order given for non-scoring drivers in the tables in the season articles, in fact in some cases, it all looks very odd. In any case, I'm fairly sure non-scoring drivers were just not included in final championship rankings in the 50s and 60s anyway, and maybe beyond that. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks fairly strange to me. The non-scoring drivers should have a dash instead of a number. Thinking about it, why is there a "number" column there? The car numbers changed with every race. Readro 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Championship positions for non-scoring drivers were discussed a long time ago (unfortunately I don't have time to locate the discussion right now) and the concensus was that championship positions were decided by examining the non-points-scoring finishes as well, so only someone who never finished a race wouldn't have a position. Having said that, the discussion was before my time, and I'm not sure I support that position. Regarding the "number" column, I seem to recall raising that one earlier as well; I think we decided to just let it stay until the page was "brought up to date". But I'd support their removal for pre-1974 seasons, since the information is incorrect/misleading. DH85868993 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If that was the concensus, then it hasn't been followed. I'd agree with that concensus up to a point, especially that drivers who weren't classified in a single race in any given season shouldn't be classified in that season's WDC. But I also feel that we should follow the protocol of the time, for example if in the 1950s non-scoring drivers weren't listed in the final standings, then we should not apply the modern system to the standings from that era. The "number" column I had spotted but I thought "one thing at a time"... haha.. but yes - prior to 1974 or thereabouts, drivers did not carry one number from race to race, hence this column is meaningless in standings tables before that time. Bretonbanquet 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are the links to the Championship position and race numbers discussions. -- DH85868993 06:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying to replicate F1 task box -- how did the F1 Task Box get an "edit" link?

For the American Open Wheel WikiProject, I am trying to replicate the F1 task box. I have most of it finished right but the "edit tasks" link does not work. How is the F1 coded, and how can I make it work for the Open Wheel Project ?

Thank you in advance -- Guroadrunner 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you on that page. It doesn't use exactly the same code as the F1 one but I have no idea why that one works. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome!! Thanks a lot for doing that, Albinomonkey. I did not know how to work around it. Now all I need to do is figure out how to sync up the box with the main to-do list. Guroadrunner 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yuji Ide

I'm working briefly on improving Yuji Ide (not sure how I ended up on his page, but whatever). I'm trying to make the WDC table go below a picture. I used <br> break tags, but what's the right way to do it?

(If you're interested--Other tasks for Ide page:)

• Format references to proper footnote setup - thanks Diniz
• Assess article on the quality scale at the talk page // request made at "Wikiproject Motorsports:Requests for Assessment"
• Add some references for early career/formula-series career
• Add some references for time in F1
• Perhaps add sections (I like sections)
• Add a free picture (requested from another user)

Anyway, I'm mainly looking to learn what code I can use to push a section down below a picture for article formatting purposes.

Thanks, Guroadrunner 19:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done the spacing. For future reference, the code is {{-}}.--Diniz 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's one of those things I hadn't picked up yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs)

Yuji Ide now a B-class article

Excellent! Guroadrunner 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Bull Technology

I was looking at the Red Bull RB3 page and noticed that Red Bull Technology was a red-link, so I've started the page but I think it needs work. Anybody with any information to help this article on it's way, particularly information on the RB3 as well as the STR2, the differences between the two and how Red Bull Technology (or maybe Technologies?) is being used as a loop hole for the two teams. Ian X490 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New category: Formula 1 designers

I made a category called "Formula 1 designers" (to add it a page: [[Category:Formula One designers|lastname, firstname]]) and populated it with Adrian Newey, Gordon Murray and Gustav Brunner. There are more, but that's for later. There is a category called Automobile Designers, but you get people like Raymond Loewy or J. Mays who have nothing to do with F1 design. What do you think? Guroadrunner 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that they deserve their own category, but it should be called "Formula One designers" to ensure consistency with other F1 pages.--Diniz 19:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I made a new CAT page called "Formula One Designers" and moved everyone over there. I'll set up a Category-for-Deletion for the other one. Probably should get the new one renamed to "Formula One designers" (small d), but that's for future. Guroadrunner 20:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Category-for-deletion discussion is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_14#Category:Formula_1_Designers Guroadrunner 04:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For reference: When populating, write it as [[Category:Formula One Designers|lastname, firstname]] when lastname and firstname are the actual names - i.e. [[Category:Formula One Designers|Newey, Adrian]] (I just learned this trick like just seconds ago). Guroadrunner 20:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

An even better trick is to include {{DEFAULTSORT:Newey, Adrian}} before the list of categories, then you just need to add the category name, e.g. [[Category:Formula One Designers]] and it automatically sorts it correctly. DH85868993 02:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sub-cat for "Indy only" drivers

I'm considering creating a sub-category of Category:American Formula One drivers called Category:American Formula One drivers (Indianapolis only) (akin to Category:Formula One constructors (Indianapolis only)), to distinguish between American drivers who drove in "proper" F1 races (Andretti, Gurney, etc) and those whose only participation in the World Championship was at Indy from 1950-1960. Any objections? -- DH85868993 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What about non-American drivers though? I'm sure there had to be some in those years. The359 07:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong. It appears Alberto Ascari was the only non-American to run the 500 during its championship status. The359 07:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What, no Britons ?? (don't know, just reacting) Guroadrunner 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a weird thing, but the period of Indy history with the least European involvement corresponds almost exactly with the period when Indy was part of the (essentially European) World Drivers Championship - from what I understand there was quite a lot of European involvement pre-WWII (Peugeot & Maserati) and in 1961 Jack Brabham and Cooper brought their mid-engined revolution to the Brickyard, and we all know how that turned out. <shrug>. 4u1e 09:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to external photos

An anonymous IP editor (12.43.57.218) has recently added a series of (poorly formatted/located within the article) links to external photos. I was having trouble deciding whether to fix the links (as good faith edits) or remove them (as linkspam). Thoughts? DH85868993 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say they are probably good faith edits, but I don't think they are adding anything to the articles in question. I would rather the links not be there. Readro 00:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since our general aim is to produce free content, I think the links to external photos should go. If the copyright holder wants to release them under a free licence so they can be used in the article then great else I don't see them adding very much. WP:EL doesn't seem to cover this exact case, but photos aren't on the the recommended type of external link list. AlexJ 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommend integrating the picture links to the article as references. The format of the photo text is linkspam (judging by Colin Chapman article) but, for example, I use links to pictures as references for things that are not available in GFDL; see the screenshots used as Wikipedia references at Bill Elliott's NASCAR Challenge. Guroadrunner 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Guroadrunner's way is the best way to deal with this. John Anderson 13:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue with template:F1 race report infobox

4u1e has identified an issue with template:F1 race report infobox: It displays the wrong flag for pre-1994 South African drivers, e.g. Jody Scheckter. More specifically, it passes each of the "xxx_Country" parameters directly into template:flagicon, so when xxx_Country = "South Africa", you get {{flagicon|South Africa}}, which is the post-1994 version. What we want is {{flagicon|South Africa|1928}}, but you can't set "xxx_Country" to "South Africa|1928". I thought of a couple of ways to tackle the problem:

• add new optional parameters which override the "xxx_Country" parameters if present, e.g. "First_Nationality = {{flagicon|South Africa|1928}}"
• Change the usage of the existing xxx_Country parameters so that you have to specify the whole {{flagicon}} string. But that would involve updating the approximately 150 articles which currently use the template :-(

Perhaps someone else can think of a better solution. DH85868993 08:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The override would seem to be the best solution, unless template:flagicon can be modified to perform to work correctly when South Africa|1928 is passed to it. AlexJ 11:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, template:flagicon works correctly when "South Africa|1928" is passed into it, the problem is that you can't set xxx_Country to "South Africa|1928", i.e. this:

{{F1 race report infobox |

Date = June 19 |

First_Country = South Africa|1928 |

First_Driver = Jody Scheckter |

}}

doesn't work. DH85868993 11:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, how did we get the Nazi flag and older Italian flag for the 1930s victories of Rudolf Carraciola and Tazio Nuvolari at, for example, the German_Grand_Prix ? Addendum: I guess those were done with a straight "image:xxxxx" code. Guroadrunner 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional (band-aid) solution - we could make a "F1 Race Report 'B' " template for these races and use that to make the South African flag appear as the one from the appropriate time period. Just adds more work to the overall project, though. Guroadrunner 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The B template would be horribly confusing. Thinking laterally, the {{flagicon}} template works with country abbreviations, e.g. {{flagicon|ITA}} gives . So, how about setting a letter code for the old flag? For example: SA28? Pyrope 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Asendoh has come up with a very effective workaround which doesn't involve changing anything: For races where xxx_Country produces the wrong flag, don't set the xxx_Country parameter, but include the flagicon template as part of xxx_Driver parameter. See 1976 German Grand Prix as an example. Even though it's slightly non-standard, I think it's the best solution (although maybe for races where this is done, we should add wikicomments to explain why). DH85868993 15:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just create a flag_year parameter which is checked for existence and then appended on to the flagicon code if necessary. Readro 16:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sponsorship liveries in Formula One

We have for a long time had a list of the national colors which was used by the Formula One teams before sponsorship liveries came into use, but since the later has been around for almost 40 years by now, I thought it was appropriate to create the article Sponsorship liveries in Formula One. Please feel free to help out with this or comment on its general structure. So far it is only a stub. I haven't had time to add information about more than three teams, and not even these are at all complete yet. John Anderson 13:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a nice idea, I like it. But, it has the potential to descend into trivial cruft if we aren't very, very careful. I reformatted the Lotus table to show what I think it should look like, and here are a couple of major points:

• List should be tabulated according to every time the livery changes, by which I mean a significant change in the colour palette used, not just when a sponsor changes typeface!
• Only major secondary sponsors should be listed (i.e. those with a substantial logo e.g. a whole wing/sidepod etc.), there being generally only one or two in any one season.
• Please always bear in mind that we are a general encyclopedia, not an F1 trivia bank, that's what ChicaneF1 is for! So keep information readable, well formatted and interesting!

Pyrope 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well put, Pyrope. I understand that you think along the same lines as I do regarding this article. Acctually, one of the things that make Wikipedia so great is that someone can start an article and someone else can then make it better. I agree on all of your points, even if I orgiginally had the idea that there would be one row per year for every team - however, I think your idea is better. John Anderson 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I would:

- drop BMW, add Williams (blue/white)

- add full list for Ferrari

and in fact,

--- reformat list to one oriented toward Sponsors, instead of teams, e.g.:

Marlboro-

1982 - McLaren, Alfa Romeo, etc

1989 - McLaren (major), Onyx, others (minor)

1996 - Ferrari

etc.

Guroadrunner 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why drop any team? Are not all teams worthy? Of course, the Ferrari list should be filled out, but I haven't have time for that yet. Please help out, if you got the time. I plan to add entries for all teams in this list, eventually. I also think the teams are more important than the sponsors, and so I like it to be ordered in team order. Maybe we could do both, on two different adjacent pages. Another system could of course be to order them after color too. John Anderson 05:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't all of this information simply be put on each team page instead of requiring a page just to list every possible F1 team that has had sponsors, which would make for quite a long list? The359 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This list is not intended to be fully complete, it should just list the main sponsors and especially the colors, as a way of identifing the cars of years past etc. More in depth information about the sponsorship agreements etc. could of course be described in text on the team pages. John Anderson 05:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you don't intend to have every year be listed, but for some minor teams that struggled for sponsorship you're likely to have a different livery for every year (See: Minardi). And there are still a long list of teams that would have to be listed, with each team having multiple liveries. I still see no reason why this sort of information couldn't simply be put on each team's page. I wasn't even implying sponsorship agreements, but the same stuff you describe: Primary sponsors and colors. The359 05:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I have proposed the merger of Vegas Grand Prix and Las Vegas Grand Prix. Please leave any comments you may have here. Thanks. DH85868993 02:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

McLaren template

Since a question on the template's talk page provoked no response, I'll ask here: Would anyone object if I modified the McLaren F1 template to look more like the other F1 constructor templates, i.e. something like this? DH85868993 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection here, the current one is too big. Perhaps the gaps between each line (Founder,Driver,Personnel) could be reduced as well? Could you do an example of how that would look? AlexJ 12:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this? DH85868993 12:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me either. As well as the gaps; what about putting either Founder and Personnel on the same line or Personnel and Drivers on the same line. It would be neater. Mark83 12:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Incidentally, I tried removing the line break between "Cars" and "M2B", but didn't like the way it looked. DH85868993 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Mark83 12:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated. DH85868993 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

New addition: is it possible to make McLaren's boxes to be a colored headed with a white box ? (see earlier topic on this page on Spyker's box). Guroadrunner 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 05:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Project Frontpage

I've only been on Wikipedia a week or so, and have joined this project. Having joined the project, one of the first concerns that came to mind was the project first page, as some information looked crammed in, and I was finding it difficult to navigate through the various pages (whether other newbies have had the same issue, I don't know!). I've managed to get use to it, but fear other newcomers might have the same issue. Using my sandbox, I have come up with a new frontpage, which is here. It's by no means the best, but I think it could be an improvement on the current front page. If others don't like the new option, I am prepared to stick with the current front page. If you have any issues with the new proposal, leave a comment underneath, and I will amend the problem. Daviiid 17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh how that made me laugh. No, really. Such elegant, deadpan comedic stylings, are you Jack Dee's secret lovechild? But in a serious vein, please don't insult our intelligence David/Neldav/Davnel03 (any I missed?). If you want to be a useful, productive, informative, helpful, friendly member of the Wikipedia community then I, personally, have no issue. However, your previous incarnations have been both disruptive and, at times, abusive. I would fully understand if others chose to slap yet another ban on you (I wasn't subject to anything personal, I just had to man the pumps to put right what you messed up).

Anyway, to matters in hand. I agree that the front page could use some work, and your first shot is an interesting proposal. BUT, it is even more "crammed in" than what we have now. The two column format needs to go for a start: it limits space and forces upon you the very thing you claim to be against. It needs some work on the colour scheme to aid in guiding your eyes to individual sections, and I think it might have been condensed too much, with a resultant loss in information at your fingertips. Most of all it needs a quick summary and contents list at the top, so that it is the first thing you see when you open the page. Just a few comments to get you underway, but all my own work and not done using an automated bot, I promise! Pyrope 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a mock up of an alternative front page a while back (November 06 according to the edit history) on my Sandbox. Incidentally, after a week on Wikipedia I wasn't aware of sandboxes... AlexJ 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Circuit Maps

A PNG circuit map

An SVG circuit map

Not strictly F1-only, but I've had a go at doing an SVG version of a circuit in the new 'house style'. Previously most major circuits were in SVG, but the 'blueprint' design was a bit garish and not much good except for use in the infobox. The new house style (shown left) is cleaner and looks better (IMO) but all maps currently have been in PNG format. I've tried keeping the design when doing the map to the right in SVG. I'd appreciate any feedback on if the SVG is any good and what improvements can be made. AlexJ 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, I can't see any major differences. The only minor thing is that corner number circles should be filled white, not left transparent, so that the numbers still show up if placed over a textured background or similar. But otherwise, well done! Pyrope 08:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on the transparent circles, I thought I'd already filled them, but evidently not. Now fixed. AlexJ 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Coloured titlebars in template:Former F1 driver

What do people think of the recently-added coloured titlebars in template:Former F1 driver? Personally I don't like them; they make template:Former F1 driver inconsistent with all the other motor racing people infoboxes (even template:F1 driver). -- DH85868993 23:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Who's this person 87.127.39.114

Apparently they vandalized some WPF1 peeps' talkpages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.127.39.114 Guroadrunner 09:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Danvel03? --Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, but http://visualroute.visualware.com/ says it's a British IP address.

Well it's Danvel03, see the talk page. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. But I did learn that http://www.ip-adress.com/ is much cooler for this sort of stuff -- ISP is Entanet International Ltd. and location is... nah you'll have to look that up yourself, that's a little too personal. Guroadrunner 09:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it was Davnel03/Neldav/Daviiid/Lendav (and probably a few others), sockpuppeteer extraordinaire. I did look up where he lives and all I can say is that it explains a few things... ;-) Pyrope 10:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jordan GP team logo needs fair use rationale

It is subject to deletion-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jordan_Grand_Prix_logo.png

Hmm, I'm not sure that we can give a FU reason for that image. For a start it is a fairly high resolution version, so probably falls down on that count. Secondly, it still needs source, authorship etc etc, none of which seem to be there. I reckon the best plan of action would be to let that version die, and upload a low-res image from some reputable site as a replacement. Pyrope 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There's been a fair use logo jihad recently. Don't get me wrong, I know it's simply a clamp down to comply with WP policy. At least one other F1 image is due to be deleted soon: Image:BAR logo.png. It has the same problems as Pyrope has identified for the Jordan image (far too high res and no source). I suggest we let this one go too & hope to find a new sourced version. Mark83 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, that is the "second" Jordan team logo. The first was a green rounded rectangle with the logo in script. (I don't remember if I remember that from DailyF1, or the F1 Test Site -- both defunct now). Guroadrunner 22:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the original logo: [1] (That first logo was also used on the Jordan Grand Prix Playstation steering wheel, which is how I remember it) AlexJ 06:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Exact logo I was thinking of Alex -- apparently it was a parallelogram. Guroadrunner 10:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I reduced the resolution of both images, and added the FU rationale and guess what? The BAR logo got deleted. Reason given: it was orphaned. Eh? It was used at the top of the BAR infobox. Turns out whoever put the requires FU rationale tag on it also commented out the image code in the article (would be nice if when people do things like that, they put them back when the problem is sorted). Therefore if you add a FU rationale in response to one of these deletion tags, can I ask you to check the article they're meant to be in as well. I've requested an undelete for the BAR logo. AlexJ 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition of car to circuit lap records

WikiBren has recently added the car (e.g. [[Ferrari F2004|F2004]]) to the Record_team parameter of several F1 circuit articles. Do we want that for all circuit articles? Or just the constructor's name, as per the current standard? -- DH85868993 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the team only, as that is more explanatory of who won. Guroadrunner 04:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave it at team also, to avoid it becoming too cluttered. In addition driver & team (no car) is the way the majority of other places list it. AlexJ 08:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I'll revert the ones that were changed. DH85868993 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Bahrain Grand Prix GA on-hold

Just wanted to point out in case people aren't watching it's talk page, this article has been reviewed by Blnguyen and put on-hold. The list of problems are on the TP. AlexJ 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alonso US-GP 2004.jpg

I just noticed that this image has been edited in the last few days to remove the Mild Seven logos. Does anyone know why?--Diniz 17:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right I've done some more research and it turns out that the French Wikipedia has been systematically editing out cigarette logos from F1 car photos (see here and here). This is obviously compromising the factual accuracy of the photos and violates WP:NOT. Is there anything that can be done?--Diniz 18:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that they are editing the images and then saving them under the same filename, thus overwriting the original. I've been reverting those that I can find and leaving a message on the talkpages of those responsible, asking them to use a different filename in future. Readro 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

From [2] referring to the Marlboro logos that were seen at this weekend's Monaco GP: There will be local action in France if pictures are published without the Marlboro name being blurred but most of the publications nowadays avoid using Ferrari pictures to avoid this.' I guess the blurring is a result of France's (in my opinion, ridiculous) interpretation of the EU law. (legal compliances come above censorship I guess, same as we can't quote something libellous) Having said that, Wikimedia Commons and especially the English Wikipedia are covered by US laws so we should have available to us the original images and if the French want edited versions then they should be saved as alternative filenames. AlexJ 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

One other point, is there actually any need for them to be removing the logos? For the last 15 years or so, the teams have run 'fag-free' liveries at certain races so surely they could use these to illustrate the cars? AlexJ 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to thing of something analogous to state how stupid I find this. What about editing every single image of a McLaren ever taken to show Vodafone logos because Vodafone is now the sponsor? Yeah, that sounds about as rediculous. Sure, refuse to use 2006/2007 images showing tobacco logos. But going back and rewriting history? Crazy. Mark83 22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made a statement o n the French Wikipedia telling them to stop. (but it's written in English) Guroadrunner 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is also part of a systematic project located at this URL to edit the logos out. Because it affects Commons and Wikipedia systemwide, I hereby recommend a discussion with, and possible injunction from, the admins at Wikipedia Commons. Guroadrunner 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we have a template like the one they use on Nazi insignia? Have a look at this for an example of what I mean. AlexJ 09:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I like that, Alex. We should add those immediately. If it can be translated to other languages (i.e. French), that would be superb. Guroadrunner 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is how this discussion is going -- the main person who wanted tobacco removed, Woodcote, actually agrees that there should be a second image made specifically for French Wikipedia (link). It is just that people are editing images on Commons (what we have been reverting). I don't think it was made clear that those images should not be edited, meaning it is just a case of accidental editing. Guroadrunner 13:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried out the template on Image:Alonso US-GP 2004.jpg, can people suggest any modifications to the text? AlexJ 17:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the images may be on Commons, I really would consider, if possible, translating into French, German and Spanish (among other major languages) Guroadrunner 07:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done a (probably not perfect) translation to Spanish. Hopefully others will translate into French, German and others. The code to add the template to relevant image description pages on Commons is {{Tobacco logos}}. AlexJ 14:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists outside French-only jurisdiction; put up the photos, unedited. If ostensibly fellow wikipedians try to take legal action against us for the photos, sue them under the First Ammendment and other laws. If France does, sue France. *small grin, due to utter seriousness of suggestion* --Chr.K. 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming of F1 races held in the USA

Apologies in advance - this will be a bit long. But it's rather complex.

Here is how Wikipedia, www.formula1.com and Forix name the various F1 races which have been held in the United States.

Year	Venue	Wikipedia	www.formula1.com	Forix
1959-1975	Watkins Glen	United States	United States	USA
1976-1980	Long Beach	United States West	USA West	USA-Long Beach
	Watkins Glen	United States	USA East	USA
1981	Long Beach	United States West	USA West	USA-Long Beach
	Las Vegas	Las Vegas	Las Vegas	USA-Las Vegas
1982	Long Beach	United States West	USA West	USA-Long Beach
	Detroit	United States East	USA East	USA-Detroit
	Las Vegas	Las Vegas	Las Vegas	USA-Las Vegas
1983	Long Beach	United States West	USA West	USA-Long Beach
	Detroit	United States East	United States	USA-Detroit
1984	Detroit	United States East	USA East	USA-Detroit
	Dallas	United States	United States	USA-Dallas
1985-1988	Detroit	United States East	United States	USA-Detroit
1989-1991	Phoenix	United States	United States	USA
2000-2007	Indianapolis	United States	United States	USA

My least favourite aspect of Wikipedia's naming scheme is the way that the races held in Detroit from 1985-1988 are called "19xx United States Grand Prix East". I think I understand why the articles are named this way - we call all the F1 races held in Detroit "United States Grand Prix East", regardless of the number/location of other F1 races held in the United States in the same year. Which is a simple approach, but (IMHO) not a very accurate one. I think casual readers will find it confusing, e.g. "There was only one F1 race in the USA in 1987 - why is it called the "1987 United States Grand Prix East" - why not just the "1987 United States Grand Prix"? In addition, I haven't been able to find any non-Wikipedia sources which refer to these races by those names.

I appreciate the need/desire to have a single article describing all the F1 races held in Detroit. But I don't think it should be called "United States Grand Prix East" - I think it should be called "United States Grand Prix (Detroit)" or "Detroit Grand Prix" or something like that. (If we decide to call it "Detroit Grand Prix", then we should consider whether or not to merge it with the existing Detroit Indy Grand Prix article - but that's a separate discussion).

I think there still needs to be a United States Grand Prix East article, but it shouldn't describe all the races in Detroit; it should describe the way the name "United States Grand Prix East" has been applied to various races through the years (which the current article does, BTW).

Finally, there is the question of what to call the race held in 1983 in Detroit: the "1983 United States Grand Prix East" (for consistency with the 1982 and 1984 Detroit races) or just the "1983 United States Grand Prix" (since it's a similar situation to 1976-1980, except that the "non-west" race is held in Detroit rather than Watkins Glen). My thought was to be guided by the numbering of the "Official Name" in the various "19xx/200x United States Grand Prix" articles, e.g.

• 1980 United States Grand Prix = 22nd United States Grand Prix
• 1989 United States Grand Prix = XXVI United States Grand Prix

which suggests there were three "United States Grands Prix" between 1980 and 1989, but where did these numbers come from (www.statsf1.com?) and how reliable are they?

In summary then, my proposal is:

• the 1985-1988 United States Grand Prix East articles should be renamed to "19xx Unites States Grand Prix", i.e. without the "East".
• the existing United States Grand Prix East article should be split into two articles:
  • one called "United States Grand Prix (Detroit)" or "Detroit Grand Prix" or something like that, which describes all the F1 races held in Detroit, and
  • one called "United States Grand Prix East" which discusses all the races which have been called "United States Grand Prix East", not just (all) the races in Detroit
• 1983 United States Grand Prix East should be renamed as "1983 United States Grand Prix", for consistency with our approach from 1976-1980 and www.formula1.com

I thought we could worry about categories and navigation boxes once we've agreed on the names of the races. Note that:

• I don't think we can look to other countries for a precedent; in all other cases where there have been more than one F1 race in a country in a season, one race has used the name of the country and the other race(s) have used very different names, e.g. "European Grand Prix", "Pacific Grand Prix", "Pescara Grand Prix", "San Marino Grand Prix", "1982 Swiss Grand Prix" (in France).
• Something else we could consider would be to rename the 1976-1980 "United States Grand Prix" articles to "19xx United States Grand Prix East" (for consistency with www.formula1.com)
• An alternative option would be to ditch the use of "East" and "West" altogether and go with Forix-style naming, e.g. "United States Grand Prix (Long Beach)", "United States Grand Prix (Detroit)", "United States Grand Prix (Dallas)", "United States Grand Prix (Las Vegas)".

Thoughts? -- DH85868993 08:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Formula1.com is incorrect. I remembered an interview with John Watson who said he didn't remember the Detroit race being called the United States Grand Prix East. This led me to check my literature, and it seems that the terms East and West were not used at the time. Forix seems to have it correct. The races were billed as the following:

Venue	Title
Watkins Glen	United States Grand Prix
Phoenix
Indianapolis
Long Beach	Grand Prix of Long Beach
Las Vegas	Caesar's Palace Grand Prix
Detroit	Detroit Grand Prix
Dallas	Dallas Grand Prix

I would like to see the articles renamed as per the above table, maybe with the exception of Las Vegas which should be the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Readro 10:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's about the way I understand it too. As usual, ChicaneF1.com seems to be a reliable source for official names etc. The missing US GP numbers are probably accounted for by the cancelled '81 race, and the aborted New York GPs in '83 and '84. Pyrope 11:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We should use contemporary sources such as race programmes, not present day sources, to be sure of the exact titles of the grands prix. Bretonbanquet 12:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. We should use reliable sources. If these are primary, contemporary sources then great, but this isn't always possible. If we are going to go by what the race was called at the time (and this does throw up the Caesars Palace GP question: is this a sponsorship deal or a real race name?), which I am for, then this site should be a huge help. However, their library isn't complete. But those names for which there are covers appear to correlate with ChicaneF1's information, which in my mind makes them reliable enough to cite as a source. Pyrope 12:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found some race programs on ebay to see what the advertised race title was. Long Beach 76, Las Vegas 82, Detroit 82, Detroit 85. From these it is safe to say that Long Beach definitely was the US Grand Prix West, and that Detroit definitely was called the Detroit Grand Prix. It's starting to look more and more that the Las Vegas event was called the Caesars Palace Grand Prix. I found an image of a souvenir cap from the Dallas race, with "Dallas Grand Prix" written on it. Readro 14:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And the Program Covers site linked above backs you up. Note the lack of apostrophe. Pyrope 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the above except Long Beach. The Program Covers site indicates that the 1976 event was the only one which said US GP West - all the others say "Long Beach Grand Prix" or "Grand Prix of Long Beach". I have a friend on a motor racing forum who is adamant that there is no such thing as the US GP West. DH85868993 15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you. I didn't think there was such thing but then I saw that cover. Now I have seen all of the others and all but one say the Long Beach Grand Prix. I don't know where the whole East and West debate originally came from but there seems to be compelling enough evidence to make the changes to the pages. Readro 15:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then, if we're agreed on "Long Beach Grand Prix", "Detroit Grand Prix", "Dallas Grand Prix" and "Caesars Palace Grand Prix", then I guess the next question is: For tracks which were shared between F1 and Indycars, should we have separate articles, or just the one? My thought is just the one, i.e.:

• we should use the existing Long Beach Grand Prix article (which already includes a F1 winners table)
• we should talk nicely to the people at WP:AOWR and see if they would be agreeable to renaming Detroit Indy Grand Prix to just Detroit Grand Prix (the article already contains discussion of the F1 races and a F1 winners table)
• Dallas Grand Prix would be a new article
• Las Vegas Grand Prix should be renamed to Caesars Palace Grand Prix

However, I also think we should let the discussion "settle" for a couple of days, to allow others to have their say, before making any changes. DH85868993 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and of course we'll have to come up with some new race abbreviations (oh no!) - DET and DAL would seem fairly obvious; I think WP:AOWR use "LBH" for Long Beach; maybe "CAP" for Caesars Palace? DH85868993 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be for having a separate article for the CART and F1 Grand Prix's. They're two totally different events that happen to run at the same circuit. AlexJ 14:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Long Beach Grand Prix was exactly the same event run to different formulae, like the Pau Grand Prix. Chris Pook decided to run the race for CART rules because the costs were prohibitive with F1. Readro 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Readro's comments about Long Beach. DH85868993 03:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about how to name the U.S. F1 East and West races - I am not knowledgable on the topic. I prefer to have separate articles if the same event is run under in different series (formulae). The article Detroit Grand Prix is already a disambiguous page, so I suggest you use your project's standard disambigous name for the breakout article. Note than the standard professional sports abbreviations normally used for Dallas is DAL and Detroit is DET (as you suggested!). I sometimes see complaints that there is no legend for F1 abbreviations, so maybe this WikiProject could work on that. WP:AOWR, WP:MOTOR, etc. member Royalbroil 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• One thing to note about the Detroit Indy Grand Prix is that as of today, no title sponsor has yet been announced. It is not uncommon in IRL (and NASCAR for that matter) for race names to be settled closer to the time of the event. It has been the policy of WP:AOWR (and WP:NASCAR) to move the race pages to the new names of the event as they change sponsor names...thus creating a redirect, etc. So, "Detroit Indy Grand Prix" could be a short-lived name, but that is what it is being advertised as at the moment. Grouping everything from 1982 to present into one page I think could be done using Detroit Grand Prix. Doctorindy 18:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I would say name the events exactly what they were named when they were held, I know full well that an event can be "posthumously renamed," as it were, afterwards...the 1919 Liberty Sweepstakes would be one example. Therefore, I would vote for a change to the more conventional titles if there were some confirmed source, concerning (such as Readro mentioned, regarding what they were at the time of the races themselves). If an event were billed with a certain name, however, only in cases where all sources agree the event was part of a wider tradition would I back renaming it something else...and in such case, if something were named United States Grand Prix East with no accompanying West, in the original, then so be it: the onus be on the organizers, not on we accurate wikipedians. --Chr.K. 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Engines in driver results tables

I've noticed today that someone is adding manufacturer engine designations to driver results tables. There are no links to articles and I think it's unnecessary information, but did I miss a concensus? I don't want to take them out again if people like the idea. It will be a nightmare to get them right across the board though. Any thoughts?

I don't think you missed a consensus - I think Vitz-RS has just decided to add them off his/her own bat. I previously posed the question as to how much detail we want in the Engine columns here but I suspect most people don't even know that page exists! (I probably should have raised the question on the main WP:F1 talk page). Personally I'm ambivalent as to whether the engine designations are there or not but, as you have identified, it will be difficult to ascertain that information across the board. DH85868993 14:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think that information will be of interest to the vast majority of people, it's not even of interest to me, and I east, sleep and breathe this stuff. PLus it's MORE clutter n the tables. Bretonbanquet 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think this information should be there. You can tell the chassis make and engine make from the name of the entrant, and we don't need to know these little details. T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What about entrants such as Rob Walker Racing Team? There's nothing discernible from that. Readro 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also the length of some of the full entrant titles is making the tables look hideous. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. Having decided to add entrant names, I guess they have to be accurate. Which in some cases means long. I don't know whether a smaller font size and/or horizontal scrollbars help? DH85868993 14:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, something clearly has to be done - look at Jenson Button. Bretonbanquet 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help that Vitz-RS is putting incorrect information into the table. The team was simply "Lucky Strike BAR Honda", far shorter! Pyrope 15:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He was actually correct. Believe it or not, on the official entry lists, the team was listed as Lucky Strike British American Racing BAR Honda! This garnered a mention in F1 Racing where they suggested it was a bit on the long side. Readro 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, are we still doing the thing where we wikilink the sponsor's name separately to the team name, e.g. Canon Williams Team? If so, perhaps someone should tell Vitz-RS. DH85868993 14:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know we were doing that... oops... Bretonbanquet 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer having the engine and the Values, ie <engine> V6/8/10/12. I guess we should try and see what we can make a concensus on this matter. Also, should there be 2 rows when a updated version of a model is used in a single season? Eg, a "B" model? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we have an article on factory teams?

Something like works team or factory team ? I just added Lambo (Modena F1) to the disambiguation for Lamborghini and works team was not defined. Guroadrunner 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Did it myself. Both these articles redirect to wiktionary:Factory team. Anyone want to double check the accuracy of the Wiktionary entry? It says:

In auto racing, a Factory team (also known as a works team) is a team that is wholly run by a car manufacturer.

It could be considered an extension of a car manufacturer's branches into professional racing. Car manufacturers sometimes run their own racing teams, or buy into existing racing teams, because they can promote their road vehicles through the racing team.

Examples of factory teams include the BMW Formula 1 team, the Renault Formula 1 team, or Toyota's interest in Michael Waltrip Racing in NASCAR.

This is different than a team being supplied by a manufacturer, such as the old Williams-Renault Formula 1 team of the 1990s, where Renault gave them engines and support, but did not own the Williams team.

Guroadrunner 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the entry is fine to me. Although I'm not sure if it's okay for say a "novice" person in terms of Motor racing knowledge. Should we put this forward to a non-expert party? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent idea. Guroadrunner 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Duncan Hamilton's nationality

Duncan Hamilton (racing driver) is currently the only driver directly included in Category:British Formula One drivers. Is that the most appropriate nationality category for him? Or is there a better one? To save you having to look, the lead sentence of the article is:

• Duncan Hamilton (born County Cork, Ireland, April 30, 1920 - died Sherbourne, Dorset, May 13, 1994) educated at Brighton College, was a British racing driver.

Thanks. DH85868993 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well he was born in Ireland while it was still British, he lived and worked in Surrey, he always identified himself as Britsh, the current Duncan Hamilton & Co website only identifies him as British, and I have never seen him called anything else. So no. This rather highlights the pernicious, divisive aspects of identifying drivers as English/Scottish etc. These tags are more than a little tinged with ethnicity. This problem will only continue to increase as drivers from non-British ethnic backgounds start to emerge from the UK. Pyrope 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be categorized as Northern Irish/Welsh/Scottish/English in the first place. While many of them (Stewart, Coulthard, Irvine, McNish, to name a few) had a clear link to either of the four home nations, they all represented the United Kingdom in racing, they raced under a British licence, had the Union Jack flown after a podium finish and had God Save the King/Queen played after a victory. The same applies to Category:Catalan Formula One drivers: each and every one of them represented Spain in Formula One and raced under a Spanish licence. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 12:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I pretty much ignore categories (because for many things it ain't appropriate to put them in boxes like that!). Having said that, given that you can have multiple categories (which you can't really with flags or nationalities) I don't really have a problem with home nation categories, provided they're a subset of the actual nationality. I will also jsut point out, as I have elsewhere, that you can't actually prove that someone is English etc, only that they were born in England or (possibly) that they consider themselves English etc (although they might also consider themselves other things!). 4u1e 07:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Scuderia Ferrari recent Formula One results / Scuderia Ferrari Grand Prix results

Thanks to AAFL's efforts, the Recent Formula One results section of the Scuderia Ferrari article has recently grown significantly. On the assumption that it will eventually contain all 58(!) years' worth of results, does it need to be moved into a separate article, like WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results? If so, what's the best name for the new article? DH85868993 11:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes, it will eventually need to go in a separate article as it will be far longer than the Williams one which gets an article due to it's size. The naming depends on what it will (eventually) contain. I'd suggest Scuderia Ferrari World Championship results if that's all that's going in there, Scuderia Ferrari Formula One results if post-1950 non-championship events are to be included or Scuderia Ferrari Grand Prix results if it also contains pre-World Championship results. AlexJ 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it Ferrari Grand Prix results as per the WilliamsF1 article. It also will let us add privateer entries, and prewar, etc. etc. Guroadrunner 11:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with "Ferrari Grand Prix results" for the reasons Guroadrunner has outlined. We can define exactly what the article contains at the top of the article. DH85868993 03:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How many points?

On the talk page for 2007 Formula One season, someone recently raised the point that the article doesn't contain any indication of how many points you get for 1st, 2nd, etc. What's the best way to address this (on the assumption that we would also want to apply the same solution to the other F1 season articles)? One way I thought of would be to wikilink the "Points" columns headings (all 4 of them!) to List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems. Or do you think people might not notice that? Any other/better suggestions? DH85868993 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do what Autosport do in their race reports and have a small text box with something like this:

10-8-6-5-3-2-1

For the first 8 places.

Just under the championship tables.--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Phill's idea. Guroadrunner 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good - it could be expanded slightly for older seasons where only a certain number of races counted, or a point was awarded for fastest lap. 4u1e 08:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Formula One External links

Several external links have been proposed for addition to Formula One. Could people please leave their thoughts at the talk page to see if we can reach consensus on whether or not each proposed link should be added. Thanks. DH85868993 11:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Constructors template proposal

I have created a template in my sandbox which is similar to Template:Formula One circuits, only with constructors listed instead of circuits. I think it would be a good idea if this template was put at the bottom of every constructor article for ease of reference.--Diniz (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest dividing the two ATSs up as ATS (Germany) and ATS (Italy) for easier understanding. The359 16:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Diniz (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend changing the following links:

• Aston --> Aston-Butterworth
• Belge --> ENB
• Eisenacher --> EMW

and some other changes you may wish to consider:

• Anglo American --> Anglo American Racers or AAR or Eagle
• Dubai - remove? (since they haven't actually constructed anything yet)
• FWRC --> Frank Williams Racing Cars (I realise it's long) or Williams (FWRC) or Williams (74-75)
• Mastercard Lola - remove? (they were really just Lolas)
• Paul Greifzu --> Greifzu (but still link to Paul Greifzu)

You may also want to reconsider the use of the words "World Championship" in the title - for example, I don't think Delahaye ever participated in a Championship race. And if it's labelled as a list of "World Championship constructors", then you would probably need to include all the constructors who competed at Indianapolis from 1950-1960 (i.e. the ones in Category:Formula One constructors (Indianapolis only)). If you just labelled it as "Formula One constructors" then I think you wouldn't need to include the "Indy only" constructors and you could include constructors (like Delahaye) who only participated in non-WDC F1 races. -- DH85868993 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Another question (if it's not too rude) is do we need a template to enable people to navigate between F1 constructor articles? They can already do that using Category:Formula One constructors (although granted the template is certainly a "prettier" mechanism and saves a click. And I guess you could say the same about template:Formula One circuits). Also consider that for current constructor articles, the proposed new template duplicates some of the content of template:Formula One teams which they already include. DH85868993 03:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have carried out all the tweaks. As to why this is necessary, I believe that it is more convenient and "prettier", as you said. As for the second question, I suppose that the current constructors could be removed and the template changed to "Former Formula One Constructors", which would avoid any repetition.--Diniz (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If anything, this box of constructors taught me about Dome, which I never knew existed, let alone had an aborted F1 entry attempt.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs)

Well, if no-one has any objections, I will create the template and start adding it to the constructor articles.--Diniz (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Dome is on the constructors list. Is this correct? They never entered a race. If aborted F1 attempts are allowed then I suggest you consider DAMS as well. There's probably hundreds more like these out there. Readro 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes - it's probably better that it's not included for the reason you said. I'll remove it.--Diniz (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Formula One Championship

Is it just me, or has Template:Formula One Championship all of a sudden "become skinny" (i.e. each decade now occupies 1.5 lines)? Any ideas what's happened? (There have been recent edits, but I don't see how they would have caused the change). -- DH85868993 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it a couple of days ago. The change must be part of a more widespread formatting change, as I went through the template history and the format never went back to the original (i.e. all the years of one decade in a single row).--Diniz (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This format is also used for the Indianapolis 500 template. Guroadrunner 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any difference. There's 1950-59 on the first row, 1960-69 below that etc etc. Readro 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I see.--Diniz (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Crazy... I still get the proper version. Are you sure it isn't something in your settings, or perhaps some MS autoupdate gremlin that has crept into your system? Pyrope 21:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine on my machine at work. Which suggests it is a "settings" thing. I recently installed AWB and (to support it) .net on my machine at home... DH85868993 08:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

fixed

Kevinalewis has fixed the template (thanks!). Now we just need to decide whether we want the larger font or the smaller font. Personally, I prefer the larger one. Note that both versions of the template are the same height. DH85868993 11:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for larger font, as there is no difference in box height. Guroadrunner 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it back to the larger font. DH85868993 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Concorde Agreement publication

Note that the secrecy surrounding the Concorde Agreement was broken by noted racing journalist Forrest Bond when the 120+ page 1997 document version was published in 2006 by RaceFax. Dan Schwartz Discpad 12:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

True, the racefax concorde is quite widely available on other sites as well, (a Google search for Concorde Agreement PDF should get you results) should you not wish to pay their $50 charge. Of course, we can't be sure that it is the actual Concorde Agreement as opposed to a made up one although it looks very convincing. AlexJ 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fangio photographs

I found some several high quality closeup photographs of Fangio (I think Juan Manuel Fangio) from 1991. They are in an awesome flickr photostream near Mario Andretti's picture. I don't see them here or in Commons. You might want to use them on his article, or at least add them to an article/category in Commons. Enjoy! Royalbroil 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It says "Page Not Found" for me.--Diniz (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.--Diniz (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All rights reserved, I'm afraid. Some of those user's photos are freely-licensed and some are not.--Diniz (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the false alarm. I didn't notice that those few photographs were "All Rights Reserved". It's easy to see why StuSeeger wants to keep the copyright! Royalbroil

List of family relations in Formula One

I have created a list of family relations in Formula One in my userspace. Please help me verify and reference, and if possible expand, the information in the list, so that it can be moved into the mainspace. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to have to ask...why? It's a fairly short list, and is there really a demand for people to have a list of all relations in F1? The359 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My main "inspiration" for the list is the List of family relations in the National Hockey League, which provides information, background and context, and has just been promoted to Featured List status. As far as the relevance of this list is concerned, many F1 drivers on this list draw part of their notability from their family relations. Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve, for instance, are not just known as F1 drivers in their own right, but also as "sons of." The same applies to talents like Nico Rosberg, Nelsinho Piquet and Bruno Senna (nephew of), and drivers of yore, like Alberto Ascari. Listing the family relations I believe provides a historical background to Formula One. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that limiting it to F1 might be a bit narrow minded? How about making it a motorsport list, with a column for main disciplines? For example, Stirling and Pat Moss are missed, as are the wider members of the Andretti clan, and the Pettys. Just a thought... Pyrope 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The list could have some real substance if it was a list of relations in motorsport. You could then include so much more. Readro 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The list doesn't take into account the fact related drivers might not have the same last name, such as Jean-Pierre Beltoise and his half-brother José Dolhem, both F1 drivers. --Pc13 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Such a list would also include all of the Brabham brothers, and Alberto and Antonio Ascari, to name a few examples. It would extend the scope of the list beyond the start of F1 in 1946. So a List of family relations in motorsport it is? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Per this discussion and the subsequent additions to the list, I have moved the list to User:Aecis/List of family relations in auto racing. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few. There are literally hundreds more in this AtlasF1 Nostalgia Forum thread. To possibly save someone some effort, summaries of surnames starting with A-I are included starting at post 215. -- DH85868993 13:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of Ananda Mikola and Moreno Suprapto, Indonesian naming is complicated. The official name of most Indonesians does not include a family name. Taking an example from Indonesian names, the name on a birth certificate takes the following format - Gema Pertiwi son of Suparman Perkasa and Wening Wulandari. Although recently Indonesia has started using family names. So obviously Mikola and Suprapto are not family names, but the second of two given names. Like the Pablo of Juan Pablo. This really screws up the idea of having a surname column. I'm not sure what we can do to get around this except putting them at the bottom, outside the table, as a special case. Readro 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can pipe the link of Mikola/Suprapto in the surname column to direct to Indonesian names for the moment. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'm all for that. Readro 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should also come to a consensus as to who are notable enough for inclusion, and who are not. Take Shirley van der Lof, the granddaughter of Dries van der Lof. She is currently taking part in the Dutch Formula Ford championship, which is aired frequently on Dutch tv. Is the Dutch Formula Ford championship notable enough for inclusion? Do we include all levels of formula racing? What about kart racing? Touring car championships? Truck racing? Drag racing? Do we list only the top level, or do we include national championships in notable countries as well? What are notable auto racing countries for that matter? I think we need to come to a consensus on these questions, and mention the criteria in the lead section of the article, before moving the article into the mainspace. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 13:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:MOTOR needs to be involved, so I suggest the debate on notability is started over there. AlexJ 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:<nationality> people

Over the past couple of weeks, a few of the F1 driver articles have had [Category:<nationality> people] added to them. Can I just confirm that it's project consensus that if an article has [Category:<nationality> Formula One drivers], then it doesn't need [Category:<nationality> people] as well? (noting that Category:<nationality> Formula One drivers is a descendant of Category:<nationality> people) -- DH85868993 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually if someone is in a more descriptive sub-category, they need not be duplicated in the parent category (as the sub-category inherits the criteria of the parent category). I believe that's a guideline across Wikipedia not just of WP:F1.AlexJ 09:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "participants," or something similar, would make a better universal term, to incorporate team bosses, etc., who might not have ever drove, but are heavily involved with the team? --Chr.K. 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear: The sort of thing I'm talking about is adding Category:Italian people to an article which already contains Category:Italian Formula One drivers. I don't think that's necessary. -- DH85868993 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what they are known for. If all they have ever done is drive, then the motorsport cat is all they need. For others who have gained fame (notoriety?) in other fields too then the more general tag might be a good idea (see Carlos Reutemann for example. Pyrope 09:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Pyrope. Guroadrunner 10:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction & Question

As an avid fan of F1, I think it's a good idea to join the project. I was hoping some people could give me an idea of how good the article content is for F1? I am a member of the Baseball wiki project, and things there are terrible. I am pretty bold in my edits and just trying to get a sense of how things are here. Most people there want to focus on my editing style rather than the actual content that is in the articles. Comments welcome! //Tecmobowl 22:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Being bold is not a problem. Regarding "....want to focus on my editing style rather than the actual content that is in the articles" I haven't looked at your editing history so I have no idea. As long as you don't violate the core WP policies (NPOV, verifiability, civility, 3RR etc) I don't see any problems. Being bold can be a very good thing - for example pushing for references - which is IMHO one of the major problems of this project. Many high profile articles are grossly undercited and I'm coming to the conclusion that only a "be bold" push for citations (e.g. mass removal of questionable/controversial material) will solve this problem. btw to other members - I accept responsibilty for this, it's very much a mass failing. Mark83 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. I adhere to wiki policy as much as I can (sometimes i just don't know things). That being said, I was recently banned for a violation of the 3RR, but that is a long story and I feel my actions were just. I served the ban and am continuing on. I am very apt to remove unsourced comments, to request citations, or whatever the case maybe. You can get a feel for my how I like articles to look at Chief Yellow Horse. Thanks for the note and let's get this place cleaned up! //Tecmobowl 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR rule was the problem? As infuriating as it can be, you have to respect it. If a user has introduced nonsense (or the equivalent of) all you have to do is post a comment here and the majority and/or common sense view will prevail without you violating the 3RR. Mark83 00:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I have been attacked from all sides by people (even admins) who just don't seem to follow wikipedia's "policies". What's even more surprising is that a handful of the admins, don't even know the policy in the first place. In the furious edits that took place on who knows how many pages, I reverted a person who was Crystal Balling and flat out called me an idiot (for removing that content) and another person who refused to address the issue. It was just a mess and still is, so i'm no longer talking with them until they decide to engage in the actual topic instead of me. //Tecmobowl 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense Temobowl, but you may wish to take it easier on the admins. Our "beloved" Ernham was banned for doing that...--Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a few conventions we've developed for the articles which you'll probably pick up as you go along. These have mostly been implemented into the featured and good articles we have on the subject so it might be worth having a look over a few if you haven't already. If there is conflict in editing, usually the WP:F1 member involved will post on this talk page for people to discuss and decide on the best solution. AlexJ 07:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What is your editing style (since the door was opened to ask)? Guroadrunner 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you are wondering where I went, feel free to look through my history. I was banned by an admin with a major WP:COI. To Phill No offense taken, I no longer believe an admin has any knowledge of wikipedia until I see how they behave. I always follow WP:AGF, but beyond that, I have been very disapointed by the actions of a number of administrators. I expect all editors, and ESPECIALLY admins, to rationally support their actions and to adhere to the processes laid out by fellow wikipedians. To Guroadrunner - I'm just very bold and I no longer take violations of WP:EL lightly. I expect the content to be well-sourced, cited, and written in a manner that people who are not experts of the content in question can understand. Most of all, I expect the community as a whole to contribute to articles in the pursuit of making them better.//Tecmobowl 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A piece of advice I can offer you is when things start getting heated, to remove yourself from the situation. It's happened to me before, where I've reverted someone they disagree despite being in violation of a policy and the insults start. The best solution is almost always to simply not respond for a day or two, as tempting as it may seem to do otherwise, and let other observers have their say. Go and work on another topic for a while and then come back to see what the opinion of others is. This way, administrators need not get involved against you. Generally on this WP, consensus rules and being bold does not mean deliberately going against what has been agreed on without first re-opening the debate. Your edit history seems to reflect negatively on you, but I'm willing to give you a fresh start and I hope you can contribute in a positive way. AlexJ 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate the advice, but I will tell you that I do not roll over to bullies on here. I have removed myself from a number of these situations only to see that when I come back, they are often worse off than when they started. This conversation has already taken a detour from where it started and I think we're good to go. I am well versed on many things here at wiki and learning more every day. Just remember, consensus is not established by a group of F1 fans. If you ever come across me in the future, just keep the discussions content relevant and on the relevant talk pages and we'll be as good as gold. //Tecmobowl 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Article ideas for Tecmobowl

It would be sweet if the following were better sourced:

• Adrian Newey
• Aguri Suzuki
• Antônio Pizzonia

"These three are well written articles, but they need references to get above Start class," I was told when I requested assessment from WP:Biography.

For your consideration. Guroadrunner 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you're on EL patrol, it would be nice to change the links that go to ManipeF1.com and make them instead go to Formula1.com .

P.S. -- you need not feel like you are on the defensive. Not sure how much your experience at WP:Baseball scarred you, but as long as things go well, nobody's going to attack you. Guroadrunner 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to get rid of all ManipeF1 links? 4u1e 07:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal belief - ManipeF1 is not as good of a source compared to Formula1.com for results, etc. If we want to use Manipe for race reports, I feel we should include multiple unofficial sites, like PF1, F1R and ITV. Guroadrunner 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Race report infobox for shortened races

Just noticed that two races that were shortened due to the 2hr limit have differences in the infobox. For 1991 United States Grand Prix the actual number of laps run is given in the infobox under distance while in 1997 Monaco Grand Prix the scheduled number of laps is given. Which do you think we should go with? Would it be possible (and would it be suitable) to have an optional scheduled distance field which could be used in these cases in addition to the distance field? AlexJ 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Although we could put the actual laps and then add a note saying that the number of laps were cut down from X to Y because of A - Sorry, I'm doing a small bit on my Maths assignment at the moment so do forgive me for the use algebra :-P. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed action then is have Distance refer to the amount of laps completed, and the optional Scheduled Distance to be used when the race is cut short to indicate how long it should have run for. |Scheduled_laps = ## |Scheduled_mi = ###.### |Scheduled_km = ###.### - have a look at 1997 Monaco Grand Prix for an example of how it's implemented. I'd appreciate any feedback before updating the rest of the shortened races. AlexJ 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Driver article issues

As some of you will know, I am (slowly) making my way through all the F1 driver articles, updating the infobox, correcting the country codes in the results table and adding the appropriate "racecar drivers" category.

• It occurs to me that for a little extra effort, I could add in a reference for the information in the F1 results table. Which makes me wonder, what is the source for this information? Are we claiming it's derived from/consistent with www.formula1.com? Or is there a better reference? Note that I'm reluctant to use Forix as a reference, since it's a subscription site.
• As I update the articles, I check www.silhouet.com to see whether the driver participated in any non-Championship races. If they did, I add a statement something like "(S)he also participated in several/numerous non-Championship Formula One races". Is www.silhouet.com a suitable reference for this statement? Or is there a better one?
• Many of the less-well-developed F1 driver articles start like this:

"Fred Nerk (born, died) was a Formula One driver from <country>. He participated in N Grands Prix, debuting on <date>. He scored X championship points".

When I've come across an article like this, if I find that Fred competed in some non-championship races, I've typically updated it to something like this:

"Fred Nerk (born, died) was a racing driver from <country>. He participated in N World Championship Formula One Grands Prix, debuting on <date>. He scored X championship points. He also participated in several non-Championship Formula One races."

But I'm wondering whether (a) the date of Fred's F1 debut is all that significant and (b) now that we have the career points in the infobox, whether that needs to be mentioned in the lead, i.e. would it be suitable to streamline the above to:

"Fred Nerk (born, died) was a racing driver from <country>. He participated in N World Championship Formula One Grands Prix and several non-Championship Formula One races."

Thoughts? DH85868993 12:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd go with something like "...N Formula One World Championship Grands Prix between 19xx and 19xx, in addition to {sports car racing, rallying, rallycross, lawnmower racing} and non-Championship Formula One races." (I really ought to get round to adding Derek Bell's lawnmower career at some point...) I agree that the precise debut date is overkill for an intro paragraph, but it would be nice to get an idea about when and how long their career was. There is a lot of overlap between text and infobox, and I reckon that each ought to be able to stand alone, but with differing emphasis. As for referencing I use Project 009900, GP Winners and Motor Sport World in addition to GEL, and they all seem to agree fairly well. I'd go with whichever you fancy as I'm fairly sure that there isn't a hardcopy source that will give you the same depth of coverage. Pyrope 14:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Have we had this debate before - I seem to recall someone (Readro?) came up with a template? Anyway, for what it's worth the results we've got (before 2005 or so) seem to have been taken from www.formula1.com. Where those results are wrong, as they not infrequently are when you go further back, they may or may not have been corrected, based on a variety of sources. This is a bit awkward, because we should be taking our results from the official source, but I don't think the FIA publish full world championship results further back than the last 10 years or so, leaving the faulty www.formula1.com results as the de facto 'official' picture. We've got access to Autocourse for the last 20 years or so (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Library), which would look like a fairly authoritative source for those years. 4u1e 11:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a top-level series, give the series that the driver most prominently featured in the most attention in the lede. Michael Andretti comes to mind, as he is an IndyCar driver first, F1 driver second. Others that come to mind include Mauricio Gugelmin and Stefan Johansson. Guroadrunner 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Example that I would recommend for most articles described above: Mauricio Gugelmin (born April 20, 1963 in Joinville) is a former racing driver from Brazil. He took part in both Formula One and the Champ Car World Series.

Guroadrunner 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wet races

Should we have something like List of Formula One wet races and List of Formula One wet races' winners (FIA declares races wet)? --Sporti 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt it, however if you know of any wet weather races, I would recommend adding that information to the race infobox. Weather is one of the parameters for the box.

i.e.: 1998 Belgian Grand Prix (box on the right)

Guroadrunner 19:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those lists would probably be AfD before you could shake a stick at it. I guess you could do it in a category though - something like Category:Formula One wet races. I think that might work? T. Moitie ^[talk] 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a category might. People are getting far too list-happy around here lately. If all you want is to collate certain pages together under a broad similarity then that is what Categories are specifically designed for, and a boring list is pointless. However, if there is further editorialising that you can do (e.g. List of Formula One constructors with groupings on nationality, evolution of one constructor/team to another, summary team results comparison etc.) then a list might just be justified. "Wet races" do not lend themselves to this however. But, to be brutal, where does this end? "Windy Formula One races"? "Formula One races with suicidal groundhog incidents"? ;-) Pyrope 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, deer incidents when regarding Stefan Johansson's encounter in a practice round in 1987... Guroadrunner 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Formula One team mates colliding? Ralf Schumacher/Fisichella? Coulthard/Hakkinen? Or we can merge Johansson's encounter with the colliding team mates in a List of unusual incidents in Formula One. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely you jest. Guroadrunner 05:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe we could just have one article (called something like Miscellaneous Formula One lists?) to contain all the little lists which aren't worthy of an article in their own right? -- DH85868993 06:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're reminding me of a conversation we genuinely had at work, to the effect that since we didn't have a process for writing processes, none of our processes were valid. And furthermore that even if a process for writing processes were written, it could not have been written according to the process, and so would be invalid. :-S 4u1e 11:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm speaking for everyone when I say "...what?" :-P --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 11:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just something that conversations about categories tend to remind me of ;-). If I were trying to make a serious point (none needed) it would be along the lines of "Any system of categories will be wrong, at some level, so it's never worth worrying about it too much." 4u1e 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be included in the article Wet racing in Formula One - wet races have always been something special so there should be an article on that topic. --Sporti 14:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential Featured Topic

As you may remember, I suggested a possible Featured Topic for Formula One. However, I've recently had an idea for a Featured Topic on Formula One champions but like all ideas there is a problem, or problems should I say:

• The bios would have to updated every year
• This would mean dding another biography to the Topic every year potentially and this would oppose the criteria for the amount of articles in a topic.
• This would mean that we'll have to promote 20 odd bios to FA or GA.

To address the second point, I do come up with an idea: Formula Drivers' Champions of the 1950s/60s/70s/80s/90/etc. This would of course mean that there would be less work to do - in a way because it would mean only working on 3-6 articles for each decade - Two in this decade so far :P!. Anyway, I don't mind doing all the bio work (it's fun!) but I just want to know if there is any problems that I've overlooked in this idea. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a much better idea than the whole of F1 - we'd need a very large number of articles raised in standard to make F1 a featured topic (we've got what, 5 FAs and maybe 10 GAs, with fairly random coverage). Doing say, F1 champions of the 1990s sounds much easier: We have Alain Prost and Damon Hill at FA already, Michael Schumacher at GA and heading (slowly) for FA. That leaves only Ayrton Senna (which someone has referenced recently), Nigel Mansell, Mika Hakkinen and Jacques Villeneuve, all of which I believe are currently at class B. I'm not sure how strict the Featured Topic criteria are, but I would have thought that if Schumacher goes FA and we got a couple of the others up to GA that would probably do it. 4u1e 11:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Schumacher is the most important of the 90s topic - I think Mansell and Villeneuve we could get away with if they were GAs. Anyway, I'll leave you guys to deal with Schumacher - not really much point in us all doing the same article, is there? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 11:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually had the same idea a while back, hence the introduction of a list of WDC and they're status on one of my sandboxes. Very good idea, and something that could be achievable in the near future. I believe you'd also need a 'title article' that is of a good/featured quality. List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions should be suitable. AlexJ 11:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just one problem: If we use that as the list as the title article - it would be part of around six different Topics and it may look a mess on the talk page. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 11:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Another featured topic could be "Formula One fatal accidents", which would contain a.o. List of Formula One fatal accidents (Featured List), Tom Pryce (Featured Article), Gilles Villeneuve (Good Article), Ayrton Senna and Mark Donohue (both B-Class), Roger Williamson and Roland Ratzenberger (both Start Class), and a load of unassessed articles, such as Death of Ayrton Senna. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it the drivers or the races you would be listing? You could of course also include the featured 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. I'm not sure you've got enough coverage there to justified the featured topic tag, though - there're lots of articles like John Taylor (racer) which are not of high enough quality. 4u1e 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus, there is 49 articles worth of bios there - over double the prefered amount for a featured topic. You could have a topic on those who have lost their lives during a Grand Prix. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "Controversy in Formula One"? We've got Death of Ayrton Senna (unassessed, but with a lot of potential), 1994 San Marino Grand Prix (Featured), 2005 United States Grand Prix (Featured), 2002 Austrian Grand Prix (unassessed, but with potential), 1997 European Grand Prix (Good Article) and several other potential articles. Could this be a topic, or would it be too contrived? Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that working. The idea of a featured topic is that every article in a set is of a high standard. A set should really be easily definable from a fact, for example a driver is either a World Champion or not. As such we can say there are 28 world drivers champions. Narrowing it down we can say it's a fact that 7 won a title in 1990's, so there would be 7 articles in a topic covering WDC of the 1990's. A race either took place in 1994 or didn't and we can therefore say there were 16 races in 1994, 16 articles in the topic. What definition is there of a controversial race? The criteria itself would be quite probably POV, and how would we know if we'd covered them all. For me, a FT must have a fairly stable fixed number of articles which can be easily defined by a fact and controversy in F1 doesn't meet those criteria. It would also almost certainly be too big (hardly a season goes by without at least one or two controversies). I think we're better off going with either a season's worth of GA/FA or a decade's worth of champions as a topic, getting the missing articles up to standard rather than trying to come up with a topic that covers what we've already got. AlexJ 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case I think we should go for 2007 Formula One season at the end of the season. Looking at the Grand Prix':

• 2007 Formula One season, unassessed, ongoing
• 2007 Australian Grand Prix
• 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix
• 2007 Bahrain Grand Prix, B-class, failed the GA nom
• 2007 Spanish Grand Prix, unassessed
• 2007 Monaco Grand Prix, unassessed
• 2007 Canadian Grand Prix, unassessed
• 2007 United States Grand Prix, unassessed
• 2007 French Grand Prix, TBD
• 2007 British Grand Prix, TBD
• 2007 European Grand Prix, TBD
• 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix, TBD
• 2007 Turkish Grand Prix, TBD
• 2007 Italian Grand Prix, TBD
• 2007 Belgian Grand Prix, TBD
• 2007 Japanese Grand Prix, TBD
• 2007 Chinese Grand Prix, TBD
• 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix, TBD

Aecis^Brievenbus 22:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Brackets: Total career points vs. Championship points

Am I the only one who finds it logically flawed to post in a box which is entitled "Formula One World Championship career" the number of total career points in brackets? In fact, it should be the other way round, e.g. in case of Graham Hill: 289 (270). What is your opinion? Or rather, can there be an opinion at all? FIA regulations are unequivocal about the fact that the sum of all points constitutes the total career points, hence the "289" should be put in front. Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion includes three opinions supporting the current approach (i.e. total points in brackets). -- DH85868993 01:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oooh we've had this before. I think the operative word here is Championship. They may have scored more points, but only the ones which count towards the final Championship standings are really worth anything. Pyrope 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not changed my opinion - the points which were counted towards the championship were the more important, and these should get precendence. AlexJ

Race report notes

After a brief conversation with T. Moitie about race notes, see 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix. I was wondering what is the most noteworthy milestone to include in the race report notes section, I personally think the following are notable enough, note any with a question mark I'm unsure about:

• Race
  • First
  • Last
  • Miltiple of ten (ie 10th, 20th, 30th, etc)?
  • (After 100) Multiple of 50, (150th, 200th, etc)?
• Win
  • First
  • Last
  • Miltiple of ten (ie 10th, 20th, 30th, etc)?
• Podium
  • First
  • Last
• Points
  • First
  • Last

Anyway, as I said: Which would be appropriate and which could be "scrapped"? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably go for:

• Race: first, last, multiples of 50 (without the caveat); I wouldn't bother with multiples of 10
• Win: first, last (I wouldn't bother with multiples of 10)
• Pole: first (not passionate about last but I wouldn't object)
• Podium: first (not passionate about last but I wouldn't object)
• Points: first (not passionate about last but I wouldn't object)

For drivers and constructors. And I'd leave the milestone in the Notes section even if it's also mentioned in the text. --DH85868993 10:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the numerated one's suggestions on that. Pyrope 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is my ten cents on the matter. I believe that everything in the Notes section underneath the Race classification should be restricted to details expanding on the results in the classification. Otherwise, why would it be there. I think that if you include details like "first points" and "first podium", it becomes a trivia section, and should be incorporated to the rest of the article. Especially if it includes "First pole". That data is completely irrelevant to the race classification, that's more important to the qualifying classification. Its only my personal opinion, but I think that the notes section underneath race classification should only have things that will explain certain parts of the classification that are odd, or for race facts, like fastest lap and laps led. The other stuff like first win should be kept inside the report and the driver articles. T. Moitie ^[talk] 00:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But isn't the Notes section notes for the whole article, not just the race classification section? In most race report articles I've seen, "Notes" is at the same level as "Classification", not a subsection of it. -- DH85868993 10:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This gets close to the whole "what is trivia?" debate. I personally have no problem with a handy reference section entitled "Notes", but there are editors who can't seem to see any reason for facts outside the main prose section (some blather about it being "not encyclopedic", whatever that means). I think that highlighting milestones by including them in a bulleted factoid format is a good thing, but there are others who disagree. Pyrope 10:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Every single race report of this season has Notes as a section of Race classification - and I do see it as trivia. But I guess if the consensus goes the other way there's little I can do. T. Moitie ^[talk] 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that about the 2007 race reports, T. Moitie. How about, as a compromise, we leave the existing content, but move the "Notes" sections up to a top-level heading (which is where it is for most (all?) of the pre-2006 race reports) so it is then notes about the whole race, not just the race classification? DH85868993 03:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with a notes section, we just need to be aware that it can become a dumping ground for trivia and out of date information. (I for one don't really care if driver X achieved a record number of 17th places at a given race :-)) I think in general it will be expanding on the race results though, other stuff will most likely be of a type that could and should be worked into the race report proper. 4u1e 07:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Formula One World Drivers' Champions

I've noticed that there is no Category:Formula One World Drivers' Champions at the moment. Has this been discussed before? Would such a category be redundant with the List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions? Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 12:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I hate lists so I would prefer the category, but don't fix what ain't broke I guess. T. Moitie ^[talk] 10:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Zakpeed articles nominated for deletion

Zakspeed 841 and Zakspeed 861 have been nominated for deletion due to a lack of notability. What's the best way to save them? DH85868993 07:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say write more about them, first off. Also explain the example of all the other F1 cars that have not been touched. The359 07:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles need some form of reference at least to avoid any sort of AfD if they avoid Prod. T. Moitie ^[talk] 10:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go and expanding and referencing Zakspeed 841, if anyone thinks it's enough to remove the tags.--Diniz (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the prod tag from Zakspeed 861. I contacted Black Falcon (talk · contribs) about this, since he had prodded the articles. He left the following message on my talk page: "I don't disagree with your removal of the {{prod}} tag and don't intend to pursue the deletion of either article. In fact, I am truly impressed with the amount of expansion that took place; I would never have thought that multiple sources could exist about a single car. If you wouldn't mind, please pass on my sentiments to the members of Formula One project." Aecis^Brievenbus 22:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1986 Zakspeed engine

Was the '86 engine the same as the '85 engine? Therefore:

1985: Zakspeed 1500/4 4-in-line (turbo)

1986: Zakspeed 1500/4 4-in-line (turbo)

? I just built a 1986 F1 results table for the Zakspeed 861 car, but a double check on the engine would be appreciated. Guroadrunner 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Autocourse 86-87 indicates the 1986 engine was a 1495cc in-line 4 t/c, so I think it's safe to assume it was (a development of) the same engine. Plus that's my recollection from the time as well. So, I've removed the question marks from the article. DH85868993 02:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirm that: it was the same engine from 1985 to 1987. Not a huge amount of development either. Bosch Motronic electronic fuel injection was added in 86. The same engine was fitted with Garrett rather than KKK turbochargers in 1987. Or that's what it says in the book (The 1000 BHP Grand Prix cars) anyhow! 4u1e 11:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

From the same source, the engine apparently never had a proper type designation - I suspect Autocourse labelled it as 1500/4 (i.e. capacity/cylinders) because they had to call it something. 4u1e 11:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Autocourse doesn't give a designation - the 1500/4 must have come from Davnel's original source.--Diniz (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Likely allF1.info... Pyrope 14:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

References to multiple pages in the same source

As I've been updating the race report articles (to make the race times match www.formula1.com), in many cases I've needed to add references to two different pages in the same book. To date, I've been adding an explicit reference to each page, each quoting the book title in full, like this. Are people happy with that format, or would they perhaps prefer to see:

• the book listed only once, with references formatted as "Author (year), page", like this, or
• just a single reference, specifying a range of pages, e.g. "Lang ... pp88-90", or
• something else?

If there's overwhelming support for a particular format, I can use that format for future updates (I won't promise that I'll go back and update all the ones I've done so far - well not immediately, anyway). Bear in mind that as the race report articles are further developed (e.g. addition of qualifying times), there will probably be a need to add more references. -- DH85868993 08:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

When it's like two or four references then yes, but as you use more references it can get a bit crowded. I would personally use the reference style of Tom Pryce and the History of Saffron if your using like over 6 inline citations. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 08:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Arzani-Volpini

I have just created the article Arzani-Volpini, about what could very well be the shortest-lived F1 team ever: it did not start the only World Championship race it entered. This was the only Formula One team left without an article. The problem is that information about this team is scant at best, even at F1db. Since I'm new at writing articles about F1 constructors, I want to ask the members of this WikiProject to make sure I've followed existing style guidelines, and if possible to expand this article. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 09:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nada at F1rejects.com ? If anything, look there - those guys are Gods. Guroadrunner 19:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

F1rejects only lists teams that "have attempted to qualify at at least 2 Grands Prix." That is exactly one GP more than Arzani-Volpini ;) I did manage to find some useful info at the GP Encyclopedia though. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Links to Speedway Grand Prix articles

Several of the "<Country> Grand Prix" articles have a line at the top like this:

For other uses, see "Speedway Grand Prix of <Country>"

Are these links really necessary? Do we really think people looking for Speedway Grand Prix of Australia will often end up at Australian Grand Prix by mistake? If so, why isn't there also a link to Australian motorcycle Grand Prix or (dare I say it) an Australian Grand Prix disambiguation page? Personally, I'm in favour of removing the links to the Speedway Grand Prix articles. Thoughts? DH85868993 11:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to give Formula One precedence over motorcycle racing and speedway in article names. I would suggest using Australian Grand Prix as a disambig for Australian motorcycle Grand Prix, Australian Formula One Grand Prix, Speedway Grand Prix of Australia and any other sport using the term Australian Grand Prix. The same applies to other GP's (Spanish, Dutch, German, Italian, etc.). But I think this is more a matter for WP:MOTOR, or perhaps even WP:SPORT, with a note to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 11:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(Continuing to use Australia as an example): I actually think the motor (car) race does have a stronger claim to the name "Australian Grand Prix" than the others, on the basis that "Australian Grand Prix" (i.e. without a modifier) is most commonly used to refer to the motor (car) race, rather than the motorcycle race, or speedway race, or anything else. I'm happy to entertain the idea of a disambiguation page, but if we do have one, then I think Australian Grand Prix should continue to describe the motor (car) race, and the disambiguation page should be called Australian Grand Prix (disambiguation). Note that it would be incorrect to rename the current Australian Grand Prix article as Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix, because the race (which has existed since 1928) has not always been a Formula 1 race (and could feasibly revert to being a non-Formula 1 race in the future). The same applies to many of the other national Grands Prix. DH85868993 08:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with DH about the primacy of the motor races (trying googling "Australian Grand Prix"). I suspect we do need a note at the top of the pages though, which should read 'For other uses of the title Australian Grand Prix see disambiguation page'. How many other events titled Australian Grand Prix are there? We should probably take this discussion to WP:MOTOR. 4u1e 07:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Other Australian Grand Prix' are the 2004 Australian body-building Grand Prix and the 2006-07 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, Australia. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 10:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Helmets

I've been busy creating an svg file of a helmet. I've put an example of it in Mauricio Gugelmin, which you can see here. Is this something the project could use? If you think so then I can upload a blank helmet for everyone to use. Readro 02:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How about adding it to the infobox, like the home kit and away kit in {{football club infobox}}? Aecis^Brievenbus 02:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps on the helmet section of the bio, see Damon Hill, Alain Prost and Tom Pryce as examples. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 06:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. I think I'd be happy with either position. Not all driver's have a 'helmet' section, which is probably as it should be because in some (most?) cases there's nothing to say, which would suggest putting it as an option in the infobox. On the other hand, some drivers have had multiple helmet designs (would you include Jarno Trulli's various one-offs?), which might not fit in the infobox.4u1e 07:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job! I think it can be put in the infobox, just so long as it's the latest version of the helmet. About Gugelmin's helmet, should the top section be a bit brighter? The other pictures in the article show the top of his helmet as being a very bright, almost fluorescent yellow.--Diniz (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it now, I think you might be right. It does look a bit brighter in photos. I'll make an edit later. Readro 13:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of multiple helmet designs raised by 4u1e above. Just about every single football club changes its kit with every new season. We don't list all of them in the football club infobox, but only the current home kit and the current away kit. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think we should either, or at least not for the one-offs, it was just a thought that occurred. Others may feel differently, though. I suppose the most recent design is probably the most useful - there may genuinely be cases where a driver has had two quite different designs and both are relevant, so I don't think we should be too prescriptive. 4u1e 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In the case of two completely different helmet designs (Alonso and Heidfeld, for example, perhaps Michael Schumacher as well), we could reserve a spot in the infobox for more than one design. But there may be another problem with the most recent helmet design. Take Jos Verstappen, for instance. Throughout his career, he had a red/white/blue helmet. He occasionally takes part in kart races, and has changed to an orange/grey/black helmet design (see [3]). This is his most recent design, but it's not the helmet he used in F1. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How about using the most recent helmet for a current F1 driver, but if a driver is retired then using the helmet which they used for longest during their F1 career? Readro 14:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words the most recognisable helmet. Which will probably often be the current or most recent one. Agreed 4u1e 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Obvious exceptions to the most recent helmet being the most recognised are people like Eddie Irvine, who used the green corporate Jaguar helmet for only his last three years. His orange and green helmet is more widely identified with him. Readro 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and also it would be more easier to make then a Jaguar :-P. Sorry, I have only just handed in every single piece of work for my diploma course so you can understand why I'm being a bit happier then usual. :-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I'm filling Commons:Category:Formula One helmet designs with any svg helmets I create. As well as Gugelmin there is currently a Damon Hill helmet and Michael Schumacher's 2006 lid. Right now I'm working on Raikkonen's new design but it's taking a while because of all the fiddly bits! Readro 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a word of caution, I'm not entirely sure that some helmet designs aren't covered by copyright. I know that Jackie Stewart can start to get litigious if people render his helmet with the correct Royal Stewart Tartan band, and I have an inkling that you might find that others challenge this. An image of a helmet being worn is one thing, a rendering of a helmet design might well infringe copyright. You may find yourself having to add FU rationale for many. Pyrope 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, it's no different to painting a picture of the helmet, and there are many motorsport artists who don't have to worry about copyright. Forix have had helmet designs for years without any sort of disclaimer, and they claim copyright to the person who made the image. Readro 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope. Better safe than sorry. It's better to make sure now that what we intend to do is allowed, than having to delete all the designs later on. It may save us a lot of time, effort and bother. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing drivers by team

I recently brought up the idea of categorizing Formule One drivers by team in a discussion at WP:MOTOR. I haven't yet received a response there, so I'm bringing this up here. I suggest/propose applying Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams to all Formula One teams, present and past. Category:Ligier Formula One drivers for example would contain drivers like Jacques Laffite, Olivier Panis, Jean-Pierre Jarier, etcetera. Michael Schumacher would be categorized not just in Category:Ferrari Formula One drivers, but also in Category:Jordan Grand Prix Formula One drivers and Category:Benetton Formula Formula One drivers. Takuma Sato could be categorized in Category:Jordan Grand Prix Formula One drivers, Category:British American Racing Formula One drivers and Category:Super Aguri F1 Formula One drivers. Etcetera. You get the picture. Such a categorization would be akin to the subcategories of Category:Footballers by club.
I suggest using the format "Category:Formula One drivers for <team>" for the categories. This would require renaming the existing subcategories of Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams. Any thoughts/suggestions? Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not passionate about whether we have these categories or not (although I must confess that I find the current situation, where we have 9 such categories, including AFM and AGS but not McLaren or Williams(!) a tad annoying). Some points to consider:

• Exactly what you mean by "constructor team". Consider that Stirling Moss drove a Lotus (for Rob Walker's team) in WDC F1 races, but never drove for (Team) Lotus. So it would be inappropriate to include him in the Category:Team Lotus Formula One drivers but it probably would be OK to include him in a category called just "Lotus Formula One drivers".
• Whether or not to include drivers who drove for a constructor/team in non-Championship F1 races
• A driver like Andrea de Cesaris would end up in 9 different categories, which might be considered over-categorisation (OK, so I deliberately picked the worst example I could think of)

DH85868993 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Stirling Moss: this is why I suggested using the format "Category:Formula One drivers for <team>." Moss raced in a Lotus, but he didn't race for Team Lotus, so I think he shouldn't be categorized as such. Regarding non-Championship F1 races: I think they should be included, since they are F1 races as well. The parent category is Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams, not Category:Formula One World Championship drivers by constructor teams. I also think that F1 races prior to 1950 qualify for the categories. Andrea de Cesaris would indeed be added to nine categories. So would Stirling Moss. That's the consequence. The same would happen with a football player. I don't think that qualifies as overcategorization though, since each and every one of the nine categories would be pertinent to Andrea de Cesaris. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 15:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. I just wanted to make the issues were considered up-front. Other thoughts:

• Have you given any consideration to expanding the scheme to include significant non-constructor teams, e.g. Rob Walker Racing Team (who won 9 WDC F1 events)? I guess then there could be arguments over what defines a "significant" team.
• Even though using the full team name in the category name reinforces the idea that the categories are for drivers who drove for the team, not the constructor, part of me would still prefer to see the shorter version of the name used, e.g. [Category:Jordan Formula One drivers]] rather than [Category:Jordan Grand Prix Formula One drivers]. In particular, [Category:Benetton Formula Formula One drivers] looks weird. DH85868993 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Would you include drivers who drove for the team using a different constructor's car, e.g. Johnny Servoz-Gavin who drove Matras and Marches for Tyrrell Racing, but never drove a Tyrell?

DH85868993 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What you said about the non-constructor teams is an excellent point. Perhaps it would be better to go by Category:Formula One drivers by entrant. Johnny Servoz-Gavin raced for Tyrrell (Tyrrell Racing#Complete World Championship Formula One Results), so I think he should be categorized in Category:Formula One drivers for Tyrrell Racing or in Category:Tyrrell (Racing?) Formula One drivers.

Just to make it clear, I absolutely appreciate it that you ask these questions. It's better to thoroughly think through the implications of what would become a far-reaching categorization (1000+? F1 drivers, 100+? constructors and entrants) at this stage than to have to clean up the debris in a few months time. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox template for F1 events which haven't been run yet

template:F1 race doesn't work so well for races which have never been run, e.g. Indian Grand Prix, Korean Grand Prix, Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. What's the preferred approach:

• modify template:F1 race to better cope with races which have never been run (e.g. hide the "Last race" and "Most wins" fields if the Current_year parameter isn't assigned), or
• produce a new template more suited to future races?

DH85868993 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say don't even use the template at all. None of those races are truly confirmed. It's really useless to have them there when there aren't even tracks in existance yet. The359 06:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As an addition, I'd say the template is OK for the Singapore Grand Prix, and is obviously already covered on the new Valencia European Grand Prix. The359 06:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:F1 season

1991 FIA Formula One World Championship season
World Champions Driver: Ayrton Senna Constructor: McLaren-Honda
Previous: 1990	Next: 1992
Index: Races by country | Races by season

{{F1 season}} currently contains two rows of information: the name of the season in bold, and a link to the previous and the next season. I propose/suggest adding a third row, containing the names of the World Drivers' Champion and the World Constructors' Champion. To give an idea of what that would look like, a draft template for the 1991 F1 season is pictured at the right. The code is probably about as screwed up as it can be though. Any thoughts/suggestions? Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this a lot. It has two benefits: one, it is at-a-glance, and two, it adds some color to season pages that do not have it yet, like 1996 Formula One season

Side note: recommend renaming template to Formula One season as per the naming standards. Minor issue at best though.

Side note 2: recommend making pages like 1996 F1 season and utilizing a redirect. Guroadrunner 11:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts: mmm, nice. Suggestions: nope. Pyrope 12:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any problems with applying this template to the pages? Guroadrunner 07:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, looks good. I hesitated for a bit because I thought that box started life as navigation template, rather than an infobox, but given that we now have a different navigation template at the bottom of the page, it seems to work. Cheers. 4u1e 07:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we align the champions to the left? Sorry, but it just doesn't look neat IMO centered. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 09:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. I reckon having them centred looks quite pleasing. It maintains typographic continuity with the rest of the box, the majority of which is centred rather than justified. Pyrope 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the code I've entered above. I've had to improvise it together simply to get something on this particular talk page, to give you guys an impression. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can it be coded in a way that makes it work better? Are there plans for improvement? Guroadrunner 10:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Offical F1 Website

Bit of a problem, the official F1 websites been redone and cleverly they've decided to change the archive links rendering all our references broken. For example the old style address http://www.formula1.com/archive/grandprix/1994/102.html is now located at http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1994/102/ - it doesn't redirect. Perhaps a bot could be set to change the links? (It's a fairly simple find and replace because the year and race number remain the same just a few words around have changed) AlexJ 11:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be fairly straightforward, using Wikipedia:Bot requests. I think this is how all the links were changed from Motor Racing Developments/Brabham Racing Organisation to plain Brabham when the artilce name was changed.--Diniz (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Universal time and speed format

There's a discussion in progress at WP:MOTOR about the adoption of a universal format for times and speeds for all motorsport articles. I think it's one we should monitor/participate in. DH85868993 03:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New categories?

Over at WP:MOTOR, I have proposed the creation of some new categories to allow the arrangement of racing team and racing car constructor articles under the relevant "Motorsport in <country>" categories. Would people be in favour of the creation of national subcategories of Category:Formula One constructors and Category:Formula One entrants? They would fit into the proposed new structure as follows (using France and Ligier as an example):

Category:Motorsport in France

Category:French racecar constructors

Category:French Formula One constructors

Ligier

Category:French auto racing teams

Category:French Formula One entrants

Ligier

Category:Racecar constructors

Category:Formula One constructors

Category:Formula One constructors by nationality

Category:French Formula One constructors

Ligier

Category:Auto racing teams

Category:Formula One entrants

Category:Formula One entrants by nationality

Category:French Formula One entrants

Ligier

Thoughts? DH85868993 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Are all of these going to be put up as categories on the individual pages? Guroadrunner 03:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In the above example, Ligier would only be directly included in Category:French Formula One constructors and Category:French Formula One entrants (i.e. these are the only two that would appear at the bottom of the Ligier page). All the other categories listed would be parents or grandparents, etc of those two. DH85868993 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Injuries

I also noticed that many driver results are given as INJ, when they did not take part in a Grand Prix due to an injury beforehand. I do not believe this is the appropriate result and if anything is misleading. They did not take part in the Grand Prix and the space should be left blank as they are meant to be. Having the result as INJ would suggest the driver competed in that event and then was subsequently injured. A driver not taking part in a race because they are injured is the same as a driver not taking part due to family obligations. They were not in the race and they had no result, this should be reflected in the relevant articles. Dale-DCX 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with it not being 'ING', but I don't think it should be left completely blank. I was just looking the ITV Sport Guide - Grand Prix 2002 book. Giancarlo Fisichella was injured before the 2002 French Grand Prix and it refers to his non-participation as 'W' (i.e. withdrawn). Then, before the start of the 2002 Japanese Grand Prix, Allan McNish suffered as large crash and was unable to take part, and his non-participation is referred to as 'NS' (i.e. non-starter). So, would any of those be appropriate (assuming we could have 'DNS' as well as 'NS')? Lradrama 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on the circumstances. If the driver competed in the practice and qualifying sessions, only to not take the start they should be listed as DNS. If a driver did not take part in any aspect of the weekend they should not be listed as being involved at all which means a blank space. At least I think that makes the most sense. Dale-DCX 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Dale. In Fisi's case he took part in practice, but didn't qualify, hence the "withdrawn".--Don Speekingleesh 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Though in that case, he could be listed as DNQ as well. Though that really only applies to a race where drivers needed to qualify to compete in the event. It would also implied he failed to qualify. I think in his case withdrawn would be correct. I would suggest we need to look at all of the drivers who have ILL or INJ listed as a result and give them a proper result based on the extent which they competed in during the weekend. Dale-DCX 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've never been keen on the "INJ" in results boxes, and I've brought this up before. It's not a result. I always change INJ to DNS or DNQ where I spot it and it's relevant. However, in Fisi's case, it's most definitely a DNS - there's no reason to invent a WD designation when DNS means exactly the same thing. Bretonbanquet 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I completely agree. DNQ is not invented, it is a real classification. I understand what you mean though. Dale-DCX 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I didn't say DNQ was invented though. Bretonbanquet 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that is what I thought you had implied. Dale-DCX 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let's just keep it simple! Bretonbanquet's ideas are fine - just keep the DNS for an injury involved in the weekend and blank for total non-participation. DNQ for practice but non-qualifier? I think that's what you're all saying? Alright let's keep it at those three. Perhaps on using those, one can elaborate on why that driver didn't participate in the 'Time/retired' column of the results table. Lradrama 08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No! "DNQ" can only be assigned to a driver who tries to qualify and fails. A driver not taking part in qualifying should be listed as "withdrawn" or a blank space. 82.92.73.193 02:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Makes sense. Lradrama 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually. It depends on what the sources say. If the sources say DNQ, then that's what we put, regardless of what we may think the result should be listed as. We can always put explanatory notes in to explain anomalies. Bretonbanquet 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

<div> tag

Some people add a div-tag to the results tables in the articles on Formula One teams and drivers, making a scroll list at the bottom of the table. Please don't do that, it just makes the table harder to read when you are reading at the top of it. I have just removed a bunch of these. John Anderson 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - these <div> tags mean you can't see the season-at-a-glance for drivers or teams. Guroadrunner 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - yes, I hate scrolling through to see one season then scrolling back to read another. Thanks for bringing this to attention, I'm glad to be rid of that. Lradrama 08:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- Race articles

I was just editing the 2004 Australian Grand Prix article, and on clicking 'Edit this page' I noticed this - - above the race classification. What does it mean? Lradrama 09:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Force Table of Contents". Table of Contents boxes usually do not show up until you have at least 3 (I think...) sections to an article. Adding that text forces a table of contents box to show up regardless of the number of sections. The359 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see! OK, thankyou very much! Lradrama 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Circuit Infoboxes

For those that don't participate over at WP:MOTOR, we're planning on creating a universal infobox template for racetracks to replace the current F1_circuit, National_Circuit and Infobox_Nascar_Circuit infoboxes. The design allows for all the fields from the current F1 and National circuit templates as well as the majority of Nascar fields. Can you take a look at these examples of it's use and let me know your thoughts on it? Thanks, AlexJ 17:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Great work! Some of those examples were quite inventive, as well. ;) The only additional thing I can think of is the option of having a caption for the circuit image, for example if only one of the layouts is shown (as is the case with Silverstone Circuit, where the image only shows the Grand Prix Circuit).--Diniz (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a very good job! It'll make things simpler and easier, and that's what we're always on the lookout for. Diniz has a good point above though. Lradrama 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've now added the ability to include a caption, as demonstrated on the sandbox and on Silverstone Circuit. AlexJ 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to update people, all uses of F1_circuit have now been replaced by Motorsport_venue. Currently all infoboxes look identical to before the change although they can now be updated to include any of the new parameters (image caption, date opened, owner, multiple track layouts etc.) Are there any objections to the Template:F1_circuit being nominated for deletion as redundant? AlexJ 13:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No objections have been raised in a week so it's now up for deletion. AlexJ 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-current drivers

What do people think of the idea of adding Vettel and Albers back into Template:Formula One teams (probably on a separate line at the bottom), on the basis that they have participated in the 2007 season? DH85868993 13:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me.--Diniz (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree with this, seems as the title of the template is "Constructors and drivers competing in the 2007 Formula One championship" - both fit within this description. Might be a challenge to make it look tidy though. AlexJ 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added Albers and Vettel back into the template, and added the template back into their articles. DH85868993 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Recent results" on team pages.

I have just reverted the addition of 1990-1999 results on McLaren

1. Because even 1999 is on the borderline of "recent" and 1990 certainly isn't!
2. It pushed the article up to 91k - and it was already very large.

Anybody disagree/agree? Mark83 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is 1999 the first year? 9 years seems a somewhat arbitrary number to pick. It should be a number like 5 or 10. Readro 16:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please readd them. There is absolutely no meaning with not having them there. The only reason it says "recent" results, is because noone have had time to add all the previous years yet. If the article is to big, split it up in subarticles instead of just erasing useful information! John Anderson 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The results table should be split out into a separate article, as was done for WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results (and has been discussed above for Ferrari). I would recommend calling the new article McLaren Grand Prix results. Note the deliberate use of an "inclusive" name, so the article can include non-works entries and non-championship races if desired. DH85868993 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree on using a similar solution to that used for Williams. Suggest last 5 seasons on main article page and full (including the last five years) on a separate page. The name DH suggests was discussed previously to be able to include NC races etc. so it has my backing. AlexJ 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. Reduced to five seasons' results with main link to McLaren Grand Prix results as suggested. Thanks again. Mark83 18:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to work tomorrow on the "backlog" of results for the McLaren results article ;-). Oh, btw should we have a MoS for these, I mean should we use the flagicons like in the "Williams version" or the none flagicon "McLaren version"? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of having the last 5 years' results listed in two different articles - I think there's a risk of them getting out of synch (and it does feel somewhat "wrong" to have exactly the same info in two different places). If we definitely want to display the information in both places, perhaps we could put the last 5 years' results into a template? Note that we'd only need to do this for current teams which have a very long history, i.e. Williams, Ferrari and McLaren. In terms of an MoS, we do have the standard constructor results table format, although I recognise that some of the existing tables don't comply. DH85868993 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice idea. I am not sure wether it is better to split out the results table or some of the texts, but I suppose either is OK. Flags are always nice, but no necessity in this kind of table. Just don't add a <div style="overflow: auto; overflow-x: scroll; width: 100%;"> string. John Anderson 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On that topic, I'm assuming that the scrollbars were originally added because you can't see the whole table with a 1024x768 screen resolution. So maybe we need to take that into consideration. DH85868993 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That topic can be discussed under its own headline a bit up on this page; so far, noone have advocated to keep the added scroll bars. All in all, on a small screen you can always scroll the browser window itself just as you can on a big screen, but if you have this scroll bar you cannot scroll the table to the side if you are looking at the top of the page. I have a small screen at home which makes me resent these div tag scroll bars. John Anderson 10:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we have a full results table with scroll bars? Better encyclopedia that way. Lradrama 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the scroll bars which makes a great encyclopedia, it's the information provided. Without the div tag generated bottom scroll bar, it is easier to access all the information, especially if you have a small screen. John Anderson 20:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm not saying that! I just meant it'd be better if he had a full results table, showing their finishes for every one of the seasons they've competed in from the 1960s rather than just recent results. No, I was just suggesting scroll-bars becuase the table would be pretty huge. I hate the scroll bars really because of the mucking about when looking at a table, but we might have to improvise for a full-results table for a team like McLaren. Lradrama 20:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Internet browsers acctually generate scroll bars by them selves. What I am trying to say is, we don't have to make additional ones. – Of course we should have full results tables, preferably for all teams. John Anderson 02:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

German GP 2007: cancelled or not held?

The German Grand Prix was originally sheduled for 2007, but was later cancelled, so I think it should be labeled as such in the list. However, some anonymous people keep changing it back to not held. As long as they don't explain why, I will undo these changes. Please discuss on the talk page of that artice. John Anderson 11:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the German Grand Prix is now alternating between Hockenheim and the Nurburgring? I thought it was still called the German Grand Prix? That means it is still held. However, some media sources (in the run up to this event) are calling it the European Grand Prix, because that's where it was held in recent times. I'm really confused now. Lradrama 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a dispute over who owned the rights to the name "German Grand Prix", so this weekend's race at the Nurburgring is called the "European Grand Prix". See this discussion. DH85868993 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the confirmation! I've just been on F1.com and ITV.com/f1, and they all refer to it as the European Grand Prix. B.T.W. I prefered it the other way, but since when do things go as you want in F1? (As a Toyota supporter, I'm used to it... ;-) ). Lradrama 16:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe they will change the name of the Grand Prix back to the German Grand Prix eventually as that would obviously be preferable for marketing reasons. Though as mentioned above, I think there is some sort of legal issue. So for now we have the European Grand Prix. Dale-DCX 16:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Another option I've heard (can't remember where exactly) is that the race on the Nürburgring returns to the use of "Grand Prix of Luxembourg." The Grand Prix of Europe will be held in Valencia from 2008 or 2009 onwards, and Hockenheim indeed seems to hold the rights to the name German Grand Prix. But that's crystalballing, since the next Grand Prix on the Nürburgring will be held in 2009. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Luxembourg name will make it all the more muddling to new viewers. Remember, the Luxembourg name was only used in 1997 (and 1998 I think) because there was already a German and a European Grand Prix (Hockenheim and Jerez respectively). Lradrama 20:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernie has stated the dispute arose from the AvD believing they hold the rights to the name German Grand Prix. They refused to allow this race to be termed as such. However, Bernie did state the event will return to being called the German Grand Prix soon. Dale-DCX 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Driver article assessment drive

While I'm waiting for one of my articles to get through the Good Article review process, I'm working my way through the driver articles that are unassessed by the project. I did 'A' yesterday, so today will be 'B'. Lec CRP1 09:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. The pile of unassessed articles is huge. Thanks Guroadrunner 15:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reached up to the end of 'M' now. Example - Stirling Moss hadn't even been assessed, but David Murray had been. Strange. Someone else will have to assess John Miles, as I wrote most of it.--Lec CRP1 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just polished off the last one (Ricardo Zuniño). The only ones I haven't done are John Miles (see above), David Walker (wrote that one too), and all those Indy 500 drivers who's races in 1950-60 counted towards the world championship even though they probably neither knew nor cared (outside my knowledge)--Lec CRP1 19:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Practice lap times?

On the IMS page, we have reference of the fastest lap ever turned on the oval course, set by Arie Luyendyk in a practice session in 1996. I was wondering if there was any source to look up the fastest practice lap times for F1, specifically date as well as time for Trulli's lap, so as to have the fastest lap ever turned on the road course at Indianapolis. Thank you in advance. --Chr.K. 10:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally on a road circuit (in F1 and most forms of European racing at least) the lap record is set under race conditions as opposed to practice/qualifying conditions. AlexJ 10:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:F1 race report

Just a heads up on the change to the F1 Race Report template (the one that allows you to go to the previous and next GPs from within a race results page.) I had made a post over at the Succession Box Standardization WikiProject regarding using their layout for sportscar races due to the irregular length of race titles causing the box at the bottom (based on the F1 template) to appear disjointed and uneven.

It appears a user from the project decided to be bold and edit both the Sportscar template and F1 template. If anyone has any problem with the changes, feel free to change it. The359 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the appropriate changes to Template:Grand Prix race report as well. Readro 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the color might be worth changing, the yellow stands out a bit. The359 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The header in yellow is unnecessary and, quite frankly, dumb. I can go for if it's in white and in a smaller font, but otherwise it detracts from the template box. The standardisation project also appears to have not been made with wide consensus. I will consider reverting it. Guroadrunner 06:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to have jumped to editing it even though that isn't what I had requested.

As for the color and layout, I already modified the Sportscar template to be a white background, and moved the Series title into the top (replacing Sportscar Report) so that just the year remains in the middle. The359 06:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it for the F1 template. The bold action also has raised my eyebrows to the WP:SBS project due to its lack of introducing discussion with the WikiProjects affected (the change was the first I had heard of WP:SBS' existence). I have invited its members to discuss it here. I may also introduce a discussion with Wikipedia administration regarding the WP:SBS project. Guroadrunner 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to personally apologize for my edits that seem to have went astray here, there was no intention to damage any work. WP:SBS has been working for about 2 years now trying to standardize the looks of succession boxes across wikipedia and your template was actually looking pretty good and I just changed some of the settings to make them sync more and to fix a problem that The359 pointed out that the template in its current state gets very uneven when a long race title precedes or succeeds the race title. To fix that problem, I took the code from our project and edited it some to work with yours without really changing the intent or layout much. Using a new guideline created at our project, I added a header bar to the succession box to categorize it, and that seems to be the major form of discontent. I didn't mean to cause any problems, I just was trying to straighten the template up a bit. If you don't like the header, you may remove it (which I see you already have). I think placing some colored header at the top may disambiguate it a bit more than just listing the race title, but this is not my realm, I just came from an indirect request and wished to help out a bit.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Archie Scott(-)Brown

Should Archie Scott(-)Brown's name have a hyphen or not? Currently the article is named Archie Scott-Brown (i.e. with a hyphen) but within the article, his name is consistently written without a hyphen, and indeed the article contains an (unreferenced) statement that there should not be one. A discussion at AtlasF1's Nostalgia Forum claims there's no hyphen on his birth certificate and that Scott is in fact a third given name, but do we need better evidence than that? -- DH85868993 05:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The book about him uses no hyphen. Here's an image of the front cover - [4]. Readro 10:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that it should be without the hyphen. Perhaps we should request a page move so we can get opinions from those outside the "Motorsport editor's circle"? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 12:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I've already renamed (moved) the article and updated the links. Oh well, at least it's now consistent everywhere. DH85868993 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Test drivers

This has come up before and I figure it might help if there was a more clear-cut definition of what makes for a test driver for the teams.

Should drivers who participated in a testing session for the team be considered test drivers? I point to the example of Sebastien Bourdais, who has obviously tested out Toro Rosso's car on a few occassions. However, as far as I know, Bourdais is not actually employed by Toro Rosso as a test driver, he is merely participating by invitation.

So should he be listed as a test driver if he's not actually one of the team's test drivers? The359 18:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: This applies to some other test drivers as well. The359 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In one word: No! There is certainly no way that Bourdais should be considered a test driver, but you could say in his bio that he had tests with STR during '07. I think that there should be a very basic line drawn for this: As long as there is a reference, from a reliable source, that says that "x is a test driver at y". --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Murray Walker drove a McLaren once in the early 80s but I'm sure he'll agree he's no test driver! Readro 21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Many, many people test drive cars, not just racing professionals, but also celebrities and TV Presenters (e.g. Martin Brundle and Mark Blundell.) The only drivers who should be named test drivers are the ones who are kept on as permanent by the team. For example, Marco Andretti has done some tests for Honda, but Christian Klien, who has been the regular tester throughout the year so far was the one announced by the team as being THE test driver. Do you know what I'm getting at? Sounds confusing doesn't it, but do you get the picture? ;-) Lradrama 21:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my same type of thinking, Lradrama. Basically, if you're on the team payroll as a test driver, you should be listed. Just driving the car is not criteria. I believe this also means that Sébastien Buemi, who is replacing the injured Michael Ammermüller in GP2, is testing for Red Bull this week but is not actually a test driver and should be removed from the 2007 Formula One season. The359 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because he has not played a key role in the team's test / development programme this season and has only been drafted in as a replacement. Thus, he shouldn't be listed as Red Bull's test driver. Lradrama 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the views expressed above. Bourdais is not a test driver, but he has tested with a view to a seat next year. Buemi however, may well be replacing Ammermuller as Red Bull's test and reserve driver at GPs... he has done enough mileage for a superlicence. If he applies for one, it can only be to serve as first reserve for Red Bull. It's a "wait and see" thing though :) Bretonbanquet 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with qualifying section in 2007 season article

Several mistakes here. Just looking through reveals that often two drivers are holding the same spot. I suppose you haven't enough interested editors for these unglamourous sections. There are also anomalies between driver results and results in the season article pages. 194.150.177.9 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, that is a lot to look through to try and spot mistakes! Can you provide any examples from what you've seen? Lradrama 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If your referring to this table, then I think we should simply get rid of it. Like I said on the talk page, I don't think it brings any significance to the article and the only thing people care about qualifying is the guy who's on pole, which has been established twice in the article: On the calender table and on the Drivers' Championship tables. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, should we not have a table or a list that says who qualified on pole for what event? Lradrama 14:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean a table just for who was pole when then no. I believe This table does that job perfectly IMO. If that's not what you meant, sorry - I'm not really in a my usual "Phill mood" - whatever that is... --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

On seeing the table you have just shown me, I am wondering why the other table is in existence? The one you indicated does the job perfectly. Lradrama 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you actually agreed with me? Sorry, that hasn't happened in a while :-P. Anyway, I believe it doesn't serve much purpose and I do apologies to 4u1e for copying what he would say, but in 10 years time will anyone care where Nico Rosberg started on the grid for the 2007 British Grand Prix? (No offense to Nico of course!) Or to put it in a context for the present day, does anyone care where Eddie Irvine started the 1997 Spanish Grand Prix? (Once again, no offense to Eddie!) Anyway, let's wait and see what others have to think about this - We can't just go and delete a whole table off the 2007 season article without proper consensus from the rest of the community can we? ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the qualifying results belong in the race reports as opposed to the overall season article (perhaps with the exception of the Pole Position for each round. AlexJ 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The qualifying results table in the main season article doesn't really add anything to the article, I say get rid of it. Davnel03 08:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality in driver infobox

I've had a discussion with someone at Talk:Ralph Firman about the nationality of drivers as stated in the ex-F1 drivers infobox. He/she considers the term "nationality" to be misleading, even though I have explained that it refers to the racing licence as used while the driver in question was in F1. The editor then changed the infobox template to satisfy his/her problem with it, not to the infobox's benefit, in my opinion. Rather than get into a big argument with that editor, I brought it here for discussion. Bretonbanquet 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't change a infobox developed and maintained by a Wikiproject without discussing it with them first. Totally agree with your revert there Bretonbanquet. "Nationality of Formula 1 Racing Licence" is far too long and makes it look ridiculous. It's an FIA Superlicence for starters not a 'Formula 1 Racing Licence' and also in a infobox about a driver's Formula One career it seems pretty obvious it refers to their nationality as used in F1 racing. AlexJ 20:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was pretty obvious too, but I wondered if it was just me being too close to it. Firman's nationality is also clearly explained in the article text anyway. As for the infobox, I was originally going to leave it as changed by the editor I was in discussion with, but it got on my nerves so much I had to revert it :) I am sure that people here can do a better job of adjusting it if they feel there is a need. Bretonbanquet 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alain Prost

Formula One World Championship career
Nationality	French
Active years	1980–1991, 1993
Teams	McLaren, Renault, Ferrari, Williams
Entries	202 (199 starts)
Championships	4 (1985, 1986, 1989, 1993)
Wins	51
Podiums	106
Career points	768.5 (798.5)
Pole positions	33
Fastest laps	41
First entry	1980 Argentine Grand Prix
First win	1981 French Grand Prix
Last win	1993 German Grand Prix
Last entry	1993 Australian Grand Prix

I'm afraid to say I don't think it is all that obvious. I think when the casual observer sees the infobox at right, they interpret it as saying "Alain Prost is French", not "Alain Prost drove in Formula One using a French racing licence". I've thought for a while that it would be good if we could clarify the meaning of the "Nationality" field in the infobox, but I couldn't work out how to do it without making the infobox look ugly. Here are some options I considered; perhaps a modification of one of them might be suitable:

• add "(as specified on the racing licence)" (or something like that) in teeny-weeny text under the word "Nationality"
• add "(as specified on the racing licence)" as a footnote for the word "Nationality" - but then every page including the template would need to have a Footnotes/References section (note that most of them probably already do)
• Put an asterisk after the word "Nationality" and include " * as specified on the racing licence" in teeny weeny text as a note inside the infobox, at the bottom

Other points to note:

• Nationality used to be beneath the "Formula One World Championship Career" banner, but it was moved above the banner so that it could be used as a common attribute for drivers who had multiple motor-racing infoboxes, e.g. John Surtees. Perhaps that was a bad move; maybe we should move it back under the banner (although I don't think that would necessarily stop people misinterpreting it, if we don't add some kind of explanatory note).
• Drivers (like Ralph Firman) who have used multiple racing licences with different nationalities are going to be tricky no matter what we do.
• I support Bretonbanquet's action in reverting the change, pending discussion and agreement here.

DH85868993 11:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur with DH. Guroadrunner 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How about putting an invisible note in the template?--Diniz (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with this, but what would th3 hidden text say? Guroadrunner 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious for most people, that the "nationality" specified for any sportsman is the nationality for which he/she competed. This is not true just for motorsport, it's the same in many other sports too. Footballer Michael Owen lived in Wales as a boy but has always been playing for England in international tournaments, so he should be deemed as English. And what about someone with double citizenship, like Nico Rosberg, I think it is obviously better just to state that he is German in the infobox and go to a lengthier description in the artice text. I have another possible solution from the ones DH85868993 sketches above: make the word "nationality" a link and link it to an article about the FIA super licence. John Anderson 17:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We should just get rid of the "Nationality" bit, and have "Place of birth" instead. That removes all the ambiguity of it. Readro 20:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really solve the matter either though, because it's possible to be born in a country having never lived there, and having no citizenship and/or passport relating to that country and nothing to do with the country other than having been born there. AlexJ 21:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... Ian Ashley, Mike Beuttler, Lorenzo Bandini for example. I like John Anderson's idea about making "nationality" a link which leads to a superlicence article. Bretonbanquet 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I also like John Anderson's idea, although perhaps the target of the link should have a broader context, e.g. Racing licence, which means it could also be used for non-F1 and motorcycle racers. -- DH85868993 02:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the link, although I don't think it would completely solve the problem. Would changing the text to read 'Racing Nationality' not do the job? ('Competed for' would be another option). It would also defuse the arguments over politically charged nationalities. A very few drivers might then have more than one racing nationality (I've a vague recollection that Bertrand Gachot raced under two different flags in F1 (Luxembourg and Belgium?), and Firman raced under different flags at different levels.) In the very few cases where this is relevant it could be footnoted appropriately. 4u1e 09:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Another variation would be to replace the word "Nationality" with "Racing licence". DH85868993 13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gachot was the only driver in history to be given dispensation to run under the European flag due to his unusually multi-cultural background. Readro 11:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to say that I'm opposed to having the racing license nationality in the infobox. I think it should be the driver's actual nationality. For instance, in GP2 there is Andreas Zuber. He is Austrian, but races with a United Arab Emirates license purely because that is where he lives. It seems daft to me to describe him as Arabian but that is what would happen if the racing license nationality was used. I would rather have Zuber down as an Austrian as that is what he identifies as. Readro 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not entirely correct. The nationality that appears on your racing license is the same one that appears on your passport but not the same thing as the country of your racing license. If you are a Frenchman living in Germany, you can race with a German license, but the nationality displayed would still be French. In order to race as German, you would need to have German nationality as well. --Pc13 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're both right. The rules differ at different levels. In international competition a driver competes for the country which issues his racing license, which has nothing to do with his own nationality. However, for FIA world championships (including F1) it's the passport nationality of the driver that is used. The relevant regulation is at para 112 of the FIA International Sporting Regulations. In Zuber's case, GP2 doesn't seem to be an FIA championship (it doesn't appear on the list here), so I assume his license is issued by the UAE racing authority. 4u1e 09:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the nationality should be in the infobox, as the nationality competed for. The link should go to an article on racing licenses, as 4u1e suggested. If the driver have multiple citizenships, that could be mentioned in a footnote. As for myself, e.g., here on Wikipedia as in most other circumstanses, I see my self as an American, but I also have Swedish citizenship. John Andersson 10:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)¹

¹ John Anderson is also a Swedish citizen, but write on Wikipedia as an American.

Issues with section headings brought up on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

User:SandyGeorgia has brought up the fact that, per MoS on Headings, section names must not repeat, which in the Malaysian article, and I believe in most of the F1 article that have race reports have sections repeating. I tend to use:

• Report
  • Pre-race
  • Qualifying
  • Race
• Classification
  • Qualifying
  • Race
• Notes
• References
• External links

I've brought up the point that 1994 San Marino Grand Prix passed FA status despite sections repeating. Nethertheless, if she decides not to support the article, it could well be heading for a FA-fail. Is there any alternatives we could use? I'm struggling to think of ay at the moment.... (on a side note I've nominated 2007 French Grand Prix for FA status) Davnel03 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for this is incase of [[2007_Malaysian_Grand_Prix#Race]] style links. The Mediawiki engine can now handle sections with the same title providing that the capitalisation for both is exactly the same, in this case, the Table of Contents links correctly manages to link to 2007_Malaysian_Grand_Prix#Race for the first one and 2007_Malaysian_Grand_Prix#Race2 for the second. However manually linking to [[2007_Malaysian_Grand_Prix#Race]] will always go to the first reference section, which is why the MOS advises against it. Possible solution would be to swap Classification for Results and then change subheadings Qualifying > Qualifying Classification and Race > Race Classification. The terms Qualifying Classification and Race Classification are used by the FIA. AlexJ 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

F1 race report categories

We currently have two schemes for categorising F1 race reports. The Argentine, Australian, Austrian, Bahrain and Belgian F1 race reports are included in categories called "<country> Grand Prix race reports", which are subcategories of Category:Formula One race reports, e.g.

Category:Formula One race reports

Category:Australian Grand Prix race reports

1985 Australian Grand Prix

The race reports for all the other countries are included in categories called "<country> Grand Prix", which are subcategories of Category:Formula One race reports, e.g.

Category:Formula One race reports

Category:British Grand Prix

1985 British Grand Prix

Obviously, we should standardise on one scheme or the other. One point to note is that using either scheme, we will have subcategories of Category:Formula One race reports containing articles which are not Formula One race reports, e.g. Category:British Grand Prix contains Silverstone Circuit (which is not a Formula One race report) and Category:Belgian Grand Prix race reports contains 1931 Belgian Grand Prix (which is not a Formula One race report). Maybe we care about that; maybe not. If we do care, I think the only practical way to ensure that Category:Formula One race reports (and its descendents) contains only Formula One race reports would be to remove all the "xxx Grand Prix" and "xxx Grand Prix race reports" categories from Category:Formula One race reports and put all the F1 race reports directly into Category:Formula One race reports. (Another option would be to have separate subcats for F1 race reports and non-F1 race reports for each country, but that feels like overcategorisation).

Thoughts? (Apologies if I haven't explained this very clearly) DH85868993 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't have just one big category - that would be too difficult to navigate. The pre-F1 Grand Prix reports should stay because, in the example you use, the category is "Belgian Grand Prix race reports", of which the 1931 race is. Don't forget that categories can be subcategories of more than one category, for instance, "Belgian Grand Prix race reports" is a subcategory of "Formula One race reports" and "Grand Prix race reports". Readro 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure whether the fact that Category:Belgian Grand Prix race reports was a subcategory of Category:Formula One race reports implied that everything included in Category:Belgian Grand Prix race reports was a Formula One race report. If it's generally understood/accepted that the parent category only has to apply to some of the contents of the subcategory, then that's fine. DH85868993 23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should just be Category:Australian Grand Prix. Get rid of the race report part. Davnel03 14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the best thing is to keep "<country> Grand Prix" and change the other ones. The categories will contain mostly race reports but also everything else that has to do with the Grand Prix, like the name suggests. Right now, the "race report" bit is only confusing. Bobby Doorknobs 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved all the race reports out of the "race reports" categories into the "<country> Grand Prix" categories. DH85868993 04:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

<year> in <country>

BTW Some reports also have the category "<year> in <country>". Should they be there? Bobby Doorknobs 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think <year> in <country> should stay. DH85868993 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I just started an attempt to help out with the category adding & sorting, but I'm not entirely sure about the order.
<year> F1 race reports, <country> Grand Prix, and <year> in <country> -- right? Bobby Doorknobs 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Race report issues: consensus needed

Hello everyone. I have recently joined wpf1 and as you may have noticed, I've spent some time working on the 1999 race reports. There are still a lot of things that need standardizing, and before I start working on other seasons, there are some things I would like to point out/discuss here. Thanks! Bobby Doorknobs 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bug in race info box? I noticed that the "fastest lap" entry in the race info box is automatically completed with the total number of race laps, like this: "on lap 25 of 60". This works fine as long as the fastest driver has completed the full race distance, but in any other case the displayed number of laps is incorrect. Am I missing something here, or does this need an additional entry in the info box template?

Upon consideration, why do we need "of N" at all? The total number of laps is listed in the infobox anyway. I suggest we remove it, to avoid any potential confusion. DH85868993 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The "of xx" does seem a bit redundant with the race total already listed under distance. Removal to avoid confusion gets my support also. AlexJ 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with AlexJ the "of xx" part isn't really needed. Davnel03 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me; could someone fix this please? Bobby Doorknobs 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 06:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Text alignment in result tables. I don't know if this has been suggested before, but I think the result tables would look a lot cleaner if some of the columns would be aligned differently. The Time/Retired column in particular would read a lot better if it was aligned right, and using right or center on the other "number columns" (car no, laps, grid position) would also improve the overall look. I realize that adopting this would mean making a lot of changes, but as it is, the vast majority of race reports has hardly been touched and needs processing anyway. I've created some examples in my sandbox to give an idea of what it looks like. Comments anyone?

I actually prefer the current alignment. I don't really like centred columns where the contents go wide, narrow, wide, wide, narrow, such as in the "Grid" column. DH85868993 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Same as DH; the current alignment is OK as it is. Davnel03 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok well it was just an idea. We'll see how things develop in the future :) Bobby Doorknobs 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hour format in race time: in the example race report, the race time of the winner is displayed like this: 1:35:25.651. I think this: 1'35:25.651 reads better - not here, but it does in the tables - especially if the alignment isn't changed. Objections?

The Hour Format in race time came up at WP Motorsport a while back. Apparently the Manual of Style recommends using the colons as opposed to the apostrophe/quotes. AlexJ 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, here is the discussion. The consensus was to use colons throughout all the motorsport articles. DH85868993 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well at least that means I don't have to change everything :) Bobby Doorknobs 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• How to deal with disqualifications? There doesn't seem to be a real standard for this (?). The problem with "officially" listing disqualifications in the result tables is that blank cells should be used, and some information is lost because of this: laps, time/retired and grid position. I found that the 2004 Canadian Grand Prix has a nice solution for this by listing both the official and unofficial results, and I'm thinking of adopting this strategy (don't like the strike through text though). The only downside is that pages get filled with (too) many result tables, and that's why I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a [show/hide] function in the result tables. This would also make it easier to add more tables and merge them into the report, because they will no longer disrupt the layout of the article. I have no idea how to do this or if this is even possible, but hopefully someone else does :)

Anyone care to comment on this? Another question regarding dsq's: some comments on race report talkpages claim that disqualified drivers do not autmatically get moved to the bottom of the list, i.e. the classification is the same, but with DSQ as result and "Disqualified" as description. This sounds logical to me (see for example M.Schumacher in the 1997 Formula One season), but there are many variations in the race reports - a standard is required. Bobby Doorknobs 02:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference is to leave disaqualified drivers in their "correct place" in the table, along with details of laps completed, race time, etc and just change the contents of the "Pos" column to "DSQ". Then it's immediately obvious where they would have been classified if they hadn't been disqualified, and which drivers benefitted from the disqualification. I don't like the idea of having two separate results tables for each race which had a disqualification. I'm ambivalent about the show/hide for results tables, but it seems like a lot of work for probably not much gain. If we hide the results tables, many of our race reports won't currently have much to show! DH85868993 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - after some thought I agree that your 'treatment' of disqualified drivers is the best option, although it may not be clear enough for people who are unfamiliar with F1. Perhaps a background color would help (again like the 2004 Canadian Grand Prix), but we'll get to that later. For now I will revert some of my earlier edits and put the dsq's back into their 'correct' position. As for the [Show/Hide] function, that's not really useful right now and you make a good point about the stubs - hiding the results would make the article disappear :) Still, I don't think it's a bad idea. Personally I am in favor of putting the results in their corresponding sections instead of at the bottom of the article, i.e. qualifying results after the qualifying summary, etc. The only problem is that doing this breaks up the article unless you float the tables or use show/hide. I would like to experiment with this but I don't know how it works. Bobby Doorknobs 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Other

I've noticed you put a flag on the 1999 Hungarian Grand Prix race report. No offence, but we have never put flags there before. Davnel03 19:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know. The flags are just temporarily to make it look a bit better - I remove them again once a race info box has been added. Just being creative but I'll stop doing it if more people object. Bobby Doorknobs 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the flag up top, personally. Anyway, new topic: on the 1999 Hungarian Grand Prix page, the race results box conflicts with the side box on 800x600 screens like mine. How do we fix this? (I'm thinking "col-begin / col-1-of-3 / etc / col-end" code to force it to the left). Guroadrunner 10:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the wikitext you refer to, but the best way to fix this is adding a race report :) Some similar stub-articles appear strange because of the infobox on higher resoltions as well. It's a bit annoying but I don't know how to fix it. About the 'flags' - I like them too but it's silly to have two flags (once an infobox has been added) so they're gone now. As a 'solution', perhaps it would be nice to make the flag in the infobox appear a bit larger? Bobby Doorknobs 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Time for an archive?

I think it's time for an archive, this page is now incredibaly long and has been going since April. I would go and do it myself, but I don't know how to. Davnel03 12:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've archived all discussions which have been dormant since the end of June to Archive Page 10 (which is 199kb in size!). That includes a few discussions which hadn't reached a resolution - feel free to transfer back any discussions which you think should still be on this page. -- DH85868993 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this -- may we consider having a bot do the archiving work? Werdnabot does archiving for some WikiProjects (and user pages) Guroadrunner 10:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've archived it - a bot could be used if really wanted, but personally I prefer to have more control over such things. violet/riga (t) 10:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari Formula One car articles

Amedeofelix has expressed the opinion (on various talk pages) that some of the Ferrari Formula One car articles (specifically Ferrari 312B, Ferrari 312T, Ferrari 126 C and Ferrari 412T) are misleading, because they suggest that all the cars in each series are the same design, when they are not, and that the articles should be split (e.g. Ferrari 412T should be split into Ferrari 412T1 and Ferrari 412T2). (Amedeofelix, please advise if I have misrepresented your viewpoint). What do others think? DH85868993 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

One alternative to splitting the articles would be to add "series" to the end of the article name, e.g. rename Ferrari 312T as Ferrari 312T series (with appropriate updates to the article text). DH85868993 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You put accross exactly what I was getting at. Another alternative is to have the cars listed individually and correctly on the main page (in this case Scuderia Ferrari) e.g. 312B3-73 and 312B3-74 etc. (in exactly this way), but have them all link through to the same page which is titled in the manner suggested above using "series". --Amedeo Felix 15:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of project banner to article talk pages

Over the past couple of weeks, various members of the project have added the project banner to quite a few article talk pages. On the assumption that there are still some further articles which need to have the banner added, for future talk page updates, would it be a good idea to add the talkheader template at the same time? DH85868993 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I (among others) am working to put the project banner on all race report articles, and subsequently rate them. As an addition (or alternative) for the talkheader, you may want to take a look at the To-do list that some of us recently started using. Right now they have been added to the 1997 and 1999 season race reports, and I've also used them to get some 2000 race reports up to "Start-Class". Bobby Doorknobs 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

F1 disambiguation

An editor recently redirect 'F1' away from Formula One to the F1 (disambiguation) page, without discussion anywhere that I can see. I have reversed the change, but am bringing it up here in case I'm out of tune with the hive mind ;-). My reasoning is that on the 'google test', Formula One motor racing is overwhelmingly the most common usage of the term F1. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article."

I can see that a case might be made that other usages being jointly prime (F1 key for example), but the google test - which is outside the Formula One bubble that I probably live in - seems to disprove it.

I will contact the editor who made the change and ask them to discuss as well. Cheers. 4u1e 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of checking out links from within Wikipedia. So far I can report that the vast majority of wikilinks direct to 'F1' concern Formula One motor racing and not other meanings. I'll have a look at the stuff on the disambiguation page as well. 4u1e 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also looked at the number of pages linking to the other meanings of F1 on the disambiguation page. Formula One has upwards of 6000 pages linking to it. The next highest contender is Fujita scale, which has around 250 pages linking to it. The Fujita scale has six levels, of which F1 is only one, so it is likely many of those links do not specifically relate to the use of the term 'F1' either.

Sorry to have gone on at length, but I want to be sure that I wasn't taking a unduly narrow view of the use of 'F1'. However it seems clear that on the internet at large and within Wikipedia, massively the most common usage of 'F1' is to refer to the sport of Formula One motor racing, so by Wikipedia's own guidance 'F1' should link to the Formula One page. Cheers. 4u1e 15:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I Googled F1, and the first 5 pages of result contain 49 Formula One related links and one link for Bluetooth headset with the model number F1. It's by far the most common definition than any of the others so the auto redirect to Formula One with the disambig. link at the top seems to be the correct interpretation of policy. AlexJ 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i redid the change, i agree with F1 refering mostly to Formula 1, and i agree with the google results too; if we had just a few other F1 topics, then direct redirect to Formula 1 might be ok, we have Fujita, Help key, and many more. however, if that's the policy, you can change my changes back to the original!! Kmanoj 17:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at FM which I think a similar situation to F1. The most common usage of FM is to refer to Frequency Modulation in radio. However there are many other uses of FM (Ferrous metal, FM Towns computer, a domain name .fm, a book, several bands etc.) but because Freq. Mod. is by far the most common usage it auto redirects to that. In the case of Formula One we have something similar, perhaps even more so because F1 as in the computer key goes to the Function Keys article and F1 as in the Fujita scale goes to Fujita scale so the F1's in each case aren't notable enough to have their own topics. The relevant guideline is "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." - for me that describes F1/Formula One. AlexJ 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You had me at FM.

Scuderia Italia

During Scuderia Italia's time in F1, was the team only ever refered to as Scuderia Italia, or did the official entry lists and stuff list them as BMS Scuderia Italia, which appears to be their full name. I asking this because I am considering changing the title of the Scuderia Italia article to reflect the team's correct name as it stands at the moment at least. The359 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the season articles, the team seems to be entered most often as just Scuderia Italia. If those listings are correct, I think this name should be used. It is also the most commonly known name and I would imagine best reflects the team's identity. We could be very technical, though I believe the current format works best. Dale-DCX 06:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," which to me means the most common name which in this case is Scuderia Italia. AlexJ 10:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Which, by way of precedent, is the logic we used for Brabham. The normal name on the entry list was Motor Racing Developments, but that would be horribly confusing. 4u1e 17:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari templates

All the Ferrari F1 car articles now contain the (recently-created) "Scuderia Ferrari" template: {{Scuderia Ferrari}} and the older "Ferrari Formula 1 cars" template: {{Ferrari Formula 1 cars}} I think they probably don't need both. Which one should go? (Or could/should they be combined in some way?) DH85868993 12:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the latter should go. Perhaps the first should have the cars split up into decades? AlexJ 12:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The new one is more like other F1 boxes--— Typ932^{T | C}  12:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, when I said the latter I meant the 2nd one shown above which is the earlier one. To clarify, keep the one which looks like the current style (first one shown above). AlexJ 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ferrari cars one should go. Davnel03 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Any further views on this? If not, I'll remove the "timeline" template soon. DH85868993 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "timeline" template from the articles. DH85868993 10:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated {{Ferrari Formula 1 cars}} for deletion. Discussion here. DH85868993 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

McLaren's results in Hungary

The results tables in McLaren, McLaren Grand Prix results and McLaren MP4-22 currently show McLaren's results in Hungary as "EX". I think this is incorrect; I think the results tables should show the results as 1st and 4th, but with footnotes indicating that no constructor's points were awarded. What do others think? DH85868993 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; that's how I originally entered the results before they were changed.--Diniz (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The results table in the McLaren article now show the results as 4th and 1st, but McLaren Grand Prix results and McLaren MP4-22 still show "EX". chem_tom 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think consistency is required whichever way we decide to go. I think the positions should be given (after all the cars entered by the team did finish 1st and 4th, just the constructors points weren't awarded.) with the constructors championship footnote added. Of course the appeal could succeed and none of this will be needed. AlexJ 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the articles should all read that the cars finished in 1st and 4th. However, there should be note stating the car and the constructor (in their respected articles) scored no points. A note similar to the one on F1.com would be wise: Note - McLaren were not allowed to score constructors' points in the Hungarian Grand Prix as penalty for allowing Fernando Alonso to impede Lewis Hamilton during qualifying. After the appeal (if it does happen) we should adjust the results accordingly. Since the team was not excluded, they should not be listed as such. Dale-DCX 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated McLaren Grand Prix results and McLaren MP4-22 as per this discussion. DH85868993 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Question on Forti article

I just came across this article a short while ago. While the article looks nicely set out, I think there is one distinct problem with it. The table located here, wouldn't it be better if it was located near the bottom of the page. I think the table splits up the text and makes it harder to read. I think it would be better at the bottom of the page. What do other users think about this table located in it's current position? Davnel03 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I put the table there is so it keeps the F3000 involvement of the team in the same place, so if someone wants to cross-reference the text and the results, they won't have to jump between the top and bottom of the article. I appreciate that it breaks up the article text, but I believe it makes more sense for the results tables to correspond to their relevant section, rather than grouping them together in a big lump.--Diniz (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just came across this article a short while ago? You mean April? Anyway, I'm inclined to agree that the results should go at the bottom to avoid breaking up the prose. Be interesting to hear what others think. AlexJ 19:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the table should be moved so as to be consistent with other F1 articles. I can't find an example for a constructor (admittedly I haven't looked hard) but Juan Pablo Montoya and Jacques Villeneuve are examples. BeL1EveR 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I'll move the table as requested.--Diniz (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Toro Rosso's cars

I proposed this question a while back and I don't think I ever got a conclusive answer. The articles on Scuderia Toro Rosso's cars has them titled as Scuderia Toro Rosso STR1 and Scuderia Toro Rosso STR2. This has always bugged me because of the fact that the full team name is used. We have Ferrari F2007 and not Scuderia Ferrari F2007, Red Bull RB3 and not Red Bull Racing RB3. So why are these cars not Toro Rosso STR1 and Toro Rosso STR2?

I would prefer to see the articles titled "Toro Rosso STR1" and "Toro Rosso STR2", on the basis that we describe the cars as just "Toro Rosso-Ferraris" in the race reports. DH85868993 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm 50/50 with this one, but I think we should just leave it as it is now. Davnel03 07:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Super Aguri also had me thinking as I'm not sure if those should be shortened as well. However Super Aguri does seem to be the short name of the team, but a lot of people refer to them as just Aguri as well.

I prefer to see "Super Aguri" in full used everywhere. DH85868993 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see Super Aguri everywhere too. Davnel03 07:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Davnel and DH regarding Super Aguri -- in the States, we call it the Super Aguri team (or, colloquially, the Super Best Friends team). Guroadrunner 10:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? The359 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with shortening the Scuderia Toro Rosso articles to just Toro Rosso - as that is what they are more commonly referred to, but Super Aguri should say the same, definately. Lradrama 12:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lradrama - Toro Rosso. Super Aguri. Bretonbanquet 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Toro Rosso and Super Aguri seems right as Scuderia means team (not literally but in this usage) and we don't say Williams Team FW21. AlexJ 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Readro 15:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since most of the "regulars" seem to be in agreement, I'll make the change to the two Toro Rosso articles. DH85868993 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the articles. DH85868993 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Formula One Results

I'm adding the F1 results to the Zakspeed page but i'm finding conflicting results. On Jonathan Palmer's page, it says he RET from the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix and says he did not enter the last 5 1985 races (blank). But on the Zakspeed 841 chassis page, it says he DNS the 1985 San Marino GP and says he was INJ for the last 5 1985 races. Can Someone help? Eddie6705 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Palmer's page is slightly wrong. He DNS at San Marino 1985, after a misfire in warm-up. After the Dutch race he broke his leg at a sports car meeting, the same meeting at which Stefan Bellof was killed, I think. Zakspeed did not attend the Italian GP, and after that Danner drove for two races. Zakspeed did not go to South Africa or Australia. Bretonbanquet 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so i will put down that he was injured for the two races that the team turned up for and blank for the rest. Eddie6705 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds perfect :) Bretonbanquet 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Alonso-Hamilton spat

If this becomes an even bigger issue, might it be appropriate for the rivalry and falling out between Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton to warrant its own article, similar to 2007 Formula One espionage controversy?--Diniz (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there would be enough for a separate article, with all such details put in the 2007 season article. violet/riga (t) 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If Alonso or Hamilton leaves McLaren at the end of the season, we should create one. We could create one at the moment, but what would be a suitable title? Infact, I was thinking we merge the espionage controversy into a article called 2007 Formula One season controversies. There has been quite a few this season:

• Customer car row.
• Alonso/Hamilton.
• Espionage.

There might be one or two that I can't think of right now, what do you guyz think of that idea? Davnel03 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have an article, nor has it been suggested, for the Alain Prost/Ayrton Senna spat that occured during their time at McLaren and that if anything was worse than this (at least at present). AlexJ 17:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not nearly big enough for a separate article. Readro 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 Formula One season controversies is a possibility, but Senna-Prost doesn't have an individual article, which I think should set the precident. I'd also like to add that I'm opposed to any of the proposed articles in this section being created before the end of the season; we don't know the final outcome of the espionage, or a reliable account of the Alonso-Hamilton relationship behind closed doors and its repercussions for the future. BeL1EveR 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Alonso's role/perspective covered at his article, same for Hamilton. And McLaren perspective (and the 'equality' rule which is provoking the dispute) is covered at that article. Nowhere near complicated enough for its own article - in contrast to the highly complex espionage case. Mark83 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, McLaren issued a press release from Lewis Hamilton claiming that Hamilton and Alonso are back on speaking terms, have discussed things, and are even planning to spend the 3 week "holiday" together a bit. This makes it seem to me that this is hardly worthy of its own article, unless things escalate more in the weeks to come. The359 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, and if they make up again and go skipping into the sunset hand in hand after all and live happily ever after, then I think no such article need be created. If the situation between the two worsens, and especially if it results in vicious quarrells, or one of the pair leaving the team, then yes, an article should be created. Lradrama 10:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename for Category:Formula One tire manufacturers

Someone has suggested that Category:Formula One tire manufacturers be renamed as Category:Formula One tyre manufacturers (i.e. tire --> tyre) on the basis that "Formula One has always been far more weighted towards Europe and Great Britain than America, and [they] believe the American spelling is innappropriate given the context". What do people think? DH85868993 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. violet/riga (t) 07:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a need for this category? This could just as easily be Motorsports tire manufacturers, and the list would be nearly exactly the same with a few choice additions. The359 10:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A good point - it's a little misleading too considering that there is only one manufacturer now. Perhaps there could be an article about Tyres in Formula One, giving a history of the manufacturers and being linked to from their respective articles. There would be enough content for a separate article, detailing the different types of tyre, the sizes and compounds, delamination (if specific enough to F1), etc. violet/riga (t) 10:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would consider a category called tyres in F1 as leaning towards current day events, which would be pretty trivial because there's only one manufacturer now. (P.S. I would favour it as 'tyres' not 'tires'.) An article would be better, or perhaps a section of the same name in the Formula 1 article. Lradrama 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Davnel03 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started that article using content from Formula One car. violet/riga (t) 10:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a todo list on the talk page with ideas on how to expand the article. violet/riga (t) 11:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - renaming it is a very minor issue and violates the "spelling revert" rule Wikipedia has (i.e. don't edit things just because they are spelled differently). It's borderline "who cares?" in my humble opinion. However, I would say the category may be unnecessary to begin with and may be worth either

• A) renaming to Motorsports tire manufacturers or
• B) putting up for a CfD

Guroadrunner 10:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to go through CfD as it has been discussed here. I've deleted it because the consensus appears to be against it and agrees that it is misleading. violet/riga (t) 11:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think deleting the category was a bit hasty - I think the discussion above contains just as much support for renaming the category as it does for deleting it. Some further thoughts:

• Regarding the suggestion that the category was misleading, I would point out that (a) there was a clear statement at the top of the category that it included both current and former F1 tyre manufacturers statement at the top of the category that it consisted of manufacturers whose tires had been used in Formula One and (b) Category:Formula One constructors contains mostly former F1 constructors; Category:Formula One drivers contains mostly former F1 drivers; Category:Formula One circuits contains mostly former F1 circuits - well, you get the picture...
• I'm not super-keen on the "F1 tyres records" table being included in both List of Formula One records and Tyres in Formula One (as well as half of it being included in Bridgestone) - I think it's duplication of information and that there's a risk of the tables getting out of synch. If we really do want it in both places, perhaps we should include it in a template?
• Consider whether Tyres in Formula One should be renamed as Formula One tyres, for consistency with Formula One car and Formula One engines

And finally:

• If the category is to remain deleted, I suggest the associated talk page is also deleted.

Just my $0.02 - DH85868993 12:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Lewis Hamilton talkpage

There's a discussion going on on the talkpage of Hamilton's article, with an editor suggesting that the neutrality of some of the article is disputed. The discussion is here. Davnel03 13:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Portions of the lede are trying to create a storybook it looks like:

• When he was nine, he approached McLaren team owner Ron Dennis at an awards ceremony and told him he would drive for McLaren one day; four years later, Hamilton was signed to the McLaren driver development support programme. (non-sourced)

Guroadrunner 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also in the lede:

"Hamilton became European karting champion in 2000 with maximum points and made a successful transition to racing cars the following year."

Aren't karts a form of racecar?? Guroadrunner 10:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think many people make a distinction between karts and "proper racing cars" - consider Nick_Heidfeld#Career_history which is divided into 2 sections: "Karting" and "Formula". DH85868993 13:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Guroadrunner 07:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2011 Speculated Race Schedule

I 've just looked at the 2011 season page and there is now 24 speculated grands prix. How much evidence is needed before a grand prix can be added to the list? Eddie6705 11:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is getting a bit ridiculous. Currently none of the rounds are sourced - I suggest we have an extra column to differentiate between confirmed rounds (that is circuits which have already signed a contract that goes as far as 2011) and rumoured rounds. Each round must have a citation from a reliable source. Thoughts? AlexJ 11:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that 2011 is too far in the future to have a page. If there's any content worth saving it should be put in Future of Formula One. Readro 11:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good idea Alex J. I think that extra column should be added as it would make the list clearer. Eddie6705 12:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Having an article for a Formula One season four years in the future is taking things rather far. I agree with the idea that it should be placed in Future of Formula One. The article could be very misleading, with only speculation fuelling the content of the article as of yet. Lradrama 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fussed either way, but I suggest we do try and come up with an agreed time period for future seasons articles (2 seasons in advance perhaps) which barring exceptional circumstances and a discussion means we only have articles for 1/2/3/4 seasons in advance, creating a new one at the end/start of each season. Any stuff that's further ahead than this would go in the future of F1 article. Having an agreed guideline would make things easier IMO. AlexJ 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We had this discussion earlier. Anyway, I think the 2011 article should be deleted or merge. Davnel03 19:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree we should have future articles, like say, for 2008/09 but as I said before, 2011 might be overstepping-the-mark. Lradrama 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion didn't agree on what would be a reasonable period, only that 2011 is too far ahead. AlexJ 22:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

F1 driver birth and death date references

In the F1 driver articles, do we need/want references for dates of birth and death? If so, are we happy with oldracingcars.com Where Are They Now? as a reference? DH85868993 11:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In the words of WP:REF, we only need provide an inline citation for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I can't see that birth dates are in question for most drivers. They are supurious. As for the reliability of oldracingcars.com I would say that it is as good as the web gets. The site is updated frequently, and has had material contributed by some big names in motorsport journalism. Pyrope 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a claim of plagiarism on the AtlasF1 forum because some of the dates of birth and death, particularly for North American drivers, had never been published before and were obtained through hard research. These were then taken from the Where Are They Now site and published on Wikipedia without acknowledging where the information had come from. The situation seems to have died down a bit now, but out of courtesy, we really ought to acknowledge our souces. Readro 11:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I always find the ITV Sport Guide - Grand Prix (year) book useful for driver birth dates and other such details if you want to consider using non-internet refs. Don't know if any of you have read/purchased those guides but it's very useful. Just an idea. Lradrama 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For some obscure drivers the actual dates may be challenged. On that basis you should cite. However, you can't plagiarise a fact! They either were or were not born on the date claimed. If the information is now in the public arena, through AtlasF1, ORC or anywhere else, it is fair game. As an example, map makers have to introduce deliberate errors to their products so that they can be legally protected. By all means be polite and cite them as a general source, but they don't require inline citation. Pyrope 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an old saying better to be safe than sorry, in this case better to be safe by inserting the references or to be sorry by having somebody possibly removing them. Yeah, references do need to be added. Davnel03 13:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty low priority to get DOB referenced. Do it if you happen to be working on an article but I wouldn't say we need a drive to do it. I can't think of any challenges/disputes since the WP was set up three years ago. AlexJ 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

References & Footnotes

I was totally unaware of the clause about "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" in WP:REF. In hindsight, I've probably been adding lots of unnecessary inline refs to the race report articles for things like pole position times, lap on which fastest lap was set, etc. In future, when updating a race report, I'll just add a blanket ref to the sources used (e.g. the specific race report page at www.formula1.com, the relevant issue of AUTOCOURSE, the relevant volume of Lang's Grand Prix!, etc) in a "References" or "Sources" section at the bottom, and discuss any errors in or conflicts between the sources on the talk page, as Bobby Doorknobs has been doing for the 1999 race report articles, e.g. talk:1999 Australian Grand Prix. -- DH85868993 04:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point - I meant to bring this up earlier. There are race reports that have 50+ footnotes, and that's just not necessary when you look at the explanation in WP:REF. Al it does is make the articles harder to edit and verify. If you start off with a few references that cover most of the article and use footnotes for errors and exceptions, that should be enough and it keeps the articles accessible. About the listing of reference errors on the talk pages: this is always a good idea but I was under the impression that mentioning errors on the talkpage alone is not enough (because it's not part of the article), and you would still need some footnotes in the text. I haven't done this yet in the 99 season articles because I'm not sure if it's necessary; does anyone know if you could get away with 'talkpage only'? Bobby Doorknobs 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't. A reference can be more specified and discussed at the talk page, e.g. discussions about the accuracy of the source, but the real reference should always be noted in the article proper. John Andersson 10:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19

Per a discussion with 4u1e; we've agreed to put the article on peer review; feel free to comment on possible improvements that could be made here. Thanks. Davnel03 15:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Monaco GP Redirect

Currently Monaco GP is redirecting to Super Monaco GP, a video game. Compare this to most other Country GP which go to Country Grand Prix. Are we happy with this redirect, or should we discuss with the Video Games Wikiproject changing it to a disambiguation page containing Monaco Grand Prix, Monaco Grand Prix (video game) and Super Monaco GP (and it's sequel)? AlexJ 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the redirect pointing to a disambiguation page called Monaco Grand Prix (disambiguation) containing links as described above. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to create disambiguation pages for most of the Grands Prix, to address the issue discussed here. DH85868993 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, disambig. The359 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look and decided I don't like the current situation at all. I fully support the disambiguation page idea. Lradrama 12:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I don't think that altering a redirect page to point to a disambiguation page justifies faffing with another project. For now the page just links to the computer games, but we can alter that as needs be. Pyrope 13:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Pyrope. Does anyone have any objections to me creating similar disambiguation pages for other F1 Grands Prix where there are other reasonable claimants to the "<country> Grand Prix" title (typically a motorcycle or speedway Grand Prix)? DH85868993 04:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. There are plenty of other xxx Grand Prix claimants out there. Motocross, MotoGP, athletics, powerboats, and even squash all have a "British Grand Prix", for example. Pyrope 07:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created (and linked) disambiguation pages for all the F1 Grands Prix which have corresponding motorcycle and/or speedway GPs. DH85868993 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 British Grand Prix

Is currently on hold for GAC. The main author is currently AWOL. Is anyone interested in filling out the lead and the main body of the race? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: GA failed. Guroadrunner 11:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 French Grand Prix GA status

Hmm, finally had a read of this. Quite how it made GA status I'm not sure, it fails on quite a few criteria. It appears that it didn't go through any sort of review process beyond one single editor giving it a unilateral thumbs up. I was half in mind to nominate for delisting straight away, but I realise that it does reflect a large amount of work even as it stands, so I think it should be given time for improvements to bring it up to standard before that happens. It makes no sense to delist, alter, then relist. I have left quite a few comments on the talk page. Pyrope 09:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is how the GA process works, the system falls down if the editor that reviews it doesn't enforce the criteria strictly enough. It's recommended that the reviewing editor gives a review of how well it meets each criteria, but that is optional. AlexJ 09:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this obviously fails on points 1 (Well Written) and 3 (Broad), and is marginal on another couple. I realise that LordHarris probably had the best of intentions, but there is no evidence that he did anything more than equate length with quality. Pyrope 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I would have failed it on the above and also on MOS things like excessive Wikilinking of every instance of a drivers name and some other terms, also possibly on a dodgy fair use claim on an image that probably doesn't meet FU criteria. As you say, makes sense to give it some time to be fixed until going through the delist process. I suggest in future, people wishing to nominate an article for GA/FA should ask someone from this project for a second opinion before submitting it. AlexJ 09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous comment, I believe the problem here is this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force/GAC backlog elimination drive. I'll try to assume good faith, but the number of articles reviewed in that period, and also the fact that articles that were failed straight away didn't count towards individual totals may suggest that the review wasn't of the thoroughness that should be expected. AlexJ 09:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Some background: This was the article User:Davnel03 improved to show that he was worthy of being unbanned. He further nominated several other 2007 season articles for GA, including attempting FA for the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix. I wrote to him initially asking him how he could think these articles were in good enough condition to pass GA, let alone FA, especially without asking for anyone else's assistance. I later when to User:Spartaz, the admin who unblocked Davnel03, requesting that he have a discussion with him regarding his jump to making sweeping changes to articles only days after being unbanned.

Spartaz specifically told him not to further nominate articles for GA or FA without discussion on their talk pages. This was in early July. French GP passed GA, Malaysian GP failed FA. However, the French GP was nominated for FA in August. No mention was made on that talk page nor here on WP:F1. That article also failed FA. Another user who I believe is not a member of WP:F1 has nominated the Malaysian GP for FA, which is failing miserably. The359 09:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He did on the other hand ask me about nominating Brabham BT19 for FA, and we agreed to peer review it first. (By the way, I really am interested in others comments on that article! I hope by now people know that I usually respond positively to criticism (in the constructive sense!) ;-)) I agree that the current year race articles being nominated at the moment aren't our best work as a project. I also firmly believe you should get a wide variety of views on articles before each stage in their development towards FA - to which end I've recently peer reviewed articles as diverse as Alexander Graham Bell, Rattray Castle, Youngstown, Ohio and Thoughts on the Education of Daughters to elicit views on BT19 (Did I mention BT19?) from editors 'cold' to F1. I don't, however, believe that editors should have to ask for views from here before submitting articles for GA or FA. Of course it makes much more sense to do so (which is why I asked Davnel to raise BT19's peer review here), but there are editors who do good work, but who also very much plough their own furrow and I'm not sure they should be held up by WPF1. 4u1e 10:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not required that they talk to WP:F1 before nominating. Really, if you alone have worked on an article, then you can nominate yourself if you feel adequete. But if the work has been done by committee, then I think the committee should certainly be aware of it. And I tend to think a lot of the 2007 race results pages are actually done by committee.

Also, BT what? British Telecom belongs somewhere else... The359 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pah! You just haven't appreciated the beauty of the single seater as opposed to the sports car yet. :D 4u1e 12:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't necessarily that WP:F1 should be asked, just it seems common sense to ask someone to look over it (most obvious choice would be someone from the WPF1, but it could be another editor with nothing to do with the project or at Peer Review) before submitting it so any mistakes that might have been missed can be cleared up and feedback can be received and actioned before putting it up for good/featured status. It was intended as a suggestion, rather than a requirement. AlexJ 10:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that personal pride ought to mean that most people ask for opinions of others (those in the know and the disinterested) before seeing their beloved articles shot down in flames at FA nomination. And isn't BT19 somewhere near Belfast? ;-p (I'll take a look later, I promise...) Pyrope 10:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The one I'm thinking of was in Australia last time I looked. :) I would have thought personal pride would have had the effect you describe, but apparently not. The reaction of some editors to comments at review remind me of someone I knew at University. I forget the exact terminology now, but when the compiler threw up errors in her coding, she just deleted the offending line. Hey Presto, problem solved, although six other errors would promptly show up as a result......She tended to end up with code that was compact, but minimally functional. ;-) 4u1e 11:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It works the same way in academic publishing in general, trust me! Pyrope 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I probably should of come here first so I apologise. However, I worked mostly on that article (see this diff), and thought it could pass GA status. I wasn't expecting it to go through with blinding colours - I knew there were one or two minor problems. I was expecting for the reviewer to possibly put the article on hold and tell me some problems with the article. I wasn't going to complain when it passed GA. Same with Malaysian article, although I did mention it further up the page, I made most of the edits round the race weekend (you just need to look at the history to find it out), so I nominated it for GA a while back. It passed. I nominated it for FA - which is still going on now (discussion [5]). Oh, and Canada 2007 is up for FA, and it seems like the nominator has failed to mention it on this talkpage. Davnel03 12:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't really have anything to apologise for, if these is any fault it lies with Lord Harris for passing it for GA without checking that it met the criteria! Pyrope 12:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I can't see the point of delisting it now, like Pyrope said earlier, I think we should improve the article until it meets GA level. Davnel03 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Brabham results

Diniz has very kindly done a full table of results for Brabham, which exists as a separate page at Brabham Grand Prix results. I was just double checking the details when I ran into an issue - Jack Brabham competed for the Brabham Racing Organisation at the 1963 Monaco Grand Prix, but he was driving a Lotus that day. For consistency in having the complete results we can go one of two ways:

1. Give all results scored for the constructor Brabham. (Two problems: Firstly, the table will be big for the early years, because in the mid 1960s there were up to seven Brabham cars entered in each race, albeit by different teams, and the team doing the entry would have to be specified. Secondly, in some seasons more than one engine type was used, so Brabham appears several times in the constructors championship (i.e. Brabham-Repco, Brabham-Climax, Brabham-Ford, all for the same year) This option is probably quite a lot more work.
2. Give all results scored by the Brabham team (Two problems: Firstly that occasionally in 1962 and 1963 Jack Brabham was entered by BRO in various Lotuses, Secondly that in some years other teams using Brabhams scored constructors' championship points for Brabham. Both problems mean that the points 'scored' by the Brabham team do not equate to the points scored by Brabham the constructor. In reality it's only the constructor that counts, there is no 'teams' championship)

Anyone got a view on which is the best way to go? 4u1e 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Be as inclusive as possible. All entries of BRO as a team (including uses of a Lotus chassis) and all private entries, and explaining everything at the bottom of the table. --Pc13 21:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Do both, you mean? Now that really is a mammoth task! (and would be deserving of being a featured list or similar). 4u1e 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pc13. And likewise for McLaren, Lotus, Ferrari, March, etc. The trick is to come up with a format that's accurate and makes sense but is not too confusing for non-experts. I'd recommend identifying non-works entries by putting the driver's name in italics. An alternative would be to add an "Entrant" column, but that would add extra width to the table, which is generally discouraged (I guess it depends how important we think the names of the non-works entrants are). Regarding the BRO Lotus, I'd suggest giving it a separate line within the 1963 section of the table, so it can visibly excluded from the totals shown in the Points and WCC columns (although it's a bit moot, since Jack didn't score any points with the car). Regarding the different engines, we could either just list all the engines in the same cell (as currently done for 1966) and just have multiple values in the same cell in the Points and WCC columns (with an explanatory note) or we could subdivide each year section into a row for each engine supplier (which would sometimes result in the same driver being listed multiple times in the same year). DH85868993 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on something in my sandbox - here. Only got as far as 1965 tonight. Readro 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that it would be best to include all team and chassis results. Of the current existing tables, this would also affect WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results, as several ex-Williams chassis were used by RAM. Perhaps an option would be to put the Brabham team results in one table, including non-Brabham chassis, and private entries using Brabham chassis in another, similar to how championship and non-championship results are separated in Fittipaldi?--Diniz (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a second table to Brabham Grand Prix results detailing all the non-works Brabham results in the World Championship. One thing I'm not quite clear on - was Rolf Stommelen's Auto Motor und Sport entry in 1970 run by the works team? Readro 20:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)