Jump to content

Talk:2010 Formula One World Championship/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Points awarded for each position/standings tables

Any chance we could have a note of how many points are awarded for each position just below the currents standings table? I know the new 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 system is referred to under rule changes earlier in the article, but personally, as a regular user of this page, I would find it helpful to have it repeated next to the tables. Any views? Tagilbert (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Brendon Hartley

He has been dropped from both Red Bull Racing teams and been replaced by Jean Eric Vergne. Source; http://en.espnf1.com/redbull/motorsport/story/23806.html?CMP=OTC-RSS (Zeoace (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

The article clearly states that Vergne is replacing Hartley in Formula Renault, not as the team's F1 reserve. The359 (Talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have read elsewhere that Hartley is to be removed from reserve roles, but not on any replacement for F1. QueenCake (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Should we not remove him from the list?? I already did, but someone undid it! --Brody59 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If he fulfilled the test/reserve driver role for any of the season then he should remain in the column, just as Sakon Yamamoto is still in the column despite now racing. Officially Mr X (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
While worthy on mention on the Brendon Hartley article, no changes need to be made here. The sacking of a test driver is hardly an event of consequence in the Formula One season. --Falcadore (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Results Table

I don't understand why someone would go to the effort of moving Mark Webber from 3rd to 4th on the championship table after the German race, when he is on equal points with Vettel (so firstly it would have been simpler to just update the points without switching their positions) and secondly, technically Webber is ahead of Vettel as he has won more races. Please keep the Vettel favourtism off Wikipedia. Lets keep it objective please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.39.86 (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that why about me but i dont like vettel, i miss read the table when i was doing it and got it wrong.--WrcF1(Talk) 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This was apparently a mistake, but for clarity, there should never be any arbitrary positioning of drivers in the results table. There is always a reason why one is ahead of the other, and in this case, Webber is ahead because he has more wins, as the IP has pointed out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I know I been editing f1 and wrc pages for 2 years ok I know what to do I though vettel had more wins I miss read it and i know now webber has more.--WrcF1(Talk) 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't get testy - as I said, "for clarity". My comment wasn't even aimed at you. On the other hand, if you "know what to do", you might be expected to get it right. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Bretonbanquet - What a disgracefully vicious and unwarranted attack on somebody trying to improve the page who happened to make a small error. You should be ashamed of yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.55.10 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Disgracefully vicious"? You don't think that's a slight exaggeration? You need to get out more. You also need to read the exchange again, as I clearly wasn't criticising him for his mistake - I think that is very obvious. I did, I think fairly, pull him up when he answered me in a stroppy way (when I wasn't even addressing him) "I know what to do", which clearly wasn't accurate. Be a little bit careful in future about how you accuse people of "disgracefully vicious" personal attacks. You also need to sign your comments with four tildes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
ok sorry--WrcF1(Talk) 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nick Heidfeld to Pirelli

The fact that Heidfeld now works for Pirelli does not mean that his period as Mercedes test driver vanishes into the ether as though it had never happened. Britmax (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but maybe the entry should be clarified by putting (until [month]) after his name. Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mid-race updates

Just a thought. Do we really need to update the page for each mid-race retirement? Isn't that a bit unnuccessary? Why not just update it once at the end of the race? --Falcadore (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not just unneccessary, it's a little bit speculation. A driver who retires at the pits can go out and drive again. It is better to wait and update the table after the race with ONE edit. --Gamma127 (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. QueenCake (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary, particularly as they can cause edit conflicts if someone is updating the table during the race with the intention of submitting the edit at the end of the race. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 16:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess i will say ok as i do it the most but people will still do it so how can we stop them?--WrcF1(Talk) 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask nicely. --Falcadore (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
People do it, because they think that we want mid-race updates. When they see that mid-race updates are not tolerated, they won't do them anymore. --Gamma127 (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought we were going to stop mid race updates? Can we at least not update the "XXXX, the current championship leader" photo until the race is actually finished? The picture was changed from Mark Webber to Sebastian Vettel after Webber crashed out - and then Vettel retired as well. Vettel wasn't leading the championship at any point and it is incorrect to change it so early. If people want live updates, there are lots of other places to see live updates - this is not what Wikipedia is for. Terlob (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, they should not be doing it. Especially predicting championship leader points as it's crystal balling. The359 (Talk) 09:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Right now sebastian vettel is pictured as the championchip leader. This leads me to really question the utility of mid race updates. I mean, retirements, thats fine, Mark Webber isn't going to unretire after he retires. But updating the pictured leader based on tentative results is unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.172.155 (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mid-race updates are bad bad bad. They are crystal balling, misleading, and an absolute pain in the backside when it comes to proper post race editing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Teams & drivers table

I don't want to sound stupid, and I think it may be a malfunction, but where has the teams & drivers table gone? WilliamF1two (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm I see the table there, together with all of them. Looks normal to me? QueenCake (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I can see it now, I don't know what happened WilliamF1two (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Report section - a blog

The report section only contains 3 supported claims for its coverage of 15 or so races. The section appears to be almost entirely WP:OR - any chance of some race fans bringing it up to standard with respect to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTBLOG? Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Last season's report section looked pretty similar until it was rewritten at the end of the season, I was planning to do that if no one else did. I have to say the editors doing it now are putting more information than really required - this is meant to be a summary. QueenCake (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not very well written, but then neither are the race articles well written. Both read more like something from a second-rate magazine or a blog than an encyclopedia. The report in this season article does need to be shorter and sourced though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean "not well written"? Do you know how long it takes me to write up those race reorts without sounding like I'm repeating myself and still remain clear as to what happened? I haven't had a single complaint about my style - recount sequentially, focus on major events, and so on. It's the way I've been writing them since the 2009 Australian Grand Prix, and no-one has taken issue with them. If you think you can do a better job, you're welcome to try your hand at it with the article on the Korean Grand Prix. But until you can hold up an example of what a "well written" article is for me to go by, I'll keep writing the way I write because it's the only way how. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't take it personally - I never look to see who writes them, and one in particular I was thinking of was not written by you. It doesn't matter too much about repeating yourself, and the major events are covered just fine, but it's some of the language that's not appropriate - slangy phrasing and so on - that isn't encyclopedic. In the Japanese article, it was things like "The peace was short-lived", or "making short work" of passing someone, or "summarily" overtaking someone - it's too chatty, and it's also not very NPOV. Saying that someone made "the worst start", when that is unverifiable. Also things like saying that di Grassi "over-stepped himself" when we had absolutely no idea what happened with his crash. Even if it was his fault, that's no way for an encyclopedia to describe it. I see that the criticism of Alguersuari's defence of Kobayashi's move was mentioned, when no mention at all is made of Kobayashi barging Alguersuari out of the way the first time round. Or the fact that Heidfeld gifted his position to Kobayashi. Way too much Kobayashi-love all over the articles. It also said that Kubica and Rosberg retired in similar fashion. Rosberg hit the wall at 130mph, and Kubica pulled off the track at walking pace - only the fault was similar. It's things like that which stick out. As I say, it's nothing personal against you - but this is the kind of thing I mean. An encyclopedia should aim for a bit less Autosport and a bit more Motor Sport. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Question that might be worth addressing

From the article itself, it's not abundantly clear why a 12th place finish for Lotus shores up 10th spot in the constructors championship - it still leaves them on 0 points. I assume it's the same reason as HRT somehow jumping Virgin - the tie breaker of highest place (and most duplications of that placing), followed by a tie breaker of (number of) next best placings. Hopefully this could be sourced from FIA regulations, but I'm not sure how to go about noting all of that. 58.174.148.82 (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good point, and it needs a bit of clarification. HRT were already ahead of Virgin though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the designation "NC", not classified, would be more appropriate for the constructors AND drivers who have not yet scored. Otherwise, everything is as it should be. 184.100.47.88 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Except that they are classified. Once a constructor or driver has been classified in a race, they are classified in the Championship. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Add team to results page

Apart from the driver it would be useful to have the team of the driver as a column in the GP results table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthijs (talk • contribs) 11:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is. That's what the "winning constructor" column is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I mean, add a column in the driver's table with the team and vice versa for the constructors table. This way both tables are self-sufficient. Now one has to go back and forth to see which driver is in which team and which team has which drivers. If someone else finds this useful, why not add it?
Could we then delete to table that lists which driver drives for which team? Since we're doubling up on data... No? Then no, don't put it into the results matrix. --Falcadore (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Sponsorship Changes

The Sponsorship changes and information was removed in accordance with a discussion on the 2011 page here, as it is ultimately not important in the context of the whole season. If a sponsorship deal influences any driver/team changes, then it can be included in the relevant section. QueenCake (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

When did we start ...

... Listing sponsor names as a part of the constructor name? I was looking at this page the other day (now that the season is over, I tend to leave it alone) and something in the constructor points table caught my eye. Instead of being referred to as "McLaren-Mercedes" as we do in the past, someone had changed the entries to show their full sponsor name; in the case of McLaren, it was "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes". I have found no references where the FIA lists the full sponsor name in the place of the constructor, despite being advised to by another editor. So I have to ask: why are we doing this? The sponsors have never been referred to as construtors in the past, and there are no references to support this, so why have we suddenly started? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the official team names, for instance Marlboro pay Ferrari a huge amount, even though they can't actually put their name on the car, but as part of their contract the team name is Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. But that's not the issue here. The FIA treats team names and constructor names separately. Where Ferrari's team name is Scuderia Ferrari Malboro, their constructor name is simply Ferrari. However, someone has been editing the constructors' points table to reflect the full team names and not the constructor names. When Ferrari win a race, 25 constructor points are given to Ferrari, not to Scuderia Ferrari Malboro, if that makes sense. When the final points standings are released at the end of the year, the WCC table will show that Ferrari have X amount of points, not that Scuderia Ferrari Malboro has them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The 3rd placed Constructor is clearly shown in the the Reference link 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship Guide as archived at www.webcitation.org on 12 December 2010 as “Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro”. Why is this fact being ignored in the above discussion? GTHO (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not being ignored. Observe this page. You'll see the race-winning Constructor is listed by their Constructor name only, not their full team name. Keeping the Constructor name in the results table is not only consistent with the rest of the page, but with all the other Formula 1 pages. Find me definitive proof that the FIA always refers to a constructor by their full team name, including sponsors, rather than by their Constructor name, and I'll support the changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at FIA Press Information - 2001 SAP US Grand Prix It would appear that www.formula1.com still haven't caught up with an FIA policy change that occured around ten years ago. GTHO (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, information ten years out of date is very relevant to today. Not only is it ten years old, it is the entry list for a single race, not the end-of-season championship standings. If you watch a race, the points tables shown before and after refer to teams in the Constructors standings as "McLaren-Mercedes", not "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes". Find supporting evidence that demonstrates the way the FIA refer to full team names (including sponsors) as the constructor name, and then we can talk about changes. For now, observe all the season pages and note that we do not show full team names in the Constructor tables. Doing so contradicts the team and driver tables, which clearly divide the team names up to show team name and Constructor name. The Constructor table reflects these Constructor names; to show the Constructor table with team names contradicts the rest of the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

When did the FIA change the Constructors Championship to a Teams championship? That should be fairly easy to establish. --Falcadore (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's easy - they didn't. But GTHO is arguing that the FIA considers constructor names and team names to be the same thing, not that they changed the championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Team names though means a Team's Championship, so I'm hoping it can be shown there was a decision to alter the Constructors Championship to a Teams Championship. If not, then Constructor's nomenclature should stay. --Falcadore (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK, FIA has never listed the Constructors' winner by the team name. The constructor's official name is rarely (never?) the team name in any event. Moreover, as noted elsewhere, WP is not FIA, so what FIA does or does not do has little bearing here. WP is meant to be accessible to the casual reader, not the fan. If you propose making this change now, I must suggest you also change every single team name for every single race page going back to 1950 (or about 1946 for Scuderia Ferrari), & watchlist them all to make sure nobody changes them back, & accept total & sole responsibility for seeing they don't get changed back. Or you can just quit asking. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not asking to make this change at all. I'm asking for any edittor who wants to change constructor's nomenclature to team names to find where the FIA announced the Constructor's Championship became a Team's Championship. --Falcadore (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at official FIA time-sheets (which are published after every race on the FIA website). The teams are listed there under their full name which includes sponsors (e.g. Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro), even in the "Constructors' Championship" sheet. The team names are listed everywhere under the heading "Entrant" though, and the "Constructor" is not listed anywhere. I'm not sure if it means FIA was very careful with semantics when designing those sheets, or (which is more likely) they just followed a (semi-)official nomenclature as used in F1. cherkash (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

More to my last point: if you carefully study F1 Sporting Regulations (SR) and F1 Technical Regulations (TR) for 2011 (year 2011 is chosen without loss of generality, as the regulations haven't been changing much in the recent years with respect to the terminology), you'll notice that:
  • The term "constructor" is not used at all in TR;
  • The terms "competitor" and "constructor" are used essentially interchangeably in SR (compare e.g. articles 7.1 vs 7.2, as well as 6.2 vs. 6.3 — in both it's implicitly assumed that this terms mean the same entity);
  • The term "entrant" is also not used directly anywhere in SR or TR, but this term is indirectly applied to a "competitor" by using such terms as "enter" and "entered by".
You can make your own judgment based on this facts, but it looks to me that there's no clear distinction being made by FIA between teams (which are effectively "competitors") and constructors. Moreover, in the past it used to be the case that every team had to design and build (i.e. construct) its own cars. And although I don't believe this requirement survived in exactly this form till the present day, I believe it has still effectively survived in the form of article 6.3 of SR which requires constructor/competitor to design so-called "Listed Parts".
And so it seems to me that so hotly-debated issue of distinction between teams and constructors is effectively a non-issue, as they are kind of the same. And the Constructors' Championship is being officially contested between teams/competitors nowadays. cherkash (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at the official entry list from the FIA. As you can see there is a clear distinction made between the "Constructor" and the "Team" competing in the championship. Although nowadays the terms are essentially the same, as every entrant must construct its own chassis, the constructors championship was established back in the era where multiple entrants could use the same constructor - hence the important distinction in the tables. This has never been formally changed by the FIA, nor are team names used instead of constructors in the media. QueenCake (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe there is still one modern day occurrence that could occur and result in a constructor and team not being the same, which is a change of engine supplier mid-season. For example, say Red Bull switch to Cosworth halfway through the season. Assuming they scored points with both, there would be two entries in the constructors championship: Red Bull-Renault and Red Bull-Cosworth. They would not be combined under Red Bull Racing. AlexJ (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental question is "Who did the FIA award the 2010 Formula One World Championship for Constructors to? According to the FIA it was awarded to "Red Bull Racing". GTHO (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this talk section establishes quite firmly that it is not the fundamental question, otherwise the debate would be much simplified. --Falcadore (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to go and search down the information now, but somewhere there's an official document that details that the party responsible for the chassis accepts the championship on behalf of the constructor (i.e. in this case Red Bull Racing on behalf of Red Bull-Renault). However, whilst this may mean that Red Bull Racing were awarded the championship in the most literal sense, it was Red Bull-Renault that were classified 1st in the table and scored 498 points. That is what's relevant here. AlexJ (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I spent thirty seconds looking and found the information - it's right at the start of the Sporting Regs: "If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car.". AlexJ (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The Sporting Regulations also tell us that “No more than 26 cars will be admitted to the Championship, two being entered by each competitor” and that “The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points”. The two Red Bulls were entered by Red Bull Racing which makes Red Bull Racing the “competitor” and thus Red Bull Racing were awarded the Constructors Championship. But it’s how the FIA interpret their own regulations that is important and they have published a table of the 2010 Constructors Championship results with “Red Bull Racing” at the top, followed by “Vodafone McLaren Mercedes”, “Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro” etc. GTHO (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You have to admit though at the end of every Formula One telecast, which is prepared by the official Formula One broadcasting authority, not by local broadcasters, it does display points for every race in constructors nomenclature. The race broadcasts are offical F1 documents. So really you are being unneccessarily pedantic for the occasional blurring of constructors and team nomenclature.
Unless you are willing to state with references that FOM TV broadcasts do not represent formula One policy. You can do that can you? --Falcadore (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

After looking over the whole discussion, I am now confused if there is one or several issues that are debated here. Is this a question of terminology — whether semantics of terms constructor and team are the same in F1 nowadays? Or is this an issue of what to do with specific articles, and how to keep presentation of information uniform across similar pages? Is there another tangential issue that is debated and which I missed here? The discussion seems to jump from one topic to another without any continuity or conclusions that can be reached in such manner. cherkash (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As with the similar 2011 article, I would like to restore the calendar table to the state it was in prior to the edit that occurred on June 11, 2012, in which the links to the appropriate GP pages were unilaterally destroyed without discussion and without a reasonable and rational explanation.

The reason I would like the links restored is they make navigating to the appropriate articles less of a chore for the reader. That is the beauty of hyperlinks. The table has a row for each GP of the season and a column giving the full 'Race Name' of each of those GPs (which is specific to that year's race), along with the circuit name and the date. Yet, although there is a race name given for each row in the table and a separate article exists to cover each of those specific races, that article is, following the destructive edit of June 11 that I would like to revert, no longer hyperlinked. Indeed the race name is no longer hyperlinked to any article at all so is vacant and begging for the link to be restored. Perversely, there is a redundant column in the table, the one labelled 'Grand Prix,' which does carry a hyperlink; but not to the specific GP concerned, rather to the generic GP article for that country. The guideline for links is specific in reccommending the most specific links possible be made, with them then in turn linking to the more general articles. Why shouldn't we do that here?

Eff Won (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is on Talk:2012 Formula One season. The359 (Talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That is one article, this is another. Eff Won (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
But it's essentially the same subject, regardless of multiple-articles. Either argue it once only at the 2012 page, or shift the whole argument to WT:Formula One. Argueing the same subject on multiple pages will just encourage multiple contradicting and confusing outcomes. --Falcadore (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that, it makes sense to me. I realise it is essentially the same subject, but didn't know about WT:Formula One (a search found it as WT:F1). Whereas it doesn't make sense to discuss this, the 2010 article, or the 2011 article in the 2012 article, it does seem to make sense to discuss all three in WT:F1. Let's move them all to there then. Eff Won (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note: as suggested above, this discussion has moved to WT:F1. Eff Won (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Official Race Edit Songs section

Many may have noticed that the Official Race Edit Songs section has been added to this article.
This is because the previous article it was included in was deleted because it was not a stand-alone article.

Please leave this section in this article.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyBranton (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Except the article that the section was "spun off from" is now at AFD, so it may be an inevitability that it will get removed soon. ZappaOMati 04:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on 2010 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Formula_One_World_Championship/Archive_6&oldid=1140237854"