Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Key colours

An editor has suggested to me that we need to change the colours of the results tables to a more "brutal" gold / silver / bronze scheme, rendering them hideous, in my opinion. He's changed the Michael Schumacher article as a test, and I said I'd ask here for comment. Persoanlly, I hate it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The colour is too strong and makes my eyes involuntarily unfocus when I look at the table.--Diniz(talk) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. The "gold" looks more like a mustardy colour. The "bronze" is a horrid brown. Please can we revert this? Readro (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do. I told the guy I wouldn't revert it myself, it seemed a little arbitrary on my part. I think another editor's condemnation of the new colours would be better. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. I guess it was worse on Schumacher page. With so many wins! LeaveSleaves (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I really don't like it either. 4u1e (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was fairly sure it wouldn't be popular, but in my new spirit of being nice to people, I thought I'd bring it here rather than dismiss it out of hand :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You could have brought it up in a more dispassionate manner - talk about stacking the deck before the discussion takes place: "brutal" "hideous" "personally, I hate it" Mark83 (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most initial requests for comment tend to be weighted towards the side of the person bringing the discussion up. It's up to the other party to come and provide the defence. From where I see it, the discussion starter has as much right to express their opinion as any responders. AlexJ (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark's probably got a point - the first comment may tend to colour the rest - although asking the person bringing the point up not to comment does seem a bit unfair. I really didn't like the colours though, even if everyone else had loved them.... 4u1e (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I appear to have missed the last part of the discussion here. I am perfectly entitled to say whatever I want about my thoughts on the matter. Everyone else here has a mind of their own, it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that simply because the first comment is coloured a certain way, that all others will follow suit. I look forward to the next time Mark83 brings up a point for discussion in a really dispassionate manner. "Brutal" was the word used by the guy proposing the colour change, if you'd bothered to ask. Someone else said it was "horrid" yet no-one had a pop at him. This idea was a stupid idea, and it was proved so by no-one agreeing with it. But I thought it the right thing to do to bring it here. It's typical of this WP that someone still finds a petty beef with it. Next time I'll just leave it for someone else to deal with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Standings on race reports

What is the call on writing pre- and/or post championship standings on individual race pages? There have been couple of recent additions ([1] and [2]) and I thought I should check with others before simply reverting them. LeaveSleaves (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to add post-race standings, although I didn't agree with it. There was no discussion on pre-race standings as far as I recall, and I thought we agreed no flags in the standings tables... Bretonbanquet (talk)

Is this about what I added. This has been on other pages before so I thought I'd nick it and add it seeimg as we re now in the last 3 races. Sorry about flags, I thought nice touch. Chubbennaitor 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

From memory, we'd always previously agreed against adding standings to individual race reports, except most recently when the question came up again for D.M.N.'s FAC for 1995 Japanese Grand Prix, which does include them. I guess the current consensus is to have them. 1995 Pacific Grand Prix (also FA) has them too. 4u1e (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I dug up some of the archives and found most of the instances where the stand was against addition of this data, viz. 1, 2, 3. As for the FAs that 4u1e mentioned, use of references seemed to be the factor considered against their removal. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We now have an editor who has created an entirely different table, with all kinds of irrelevant information, and he is insisting on its insertion in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix article. I'll revert it once more and direct him here for discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice you haven't left a message on either his talk page or the article talk page. It would be best to take it there rather than edit warring, even if you have to leave the article in his format for a little while. An explanation rather than brief edit summaries of "it's consensus" would be best. The359 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevancy or otherwise, kindly do not bait another editor into an edit war. I just had the misfortune of loosing an edit in the midst of an edit conflict resulting from your edit warring.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think this is the best place to have this discussion, since there is already a discussion here. It's a pretty minor edit war, I have only reverted him twice and I have directed him here. I think that's a perfectly rational direction to take. Huawei, sorry you couldn't retrieve your edit - I'll ask you personally next time I make an edit, to make sure I'm not conflicting with you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd rather you didn't accuse me of "baiting" another editor. By the way, I had an edit conflict on this very page simply because you were adjusting your comment to make it a little more snarky, but you don't see me complaining about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And if you believe that makes you an honourable person, you may be delighted to know that the very same thing happened to me while trying to correct the errors in my message. Not that I am complaining about that either, but just get off the high horse. An unregistered user's contributions are not any less than registered ones, and if an expanded table has a potential for being useful, why not bring it up here for consideration for addition, instead of coming here to gain support for its removal by calling it "irrelevant". Please be reminded that consensus can change, and since we are on this topic, I may reopen the debate over flags. Removing them in this case is removing information on nationalities. Are we going to consider adding a column for nationality in place of flags then?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Everybody calm. The discussion can take place here, but I still believe that you should explain why he should come here to discuss it by messaging him, rather than leaving it in the exceptionally short edit summaries. The359 (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed to be an honourable person, and you are not in any position to judge that. If you arrive out of the blue accusing people of baiting other editors, then perhaps it is you riding the high horse, don't you think? Just because you lost an edit - your edits are no more important than anyone else's. On a less irrelevant note, these tables have been discussed at great length on several occasions, and until recently, there was consensus against the tables in any form. Lately there was an agreement to include the tables in a simplified format, which has not been carried out at all until today. There are already two flags for each driver on every page, so deciding not to add a third is hardly "removing information about nationalities", I'm sure you'll agree. The IP editor's other inclusions, such as car numbers, have been discussed and were dismissed out of hand, if I recall, and rightly so. The359, I take your point about messaging the IP editor, but I considered this live discussion a relevant place to direct him. His edit summaries were not particularly friendly, so I did not want to get into a slanging match with him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we always used to be against the "Standings after race" until here. See the typical IP one, and see the referenced, nicer version. D.M.N. (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Flags

On the flags issue, this was never brought up in either the Japan or Pacific FAC's - if it was a big concern, it would have definitely been raised at the FAC. I don't see it too much of a problem (at least to edit-war over) myself. D.M.N. (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall that point was brought up during the last discussion we had. I just feel that the race reports are in danger of becoming a flagfest. Why should each driver has his flag shown three times? Isn't it overkill? They add nothing when included with such frequency. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But what if there is a driver in the Top 5/6 in the point standings who is not anywhere else in the race report due to injury? Michael Schumacher comes to mind as being well up in the points before he broke his leg. The359 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And we can't just have one flag, cause that would look out of place. We need consistancy, and I don't see anything wrong with putting flags in. Cadan ap Tomos 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. I just feel that so many flags look ridiculous. Incidentally, you mention consistency, but even once these tables were decided upon, those who were calling for their inclusion didn't actually add any to the race articles. There are still only three for the whole of the 2008 season. It just seems very half-hearted and it creates inconsistency across the season. These things should either be added or dropped, not thrown in here and there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And also, how significant is it to add a reference to such a table? Or should they be left to themselves, like classification tables? LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

First off WP:DEADLINE - there is no deadline for adding them. The reason they are in the Japan/Pacific articles is because they have been fully expanded and are fully in standard with the MoS standards today, and are thus featured articles. LeaveSleaves, results tables are very easily verified, millions of people watched the races, yet standings are not as easily verified, thus should have a reference. On a seperate note, the FAC standards have been heavily tightened within the last six months and the chances are a few articles that are currently FA on the scale would not pass a FAR should one ever get put forward. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For sure there's no deadline - but I suspect there's actually no intent anywhere to spread these things across the board. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We still have race results pages with almost no templates, race reports, qualifying, anything on them but a chart of the race results. It takes time for new concepts to filter through to the hundreds of race articles we have, but someone will be bored enough someday to go through them. The359 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we really having pre-race standings tables now as well, as per the 2008 Japanese Grand Prix? Complete with yet another set of flags? How long before we have a set of tables after each lap? I give up, I really don't remember that being discussed here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the first time I've seen it - I suspect once the event is run, it'll be removed. AlexJ (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why Chubbennaitor added that... The359 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-race points table should be removed entirely. The standings prior to the race are more than adequately covered by the 2008 Singapore GP article, and by the 2008 season summary article. Both articles are adequately wikilinked from the Japan GP article should anyone want to know what the points are. Triplication is really unneccesary, and it is further filling an article with tabluar stats. Wikipedia should not be a stats database first, there are already more than enough websites out there covering Formula 1 statistics. --Falcadore (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree - we need to avoid turning this into another version of FORIX or something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the discussion is basically dead by now, but another reason to avoid pre- and post-points standings is that if done you may as well list all 20 drivers if you list 5 (top 5 aren't always the most important). As that'd clutter up the page immeasurably, its a good idea to just circumvent problems like this by avoiding inevitably incomplete info like this. Apterygial (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Why remove them from the Japanese but not Singapore? I think it's needed becasue it s close and in the last few races it is wanted to know the standings of the championship. t adds information to the Championship race so it's quite needed. Does it matter about other sights hosting the results? No, we are an encyclopedia and people don't know what the standings were at that point where as we only show the last standings by the end which are useful but I don't want to work out the standings at that point. Chubbennaitor 19:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The pre-race stuff was removed from the Singapore article as well. It's a race article, not an article about the championship. If anyone wants to know the standings they can either look at the dopey post-race tables on the previous race article, or hell, maybe they could look at the season article with all the info they can possibly need. That's the whole point of the season article. There's no sense in repeating this stuff, in text or in tabular form, over and over again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bretonbanquet on this one. Race reports are drowning in tables already, if we consider 1995 Japanese Grand Prix as a 'complete' example of a normal GP, then the length of the article compared with tables is roughly 50/50 at my screen resolution. If key championship pre-race positions need clarifying, then it can be done in prose. AlexJ (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But that only gives the final result and none of the articles I see have the post race thing so how could they, or hell, look in the article before. I've seen it being used and the whole reason I joined was because I wanted to add things I thought this place needed and as the audience wanted. Fine no pre- but definitely post-. Chubbennaitor 15:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We agreed here several times over to have the post-race tables, but still none of the people who wanted them have actually bothered to add any. If you want them, add them. You can hardly expect people who didn't really want them to go around adding them. The Singapore race has them, but they don't just magically appear because we agree a consensus to include them - someone actually has to add them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well then why remove them? Chubbennaitor 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, since the new position was agreed, no editor has been removing post-race tables from articles. AlexJ (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add things, why not add some text instead of adding more tables? Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia not a statistics resource. There are many other websites out there dedicated to being stats resources, we should not be duplicating their effort, or even duplicating our own as a pre-race point score appears already as the post score on the previous grand prix and on the summary page. --Falcadore (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ti(y)res

I changed the spelling of tyre to tire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.180.251 (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All formula one articles have always been written with the spelling "tyres". I am against changing them. - oahiyeel ^talk 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tyre is the European spelling. The majority of Formula One races take place in European, or at least countries which speak English and spell it as Tyre (Britain, Singapore, Australia, South Africa, etc.). There is no reason to change the spelling of the word from British English to American English. The359 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: a pointless waste of time and energy. We could edit back and forth until the sun explodes and nothing substantive would be achieved. Spelling convention for F1 articles was arrived at a long time ago and you have not provided any reason to change it other than you want to. --Falcadore (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, to a point: Of course a majority of our articles should be with the European spelling. However, articles on American/Canadian drivers/races/teams/cars should be spelt the American way. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with OP, agree with Skully Phill, up to a point :). American drivers - probably most appropriate to use American spelling as their careers will almost always involve significant amounts of competition in the States (see Mario Andretti and Juan Pablo Montoya). Same for teams, and probably for cars. Not necessarily for races, where there may be very little US/Canadian involvement and thus it's not at all obvious that American English is the most suitable variant. See 2005 United States Grand Prix.

In any case, Falcadore has hit the nail on the head: it's not a useful thing to waste time on. Let's get some of our weaker articles up to snuff instead. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's an English encyclopedia so we use the English spelling which is tyre. Most of the audience is European. Why change it? Chubbennaitor 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Tire" is an English spelling too - American English. But I fully agree with everyone here that "tyre" is the way forward, except for specifically American / Canadian articles as and where necessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah that's American-English not English. If there's that much fuss then create a American-English Encyclopedia. Chubbennaitor 15:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Careful Chub. Take a look: Wikipedia is American. Jimbo Wales is American, the Wikimedia Foundation is American, the servers are in America. The convention is that spelling will either be in the spelling in which an article was first written, or in the spelling that is most appropriate for the subject, if there is one. Perhaps you should check these things out before getting in a strop. Pyrope 16:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

He sounds English and it just seems that this place is advertised or spoken more in this country (England). Chubbennaitor 19:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have recently moved Slick tire to Slick tyre. I think we should keep it as tyre. Cadan ap Tomos 12:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Slick tyre it could use either, being used widely in both. However it was originally created using British English. Just remember guys, if it has been stable at one spelling for years, consider whether it really needs to change back. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did all this misplaced nationalism come from all of a sudden? Wikipedia is an international collaboration, let's keep it collaborative and not try to impose unjustified spelling conventions. Go read WP:ENGVAR, then go write something new. Pyrope 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hrm? I wasn't advocating people go out and do it Pyrope. I was simply saying that while he move to Slick tyre was technically correct, we need to consider whether such moves are acctually helpful. It changed to tire in...04? 05? Long enough that a casual move was probably not of any benefit. Switching ancillary articles whose scope goes beyond F1 is a bit presumptuous of us. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pyrope and Narson: I think you're agreeing! Has anyone formally described the apparent inverse law linking the amount of time we spend discussing (or arguing) with the importance of the topic :D. 4u1e (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alejandro de Tomaso

Does anyone know if there's a reason Alejandro de Tomaso has both Argentinian and Italian nationalities listed in the driver infobox? The longstanding WPF1 consensus is that the infobox represents the nationality a driver represented in F1, so normally speaking there should be only one, and it may not be the most obvious one. Looking at de Tomaso's two races and his personal history, it does seem possible that he changed his nationality between his first and last (second!) races. This is about the only circumstance in which I think it would be right to have two nationalities in the infobox. Can anyone (perhaps someone with access to FORIX!) shed any light on this? Ta. 4u1e (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Singapore GP name

An editor has changed the official name in 2008 Singapore Grand Prix from IX SingTel Singapore Grand Prix to 2008 Formula 1 SingTel Singapore Grand Prix, stating that that is what it says on the official website. What is our position? Clearly we'd need to change all our race articles if we adopted the latter style. Also, the editor has included a note in the code -

"It's not the 9th SingTel Singapore Grand Prix, it is the 9th Grand Prix held in Singapore, but this is NOT the official name. Official name used on SingaporeGP.sg is "2008 Formula 1 SingTel Singapore Grand Prix""

Now, the race was the ninth Singapore Grand Prix. All eight preceding races were known as the Singapore Grand Prix. I would have reverted myself but I've already reverted it once and I want to make sure I have consensus. Readro (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still the ninth. The sponsor may change anytime, but the race is still the Singapore Grand Prix, which is in its ninth race. All other articles in the F1 series use the original convention, why should the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix be any different? - oahiyeel ^talk 10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with our current format, but there remains a query unanswered. Where are the names currently used in all articles sourced from? LeaveSleaves (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor was correct to make the change. The official name is the official name, they could call it what they like but if you want a box labled "Official Name" in an infobox then that's what must go in it. I can't see any better reference that states it is the 9th GP, that's pure OR on our part. Both the official race website and the official F1 website give the name as 2008 Formula 1 SingTel Singapore Grand Prix. That's what it is. Pyrope 14:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The International Sporting Calendar just says "Grand Prix of Singapore". 82.16.96.4 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Pyrope that the official name is what the organizers deem it to be. IX Singapore Grand Prix is something that's (as far as I can tell) been made up to fit in with other GP's that use that style. AlexJ (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The article now states that this was the first SingTel Singapore Grand Prix, which is throughly misleading. It either needs to state that it was the 9th GP, or just "2008". Just because this is the first time that particular sponsor has been involved, we surely can't allow such a misleading statement to be made. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor has now started editing Singapore Grand Prix and referring to this year's race as being the first. We can't refer to it as the first - that is simply not true. We can refer to it as the ninth race or if we go for just "2008" then we have to change all the Formula One race articles to match as otherwise there is no consistency. Readro (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

ChicaneF1 rather unfortunately in this case goes with 'I SingTel Singapore Grand Prix'.... D.M.N. (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That is plain wrong. Readro (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I think we are just going to have to wait until the Autocourse yearbooks and stuff for this season are released. :| D.M.N. (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the "official" F1 site states "2008 Formula 1 SingTel Singapore Grand Prix", and it ought to be official enough for us to use it, and for it override stuff like chicanery.com, or anything else for that matter. [3] Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's good for present events, but not for past ones where the sponsor isn't listed. D.M.N. (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

*psst*, look at the picture on the right. Big board behind Schumacher. Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix. ;) The359 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not like that for all the races. =P D.M.N. (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's good enough for Singapore though, which is what we require right now. I don't think we need to use the same sources across the whole range of race articles, do we? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As of yet they are unsourced... Readro (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We could use the official name only in the lead and keep infobox free of sponsors, thus chronicling GPs. This might require significant cleanup in past articles though. Such as this one which says 60th Santander British GP, while Santander started sponsoring in 2007. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But then you fall into the "what is a Grand Prix" argument. Yes the Singapore GP was the ninth motor race that has been referred to as a Singapore Grand Prix, but are we really suggesting that there is continuity between the different iterations? Of course there isn't. You are trying to be pedanitic about something that is just not justified. As someone above mentioned, we have far more productive things we could be doing. Pyrope 15:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So we should ignore a valid issue just because there are "far more productive things we could be doing?" If you want to do something else then don't take part in this discussion, each to their own. Readro (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the tag says "Official Name", we should use the official name used on the official website, not follow other similar articles and follow their naming and assume that is the official one just because majority uses it. --MrJacky (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yes, the official name is "2008 SingTel Singapore Grand Prix", but not "I SingTel Singapore Grand Prix" as you have done with this diff. Also, we do not "follow other similar articles" because they are similar, but because all the articles are part of the same WikiProject, thus it would be appropriate to have consistency across the articles. Fact is, this is the 9th Singapore Grand Prix, but I have no objections to leave it as "2008 SingTel Singapore Grand Prix" until all the differences are sorted out and as suggested by DMN, wait till the Autocourse yearbooks and stuff for this season are released. - oahiyeel ^talk 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you expect to have consistency, then don't name that field as "Official Name". If you expect the real official one, then don't expect consistency. Make up your mind. --MrJacky (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And of course, a Wikipedia GP name would probably contravene WP:OR. Note that although roman numerals are common, some (such as San Marino/Imola) do use figures in their official name, so there's inconsistencies already. One final point is that official websites do not necessarily use the official formal name - quite often a more marketing friendly name is used there, as the main aim is for the promoter to flog tickets. Autocourse is probably the best place to get the official title, but that means waiting until the end of the year. AlexJ (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20