Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Points Table

I reckon its a good idea to have the points table on each race to show the standings at that point in season. MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That is quite a good idea, MotorSportMCMXC. I would be happy to help out with doing this. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion for the table to look like this (example for after 2008 Australian Grand Prix:

Pos No. Driver Constructor Points
1 22 United Kingdom Lewis Hamilton McLaren–Mercedes 10
2 3 Germany Nick Heidfeld BMW Sauber 8
3 7 Germany Nico Rosberg Williams–Toyota 6
4 5 Spain Fernando Alonso Renault 5
5 23 Finland Heikki Kovalainen McLaren–Mercedes 4
6 8 Japan Kazuki Nakajima Williams–Toyota 3
7 14 France Sébastien Bourdais Toro Rosso–Ferrari 2
8 1 Finland Kimi Räikkönen Ferrari 1

The table won't contain drivers who haven't yet finished a race, thus haven't actually scored a finish in the world championship.

What do you guys think? Cadan ap Tomos 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We've got a similar table already in existance - at the moment, it's only in one article, see what it looks like in the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article here. D.M.N. (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that if we decide to have a table showing the standings after each race, it really ought to be limited to the top five drivers / constructors, otherwise by the end of each season, the table will get too big. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should have more information than just the 5 top, maybe the top 10, because it's all important. The constructors results table will be the same, just minus the no and driver columns. In my table, also, the two important columns (position and points) are shaded and bold, which they aren't in that one. I think mine looks better, but that may not be a neutral point of view. Cadan ap Tomos 13:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's necessary at all - didn't we recently come down fairly hard on someone else for doing this? In any case, the column for driver number isn't necessary, nor are YET more flags, and nor is the full chassis/engine configuration - it will have already been mentioned several times in the article. A simple "1. Hamilton - McLaren - 10" would do, like this:
Pos Driver Constructor Points
1 Lewis Hamilton McLaren 10

Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But I' for one, have been told off many times for not putting the correct thing under constructor. The team is McLaren, the Constructor is McLaren Mercedes. Maybe the car no is not needed, but the flags should stay. It is useful information, and it brightens up the table, if anything. No one wants a boring encyclopedia... Cadan ap Tomos 14:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too sure myself, but when I did insert the table into the 1995 Japan article, there wasn't any opposition as the table is much better than the IP version. I'm also not really wanting to remove it considering it's now a Featured Article. D.M.N. (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why there is opposition, it is clearly useful information, so why not include it? the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix has become FA with it in. so there is clearly nothing wrong with it, it is extra information which should be in there. Cadan ap Tomos 14:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But why do we need to repeat the same information several times in an article? It becomes ridiculous. If we can't just put "McLaren" then the constructor should be omitted from the drivers' table altogether, since it isn't actually relevant to the drivers' table anyway, and information is already shown many times in the same article. The flags should definitely NOT stay, the manual of style specifically states that flags are not to be used for decoration - we are not in the business of making anything look pretty - and repeated use of them to show the same information in the same article risks failing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags). Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm (again) not sure myself. The flags issue wasn't brought up once during the FAC by anyone - if there was a gross violation it would of been brought up. I personally don't see any problem with it. Can we wait for more comments before the discussion blows out of proportion. D.M.N. (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The constructor column is important, and should stay. But it needs to be correct, and we can't just ommit correctness just because the information is already there in the article. I don't know how many times I have seen Lewis Hamilton and McLaren together in the 2008 season article, and no one has kicked up a fuss about that. If you feel so strongly about the flags, then they can go, but I still think it is information which is needed. Cadan ap Tomos 14:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is the constructor column important in this table? It should be just a basic run-down of the top few drivers with their points totals. Information repetition makes an article overloaded, in my opinion. The 2008 article is a different matter, we are talking about every single race article since 1950, and for my money, 99% of people aren't going to touch any race article prior to about 2006, as usual. So we end up with inconsistency. I know inconsistency is not a reason to leave out information from articles on recent races, but that information should be concise and uncluttered with stuff we've already said many times before in the same article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the constructors column isnt as important. But if we were to include it, we will have to make it correct, and not just "McLaren", but "McLaren-Mercedes".
I think we need to reach a consensus. I propose that we do include tables in all race report articles, similar to the first one above, minus car number and constructor columns for the driver, and a Position-Constructor-Points layout for the constructor table. Agree or disagree. Cadan ap Tomos 17:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a transition. About 99% of race reports contain a Results table - nothing else. The other 1% are articles which have either a full race report, or contain some details. It's not something that happens overnight (WP:DEADLINE). If people want to include it, they can. If they don't, they don't. I still personally think the way it's laid out in 1995 Japan is the best way. The table was actually suggested by someone here (see Peanut4's comments for the race section). D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of this was to get a group of people who are willing to implement these into the articles. The whole point of the Wikiproject is to reach consensus and apply consistancy. I think the way that it is laid out in Japan is good, but we should include the top 10, not just the top 5. Cadan ap Tomos 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, applying consistency takes a very long time, and everyone has their own idea about which parts of articles are most important. Some articles still don't have the new driver results tables, but I don't see people rushing to complete those. Hundreds of race articles don't have infoboxes... these things have a consensus but there's still a lot of work to be done, and frankly, there are a few things a lot more important than this. And why does this table need the top 10? This season, for example, the lower half of the top 10 is irrelevant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the constructor column shouldbe removed if we go with it. The main issue will be getting cites for it. We can't go through and add them up ourselves, can we? That would be OR, no? Narson (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite willing to do that. And it won't need to be cited, as all the information will be inside Wikipedia, coming from the results tables from their respective season's articles. Are we going for it, or not? Cadan ap Tomos 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Just because I realise I fogot my reasoning, no need for constructors on the drives because it is the drivers championship. It doesn't matter if they are driving a Ferrari or riding a small goat around the track while yelling 'I LOVE HANNIBAL SMITH!'.
The issue on the information inside wikipedia Cdh, is that wikipedia is not a source. I mean, if we just add it all up, doing our own research, how do we know if there was a points deduction or such? THe annuals might be a good source for this. Narson (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts (for what they're worth): I'm neither passionately in favour of, nor opposed to the inclusion of the tables. But if we do have them:

  • top 5 is plenty
  • car number is not needed (and meaningless before 1974)
  • they shouldn't have flags, for the reasons expressed above by Bretonbanquet (and also to avoid the likelihood of Scottish/British and Irish/British flag edit wars - trust me, it will happen)
  • they shouldn't list constructor in the drivers table, for the reasons expressed above by Bretonbanquet and Narson. Also note that the drivers tables at www.formula1.com and www.chicanef1.com don't list constructors.
  • providing sources would be good, to avoid possible accusations of WP:OR (if chosen carefully, they could also serve as sources for the results table and race summary, which many race report articles are currently lacking)

DH85868993 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So, providing we keep to the sugestions of DH85868993 above, are we going do do it? Cadan ap Tomos 19:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
If we must. But without the flags as DH says, and with good sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Forti GAN

I am thinking of nominating the Forti article for Good Article status. Does anyone have any objections, or suggestions for improvement that should take place before I do so?--Diniz(talk) 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I notice, and I may be in error, but are Wikilinks allowed in section titles? (The 1995 season, The 1996 season) The359 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well noticed - I don't think they are, so I have transferred them into the main body of the text.--Diniz(talk) 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) instructs us not to "link items in the title or headers". Thanks!--Diniz(talk) 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Diniz, how many Autocourses do you actually have? :-P But seriously, this is a good article and hope it gets to GA status as a token of the commendable work you've done on it. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 20:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got 25 in all, from 1982 to 2007. ;) Anyway, I've nominated Forti, so hopefully it should be reviewed before I go back to university!--Diniz(talk) 15:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
25 years of annuals? Impressive and authoritative collection, that! :-0 . Give the Forti GA run a go, I think it has the sourcing in numbers. Might run into trouble for using F1rejects heavily as a source, and might run into trouble for some spots that are open, like the lack of F3 statistics from 1984. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Diniz, I gave this a read-through, and my comments would be:
* Great prose, and the article tells a story for the F1 readership while being well-sourced. Some sweeping statements might be asked to be tidied up or further sourced, especially how Pedro Diniz' leaving the team was the bellwether for Forti's downfall. The article also gives background for non-F1 fans, but still reads a bit "in-universe" within motorsport. However, that might not be problematic.
* However, the sourcing might get some flack from people if they use the FA criteria of WP:RS, from seeing DMN's efforts to get the 95 JPN GP article through. Not sure if FA criteria applies to GA standard evaluations.
* Also, some of the pictures might get trouble from people who believe fair use does not apply to the image of a racing car. The F3000 car image might fare better in arguing that photos of it are rare compared to the Forti F1 pictures. Also, photo sourcing is not quite right since the images came from F1 Rejects but that site in turn got the images from elsewhere. Prepare your arguments now in case you get an editor like this.
* Point of question: Was Marlboro truly a personal sponsor of Diniz, as indicated by the article? (I suppose we might not have the ability to track it as easily since when Diniz moved to Ligier, Marlboro was supplanted by Gitanes).
Overall, best of luck! Guroadrunner (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I was preparing a longer response but I lost it when I inadvertently closed the internet window. I will bear these points in mind for when the article is reviewed. In answer to your question about Diniz's Marlboro sponsorship, none of the sources used actually references this fully, so I have found a source which describes the Diniz family's method of obtaining sponsorship and will reword tha article accordingly.--Diniz(talk) 17:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Forti is now listed as a Good Article - many thanks to all those who have helped me with it!--Diniz(talk) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


The Dirty 13

Irreverent George Carlin reference?

I've made a crosslist of articles by class that hold Top Importance within WPF1 -- the list is here.

Happily, while none of the articles are at Stub class, 13 of the 44 are at the lowly Start class(!). Anyone want to take them on?

The "Dirty 13" are:

Surely we have the resources to bring these up to C-class, right? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why the Ferrari 158 is rated as Top Importance? Because it won a championship? The359 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Juan Manuel Fangio is the current improvement drive. Maybe we concentrate on this more? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done some work on Jack Brabham recently - it can probably be bumped up from start, if anyone would care to review it? Wouldn't be quite right for me to do it myself! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a go at Piquet, not in a fighting sense of course! I'll read through Brabham's article if you like, 4u1e. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If you'd care to review it, that would be very helpful, thanks Phill. 4u1e (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In the middle of my assessment of unknown-importance F1 articles, i found that the Lotus 25 was there, and assessed it as Top importance. Trouble is, it is also stub class. It may need re-assessing on quality, but even then, it will only go up to start. Anyone want to take this one on? Cadan ap Tomos 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Haas Lola

I was surprised to find that all of the information regarding the two years of the Haas Lola squad is only contained on the Lola Racing Cars article. Shouldn't they have their own seperate entry, just like Mastercard Lola? From my understanding, Lola didn't control the team, they were simply involved their through association to Carl Haas (as he was their American importer). And from what I'm seeing, they really should be known as Team Haas as that is what their were named in 1985 and 1986. So why is this team's history only on the Lola article? The359 (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the reason the information is currently only in the Lola Racing Cars article is that nobody has yet been sufficiently enthused to expand the existing content - it's been listed on the task template for over a year and half. By all means feel free to create a separate article if you have extra information to add, i.e. I wouldn't recommend creating a separate article if all it's going to contain is the single paragraph which is currently in Lola Racing Cars. As to what the article should be called - that's a tricky one - the team was referred to by a variety of names throughout its time: "Team Haas", "Team Haas/Lola", "Beatrice/Haas Lola" to name a few. Perhaps the easiest solution would be to use the existing Haas Lola article, since several articles already link to there. DH85868993 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Article created, as an early draft, hopefully this will suffice for now. Links have also been redirected to go to Haas Lola when necessary. The359 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Force India VJM01

I think it is about time we split this from the article of the Spyker F8-VII. It is a car in its own right. I have put a tag on the section but no one has commented on it on the talk page (shows how interested we all are in Spyker/Force India!). What do you guys think? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As four lines have been written about it in the ForceIndia guise, I don't see any point whatsoever in the split. It's still effectively a rebadged version of the F8-VII. AlexJ (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, just because there are only four lines now, doesnt mean it has to stay that way. The Super Aguri cars were effectively rebadged Honda cars, but we still have seperate articles for them. Why not this one? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The Super Aguri's were developed and changed enough to avoid getting in trouble (And in the SA07's case, redesigned enough to make the car fail a crash test) so that might be why they get heir own article. There was also controversy about the cars due to them being 'customer' according to some, meaning that there is more text there and a bit more claim to being 'unique'. Narson (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix winners

I put comment on talk of that page long time ago, but as there is first and last win listed like this:

Pos Country Driver Race Wins Active First Win Last Win
1 Germany Michael Schumacher 91 wins 1991-2006 1992 Belgian Grand Prix 2006 Chinese Grand Prix
2 France Alain Prost 51 wins 1980-1991, 1993 1981 French Grand Prix 1993 German Grand Prix
...
69 France Jean Alesi 1 win 1989-2001 1995 Canadian Grand Prix -
Italy Giancarlo Baghetti 1 win 1961-1967 1961 French Grand Prix -

Would it be better like this for one-time winners?

Pos Country Driver Race Wins Active First Win Last Win
1 Germany Michael Schumacher 91 wins 1991-2006 1992 Belgian Grand Prix 2006 Chinese Grand Prix
2 France Alain Prost 51 wins 1980-1991, 1993 1981 French Grand Prix 1993 German Grand Prix
...
69 France Jean Alesi 1 win 1989-2001 1995 Canadian Grand Prix
Italy Giancarlo Baghetti 1 win 1961-1967 1961 French Grand Prix

BleuDXXXIV (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur with D.M.N. Drivers who get a second win, say if Kovalainen does so, can have their stats re-formatted to reflect a true first/last win -- Guroadrunner (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Done! Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I'm trying to improve the Future of Formula One article, particularly the Contracted races section. Does anyone know when the contracts for these Grands Prix terminate:

  • Malaysian
  • Monaco
  • German
  • Japanese
  • Chinese
  • Brazilian

All of these contracts go to at least 2011, but I need to know if they go further than this. Please add the year with a reliable source, and put a strikethrough on the list above one you have done so. Thanks, Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd concentrate on sourcing the rest of the article before adding new stuff ATM. That article is somewhat the pariah of the project, due to the crystal ball and OR risks. Narson (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am going to revamp the article as a whole, but I thought I may as well finish this bit as it is half-finished. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition to infobox for 2008 race reports

A user has been adding the air and track temperature to infoboxes, see for instance here. I'm not going to revert as the edits are done in good-faith, but at the same time, I really don't think this is needed in the infobox, or for that matter anywhere in the article. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed and secondly, it's not referenced. How is knowing the ambient and track temperatures going to add to the understanding of the race? Readro (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, stating the weather conditions is sufficient to provide the reader with an idea of the conditions the race was held under. AlexJ (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not add even more information? It helps readers understand the conditions for tyres, drivers. As I stated before all of the information is from f1.com live timing, the little graph thingy. Poul818 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not your daily motor sport news site dedicated to fans. Adding more information would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. D.M.N. (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Just to confirm, the flag used for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is the Abu Dhabi (Emirate of Abu Dhabi) one and not the UAE (United Arab Emirates) one? I think this has been discussed somewhere before, and some IP has been going round changeing it to the UAE one. Thanks Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are we using the Abu Dhabi flag, incidentally? Is it what the FIA use? Abu Dhabi isn't a country. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Neither is Europe. This has been discussed somewhere, but I cant remember which page. Someone help! Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a (very) brief discussion here, but I suppose we'll have to wait until the formula1.com website updates its graphics for 2009 for an "official" confirmation.--Diniz(talk) 21:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Europe is different because it's supranational rather than subnational. I wonder if the FIA are really interested in stirring up separatist feeling, not so much in the UAE, but certainly in Spain if they decided to have a Catalan Grand Prix, for example. Too political. We use the Italian flag for the Pescara GP, so there is an inconsistency here. Somebody said somewhere that it may be called the Abu Dhabi GP to leave a place open for a Dubai GP if Bernie felt like having one, but I agree with Diniz that we should reserve judgement until next year when we see just which flag the FIA want to use. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Another anomoly is the "Pacific GP", which doesn't use the Japanese flag. The359 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, like the European GP it's above the national level politically rather than below it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
But why are we using the Italian Flag for the Pescara Grand Prix? Thats the same as using the Italian flag for the San Marino Grand Prix. It's called the Pescara GP, so we should use the Abruzzo flag, within that region is the province of Pescara (Abruzzo). Same with the Indy 500 (Indiana, Indiana) and Las Vegas GP (Nevada, Nevada). Tell me what you guys think Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. San Marino is a separate country, not a part of Italy, while Abruzzo is a simply a region of Italy. I seriously suggest that going below national level with flags is daft as they lose their identification purpose and become mere decoration. Pyrope 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

<de-indent>Do we need the flag there? Seriously? Do people not know that Abu Dhabi is in Abu Dhabi? This seems a bit like putting a British flag next to 'Silverstone, UK'. Yes, the UK is in the UK. We don't need to use a flag to state this. Narson (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag protocal on Wikipedia doesn't suggest using regional flags alongside national flags, because regional flags are even less likely to be recognized than national flags. So no Nevada, Indiana, or Abruzzo flags because most wont know what they are. The359 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the flag to the one of the UAE now, since that seems to be the general meaning in this discussion. Corresponding changes should be made in other places where necessary. John Anderson (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

List of rain affected Formula One Grands Prix

This article/list was created a few months ago. I'm starting to think that it should be AFD'd, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as we get wet races every year. The same could be said for List of red-flagged Formula One races as its quite a common occurance (sp?). Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And for the rain-affected ones, how do you reference it? Is there an official source? 4u1e (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Red flag I think is /somewhat/ interesting in and outside of the sport. Whether or not it rained I don't think is interesting outside of the sport and is far too common an occurance. Narson (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
"Rain affected" is an arbitrary designation with no clear definition. It should go. The359 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd go along with the delete rain/keep redflag option. AlexJ (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've AFD'd the rain article. D.M.N. (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. D.M.N. (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It's back. DH85868993 (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It has been tagged for speedy deletion. Hopefully should be gone soon. Cadan ap Tomos 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Correction, it has gone! Cadan ap Tomos 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One more FA

Just letting you guys know, that after working on it since March, the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article has become a Featured Article. Thanks to all of those that helped it reach that status! D.M.N. (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I know you've put in a lot of work on it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

I am currently going through all the unassessed importance articles and assessing them. I have done the ones that are unassessed in both areas (only 4 there), and I am now tackling the stub-class ones (around 500...). Will keep you updated. Cadan ap Tomos 13:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Arai (company)

It says on this article that the company makes motorcycle helmets, yet there is a WPF1 template on the talk page. Shall I remove? Cadan ap Tomos 18:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because they make helmets of all types, including those for use in FIA series such as F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, would someone be interested in expanding this article to say so, because at the moment it does not say anything of the sort. Cadan ap Tomos 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Hopefully someone can expand on the subject more than my very short statement. John Anderson (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hewland

It says in the article that it makes gearboxes for the junior formulae, and nothing about formula one. Yet it has a WPF1 template on the talk page. Shall I remove and put under motorsport? Cadan ap Tomos 11:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is, be bold - same goes for the topic directly above. This project isn't hugely active so leaving a dozen topics in the space of 24 hours isn't going to get many comments. D.M.N. (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't remove the WPF1 template - Hewland supplied many gearboxes for F1 teams before they started making their own. For example, in 1986 AGS, Arrows, Brabham, Ligier, Lola, Osella, Tyrrell and Zakspeed all used some form of Hewland gearbox at some stage.--Diniz(talk) 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Add both templates to it. Chubbennaitor 15:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, as above, would someone like to put this in?
I've put it back in as a template on the talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hey, we have been put in the acknowledgments of a book- 'The Formula One Miscellany'; written by John White. It states

This a joyous occasion because he is one of the first people who have not been negative about us and has used us for a book. It means you, I wasn't here when the encyclopedia was used by him, have done a good job so well done. Chubbennaitor 07:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, pretty much every review I've seen of that book slates it as being factually inaccurate. AlexJ (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur, doesn't really shine off well on us, does it? Although the book I want us to be credited in is in this book. And to be honest, that is a likely as Damon being the Stig, isn't it 4? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Makes me wonder whether his prime source for the book was Wikipedia, or whether he actually used outside sources... D.M.N. (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just us but we were in the acknowledgements so can we all stop being so negative. If your negative then n wonder everyone else who is our criticizer will be negative. Plus I don't see what AlexJ is on about. The facts are correct because they are simple and don't really need much backing up. I don't see the inaccurate facts yet but if I do then I shall become a negative person and that's not a very nice position to be in. Chubbennaitor 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One review mentioned that the book stated Red Bull Racing made their début at Bahrain 2006. In actual fact, Toro Rosso made their début there, whilst RBR's first race was Australia 2005. If you have a copy of the book, check it out (providing of course you can take being a negative person!?!). AlexJ (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I have no problem with being negative! lol It's possibly the vast quantioty of copy-paste copyvio I have been turning up in the last few days... Pyrope 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It says that Indy is in the city of Indianapolis, whereas it is actually in the town of Speedway, Indiana. Readro (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that may be a bit harsh for a general ineterst book, especially as our own page here states that Speedway "is a complete enclave of Indianapolis." That's like claiming that Chelsea isn't in London, or that Brooklyn isn't part of New York. Pyrope 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Possibly... Readro (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless, and this may be the cynic in me, that acknowledgment was ironic. I hope not, but if the book has a bad reputation then we don't really want to be associated with it. Pyrope 15:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. D.M.N. (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the ones mentioned I know are wrong but I make that mistake but some of them need to be re-read and taken the way they are meant to be. I do have a copy. Anyway the majority of the book is correct and I'm sorry if you all look at the bad things then you are all part of the media seeing as that's all they do. Look at the bright side please everyone one we have been officially acknowledged which is rare and it shows someone believes we are here for good reasons and don't think we're are unreliable and that nothing we write is the truth because that is what people hear about WP and don't realize that that's obviously a mistake and misunderstanding by the editor. So all you cynical people here at WP please just shut up and look at the good things in life and around you. I'm cynical but I shut up when I think it's not need be to speak. I posted that to up the ante of moral not to have lots of negative replies. Why does everyone I know here not see the good things in everything and everyone. Chubbennaitor 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy, moonbeam. Don't take it too seriously ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry bad day and people being cynical doesn't help anyone. Chubbennaitor 08:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had the opportunity to peruse the book today. The "Acknowledgments" section conists of the paragraph quoted above, which does not seem to be sarcastic, and similar tribute to two F1 stats websites (but nothing else). There is also a "References" page after the main part of the book, which consists of a list of about fifteen websites (including our Juan Manuel Fangio and Nigel Mansell articles), and three(!) books, all of which are general F1 publications, including two ITV Sport titles which are two versions of the same book. Give my Alan Henry's Grand Prix Companion any day!--Diniz(talk) 13:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if I would write a book, I would never aknowledge Wikipedia as a primary source for anything. This because Wikipedia is changing so often and have so many participating writers and also of course because of Wikipedia's regulated lack of original research. However, I would probaly aknowledge it for being a good reference work when it comes to doublecheck facts and to identify ongoing academic debates on different subject matters. John Anderson (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

Following on from my comment above... if a new page turns up that has been written by someone you don't recognize please do check it for copyvio content. There have been at least three new editors recetly (both here and at out sister projects) that have simply been filleting a sentence or fifteen from another source, changing a word or two, and then posting it as their own work. Not on. If we want to maintain a good reputation we simply can't leave ourselves open to charges of ripping off other authors. Pyrope 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: If a user repeatly writes copy-vio, it might be worth taking it to ANI. I noticed you're comment at WP:SC and also the removal of material at BAR 006, but if you don't mind me asking, where's the third copy-vio. D.M.N. (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they are doing it intentionally, more in the vein of what you were like when you were a newbie! ;-) Just assume that it's ok because nobody has told them otherwise. The other copyvio was in WikiProject Mining and was eventully dealt with by one of my geological colleagues. Pyrope 16:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I could see that getting brought up! =D I've notified the user about the copyrighted material over at BAR 006. D.M.N. (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for copyrighted images as well, and not just blatant violations: I just found this image, which would have passed inspection on the commons because the Flickrstream is incorrectly licensed.--Diniz(talk) 16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed quite a few problems with photos coming in from Flickr, or at least photos I've found in Creative Commons searches which someone might upload in the future. One in particular I recall is another Michael Schumacher fans who have uploaded publicity photos to Flickr, but licensed them under CC.
If a photo looks professionally done, take a minute to check the user's other photos. Sometimes it can be blatantly obvious that they're just collecting other people's pictures. The359 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Although, obviously alarm bells should be ringing when there isn't any camera metadata on recent photos, imo. ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 20:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of copyvio, I'm a little concerned about the season summaries recently added to the 1970-1980 season articles, e.g. [1], [2], [3] - especially the way they start with a "headline" in all capitals. Assuming good faith, I left a message on the talk page of the editor who added them asking if they were original creations, or whether they were copied from somewhere, but so far (over 1 week) there's been no response. I couldn't identify anywhere online that they had been copied from, but they could always have copied from a book or magazine. Does the text look familiar to anyone? DH85868993 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, copyvio the lot of them. Direct cut-and-paste from the promotional blurb for Duke Video's The Grand Prix Collection season summary films. Pyrope 03:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
My inital thought was that it was a copy-vio of GrandPrix.com, based on the fact that the header was in capitals, but having checked, it appears it isn't. Talking of copy-vio's, I've noticed this flutter around for quite a while, which looks for the most part like a copy-vio. D.M.N. (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Championship identities

I have one issue with the F1 pages at the moment and that relates to the identities of the World Championships that we cover. Everywhere, we refer to them as the "Formula One World Drivers' Championship" and the "Formula One World Constructors Championship". Although true now, this has not always been the case.

In 1950, the drivers' championship was inaugurated as the "World Drivers' Championship". There was no reference to Formula One anywhere and it was not even specified that the championship had to run to F1 regulations. This is why there was a brief period where F2 regulations were allowed. In 1958, the championship for manufacturers was started and called the "World Manufacturers' Championship". Again, no reference to Formula One.

Only in 1981 with the advent of the Concorde Agreement did "Formula One" become part of the official championship designation. Also, the World Manufacturers' Championship was renamed the "Formula One World Constructors' Championship". It is my opinion that we should seek to amend the F1 pages to make this distinction clear. It also means that we can tidy up the period during which the championship was run to F2 regs. We strive to be historically accurate yet this is one thing that is currently dragging us down. Readro (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a ntoe should at least be made in the List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions whether it's a mini-paragraph along the lines of "The championship was originally called...." It should also probably get noted in the main Formula One article. D.M.N. (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Equally we have articles such as 1952 Formula One season. This is just plain wrong. I'm starting to come round to the idea of just using "Grand Prix season" in the name as it is the common link. Grands Prix were mostly run to F1 regs but didn't have to be. It would be acceptable to keep using Formula One for the post-1981 articles but I think we ought to rename all the season articles beforehand. Readro (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Some good points made there. The terminology used at the time does seem to be Grand Prix season, as an example, Autocourse 1965 states that "The 1965 Grand Prix season opened at East London, South Africa on January 1" Be interesting to hear if anyone can think of a case against changing the pre-81 articles? AlexJ (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The main problem is that "Grand Prix" is such a nebulous term. It is not a specifically motorsports term, and even within motorsport many different disciplines use "Grand Prix" as a identifier of their most prestigious competitions. I would stick with what we have as "Formula One" is what most people think of the competition as being. The media still regularly refer to the '52 and '53 seasons (and their champions) as being part of "Formula One" history. Wikipedia's common names policy suggests that we should stick with what is currently best understood by the general population, and keep the pedantry confined to explanations in the main text. Pyrope 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I had the same problem with "World Sportscar Championship" simply because the championship was altered so many times and used so many different names (and there was even for a brief period two separate World Championships for sports cars). I agree that "Formula One" is the common name and should remain as the page titles. Specifics can be covered in the intro or elsewhere in each season article. The359 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What the media refer to and what is correct are two different things. I don't think we're allowed to use the common name policy if the common name is wrong; we don't have an article named "Koala bear". Using Formula One in the name is wrong, as the championship was run to Formula Two rules for 52-53 and included the Indy 500 for the majority of that decade, which was never run to Formula One rules, yet was defined as a Grand Prix. Even if you disagree with the use of "Grand Prix season", it is still a far more accurate name than "Formula One season". Readro (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Something to consider is that the pre-1981 "Formula One season" articles don't only cover the Championships - they cover all the Formula One races held during the year. Of course, as part of that, they also cover the Championships, but the Championships aren't the entire scope of the article. DH85868993 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
But under that school of thought, shouldn't we remove the Formula Two races and championships from the 1952 and 1953 articles? Is this a World Championship project or a Formula One project? I understand where you're coming from but I think there's still ambiguity. They don't cover all the races - there are plenty of non-championship races from the British and South African series that aren't covered. Readro (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"But under that school of thought, shouldn't we remove the Formula Two races and championships from the 1952 and 1953 articles?" I think we shouldn't remove them, because (I believe) that's where non-experts will expect to find that information. "Is this a World Championship project or a Formula One project?" As I understand it, all Formula One races and all World Championship races fall within the scope of this project. "They don't cover all the races - there are plenty of non-championship races from the British and South African series that aren't covered." Fair point, although I think it would be entirely appropriate for such details to be added to the "Formula One season" articles. For the British F1 series, what I would expect to see in the "Formula One season" article would be a brief summary of the season, with a pointer to the specific British F1 series article. For what it's worth, I used to have a very similar view to yours, Readro - consider my third ever post to WT:F1. But over time, I've come to believe that the current situation is the best compromise between strict accuracy and simplicity/intuitiveness. DH85868993 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, a See also section could be included in the Formula One season articles to point to the national F1 series, even if we don't include a summary. The359 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I must say I totally agree with DH85868993 on this. John Anderson (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Books

While we have our library page over at WP:MOTOR, I've decided to make a list of the books I have, which can be found here. Partially the reason I've created my own book page is so that I can constantly update it should I buy any new books. Should anyone wish to have any information out of those books, please contact me on my talkpage. I'll also be adding information into articles from those books in the near future. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good idea, DMN, therefore, I have also done this. It can be found here. Cadan ap Tomos 17:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Template replacement

You may have noticed that User:Sardanaphalus's recent replacement of "Grand Prix race report infobox" with "Infobox Grand Prix race report" using AWB has broken the infobox in many of the articles (see 2008 Spanish Grand Prix and 1994 San Marino Grand Prix for examples). I've asked him to fix it. DH85868993 (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He's fixed it. DH85868993 (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1992 Ferrari

The two cars Ferrari used in 1992 are usually described as "F92A" and "F92AT". Do we consider these to be:

I've always thought of it as the latter case, but I'm interested in the opinions of others. DH85868993 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google search gets me less than a thousand hits when searching "Ferrari F92". My inital thought (when I created the article) was that it was the Ferrari F92, with "A" and "T" variants, however it appears that it began as the Ferrari F92A with a "T" variant later. If it does get moved to Ferrari F92A, I suggest Ferrari F92 redirects to Ferrari F92A. D.M.N. (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
From the 1992-1993 Autocourse: "At a Monza test in August, Postlethwaite introduced a new F92AT derivative of the car, which incorporated a seven-speed transverse gearbox, slightly modified front suspension, a more rigid engine mounting system and an altered version of the twin-floor underwing." (p.81) There's nothing about an F92 chassis without the "A" designation, so I would also agree that the F92A was the base chassis.--Diniz(talk) 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've moved Ferrari F92 --> Ferrari F92A and updated the relevant links. DH85868993 (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

F1 driver templates

You may have noticed that Template:F1 driver and Template:Former F1 driver have been merged into Template:Infobox former F1 driver. While I'm a little surprised/disappointed that the project wasn't consulted first, the work seems to have been done well and (as far as I can tell) both current and former F1 driver articles appear the same as they did before the merge. But I'm wondering that since we now use the same template for both current and former drivers, whether just "Template:Infobox F1 driver" might be a more suitable name for the merged template. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, should be "Template:Infobox F1 driver", as it makes it sound like every driver is "former". D.M.N. (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur.--Diniz(talk) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It was one of my plans to do this anyway, seem as most of the fields were the same. Agree with the dropping of former, but this has created several double-redirects and broken quite a few articles.
Also the "Team for 2008" field has been changed to "Team". Now I agree Team for 2008 should have been changed, because else the field name needs updating every year, but we now have fields called Team (for current team) and Teams (for all teams driver has driven for). Might well cause confusion! Before going through the 20 active drivers and changing the field to "Team", can we decide whether or not to use "Current team" as the field name instead to reduce confusion. AlexJ (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a shame the WP wasn't consulted. I don't really see that there was a huge need to do this, and 13 of the current 20 drivers' articles had their links broken. Will this be the case across the other few hundred? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Picking a few at random, it appears they are all broken. =( D.M.N. (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
A quick glance at some other driver articles tells us that around 60-70% now don't have infoboxes showing. Can someone either fix this or reverse it? Otherwise it's just a pointless pain in the ass. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Should be fixed, folks. Just a double redirect that the bots hadn't gotten round to fixing. If you find any more, they only take a second to fix yourself. As for why it was necessary, merging two almost identicalt templates is a no-brainer - and as for the code changes, try making a minor change to the layout of an infobox some time and you'll see why using the {{infobox}} master template is a massive improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect circuit diagrams for old Grands Prix

I've been looking over a few of the articles for old Grand Prix events as I've been watching old races in my VHS collection, and have noticed that many of the circuit diagrams show the current layout of the tracks, rather than the one that was in use when the race took place. Two examples are 1995 Canadian Grand Prix and 1995 Hungarian Grand Prix. For the Canadian GP of that year, the old hairpin was in use, and also a chicane was present down the back straight. For Hungary, the diagram shows the new Turn 1 rather than the old one. Qbie (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We're sorry but we are trying our best to find the old circuit maps we've just had a handful of maps which are in the pictures section here. I hope they have been used. Chubbennaitor 08:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made a 1995 map of the Hungaroring, see Image:Circuit Hungaroring1999.png. It's not perfect, but it should work :) --KaragouniS :  Chat  14:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, your right Qbie. Quite often it's just an editor unaware that the wrong layout is being used, or replacing a correct layout in PNG format with a modern layout in SVG format. In my opinion, having wrong information is worse than no information, so I'd suggest if you come across one, delete it from the article (making sure to give the reason in the edit summary). AlexJ (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari Grand Prix results

I don't know whether it's like this in tables of a similar nature, but some of the results are in small font, while others are in normal font. Nothing in the key specifies about small font being used in the tables. Its confused me a little bit... D.M.N. (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this a little while back. The standard constructor results table format shows that all results should be in <small> size, except those where the constructor scored pole position or fastest lap, because the bolding and italics don't show up for some people when the font is small. In the earlier discussion, I said I would go around and change all the team/constructor and car results tables to standard size font (but leave the driver tables unchanged), but I never actually got around to doing it. DH85868993 (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If I'm to be honest, in it's current format, it's quite confusing, it would be better if all of them were in normal font, not small font. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I quite agree. If you feel like updating some of the articles, go right ahead. I would suggest attacking them in some sort of logical order (e.g. alphabetical) to make sure we catch them all. DH85868993 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to get onto it this weekend, if there are no last-minute objections. Just to recap, my proposal is to remove the <small> tags from the F1 results tables for teams/constructors and cars (but not for drivers, whose tables are different). DH85868993 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. DH85868993 (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Benetton and 1994

I'm planning on create an article regarding the controversial/cheating claims in the 1994 season regarding the Benetton team and how many claim they cheated to win the title. First off, I've brought it here to see if anyone is firmly opposed to me creating an article, and second, can anyone think of a suitable title, I was thinking to call it Allegations of cheating in the 1994 Formula One season, but didn't know whether anyone here had a better name. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Would this be purely based on the Technical Regulations, or include the Sporting Regulations as well (i.e. will Schumacher's collision with Hill be included)? If you give the article the general name of Allegations of cheating in the 1994 Formula One season, not limiting it to Benetton, it is also important to remember that there were incidents with other teams (e.g. Ferrari's variable rev-limiter and McLaren's automatic gearbox upshift). The 1994 AUTOCOURSE has quite a lot of material on such incidents, so I would be happy to assist with this article.--Diniz(talk) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a week by week version of events involving Benetton in the Michael Schumacher: The Whole Story book, covering about 20 pages, which I'm planning to use. I'm almost certain there are a lot of other book and web references on the 1994 season entirely covering cheating. And yes, it would cover all the teams, it would probably be unfair to have it dedicated to Benetton when other teams are included. D.M.N. (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest making an initial draft in a userpage, so we can get a rough idea of how big it's going to be. Because if it's not especially large, it might be more appropriate for it to go in as part of 1994 Formula One season, rather than as an article in it's own right - I suspect it could replace a substantial part of that exceptionally long season summary (just a guess - I haven't read it). DH85868993 (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll probably make an initial draft, or what might be better is to create an article under the proposed title and tag it with {{underconstruction}}, so that I can add detail and stuff while others add further detail. It might be better doing it the latter way. I've gathered a short list of sources here. D.M.N. (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think a user page draft is the best idea. They're easier to move around/copy as well as to edit at your own pace. The359 (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll make a draft, and move into the mainspace later when I've got a good version together. It will probably not be long at first, but when moved into the mainspace other stuff and refs from books that I haven't got can get added possibly. D.M.N. (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
On a slightly related note, I was planning on doing a similar article based on what happened to Toyota in the World Rally Championship in 95/96 - similar sorta thing but with a different outcome from the FIA. I was going to do a userpage sandbox draft first to see how it goes, and hopefully doing the two articles alongside each other, we can get ideas for types of content that would be good to include. AlexJ (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to mention that in the article I'm drafting somewhere as the circumstances are similar. D.M.N. (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I've done a bit of work into the article, see here. I'm unsure, though, about that layout of the article whether I should split it team-by-team or whether to have it in like chronlogical order. I'm asking as some of the events interlink with each other at seperate stages. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If I were writing the article, I would limit the current "background" section to the circumstances surrounding the allegations which occurred prior to the season beginning, i.e. the FIA banning driver aids (and introducing refuelling). There should perhaps also be mention of the rule changes following the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger, as these were controversial and led to later problems. I would then have a section on traction/launch control which would be divided into a large "Benetton" and small "Ferrari" section, then a section on refuelling, and then a section covering the other minor incidents, or incidents that contravened (or at least were argued to contravene) the Sporting rather than Technical regulations: McLaren's automatic gearbox upchange facility, Schumacher's DQ from the Belgian GP due to an overworn plank, Schumacher's driving at the British and Australian GPs, and anything else that I have forgotten to include here.--Diniz(talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was more to do with Flavio and Benetton's behavior over the incident at Silverstone that caused most of the controversy? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
From the present draft, I assumed that the article was going to focus on alleged violations of the Technical Regulations (hence the heavy weighting on it in my above plan), but in fact, having given this matter some more thought, I now believe that the TC/fuel hose controversies and the issue of Schumacher's on-track behaviour at Silverstone (and also Adelaide) are linked. For example, Flavio Briatore wrote an open letter to Max Mosley before the Spanish GP criticising the sudden changes to the technical regulations following the San Marino and Monaco GPs, and questioning whether the FIA had the expertise to police the driver aids ban, which may have contributed to the FIA's harsh punishment of Schumacher following the British GP. Perhaps a more broadly chronological approach to layout would be preferable.--Diniz(talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I probably don't need to point out this, but care obviously needs to be exercised when stating something "xxxx (may have) contributed to the FIA's harsh punishment of Schumacher". If that's to make it into the article, it needs the name of a significant person expressing it. AlexJ (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'm planning to limit the background to before the British GP, at which point, I'll probably start off a new section regarding direct allegations from the FIA of cheating. D.M.N. (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this is worth me saying but the rules on banning driver aids (btw is it spelt "aids" or "aides"?) for the '94 season were announced during the 1993 Canadian Grand Prix. Atm, I'm just trying to find some quotes to add some sort of reaction to the news, so far I've only found Riccardo Patrese's opinion during that weekend. I'll report back with any other findings. ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 09:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's an interesting quotation from the 1994 AUTOCOURSE: "The rules package for 1994 banned not only traction control, but also ABS, power braking systems, fly-by-wire throttle mechanisms and active suspension [CVT is mentioned in another paragraph]. In addition, refuelling was imposed on a reluctant F1 fraternity, most teams feeling that they were bounced into this dangerous procedure in exchange for the FIA not banning active suspension on the spot midway before the previous summer." (p.34)--Diniz(talk) 10:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If you could find anything Phill, that would be great. Thanks for the quotes BTW, Diniz! As for "driver aids/aides", I've also seen it spelt as "aids". D.M.N. (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have more! ;) Here are some relevant quotes from the 1993 AUTOCOURSE:
        • On the legality of active suspension being called into question (Canadian GP, p.163)
        • Build-up to German GP:

--Diniz(talk) 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! What was the release in question by Whiting? Not quite sure whether I'll put all of that into the article, but I'll definitely put some into it. Can you (or rather the Autocourse 1994-95) clarify this part from the article I'm writing:

After the race weekend [Imola 1994], the FIA asked the teams that finished first, second and third in the race (Benetton, Ferrari and McLaren respectively) to provide copies of their engine managent system to see if an undetected traction control system was stored in there to gain an illegal advantage. McLaren sent a copy of the system immediately, but Benetton failed to do so until three weeks after the San Marino race which could have allowed them in the three-week gap to change the system.

Is there anything else to add to that - i.e. did Benetton provide a reason for the delay/gap? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Whiting's release was when the FIA decided to make public (prior to the German GP) his post-San Marino GP report into the legality of Schumacher's B194, which revealed "Option 13" in the software - the ability to activate launch control if necessary.
Page 179 states that both Benetton and McLaren (contradicting the existing information) were fined $100,000 for failing to disclose their computer source codes promptly enough at the World Council meeting following the British GP.
At this meeting, which also covered Schumacher's penalty for his infringements at the British GP and other sanctions, the FIA announced that Benetton was one of three teams found "to have a computer system capable of breaching the regulations". (p.173)
I can't find a reason for the delay.--Diniz(talk) 14:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Not to worry. The above, though, will help for when I get to that part. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe there's a Jackie Stewart quote somewhere on the legality of some vehicles during the 1994 Canadian Grand Prix where he watched the cars going through the first bunch of corners and listening to the cars, much in the same way Senna did during the 1994 Pacific Grand Prix. I don't know the exact quote, or whether this is going to be helpful but what the heck ;-), but I'm searching through Autosport.com because I know where I got it from, the column of the magazine was thrown way months ago but I'm sure Autosport will have it somewhere in their archive. ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
At the end of 1993, Mosley took action. Henceforth, traction control, as well as launch control and ABS braking, were to be banned in F1. "Traction control and ABS," Max said, "were conceived for road cars, to help ordinary drivers, particularly on slippery surfaces. But grand prix drivers - by definition - are not ordinary drivers, and to me these systems are out of place in F1."
Amen to that, said the fans, and the drivers agreed with them. Over time, though, there came strengthening rumours that some teams were... observing the ban more assiduously than others. "Go and stand at the first corner," Jackie Stewart said to me in Montreal one year, "and listen to the *******, and then come back and tell me it doesn't have traction control!"
Not exactly sure if that helps, but it's from Autosport.com's Weekley Journal, April 2007, Vol. 13, Issue. 15. The URL to the column is this and the author was Nigel Roebuck. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll use it - but the URL needs subscription which I presume you have otherwise you wouldn't of accessed it. :)
Also, I would put in Stewart's quote if I knew what word was under the *******, after all Wikipedia is not censored. =D D.M.N. (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I know, I believe Roebuck censored it because it was a little sensitive information, especially considering there wasn't anyway to prove it by merely listening to the car without any further evidence to back the allegation up. Also, Roebuck makes an interesting comment
I did as bidden, and there was little doubt about it. On acceleration out of the slow right-hander, the car in question sounded as though it had a severe misfire - and if it really were a misfire, the driver truly was from another planet, for he set the fastest time of the session.
...being a little nosey, I checked out Forix and found that Jean Alesi was fastest in both practice sessions for the '94 GP and Schumacher and Hill were fastest in the sessions in '95....Not only that but Stewart's censored word has seven asterisks and "Ferrari" has seven characters. Perhaps I'm wrong, lads...but that's just a mini-investigation done and is possibly flawed...somewhere... --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK - I thought at first it was a swear would and you'd gone and star'd it out. I'll probably include it when I come to it (at the moment, I'm at the middle of the Spain debacle) then I'm moving onto Canada (the above along with a few other nuts and bolts), and then a very interesting point DC brought up in Eurosport commentary at Magny-Cours. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
McLaren has seven letters. So do Tyrrell and Pacific (doubt they had TC though!) Readro (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It'd probably be in the best interests to leave it as asterisks, then. D.M.N. (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes Readro, but name me the last time a Pacific or a Tyrrel were fastest of a practice session in Canada during that early-mid 1990s? Also, the same could be said about McLaren. :-P. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting website of interest...

I've just found a website with archives for The Times and it's sister paper The Sunday Times dating back to 1985. This is almost certainly helpful for this, but also for another aticles around the same time period. The related webpages are here and here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I've already posted this at least twice before. Perhaps that was at WP:MOTOR. Anyway, for pre-1985 stuff, it can be a very useful resource. AlexJ (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Um are you able to find pages we can all access I can't find it. Chubbennaitor 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Everyone can access it (the above two links for some reason sometimes down work). Can you see this article? D.M.N. (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Right I hope problem solved. Chubbennaitor 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved into Mainspace

I've moved it into the mainspace, see here. For the most part it is complete, although I'm still to add a "Timeline" section. There also needs to be bits to do with others allegations surrounding other teams. D.M.N. (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Two bits of feedback after a read-thru; firstly, in the lead it says "The team had also been using other illegal software to their advantage in races." - IIRC, they were found guilty of having LC/TC systems on their car but crucially could not prove they had been using them (hence no DQ from the championship). Secondly, in the British GP bit, the article reads "Schumacher never came into the pitlane to serve the penalty" and "Despite the black flag, Schumacher never came into the pit lane while Benetton team boss Briatore" - never means "not ever" so it's usage in this case where he did later come into the pit lane is wrong. AlexJ (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reworded and clarified both bits. D.M.N. (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My plan for this is to put it up for peer review within the next few days. I then hope (should it go well) to either go to GAC or to go straight in the deep end and zoom off to FAC. If it passes the FAC, and all goes to plan, my hope is to have it as TFA on November 2nd. At the moment, should that fail, I've put 1995 Japanese Grand Prix requested as TFA on November 2nd, but I am hoping to change that the more "interesting" article. So, that's my plan should it all work out well. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me, Tom Pryce has yet to appear on the mainpage and it's been roughly a year and a half since it was promoted to FA. I was hoping to get it on the main page for March 7th last year for the 30th anniversary of his death but, as you can see, the article wasn't promoted until late March so it would've been impossible. Atm, I don't think there is any appropriate dates for him to appear on the main page in the coming months, although if your pushing it Fuji '76 could be one if you consider his performance prior to his retirement and also the fact that it was the final Grand Prix of his most successful season in F1...although Damon Hill and Alain Prost appeared on the MP on dates with no significance to them...
Anyway, apologises for going off topic there, DMN just reminded me of something there. ;-) It's a fairly ambitious plan, if I'm honest...I'd go for GAC and built the article up from there if your pushing it. Many of our FAs have gone down this path and are now FA articles. ;-) Btw, why wasn't the incident at the 1994 Australian Grand Prix not included in this article? Or isn't there enough evidence to back up any allegation for "cheating" or perhaps the incident I'm talking about doesn't fall under "cheating"...? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 18:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that GAC is the way to go. This is because the subject of the article is, to my mind, less "straightforward" than a race report or article on a driver, team or event, and it may be harder to bump it up straight to FA depite your prior experience.--Diniz(talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The Australia incident I'll need to add. I'll probably head to GAC then FAC (if possible). I'm going to do a bit of refurbishment work tomorrow afternoon. :-) D.M.N. (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget that plan for AOCI1994. Too much in too short time. I'd rather, looking at the situation now, take my time and make it good rather than rush it out. Also, my Wiki-contributions are getting sparcer (sp?) by the day. D.M.N. (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Category: Buenos Aires Grand Prix drivers

You may have noticed the recent addition of Category:Buenos Aires Grand Prix drivers to numerous F1 driver articles. I have started a discussion about the category at WT:MOTOR. DH85868993 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Another FA

1995 Pacific Grand Prix has today passed FA. Thanks to those that have helped me work on it, as with the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article which was promoted a month ago. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That was quick! Congrats! You're going through them at a rate of knots at the moment. Funnily enough I have great memories of 1995 because it was the first season I saw. Readro (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Note that I have applied for the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article to be TFA on November 2nd, see here. I have noted I *may* change it, hopefully to the article in my sandbox, should I get it to FA within 7 weeks. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Addition of geodata to "<country> Grand Prix" articles

A bot has recently added geodata to numerous "<country> Grand Prix" articles, e.g. French Grand Prix, Japanese Grand Prix, etc. Is this desirable? I can see the point of adding geodata to articles about circuits, but I'm not so sure about the generic race articles; especially ones like European Grand Prix, where the venue can change from year to year. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly going to disagree with the addition, as Grand Prix locations change year-on-year, i.e. with German Grand Prix shared between Hockenheim and Nurburgring, Japanese Grand Prix between Suzuka and Fuji et al, I just don't see the need for the addition. D.M.N. (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the data belongs on circuits, not races. The359 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I see no harm in it being added to the race reports (YYYY Country Grand Prix) as the event occurred at a single venue, but I disagree with the general pages, as the majority have multiple venues, with some alternating. AlexJ (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism spate

Just so guys are aware, the Lewis Hamilton, FIA and Kimi Raikkonen pages are getting a bit of a higher than usual bout of vandalism (I've got FIA protected ATM so it should be calm) after the incident at the Belgian grand prix. If chaps could keep an eye on the various F1 pages and keep them clean, that would be great. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio images

I'm sorry to report that some images that the project is using are likely copyright violations. Discussion is here. Readro (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

New Flickr set (Belgian GP)

The author of many of the photos we use for the 2008 Canadian Grand Prix and related articles has attended the Belgian GP and uploaded a new set of freely-licensed photos. I have already uploaded some of the images to Wikimedia Commons and intend to add more to this category, but if anyone else wishes to upload any of the images themselves, then please do so!--Diniz(talk) 00:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Drivers' that start from pitlane

What are our views on what we should put in Results tables for Drivers that start from the pitlane, i.e. with the two drivers that started from the pitlane in 2008 Italian Grand Prix. At the moment, Nakajima and Button are labelled in their normal starting positions (18th and 19th respectively), but shouldn't that be changed to something else, i.e. PL for Pitlane as they technically started from pitlane. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I should say PL is best method to clarify that, because they no longer hold that grid position technically, and should consider inaccurate. Also, the 20th grid racer are not up the grid by that because it is last minute strategy change by the teams. --Aleenf1 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The important thing is not to move up drivers behind them when they decide to start from the pitlane. For example in this case, Sutil still started 20th even though the 18th/19th grid places were empty - he wasn't moved up to 18th. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
So, what we should be do is stay with 18th and 19th for both of the drivers? Or use PL to mark they are started the race from pitlane in the grid col for race results table? --Aleenf1 15:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
A possible solution could be to create a permanent legend for such situations, such as ‡ or §. LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a superscript footnote would probably be the best way of doing it, That way you don't lose the qualifying information. Pyrope 03:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Formula One

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note. D.M.N. (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure what y'all think here, but I reckon that specific race articles, unless they are a truly momentous race (Imola '94 etc.) should probably not be included. Race teams, general Grand Prix articles, personalities and so on would make a reasonable contribution though. Also, there are a few good quality articles on certain significant cars that might be worth suggesting as none seem to have been pulled up by their bot. Any further comments? Pyrope 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well all FA's are put in anyway, so for race articles would be 1994 Imola, 1995 Pacific, 1995 Japan and 2005 USA. I agree on the cars point, however. It also depends on the quality of the article as well as the importance of the article. D.M.N. (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
And there's the rub. We have Brabham BT19 as FA, Brabham BT46 as GA, BRM P261 and Eagle Mk1 as A-class, and quite a few as B-class. Included in the B-class field is Cooper T51 which could be quite easily tweaked up to A-class, or even GA, with a few more inline citations. Worth a go, do you reckon? Pyrope 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done some analysis of the list. Here are some notable topics which aren't in the list. I've highlighted ones I would have liked/expected to see in the list (in terms of "what F1-related articles would I expect to find in an encyclopedia"; not taking the quality articles into account) in bold:

Here are some articles in the list which I'd be happy to see omitted (please don't be offended if you've put a lot of hard work into one of these articles - again, I was considering "what F1-related articles would I expect to see in an encyclopedia", not the quality of the articles):

Articles in the list which probably don't warrant inclusion in a Formula One context, but do belong in Wikipedia 0.7:

DH85868993 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lotus drivers

You may have noticed the recent creation of Category:Lotus drivers. I have proposed the category be renamed as Category:Lotus Formula One drivers, for consistency with the other members of Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams. Please add any comments you may have here. DH85868993 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Top-importance Formula One articles

Analysing the Wikipedia 0.7 list (see above) caused me to have a look at Category:Top-importance Formula One articles. There were a few I had questions about:

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jean Todt should ever have been top. He isn't and never had been "crucial to n understanding of the topic". In fact I think far too many articles are rated as top, but frankly the argument is one I couldn't be bothered to start. Pyrope 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.) On that note, I question how a lot of articles make it into high-importance Formula One articles category. For that one, I don't understand why a lot of the 2008 race reports are all in there, all should probably be low-importance with probably Monaco, Britain, Belgium (because of "Chicanegate") mid-importance and Italy high-importance (because of Vettel). D.M.N. (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah, just stick them all in mid for now. Immediacy lifts them about low, but only for the next 18 months or so. And in the long run the details of the individual races are very small beer. Think long term; how does an article rate in the grand Formula One scheme? Imagine someone completely ignorant of F1 coming to our pages. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to be aimed at, principally. Which pages do they NEED to read to understand the sport and its history? These should be the only top-rated pages. Then which pages do they need to understand the principal players and the details of the significant historical items? There are then high-rated. Other important people/things/events not covered by the previous two go in mid, and everything else goes in low. I think one of the problems we have had up until now is that the current classification scheme seems to have been constructed the other way around. Pyrope 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I on the whole think the Importance scale is fine. I don't think people don't follow it that often and that people just rate it at top/high almost immediately. I don't think we need to revist the scale as such. This was the last discussion I remember on that particular subject. D.M.N. (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... well I was busy moving house, changing jobs, and moving country when that discussion happened. Personlly I would shunt some of those criteria down a peg. There should only really be a handful of top importance articles, and a dozen or two in the high bracket. We need to use the importance criteria to focus both our efforts, and to assist people coming into these pages from scratch. Pyrope 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Recommending dropping Todt to "high" importance, for my two cents. I really need cable television to get F1 coverage -- I just (just!) learned about Vettel's important win. Maybe next week... -- Guroadrunner (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I've dropped Todt to "high". DH85868993 (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Street Circuit

I have bought tickets for the grand prix and noticed that the box cover, the tickets and the brochure all refers to the circuit as "Marina Bay Street Circuit". Some photos have been uploaded by others here, here and here. Also, around the paddock areas we can see them printing "Marina Bay Street Circuit". On The Sunday Times(21/09/2008)(Singapore newspaper) on Sports Page 37, a photo can be seen showing it. If there are no objections, I would like to move the article to Marina Bay Street Circuit. - oahiyeel talk 07:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I second the move. Cadan ap Tomos 12:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I third that. It's the Singapore GP but at the Marina Street Circuit. Chubbennaitor 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Moved. D.M.N. (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Belgian Grand Prix Chicane Controversy

Hi. I've created a test page about the above controversy at my sandbox. I'm wondering about peoples' views on the page, and if there is a semlblance of consensus I will make it into a new page. Feel free to edit it and comment on it. Previous comments can be found here. Cheers. Apterygial (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it could be covered as part of the main race report - a large portion of the article will be duplicated in the race report, leaving only a little bit of unique content which can be added to a post-race section - not a wasted effort by any means however. AlexJ (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the information should be contained in the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix. See for example the 2005 United States Grand Prix, which features all of the controversy in a single article. The359 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Merged them. Apterygial (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits by an IP to current driver infoboxes

An IP has been editing inboxes of driver so it includes the engine name, so instead of just Scuderia Toro Rosso, the IP changes it to Toro Rosso-Ferrari. See [4][5][6] for what I mean. Seeing as that row thing says "Teams" I'm not sure whether the engine name is needed in the infobox. Thoughts? IP contributions >> Here. D.M.N. (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox clearly states that the line is for team and not engine. So those edits are clearly out of place. As for including engine information in driver infobox, I don't think that makes sense. The engine information is relevant for the team or the car, but plays no particular role in driver information. Unless there have been cases where two drivers of the same team used engines of different make. I have never heard of any. LeaveSleaves (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There have been occasions where two drivers from the same team used different engines, but that was an awfully long time ago, and it will almost certainly never apply again. I suggest reverting these changes - driver infoboxes aren't really required to hold that level of information about the car they drive, surely? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree it should be reverted - the editor may have been thinking of 'constructor' which does consist of the team+engine together. 4u1e (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Race Reports Importance

I've dropped most (except Singapore because it's at night) to mid-importance to comply better with the importance scale. Complaints? Apterygial (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Belgium could be classed as High. Apart from that, no complaints. D.M.N. (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... I know I was pushing for a new chicanegate page, but I would say at this stage, keep Belgium as mid-importance unless it decides the championship. Apterygial (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_16&oldid=1238761580"