Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Crashgate

Discussion moved to the article talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2011 race reports

User:Vettel543 has decided to create reports for the 2011 formula one season, redirecting them back to the 2011 season even though there is not a confirmed calendar in place. Included are events like the 2011 Korean Grand Prix which we have no idea will even take place.

I'd like to have them AfD'ed rather than re-directed as we are so far out from these races occurring. --Falcadore (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually occurrs to to me they could easily be Speedy deleted. --Falcadore (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete them. We don't have a 2010 official calendar yet, 2011 races are definitely not useful now. Asendoh (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
RfD process has been started. --Falcadore (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

2008 Singapore Grand Prix / Crashgate

Additional info regarding points/positions based on if Alonso's race win was stripped, has been added to the article. See diff. Am wondering if such info is necessary/encyclopedic/significant enough; and even so, should it be included in the actual Crashgate article instead? What do you guys think? - oahiyeel talk 09:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I had no probelm remoiving such blatant speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The article is quite a quagmire at the moment, and I can't help but feel it's suffering a bit from WP:OWN. IIIVIX (Talk) 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You're telling me. You can't change a word of that thing without it being reverted, even if it then makes even less sense. It's an awful article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
"Mosley also told reporters that it was now too late to change the result of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, whatever the outcome of the case." [1]. AlexJ (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Anything like that should be removed immediately. The result won't be changed and it's utterly irrelevant to speculate on a) what would have happened had they changed the result, or b) what would have happened had Piquet not crashed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Linked pages from BBC F1 pages - very bad condition

Hi all

The page on Traction control has been linked to from the BBC F1 pages...and it is in terrible state, including two "Factual accuracy is disputed." sections, however the biggest surprise was n the discussion pages where there was a slightly racist comment (which I have hidden with the old <!-- -->)

The wiki page is linked from [[2]] near the top of the page "Benetton were accused of running illegal traction control, but got away with it. The FIA found the device in the Benetton cars but could not prove it had been used in races."

I am concerned that I do not have enough technical knowledge to enter into the discussions on the disc pages, but was totally disgusted that someone could leave such a racist comment and it be used in such a high profile link

If this is a trend which is to be continued, and lets face it it is a prestigious accolade to be used as an encycopaedic reference in such a way by such a high status website, then we should consider looking at pages which may be used and ensuring that this sort of mess is not there in future.

Sorry I have been away for such a long time but it was unavoidable due to bereavement and illness.Chaosdruid (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

1995 British Grand Prix - Peer Review

Hello everyone. I've listed the 1995 British Grand Prix article for a peer review here. All comments are welcome and much appreciated!--Midgrid(talk) 17:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The peer review's still open for anyone who would like to comment. Surely there can't be any major problems with the article? :P --Midgrid(talk) 17:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Silverstone map

For some reason, the map of Silverstone used in he pages on the British Grand Prix pages keeps appearing as a white line on a white background. If you the link to the link to the actual file - [3] - it appears to be fine. Is there a reason for this problem, and what can be done to fix it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to work display fine at sizes of 660px and above, but not at 659px and below. Very strange. AlexJ (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It might be an IE7 thing - the "Other versions" section of the Silverstone map image page contains a PNG version with the comment "PNG version for those with browsers like IE7 that don't support SVG". I'm also finding File:Île Notre-Dame (Circuit Gilles Villeneuve).svg, which is used on several Canadian GP reports, invisible at "infobox size". DH85868993 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Same for me on both counts, but I'm using Google Chrome.--Midgrid(talk) 20:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Me too, I can't see either at infobox size, but the originals are fine. I'm using Firefox, strange. Schumi555 20:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've notified the uploader of the map on Wikimedia Commons.--Midgrid(talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the thumbnailer is acting up again. The white lines are actually something I use so the PNG stands out when I overlay it in Google Earth. Here, they have no use. Will (Talk - contribs) 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes

The notes section from the 2009 Belgian GP article (picked as random example).

Does anyone else think the triviality of these notes is getting out of hand? If it's just me, say so. I mean, First points for 3 teams using Mercedes engines in the same race:? What? Britmax (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I actually like having milestones such as first/last/50th/100th race/points/podium/pole/win/fastest lap (and possibly lap leaders) extracted into a separate section, so I don't have to read through the whole race report to find out that information. I'd be happy for such a section to be titles "Milestones" rather than "Notes" with strict controls over what may/may not be included, if that makes it more palatable. Alternately, we could have a "Milestones" section in the infobox, although it's already pretty large. As for other notes in the quoted example, I find the Mercedes and Raikkonen notes of interest, although I'd be happy for them to be included as part of the main body of the report. The "first retirements of the season" (for Button and Hamilton) aren't quite as notable as they would have been, say, 10 years ago and the "first retirements of the season" for Alguersari and Grosjean aren't notable at all (imho). DH85868993 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Having trivia is kind of fun, but stuff like the aforementioned "First points for three teams using Mercedes engines in the same race" is going too far. Important stuff, like Force India's maiden pole, or Button's Monaco victory being the first time in the sport than one engine has one three races should be included, but only because it's the interesting and relevant stuff. Prisonermonkeys (talk)
I honestly don't see the need to have milestones put into a separate section. If the report is written well enough, these can easily be included in such a way that the information is easily accessible. In addition, I think creating a separate section for milestones is a slippery slope; what is important enough to include (should the fact that the race was Badoer's last, for example, be included? What about the first win by a Ferrari engine this year? First win from sixth on the grid? Third time this year Barrichello's anti-stall system has earned its money?). Raikkonen's line seems a little esoteric (not quite as esoteric as the Mercedes one). I agree with Britmax, this is getting out of hand, it is trivial, and if necessary should be included in the body of the article. Apterygial 07:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether it is refered to as Milestones or Notes, it's still essentially trivia, and by renaming it is using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law in the sense of renaming the section to anything other than trivia. I agree with Britmax (that it is getting out of hand) and Apterygial (that these milestones could easily be incorporated into the text if it is sufficiently well written). A growing trend within WP:F1 is seeing the displaying of information in tabular forms instead of text format, which is against what wikipedia is supposed to be. --Falcadore (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep lap leaders and first Pole Position for Force India and axe all others. Loosmark (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

These are seriously out of hand. We just had added to 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, a featured article, that this was the first race in which McLaren scored points without the "iconic Ayrton Senna"! I can see the point of DH's "Milestones" suggestion, but this needs renaming and a commented out guide included to limit the input if we are to keep them. Pyrope 22:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For all of the statistics shown above, all but "First points for three Mercedes-engine teams in the same race", and perhaps "First retirement of the season for" are appropriate. The 3 MB engine stat is, though interesting, quite trivial (pardon the pun) but the others are worth noting, and not always conveniently placed in a text paragraph (though the retirements can easily be explained as his first of the season). If one driver led from lights to flag, the lap leader list is unnecessary; the written text can simply state that the winner led each circuit. Placing the information at the head of the article can give away knowledge that one may want to wait to read, perhaps wanting to let the article unfold just as a race does. Significant team or driver milestones (like Ferrari's 750th GP or Michael Schumacher's upcoming 250th F1 start) add to their lustre. Some Wikipedia surfers look there just to see if any big firsts, lasts, or big milestones were set. 97.125.93.108 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My fault, I've pointed you to the wrong section, should have sent you here, but the point is, information presented bullet point style, when it can be written out in prose, is pretty much against the Wikipedia style guide. --Falcadore (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One

I thought that it was good to change the colour scheme of Portal:F1. The colour associated with Formula One is black and white. So I thought that it will be good that we change the colour scheme to black and white. Wild mine (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a little ... boring? Black, white and red seems to be the colours FOM like, but F1 goes back a little further than that. The current scheme is based on a reworking of those JPS Lotus colours, so it is neutral to all the current teams. Apterygial 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
So it will be more impartial with the F1 teams, and the FOM is F1-related too. Wild mine (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Enormously unimportant issue. --Falcadore (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not broken, so don't fix it. IIIVIX (Talk) 03:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Autosport articles over 30 days

I couldn't help but notice Autosport have made their news articles online subscription view only after 30 days of publication. I don't know how this is going to affect the way we link to them, but if there is a requirement we link to articles more freely available, we might need to rethink where we cite to (as the general trend is, at the moment, and rightly so, to Autosport). Does anyone reckon this is something we should be worried about, or am I just getting paranoid again? Apterygial 13:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to link to cite. Cite them properly (i.e. full author, date, publication), as though they were hard copy, and use the appropriate {{cite journal}} or {{cite news}} templates and, although a url field is built in, if the url goes dead then the citation is still just as valid. Just look at how many pages have citations taken from books, videos, and even museum displays (used that one myself...) which are not available at the click of a mouse. I'd rather we use high quality but difficult to access sources, rather than sketchy websites just because they are simple. Pyrope 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The references that are currently used from Autosport have been archived by WebCiteBOT, using the WebCite project, so that's not a problem. One thing is that I haven't got an Autosport subscription, so I can't look at the articles; no more Autosport refs from me! I don't how many other users have the same problem... Darth Newdar talk 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Drivers at the race!

Someone keeps on putting the list of all the drivers that were present at that grand prix. What is the point. If you want to see this just go the the Formula One season article. Along with this is of course the free practice times aswell. --Troggy3112 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Both those things are totally superfluous. There's a danger that the race articles are going to get ridiculously long if we don't keep this stuff out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. The times set in free practice sessions don't count towards anything and can be summarised in the text. A full entry list could be useful in earlier Grands Prix to cover a wide range of chassis, engines, tyres etc., but a simple list of teams and drivers is unnecessary.--Midgrid(talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thirded? Anyway, I agree as well! Darth Newdar talk 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

A bunch of F1-related redirects are up for discussion here. Please feel free to add any comments you may have. DH85868993 (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And again. --Falcadore (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary Anderson (F1 designer)

There's a discussion at Talk:Gary Anderson (F1 designer)#Article name about a proposed change to the article name. Feel free to contribute any views you may have. DH85868993 (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Template/infobox merge?

I'm not sure if this precise subject has been brought up before, but I propose that {{Infobox F1 driver}} should be merged with {{Infobox racing driver}}. In my opinion, the problems with having separate templates is clearly demonstrated in the Jaime Alguersuari and Kamui Kobayashi articles, which both look cluttered and ugly. If the templates are merged, the unique features of the F1 infobox (the first and last race and win fields) can be integrated into the more generic racing driver one, which already has the advantage of including previous series, championships and awards, information which I believe would be useful in F1 driver infoboxes to draw greater attention to notable achievements outside this particular category of racing. Any thoughts?--Midgrid(talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Why should F1 drivers get special treatment? The racing driver box looks better anyway. Also saves messing around when drivers move in and out of F1. I believe there is a function in the racing driver infobox to allow us to enter their F1 history in a seperate section of the infobox. I may be wrong. - mspete93 [talk] 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It's worth noting that F1 drivers get special treatment because F1 is the top level of the sport. Any merged infobox should still show the full stats of a driver's F1 career. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, that's what I was trying to say. I was quite tired last night. - mspete93 [talk] 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Any further opinions?--Midgrid(talk) 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A merge sounds fine to me. As you comment, having two infoboxes on the same page looks ridiculous. Darth Newdar talk 09:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
A few points to consider:
  • There are actually 26 F1-specific fields in {{Infobox F1 driver}}. Would you also propose merging {{Champ Car driver}}, {{Infobox NASCAR driver}}, {{Infobox Le Mans driver}}, etc into {{Infobox racing driver}}? If so, then the resulting template would have a lot of fields. I think multiple, smaller templates are more manageable.
  • Having {{Infobox F1 driver}} as a separate template enables us to identify which drivers are being identified as "F1 drivers" (I'm not sure how useful this is, but it's worth considering).
  • Personally, I don't think Alguersuari's article looks ugly or ridiculous. Yes, I would prefer that the two infoboxes were the same width and used the same font size, but I think that could be solved by modifying one (or both) of the existing infoboxes rather than merging them. If you object to the repetition of the driver's name between the two infoboxes, again I suggest this could be solved by modifying {{Infobox racing driver}} - if we still want to display both the F1 and "previous series" information, does it really matter whether the information is displayed in two separate infoboxes, or two sections of the same infobox?
  • Finally, if the consensus is that the two templates should be merged, may I request that it isn't actually done for at least a couple of weeks? There will be a huge flurry of activity in the F1 driver articles following tomorrow's (season-ending) race, so I don't think we need to complicate things by merging the templates at the same time.
DH85868993 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
An idea. Multiple templates, but none of them are complete in themselves. There would be an "infobox header" template, containing all the general info for the driver (name, photo, racing nationality, dob etc.), following which would be placed one or more "infobox body" templates, one for each different class of racing - F1, Indy, NASCAR, etc. which would contain the fields specific to that class. Used in conjunction, the visual appearance would be of a single box. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
An interesting idea. One point to note is that the "Nationality" field is somewhat problematic - in the F1 driver infobox it refers to (and is linked to) the driver's "racing nationality" (as officially recognised by the FIA); which isn't necessarily the case for the other racing driver infoboxes. DH85868993 (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Here, if nobody minds, is an example of Jenson Button's F1 stats in Template:Infobox racing driver:
Jenson Button
NationalityUnited Kingdom British
Formula One season career
Debut season2000
Current teamBrawn GP
Car number22
Former teamsHonda Racing F1
BAR
Renault
Benetton
Williams
Starts170
Wins7
Poles7
Fastest laps2
Best finish1st in 2009
Previous series
1999
1998		British Formula Three Championship
British Formula Ford Championship
Championship titles
2009
1998		Formula One
British Formula Ford Championship

There is an additional area for awards but I haven't bothered to put these in. What important information is missing from there? - mspete93 [talk] 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this just for current drivers? How do you handle a break from their current series (e.g. Participation: 1995-2000, 2003- )? On a stylistic note I would point out that that box is too narrow. It is forcing the field headers to wrap to a second line, thus breaking up the text and making the box less readable. Pyrope 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Observed (potential) deficiencies compared to the existing F1 driver infobox:
  • There's only room for one "current" team - at the end of last season, we found it was very useful to be able to list both the 2008 and 2009 teams, to avoid constant edits, depending on different editors' interpretations of the word "current". Likewise with car number.
  • The first/last win fields are missing (although the merits of these fields could be debated)
  • The first/last race fields are missing (this template has "Debut season" instead)
  • The Career points field is missing
  • The ever-problematical "Nationality" label isn't linked to anything (although the issue may be ameliorated somewhat by the presence of the "Place of birth" field)
  • I think the "2009 Formula One season" banner should read "Formula One World Championship career" instead
  • Agree with Pyrope that the box is too narrow
DH85868993 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Huge proposal

You may want to check this opinion and this example. The "other series", "titles" and "awards" have a few issues with break spaces. See you later! --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One for the bin

2009 Brazilian GP Practice Sesson 2 has been created. Anyone familiar with the speedy delete business? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no speedy which would cover it, so it is at AFD here. Apterygial 00:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Apterygial 01:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Apterygial 04:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Glock/Kobayashi in Template:Formula One teams

There is some dispute over which driver should be listed in Template:Formula One teams as Toyota's second driver. I thought that Glock was the contracted and "normal" driver, and should therefore be listed as the second driver, while Kobayashi should be listed in the "Other drivers" section. I reverted a couple of IP edits as such. An established user has now changed it back, so I thought I would raise the issue here. I think Glock should be listed as the second driver, certainly now the Brazilian Grand Prix is over. Darth Newdar talk 19:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Glock is the #2 driver, Kobayashi is a stand-in. The template should reflect that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's what I thought. I'll change it back, leaving a message on the other users' talk pages. Darth Newdar talk 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Kobayashi is not the normal driver. However, the template traditionally list the drivers who are currently racing. That mean whoever race on which day, the driver should be listed as the normal driver on that day. We could shift the grid back, but not DURING the raceday. Also, as Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is the last race of 2009 season, Kobayashi should be listed as the final driver - as the template normally list the final driver. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 20:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Same, Felipe Massa should be the normal first driver but was replaced by Luca Badoer at August in the template. Massa was listed as the third driver since that time, as same as what now doing about Timo Glock. Why there was nobody discuss about this who are shouting at this moment? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 20:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I understood Kobayashi being just a stand-in during Brazil, but now he's here again and Glock probably won't return. I don't think it's a major thing to worry about either way. - mspete93 [talk] 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 season Proposals Group

I think we should form a group that discusses improvements for 2010 season pages so Wikipedia will go developing at least our WikiProject. Wild mine (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is overly important. The current season's articles will always attract plenty of development. There is something to be said for us all patrolling those pages to avoid crystal balling and excess info. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, not sure where you are going with that idea. This is the forum for discussing 2010 articles, in just the same way that we discuss everything else. Pyrope 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I do see you point, that oh. if only there could be such a place of organised editting where edittors of Formula One articles could gather and discuss relevant Formula One issues. Since its a project on Wikipedia we could call it a Wikiproject. And since it would be about Formula One we could call it WikiProject Formula One. I'll start a discussion on the subject here. --Falcadore (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:McLaren format change

Template:McLaren has recently been updated to "navbox" format, thereby making it inconsistent with all the other F1 team templates (except Template:Lotus). Do we like or not? DH85868993 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Within Template:McLaren, I would like to see a forced line break in the "Formula One" model numbers, between M30 and MP4, because a new series was started with the Project 4 merger. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Too esoteric for a navbox. Navboxes are, by their very nature, "big picture" elements. We don't distinguish between drivers and other staff pre- or post-merger, for example. Pyrope 16:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. Change it back to a Formula 1 box as most of the major elements to the team are within the McLaren article. I agree with Pyrope on this. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
And that is a deeply ugly format style. I'll change it back. Pyrope 19:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 "Standings after the race" tables

An editor has updated the "Standings after the race" tables in 2009 Singapore Grand Prix, 2009 Italian Grand Prix and 2009 Japanese Grand Prix to highlight in bold those drivers and teams still in with a chance of winning the championship. Do we like this change or not? DH85868993 (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unnecessary in my opinion. The nuances of championship battles can be covered in the text, and it's possible to work it out anyway with a knowledge of the scoring system.--Midgrid(talk) 13:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm of a similar opinion to User:Midgrid. Cs-wolves(talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a good information to give to the reader. Of course, anyone can work this out with knowledge of the points scoring system and how many races there are left and how many races each driver have won so far during the season, but this is easy information to give quickly to someone who might not have neither the time nor the knowledge to be able to figure this out in an instant. John Anderson (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
All the more reason to explain it in text format rather than tabular, so that the nuances can be properly explained rather than justa long list of raw data, remembering that it should be written with the lay-person in mind rather than the motorsport fan. --Falcadore (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the consensus seems to be that the bolding is unnecessary, unless there are any objections in the next 24 hours, I'll remove it (and the explanatory note). DH85868993 (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this idea would be a good help, but I see I'm in the minority here. When you remove it, will you enter text to the articles explaining the same thing instead? E.G. (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ligier

An editor has split the F1 section of the Ligier article out as a separate article: Ligier F1. But all the F1-related links (except one) still point to Ligier. How do we want to proceed? Retarget the links to Ligier F1? Are we happy with the article split? DH85868993 (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point of it. Pages are starting to get a little fat these days. I have, however, moved the new page to Equipe Ligier as that was we can keep all their motorsport stuff together (per other manufacturers) and we void the crass "xxx F1" construction. As for fixing redirects, it may be easier to get a bot to change all of the links and then go through and fix the ones that don't need to point to the motorsport page! Pyrope 12:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I like the name change. If there are no objections, I'll submit a bot request to change all the links to Ligier to link to Equipe Ligier instead, in the next 48 hours or so. (I'll then go through and manually change back any non-motorsport ones). DH85868993 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I've submitted the bot request. DH85868993 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ended up doing them myself, using AWB. DH85868993 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! My watchlist has been filled up. ;) --Midgrid(talk) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well done for getting that sorted. What would WP:F1 be without you DH? Pyrope 14:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably pretty much the same - but the talk pages might be a bit shorter :-) DH85868993 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Rindt

There's an IP who insists on adding an extra flag to Jochen Rindt's infobox because he doesn't understand the sporting nationality concept. I finally got him to source his other stuff, but he persists with the German flag in the infobox, together with a German-language reference. Apparently if we can't read German we should just go and translate it. I'm bored of this crap, so maybe someone else would like to help out. We didn't allow it for Rosberg or anyone else, so it shouldn't be allowed for Rindt. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This could be easily resolved by adding the line "| data2 = {{#if:{{{Country|}}}|'''[[Country]]''' {{{Country}}} }}" or similar to the infobox, and using it in special cases like Rindt. This would not affect any other articles in any way and would allow a factually correct Austrian flag (and only that) in that article.
P.S. I would once again ask you to re-consider your very aggressive style of expression. Please, let's discuss about the subject in a friendly manner. Thank you. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, I would ask you to be more specific or desist from accusing me of things. You have previously accused me of insulting you, yet you could not produce any example of this whatsoever. You're not exactly passive yourself, removing a valid source and verging on edit-warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry for any hard feelings, but I am sincerely feeling that my work for finding the most credible sources on the issue is not just "boring crap". I am not trying to resolve this factual error out of personal anticipation against you. Please, let us be constructive instead of destructive, I do not think it is impossible to find a factually correct resolution that everyone can agree on. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I was not referring to any work that you have done as boring crap, just the long discussion. You did intially add information that wasn't sourced. Don't think that I do not value any attempt to improve the articles. There is clearly an issue with Rindt's nationality, and we will find a solution to please everyone, not just the two of us. The issue of the infobox is one that affects a lot of editors and a lot of articles, and it previously contained no "factual error", only confusion over the definition of the term "nationality". Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
But it does not have to affect a lot of articles, I personally do not think there is a reason to remove the point Nationality as it is now, because it works in almost all cases correctly. I rather suggest creating another one for Country or similar to be used in cases where the nationality and the country represented are not the same. With "#if" this won't be displayed in any of the articles where it isn't needed. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest as this case is sufficiently obscure that no tabular change is necessary, and that the circumstances of this case can be covered by a text addition to Jochen Rindt's article. The implication is clear that the 'nationality' refers specifically to his sporting career and if Rindt himself wanted to be refered to as German in any way it would have come up during the course of his career.
Our templates do not need to cover every technical or trivial anomaly whne the number of exceptions likely can be counted on one hand. --Falcadore (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sporting Nationality (Again, Yay!)

With an eye to the issue raised by Breton above, I'd like to suggest a small modification to the F1 infobox that might defuse a lot of these arguments before they start. The current infobox has a field called 'Nationality', by which we mean the nationality under which a driver competed in F1. It's not unreasonable that some readers expect the field to mean something else, such as passport nationality. Can I suggest that we amend the field name to Sporting nationality: or Competes for:? This way the field is called exactly what we mean by it, and hopefully there would be fewer arguments. What do others think? 4u1e (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's very clumsy. --Falcadore (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sporting nationality makes sense to me. "Compete for" could easily be confused for teams/manufacturers. IIIVIX (Talk) 06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sporting nationality works for me. "Competes for" suggests the team the driver races for. Darth Newdar talk 09:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This might be what you were suggesting, but can we have it so that the syntax says sporting nationality, while the actual infobox will still say nationality? - mspete93 [talk] 10:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It may be clumsy, but if it saves a single revert and difficult argument, it's worth it. Apterygial 10:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering whether the use of "sporting nationality" might imply that this is commonly different from ordinary nationality, which it isn't. While it's not unreasonable for some editors to expect the field to mean passport nationality, it's fairly unreasonable for them to persist once it has been clearly explained several times. Every other foreign-language wiki just says "nationality" yet it only seems to be here that we get a problem. I'd prefer MotorsportPete93's suggestion that the infobox displays "nationality" while the syntax clearly explains what we mean in terms of a sporting nationality. Possibly a clearly-worded note could be inserted into problem infoboxes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is that the article where the word Nationality directly links to clearly explains that the nationality in the racing licence IS the passport one. Nationality as a word can in theory be used more broadly than the word citizenship, but when it refers to the passport nationality it does equal citizenship.
I think it is absolutely necessary to change either the word or the linking, like it is now it is not only misleading but outright false in some cases where the licence and the passport are issued in different countries. An encyclopedia can not spread false informations only because it's more convenient than to find a formulation that suits to all of the cases and not only 99 % of them. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's important to point out that Rindt is the only case where this appears to be a problem. There is clearly some discrepancy here given that the regulations state that nationality on the licence must be the same as passport nationality, yet the nationality on his licence was Austrian, and the above IP says he has a source stating Rindt was German. Either the regulations were different then, or Rindt was Austrian. I think accusations of "spreading false informations" (sic) are unhelpful and not assuming good faith. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Among others the Aeiou Encyclopedia of the Austrian government states that Rindt was a German, not an Austrian national. I do not see any reason to doubt that information, the sources are reliable enough. This is the only case where it is a problem only because no interest is shown in other identical cases such as the Austrian citizen representing UAE Andreas Zuber. In his case it is exactly the same article 110.2 of the FIA International Sporting Code allowing him to represent another country than that of his nationality that it was in the case of Rindt. In the article of Zuber it states both Austria and UAE as his nationality, although he does not hold an UAE citizenship just like Rindt never held Austrian. If you as you suggest hold a copy of Rindt's racing licence stating his nationality as Austrian, I would personally be highly interested to see it. Also for reasons outside of this discussion.
I do not think it would be a problem to add an extra detail to the infobox that is used solely in these cases and otherwise left empty. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
One example of a formulation to suit all cases would be to replace the Nationality with the form Country. This can be seen also in several racing webpages. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)You'll accept, I presume, that there are many reliable sources to state that Rindt was Austrian, and producing one to the contrary doesn't achieve much. One source does not automatically trump another. As I explained to you elsewhere (why you construe it as a lack of interest is a mystery to me), Zuber has not taken part in a World Championship event, so his case is not identical at all, but irrelevant. In the event of him reaching F1, he would not be allowed to compete for the UAE if he is not a citizen of that country. Article section 112 explains this, as I explained to you. This is not something that the WikiProject has just ignored for the hell of it. People put a lot of research into this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No one has never claimed that Rindt would not have been in many ways Austrian. However he was not an Austrian national and that is proved by the most reliable source there is - the government of Austria. It is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. One can rightfully argue that the country of Rindt (i.e. the country he represented) was Austria, but to claim that he was an Austrian national has been proved false beyond any doubt. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Why do you insist that anyone is claiming he was an Austrian national? You know now what the infobox is stating. My personal opinion is that there is obvious blurring of Rindt's nationality, and there are sources for both nationalities. As long as the article makes it clear, it's fine. I prefer the text of the German language article and propose a similar text in the English version, that he was an Austrian racing driver born in Germany with German citizenship. You yourself said there was nothing wrong with this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The factual error resides in the infobox, not in the article itself. In the article it is easy to formulate the facts in several different correct ways and to me it really is irrelevant which of them is used as long as it is factually correct. However I still suggest that the "#if" line for country is added in the infobox and used in the cases like Rindt instead of nationality. For usual cases it can stay as it is now. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a factual error, more a difference of opinion in the nature of the term "nationality" as used in the infobox. With regard to the infobox, are you suggesting that instead of nationality, there is a "country" field for Rindt which can be populated in his case (instead of the nationality field), leaving other articles as they are? This would seem to be ok. I reiterate that this is the only such case in F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This is correct, I believe it is a solution we can agree on. Hopefully others as well? -134.93.52.128 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's hope so :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, this again. The big caveat here is that this is the situation as things stand today. The FIA of 2009 is a long long way from the FIA of even 1989, let alone 1969. It is perfectly possible for Rindt to have held exclusively German citizenship and yet have raced on an Austrian licence, and for the records in period to have simply noted the licence nationality and not his passport nationality. I'd like to see a copy of the ISC c.1970 before we jump to any conclusions about what can and can't have taken place, and nationality rules and regs of the late '60s were certainly not enforced rigerously (McLaren orange should have been black, or green, for example, as should Rob Walker and Ecurie Ecosse's blue cars). As a professional geologist I'm usually all for the theory of uniformitarianism, but where application of sporting regulations goes the present is certainly not the key to the past. For the vast majority of cases the current infobox syntax is perfectly fine, and as they are included here due to their sporting prowess it should be their sporting nationality that is given precedence. I don't see a problem, however, in appending a simple superscripted footnote to highlight the facts, rather than inventing a whole new, and potentially confusing data field. If you must add a new field, could you consider the much less confusing "Citizenship" as an alternative to the rather less helpful "Country" option (country of birth, country of citizenship, country of residence, an appreciation for the music of Willie Nelson, which?) Pyrope 20:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, just get rid of the whole nationality bit and have "Place of birth" instead. Readro (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
A question - exactly how many articles are causing the 'nationality' problem? Two? Three? Five? We do not have to make the templates bullet proof reliable for 100% of cases. AS I have stated above, there is not I feel, a need to change anything to suit the Jochen Rindt article. We've lived with previously the problems associated with Bertrand Gachot for example. These few exceptions are sufficiently few in number that we can chose one nationality, append it with an asterisk, and explain the clash in more detail in the accompanying text. --Falcadore (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for having posted and then disappeared - real life commitments again. Seems to me there's no consensus for change, so we leave firmly as is. In answer to Falcadore's last question, the proposed fix is relevant to all of the home nations drivers as well, where I have seen the argument put that that since, say, Jackie Stewart's "nationality" is Scottish (arguably true in one sense, albeit not the relevant one) then we should put that nationality in the infobox. However, I'm completely happy to continue with the status quo. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Premature 2010 Edits

First it was de la Rosa and Campos. Then Alonso and Ferrari. That was followed by Barrichello and Williams. Now it's de la Rosa and Senna at Campos. People - mostly IP addresses - have been editing in rumours and unconfirmed driver line-ups. Perhaps we should make a case for the page to be given indefinite semi-protection, because it's just going to keep happening. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

End-of-season updates

In the interests of avoiding a lot of confusion and/or work for ourselves, may I suggest we discuss/agree the changes we would like to see made to the F1 team/driver articles and templates following tomorrow's race? I propose that we do the same as at the end of last season, specifically:

Regarding timing, I suggest we:

  • add the new fields into {{Infobox F1 driver}} and {{Infobox F1 team}} now (but suppress display of the 2010 fields until after the end of tomorrow's race), to assist/pre-empt all those IP editors who will want to change Alonso's team to "Ferrari" 3 milliseconds after the chequered flag falls.
  • prepare an updated version of {{Formula One teams}}, which we can "drop in" at the conclusion of the race.

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of these proposals.--Midgrid(talk) 12:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Drop car numbers. Far as I can tell, all the 2009 car numbers are fully known, and the 2010 car numbers will not be known for quite some time yet.
I've added the 2010 parameters to the infoboxes in all the current driver and team articles and created updated "sandbox" versions of the Formula One teams, Infobox F1 driver and Infobox F1 team templates, which can replace the current versions following today's race. Note that I didn't update the infoboxes for Bourdais, Piquet, Badoer (who are currently identified as "former F1 drivers") or Bruno Senna (who doesn't have an F1 driver infobox). I decided to include the 2010 car numbers, with a note asking editors not to populate the fields until the final 2010 entry list is released. I thought that was a better option than having people add the fields randomly in the future. DH85868993 (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I've transferred the sandbox versions of the templates into the live versions. DH85868993 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Following some 2010 car number speculation at Lewis Hamilton, I've hidden the 2010 car number in {{Infobox F1 driver}}. DH85868993 (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was expecting to be doing that all winter. Apterygial 10:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not delete the 2010 number line? The car number won't be known for months yet, we can re-insert the line when the FIA reveal the teams list, has the added side benefit of if other users add a 2010 car number to the driver articles, it won't show up. --Falcadore (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right. I'm happy for 2010 car number to be removed completely from {{Infobox F1 driver}} (rather than just "commented out" as it is currently) and the driver articles. I probably won't have time to update the driver articles for about 36 hours or so, so if anyone else feels enthused to do it, go right ahead. If someone else does updaate the driver articles, I recommend removing the existing wikinote (which I added) at the same time. Apologies for any extra work I have caused. DH85868993 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the "2010 car number" fields from all the driver infoboxes. Thanks to Falcadore for removing it from the template. DH85868993 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Campos Grand Prix or Campos Meta?

Yeah, I know this has been done to death, but all the same - the Campos logo has appeared on FOTA's website, and apparently goes on their stationery as well. The team name appears as "Campos Meta" on the website, and on the WMSC press release anouncing the new teams. I'm not sure if there is a conflict with somethig from the FIA or somewhere, but the team name appears as Campos Meta on two different sources. Therefore, I think this page should be renamed Campos Meta. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the website "http://www.camposmeta.com/" clinch it? By the way, the logo (this) on the Campos Grand Prix page came from "http://www.camposgrandprix.com/" which now displays nothing. I think it is definitely Campos Meta. Darth Newdar talk 08:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I have now uploaded Campos Meta's new logo here. Once the article's moved, the old logo should be deleted, as well. Darth Newdar talk 08:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to move pages; otherwise, I'd do it myself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the request to WP:RM. Darth Newdar talk 14:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, if you have opinions on this, please add them to Talk:Campos Grand Prix#Requested move. Darth Newdar talk 19:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

DAMS GD-01 peer review

I have just created the article DAMS GD-01 and nominated it for a peer review. Any comments are much appreciated.--Midgrid(talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I should be able to get to it this weekend. Apterygial 11:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 rows in results tables

Am I right in thinking that we don't want to see "2010" rows in driver/team results tables yet? DH85868993 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It can wait until racing begins. --Falcadore (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Damn, we haven't even got a firm calendar yet! We can at least wait until February or something. Some of the "forward-thinking" on here amazes me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the two "2010" rows I have seen (in Rubens Barrichello and WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results) and added a wikinote at the end of all the current driver results tables asking editors not to add a "2010" line until the first race of the 2010 season. DH85868993 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hülkenberg article name

I have raised the idea of changing the name of the Nicolas Hülkenberg article to Nico Hülkenberg at the article's talk page. No official request yet, just an idea. - mspete93 [talk] 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Team history" edits

What do people think of these recent edits?: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Personally I think they're unnecessary - in all cases, the changes of team ownership/name are covered in text further down the article. But I thought I'd check what other people thought before reverting them. DH85868993 (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to have a quick reference History, just like the timelines in bios. Because the current teams keep something from the original ones such as the factory and, sometimes, even the personnel, like BrawnGP.Fsarmony (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Useless. If people want to know a team's history, they can read (what a suggestion!). Quick guides are becoming much too rampant and offer no true explanation behind the teams changing hands or even things such as factories and personnel. IIIVIX (Talk) 11:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It isn't very clear what it is meant to indicate. Essentially you would have to know the ownership history of the teams to understand it, thus defeating the entire point. --Falcadore (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It should be explained using those very strange things known as sentences. Darth Newdar talk 13:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as it stands that is just a list of names without explanation as to why they are significant. To understand why they are significant you either have to know already, or read the article. Pyrope 14:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
If there are no further objections within the next 24 hours, I'll revert the changes. DH85868993 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted them. DH85868993 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 race reports

FYI, 2010 British Grand Prix and 2010 Bahrain Grand Prix have been converted from redirects (to 2010 Formula One season) into articles. Are we happy with that? Or do we want them to stay as redirects for now? DH85868993 (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ATM there is only news items on them. Per WP:NOTNEWS, convert them back. The trivial news bollocks can receive its brief moment in the light on the 2010 season page. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Bahrain is now the next race, it could easily start developing, British, I'm reverting now. Jeez, still seven months away. --Falcadore (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice that 2010 British Grand Prix has been "re-article-ised", as has 2010 Australian Grand Prix. It's possibly/probably a losing battle. DH85868993 (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
While there may be some justification for the British because of the news surrounding it, (although if that news is born out it would then see the article deleted) and Bahrain as it is the next race, surely every other 2010 Grand Prix can stay a redirect until at least 2010 arrives, and some races well into 2010.
Is there any real reason to create any of the race articles more than a month before the race? All the relevant information that far out ahead of the races concerned is already well covered by season and Grand Prix articles. --Falcadore (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think a great solution - if this is possible - would be to keep all future GP pages as redirects to the season page on full protection, expiring a month before the GP, when they could be turned into articles. Does anyone know if the protection policy covers this kind of stuff? I couldn't find anything at Wikipedia:Protection policy, but we could IAR if we get an admin onside. Apterygial 05:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Page protection is not designed to be preemptive. IIIVIX (Talk) 05:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I think it would be hard to make it happen. But it would save a lot of these kind of arguments and people creating the pages where they shouldn't be. I'm just putting it out there, but if the software exists, why not use it? Apterygial 06:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not a software issue, it's a policy issue. The point is that Wikipedia is editable and you can't simply say "You can't edit this page because it is our opinion that you shouldn't." IIIVIX (Talk) 06:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, how is that any different to us reverting these edits whenever they happen? Apterygial 06:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Because it offers someone the opportunity to create an article that would be worth keeping. I honestly think the 2010 British Grand Prix article technically has merit based on the dispute and the media it has generated. IIIVIX (Talk) 06:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree 356, the debate generated already means that there is something to put on the page other than a fairly banal "is a race to be held on...". Each case should be judged on its merits and not revrted or redirected without thought or "per WP:F1". Pyrope 13:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
My primary concern has been the proliferation of the essentially blank articles with filled in templates. --Falcadore (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I certain agree that blank articles with just templates do not fit the criteria of something worth keeping, even without WP:F1 policy. But this still doesn't require padlocking the redirects. The359 (Talk) 13:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the British GP is notable enough to have an article. But as I said, I'm just putting the protection idea out there. There are probably better ways to do it. Apterygial 20:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Qxz-ad121.gif

While certainly not the most important thing in the world, if anyone is good at this kind of stuff or enjoys it, this ad could do with some jazzing up (little F1 cars whizzing about and other exciting stuff). Might want to put it on our userpages if anyone's got something good. BTW, this is one of the Wikipedia ads that a lot of people have on random on their userpages. Apterygial 06:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For starters, it should say "Formula One" instead of "Formula 1".--Midgrid(talk) 12:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fondtech/Fondmetal

Anyone know what if any link there is between the Fondtech organisation doing windtunnel work on the new Lotus F1 Team's car and the old Fondmetal team? My recollection is that part of the Fondmetal team split off into a consultancy firm (Fomet?), which I suspect is Fondtech. Just wondering if there's any sensible way of linking the two articles. No urgency! :) 4u1e (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fairly conclusive, first link on Google for Fondtech. The359 (Talk) 13:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This might also be a good opportunity for someone to expand our Fondmetal article to feature more than just the 1991/1992 F1 team. The359 (Talk) 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe the word is D'oh! 4u1e (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The TAG convention

Just started a topic on the conventions page, a page without any talk subjects for over three years. Since it was so seldom looked at, I thought I'd mention it here so a wider audience might comment. --Falcadore (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because it is an essentially redundant page. Why split discussions over so many specific boards? If you want to discuss any aspect of the project then it is best done here for the widest possible participation. In this case, I thought we linked TAG to TAG and Porsche to Porsche, thus covering both angles. Pyrope 04:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Check your watchlist, there is an unregisterred edittor re-writing all those links right now. --Falcadore (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

José Carlos Pace requested move

I have requested that the article José Carlos Pace should be moved to "Carlos Pace", which is the far more commonly used version of his name. Any discussion should take place here.--Midgrid(talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes GP

Do we start a new article for Mercedes GP as the previous Mercedes team links to Mercedes-Benz in motorsport? I jumped the gun a bit on Lotus and I have got the Mercedes GP article started, I'm just waiting for the go-ahead to press 'save page'. We should not continue at Brawn GP because this is not what we did with Sauber and BMW Sauber. - mspete93 [talk] 12:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear - looks like somebody else beat me to it. - mspete93 [talk] 12:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Would we want to merge the F1 history of the old team at Mercedes-Benz in motorsport into the new one, like Renault F1 and Honda Racing F1 Team? - mspete93 [talk] 13:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I would support a merger of the two articles.--Midgrid(talk) 13:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
By a merger, are you saying an article that covers both pages, because I would have thought both pages could stay, but with the destination of the old Mercedes-Benz team being the new Mercedes GP team, with the relevant information moved across. I don't support any arguement that would say that the Mercedes GP team should not have its own article yet 'because it hasn't competed yet' because March isn't very far away. - mspete93 [talk] 14:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the Grand Prix/F1 material from Mercedes-Benz in motorsport should be merged into Mercedes GP/Mercedes Grand Prix so that all the information is on the same page, as it is with the similar cases of Renault and Alfa Romeo.--Midgrid(talk) 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, good. Except for the fact that User:Eightball has done a cut and paste move from Mercedes GP to Mercedes Grand Prix. Two issues here. Cut and paste move for one, and secondly he did it without asking first. Can somebody follow this up with him please. - mspete93 [talk] 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have now told the cut and paste culprit of his errors. - mspete93 [talk] 19:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not that big of a deal and easily fixed, no need to call someone out over it. The359 (Talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Current drivers in F1 team templates

I notice that in many (most?) of the F1 team templates, the list of "Current drivers" has been updated to reflect the 2010 drivers. Are we happy with that? Or would we rather replace "Current drivers" with "2009 drivers" and "2010 drivers" (as we have done in the team infoboxes) until January 1st (or whenever)? Note that the BMW Sauber, Toyota and Brawn templates would be "special cases", since those teams have 2009 drivers but no 2010 drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeh the same is ocurring on some of the record pages, i.e. the unbolding of Raikkonen. What have we done in previous years? I'd go for the same option as the team infoboxes. Schumi555 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 car articles

I notice the recent creation of McLaren MP4-25. Keep and improve it, or kill it? DH85868993 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

100% speculation at the moment. No refs given for any of the guesswork. It will be a couple of months before this page can possibly be anything more than "the 2010 McLaren F1 car will be called...". Redirect to the McLaren page. Pyrope 02:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pyrope.--Midgrid(talk) 12:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Lotus should be Lotus F1 Racing, not Lotus F1 Team?

I've started a discussion regarding the name at Talk:Lotus F1 Team#Team name. - oahiyeel talk 06:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of Formula One drivers for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Initially I didn't pay much attention to this notification, in the mistaken belief that the article would either just retain its FL status or lose it, and I didn't really care much one way or the other. However, significant changes are being made/considered in the interests of retaining the FL status, as discussed here. I'd encourage other member of the project to read and/or participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Move of McLaren to McLaren Group

Wiki id2 has moved the old McLaren article to McLaren Racing. McLaren now redirects to McLaren Group. As far as I can see this move has not been discussed anywhere; indeed the last time the name of that page was discussed it was agreed that McLaren was the correct name for the racing team page. He was asked to discuss it here first but has deleted the request from his talk page and gone ahead with the move in any case.

I've asked Wiki id2 to comment here on the move. Could others please comment too? Going by a quick google, McLaren Racing is probably technically the correct name for the company that runs the cars, but we need to consider WP:COMMON too. And I doubt the majority of people at the present time are looking for McLaren Group if they search for McLaren. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We've also now lost the old McLaren talk page from the article; I guess it's at the redirect page.... 4u1e (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
And there's a bunch of broken redirects from McLaren (racing) scattered across the project. Sheesh. Would it be rude to reverse Wiki id2's work until we've got agreement on this? It's just causing problems at the moment. 4u1e (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I say reverse it, until the issue is properly discussed (again). Not only was the "move" executed improperly (via cut-and-paste), but there are now hundreds of links to McLaren which are intended to lead to the article about the racing team, which now lead to McLaren Group instead. DH85868993 (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reversed it. I hardly think it's rude to reverse this stuff when someone else was rude enough a) to do such a hatchet job on it, and b) to ignore all the lengthy previous discussion on this, which ended with the consensus to have the racing team article at McLaren. Maybe we can get rid of McLaren MP4-25 while we're here. Reverted McLaren MP4-25 to a redirect since there's very little info on the car, and none of it sourced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
And McLaren Group needs a good clean-up for grammar and referencing, if anyone has the time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
What Wiki Id2 did was rude, I wouldn't be too concerned about rudeness of response. Revert all. If there's a discussion about moving stuff, don;t move anything its fine how it is. --Falcadore (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi it's wiki id2 look I'm sorry about what I did your right I should've came on to this page first. I'm sincerely sorry for what I did but please let me off I'm new to wikipedia I don't understand everything over here. However to end the topic we should seriously be discussing the McLaren Group move because I personally believe that McLaren Group is becoming more centralised under Ron Dennis's plans to vastly expand the group from just Formula One. Just like Ferrari and just like the Ferrari article I beleive it should be separate.

Once again sorry for causing such an issue over an edit war but please let me off. I'm still learning. (Wiki id2 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Hey, don't sweat it - it's just always better to discuss the big things before moving stuff around. People here always have an opinion, and there's often a quicker or better way of doing things.
About the McLaren move - we had a discussion a while ago about it, and there was a consensus to keep the racing team article at McLaren because of the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. The McLaren Group, as I understand it, is more of an umbrella organisation covering the racing team and other enterprises. The racing team needs to be kept as a separate article as it is distinct from the other branches of the group. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry your I beleive your a bit confused what I propose is just like Ferrari that McLaren redirects to McLaren Group and on the top we have the guideline saying "For the Formula One Team McLare Racing click here" Reason being people should be aware about McLaren more than just Formula One. If you type Ferrari it comes to Ferrari SpA and there is a guidline saying For the F1 team click Scuderia Ferrari. I also beleive the title page is wrong where it says mergin "Mclaren" with McLaren Group I simply want to do some redirects but I need some consensus and opininons of other people. The more help more appreciated. Thanks (Wiki id2 (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I see where you are coming from with this. Ferrari links to the parent company, and Scuderia Ferrari links to the racing team. McLaren however links to the racing team and McLaren Group, to the parent company. Wanting McLaren to link to the parent group makes some sense, but we should follow the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidlines. Most people who search for "Ferrari" would be looking for the parent company rather than the racing team, and that is why Ferrari links to the parent company. However, McLaren is different, as most people who search for "McLaren" would be looking for the racing team, and this is why McLaren should link to the racing team. Think of it like this: ask someone what Ferrari is, and they are most likely to say that car company. Ask someone what McLaren is and they will most likely say the racing team. I hope that makes as much sense written here as it does in my head! - mspete93 [talk] 18:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm not confused at all. A search for "Ferrari" directs people to the parent company because it's more well-known than the racing team. "McLaren" links to the racing team because it's more well-known than the parent company. That's how the above two guidelines that MotorsportPete93 mentioned work. The last discussion we had about this outlined exactly how many people visit each article, and we based the article names and redirects on that. We're here to direct people to where they want to go, not to try and force-educate them about other parts of McLaren. Apart from everything else, the number of links to the racing team just using the McLaren link is astronomical. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Point made however if Ron Dennis plans to extend the group from just motorsport than it is extremely important that people are aware of something else of McLaren besides F1. I understand that F1 is the bread and butter for McLaren just as it was for Ferrari and McLaren is at the phase Ferrari was 50 years ago of changing only motorsport to motorsport and car manufacuturing. It's changing from just a Formula One team and altough that is what most people might search for but they need to be aware of other McLaren facilities. Any opinions. Thanks (Wiki id2 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

That's not a problem. At the top of the McLaren page, it says:
This article is about the Formula One team. For the parent company, see McLaren Group. For other uses, see McLaren (disambiguation).
So we are letting people know about other parts of McLaren. Darth Newdar talk 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
That would do just fine. While the other branches of the McLaren Group are smaller and less notable than the F1 team, then the main article is the F1 team. If and when other parts of the organisation grow to be as or more notable (like Ferrari) then we can look at it again. As I say, we're not here to promote anything or favour the rest of the group over the F1 team just because Ron Dennis is moving into other areas. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Qadbak Sauber

FYI, I have proposed the recently-created Qadbak Sauber for deletion, for being too speculative. DH85868993 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, delete with fire. --Falcadore (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Qadbak is no longer involved, so the article should definitely be deleted.--Midgrid(talk) 11:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Might this be speediable now? Given that Qadbak never bought the team. Readro (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Badly written article in any case - looks like cut&paste job from somewhere else, given all those non-superscript "[5]" and similar. Lose it. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It is in fact a bad copy-paste job from our own BMW Sauber article. Pyrope 15:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've virtually redone the article in case anyone stumbles upon it as the information was incorrect following today's developments. Can we delete it please? - mspete93 [talk] 17:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This team never existed. No deal was done with these Qadbak people so the whole thing is a non-event. Should be speediable, no? Although the prod expires soon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I don't think it actually meets any of the speedy deletion criteria. Probably the closest is G3, but (I believe) the article was created in good faith (just a bit prematurely) rather than as a "blatant hoax", and since mspete93's edits, it no longer contains any misinformation! However, as Bretonbanquet pointed out, the prod expires in about 24 hours anyway, so it should be gone soon enough. Although by all means feel free to endorse the proposed deletion by adding a {{prod-2}} template into the article. DH85868993 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It's gone. DH85868993 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_24&oldid=1238761772"